Sep

26

2007

I have a question for the Left: how do these increase Freedom?

by Skip

During the brouhaha over the "domestic wiretaps" and "secret spying", I often heard:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".   -Benjamin Franklin 

Those on the Left wailed that the Bush Administration was the harbinger of fascism, that the Constitution was being rent asunder by an intrusive government.  Yet, the target audience for these wiretaps were terrorists on foreign soil. So, where’s the hue and cry as another President (thankfully, still a wannabe) is issuing utterances that would go FAR beyond what the wiretaps do and affect all US citizens.  And the effect is not just materially, not just financial, but in that most intangible (yet most important) right of all – freedom.

Pray tell, how would these statements, if enacted, increase my sense of freedom, for I only see decreases?

  • "We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
  • "We can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." 
  • "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common ground." 
  • "I certainly think the free market has failed." 
  • "I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in the entire economy, that they are being watched." 
  • "What I want to do is take those profits and apply them to alternative energy."
  • "It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." 

The candidate is effectively espousing socialistic, nay, communistic principles here that would make Marx and Lenin proud.   That candidate is Hillary Clinton.  She is espousing the right of government to TAKE from citizens as if it is the government’s absolute right to do so.  She will abrogate one of our country’s most basic rights – the right of private property.  She is all about dismantling our capitalistic system in the vein of "we know better than you; government is better than the private sector".

Worst of all…

…is the shift from a government of and for individuals to one where my prosperity is solely a function of other people.

Hillary Clinton

 

Freedom vs socialism.

Your pick.

(H/T: Rush)

Like it? Share it!

by Skip Murphy

Co-founder of GraniteGrok, my concern is around Individual Liberty and Freedom (and how Government is taking that away from us). My fight, from a Conservative (with small "L" libertarian leanings) and evangelical Christian perspective, is with the Progressives that are forcing a collectivized and secular humanistic future upon us. As TEA Party activist, citizen journalist (and pundit!), my goal is to use the New Media to advance the radical notions of America's Founders back into our culture again.

See all posts by Skip
Visit Skip's website

Leave a Comment

  • judy paris

    That’s why I call her “Chillery!” After reading this, I even had to put on a sweater!

  • David

    Once again the propaganda machine at the grok is in full force. Besides hypocrisy and bigotry being the main traits of republicans on this site, deceit and lies seem to be right up there as well. http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp .

    The reason most of the posts here aren’t responded to, except by other groksters, is that they don’t have any truth behind them to promote any logical debate, and supporting the bigoted hatemongering religious fanatic Judy only eliminates any credibility your posts may have had.

    In this age of voting for the “lesser of two evils”, having deceitful liars and bigots on one side of the scale makes it a pretty easy choice.

  • Michael Kitch

    Tell me, how since Hillary’s health care plan, like that of Obama and Edwards, would use government money to subsidize private insurance companies by enabling the uninsured to purchase coverage, this amounts to “socialism” or “communism?”

  • judy paris

    You may want to look up the word “bigot.”
    I make no apologies for believing that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman, they fit rather nicely together naturally, nor do I apologize because I believe in God and his principals rather than man and his values.
    I did have to laugh about your “religious fanatic” statement since if you knew me personally, you’d know how completely far off that judgment is…yep, some of my close friends just called and had a real good laugh as well.
    Thanks for contributing to our Friday humor post.

  • Daivd

    I do know the definition of a bigot and it fits you to a tee. You ignore any responses to your posts that directly attack and invalidate your “proof” about homosexuality. Most if not all of your posts involve your interpretation of the bible and often you hide behind the claim you are “just the messenger” so yes I believe you to be a religious fanatic. “…if you knew me personally, you’d know how completely far off that judgment is.” You should gather up all your posts and letters to the newspapers and read them one day, or let a friend read them, and then maybe you’ll get an idea of how others see you.

  • ThatTallGuy

    I have to agree with Judy — she is not a “bigot” according to the definition of the term, nor a “religious fanatic” in the sense of wearing sackcloth and ashes at airports collecting for some cause.

    But she is definitely prejudiced, illogical, hurtful (though usually unintentionally so,) and frequently thoughtless — and the basis of these behaviors is a blind faith which she does not recognize is not universally accepted, nor that it cannot be used as “scientific” support for an argument.

  • David

    American Heritage Dictionary definition of a bigot: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” I’m completely open to you explaining to me how this definition does not apply to Judy – I don’t believe that spending years counseling (trying to turn gays into heterosexuals) and trying to convince people how dangerous homosexuals are, is in any way a form of tolerance.

    Religious fanatic may be a stretch, I tend to believe anyone who uses the word God, Jesus, or reference to the bible in most of their conversations as a fanatic.

  • http://www.GraniteGrok.com Skip

    If government money is being used for healthcare, then please relate where that money is coming from in the first place. This is a case of wealth redeployment – the government has no money in and of itself – it raises it through taxes. Companies effectively pay no taxes (even if they cut checks stating such) as that is a cost of doing business that is passed onto consumers.
    Thus, there is only one place – the productive people in society that pay taxes. In effect, the government is mandating an equal outcome.
    In her scheme of things, government WILL compete against private insurance. And, by using other people’s money via taxes, with no profit motive to satisfy, Hillary will undercut private plans cost wise so as to drive private companies out of the marketplace. At the same time, the government, via laws and regulations, will determine and mandate how those that remain will have to function. Mandating that all should be accepted at any time regards of pre-existing conditions creates a situation of “why bother paying for insurance now when I can sign up when I get sick”?
    When government competes with and can regulate everything that private business does, essentially all healthcare is under government control. And that is basically a socialistic system as there will be no private marketplace.
    Right now, healthcare insurance plans are healthcare payment plans; there is no insurance to it (especially when compared to how insurance works in other areas such as cars, home, and business). THAT is the basic problem.

Previous post:

Next post:


Notice in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., Section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of Federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "Fair Use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.