Nealz Nuze - 29 May 2007 -- DID I HAPPEN TO MENTION THAT THERE WAS A WAR ON INDIVIDUALISM?

Well .. there you go. A few different opinions on the value of the individual and individualism. This Thoreau character seemed to recognize the primacy of the individual. You really can't say the same for European fascists and our probable next president of the United States, the smartest woman in the world, Hillary Rodham.

Have you been listening to Hillary? I'm not asking if you've been hearing her. The question is have you been listening? Have you taken her words, sat down and absorbed them? Have you looked for the nuances? Have you tried to read between the lines? Remember her "I want to take those profits" rant after Exxon Mobile released their FY 2006 profits? Listen, folks. Hillary .. the real Hillary ... is starting emerge from her den. If you listen --- really listen --- you aren't going to like what you hear.

Read those quotes in the box again. Notice that our probable next president is right in there with the fascist pre-WWII leaders of Europe in her rhetoric. Hillary-the-anti-individual is on the prowl.

Hillary played her anti-individual cards yesterday in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was speaking to a group of high school children who attend what is basically a technical high school. In other words, unless I miss my guess, you won't find these young people filling out a lot of college admissions applications. A perfect place to play the class warfare game.

Hillary Rodham seems to have developed a bit of a code phrase for her anti-individualist philosophy. Much like eco-radicals have decided that global warming should now be called "climate change," Hillary has now decided that a society based on the value of the individual should henceforth be referred to as an "on your own" society. The phrase "on your own" certainly exemplifies the concept of individuality. It implies that each and every person in this country is an individual who carries the primary responsibility for their success or failure on their own shoulders. Well, a big-government liberal can have none of this! Haven't we learned that it is the government, nor the individual, who bears the primary responsibility for whatever measure of success the people are to achieve in their lifetimes?

Hillary exemplifies the essential difference between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative believes that the individual lives for themselves while the liberal believes that the individual exists to serve society. Conservatives believe that the individual should be free to act freely and independently so long as they don't violate the rights of others; liberals believe that for the individual to act freely and independently IS a violation of the rights of others ... a violation of the basic human rights of the other members of society who somehow have developed an enforceable claim to a portion of the lives of their fellow men.

In short, conservatives, and especially libertarians, believe that the individual owns himself. The liberal believes that the individual belongs to society, an entity to be exploited for something called "the common good." The libertarian believes that the best thing a person can do in this life is to live their own life in responsible and self-sufficient manner so as not to impose a burden on others. The liberal believes that we have a duty to live our lives for the benefit of others or for society. To do anything else is to be "selfish" or "greedy."

You need to read between the lines here. You need to digest what this lady is saying. Hillary Rodham is presenting herself and her philosophy on freedom and individual rights to the entire country. Her "on your own" usage is nothing less than a negative reference to individualism. Her reference to an "we're all in it together" society represents her strongly held belief in collectivism. You're not in this for yourself. You don't matter. You're in this for society. You exist to serve the needs of your fellow men, with government your life's choreographer.

Listen ... listen hard. Listen well. Absorb. don't just taste the words. Digest them. Hillary is talking.

Yesterday Hillary said that Bush's "ownership society" is really nothing more than an "on your own" society. Ownership. Now that is a solidly individualistic concept, isn't it? Ownership means "This is mine. Not yours. Not ours ... mine. I created it. I earned it. I -- an individual -- own it, and it can't be taken away." Well, there will be none of this "ownership" stuff for Hillary! No! She says "I prefer a 'we're all it it together' society." Translation? "You don't own it. We own it. It's not yours. It's ours. We're all in this together."

Follow the path through Hillary's darkened woods a bit further. If the concept of ownership and the ownership society is to be replace by a great, warm and wonderful collectivist "we're all in it together" society, what does this say about your property? More particularly, what does this say about the wealth that you create by sacrificing portions of your life to hard work? Why .. that stuff isn't yours! It's ours! Remember? We're all in this together! And this is where "fairness" comes into play.

Hillary used the "F" word a few times yesterday at this tech high school. She told the students that we needed to be "pairing growth with fairness" And just what is fairness to Ms. Rodham? Don't we deserve a definition somewhere along the line? We certainly knows what the word means when it's applied to broadcasting, don't we? The Democrats want to bring back something called the "Fairness Doctrine" to radio? The working definition of fairness in this application is a system whereby all points of view, no matter how widely or narrowly held, are given equal attention on privately owned radio stations. The ideal situation would be one where differing opinions are equally expressed. No consideration is given to the fact that people with differing views are invited, even encouraged, to express those views on the air. The question revolves not around the ability to express differing viewpoints, but whether or not those viewpoints are, in fact, being expressed.

Perhaps "fairness," to Hillary or any of her Democrat-socialist comrades, means not so much whether a person is free to apply themselves, to work hard and to make good decisions in order to acquire wealth, as it does whether or not the wealth is spread properly among the people. Remember -- Democrat rhetoric would lead one to believe that wealth is distributed, not earned.

So .. here is Hillary Rodham telling these high school students that "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."

Ah ha! There you go! It takes government to be fair! And just how does government bring fairness to favor our land? Through the exercise of its unique ability to use force to accomplish its goals, that's how! Taxes! Fairness is brought about when the government redistributes income! Just as Democrats want to create an artificial, government enforced balance of opinions on the airwaves, so Hillary wants to create an artificial, government enforced balance of wealth in the people. The methodology is simple. Take from those who have, give to those who have not.

Hillary complained about the gap between the rich and the poor in yesterday's speech. Now I've told you that the rich keep getting richer in our society because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Democrats, Hillary Rodham in particular, have a different perspective. The rich keep getting richer because they're operating as individuals. These people are operating "on their own" and not participating properly in an "all in it together" society. But, since fairness requires the "right government policies" it is perfectly OK just to step in, seize some wealth, and redistribute it. Ownership? What ownership? You say you worked for that money and it is yours? What? Do you really think you're "on your own" here?

Tax increases. Here they come. Not because they're necessary for our economy. Not because the government needs the money. Remember, our economy is growing, the deficit is shrinking, and federal government revenues are actually rising faster than federal government spending? Tax increases? For what? Come on, folks? Aren't you listening? To make things fair! That's for what!

Hillary certainly knew her audience yesterday, though she may have misunderestimated their ability to understand her policy initiatives. She did tell them that she wanted to expand the hideous Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is no tax credit, my friends. It's welfare. An income redistribution payment. From those who achieve "on their own" to those who have not. The "on your own" types sacrifice property for the "we're all in it together" at the bottom of the economic food chain crowd.

This woman is dangerous. Perhaps the most dangerous politician in America. This is a woman who believes that America is great because of its government, not because of the dynamic of individual freedom, economic liberty and the rule of law. She casts wealth redistribution in the light of "fairness" and decries the concept of ownership. Her attacks on individualism are clear, as is her affinity for "we're all in it together" collectivism. Her professors had it right. Socialist.

A smart person (and I've never suggested that Hillary isn't very, very smart) recognizes that in order to destroy a person's awareness and appreciation of themselves as an individual, and to promote the collectivist ideal, you need to start working on their psyche as early as possible. There was, after all, a reason why Marx and Engles were so adamant in The Communist Manifesto that the government just absolutely had to be in charge of educating our children. This lesson certainly isn't lost on Hillary Rodham.

Even before her Tuesday speech to that tech high school in New Hampshire, Hillary was speaking on Monday at an elementary school in Miami. There she called for a nationwide pre-kindergarten program. She wants the federal government to seize an additional $5 billion of wealth from American taxpayers and give it to the states to get their Pre-K programs cranked up. The tally would increase to $10 billion over the next five years. And where would the money come from? Well, for one, Hillary says we could cut the $500,000 a year the Bush administration is spending for private contractors.

Now what Hillary is referring to here as "private contractors" are really private Pre-K programs receiving grants from the federal government. OH NO! There will be none of that under a Rodham administration. None of this taxpayer money for private education stuff on her watch. The government must run the education establishment. Period. And if the government indoctrination process can begin at age six in the first grade, why not age four in a Pre-K program?

I really love one of the closing paragraphs in the Miami Herald story about Hillary's visit. "Clinton sat in a circle with the 16 kids, chatting about school, pets and their favorite games. She was charmed by their answers and their songs."

Save our National Republic
We are not a Democracy. Inform the dumb masses. (say that 5 times fast)

The Constitution for the United States of America purportedly guaranteed a Republican form of government, so did the constitutions of the several States. Nowhere in those instruments, nor in the constitutions predecessor, the Articles of Confederacy, is the mention of Democracy. The Founding Fathers didn’t want Democracy and as will be shown, they knew it leads to the destruction of nations employing it. Many of the founders voiced very strongly, and expressly against Democracy. In the understanding of the founders, irrespective of recent decades of judicial legal wording manipulations, Democracy was not a “Republican form” of government.

A Republic is one of the highest forms of government yet devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human focus, care and maintenance. If neglected, it will quickly and silently deteriorate into a variety of less desirable forms of government including Democracy, Anarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship as witnessed by our recent governmental slide. “Representative National Republic” defined herein as a republic that is a “government of laws and not of men”. This definition appears to be most appropriate while accurately describing what the founders intended, to wit:

“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide”, John Quincy Adams, founder.

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, Democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived”, John Quincy Adams, founder.

“A simple Democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils”, Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence. “Pure Democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage”, John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

“It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure Democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion”, Zephaniah Swift, Author of America’s First Legal Text.

Why are the people promoting Democracy? What the $%^& are we voting for? Don’t you understand that we are partially living in, and voting for more socialistic governance? People, we have been warned that this is societal and political suicide. Democracy does not promote freedom, it lies about promoting freedoms and in the end, by force if necessary, takes all those freedoms away as witnessed by all recorded history, James Madison said:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Virginia’s Edmund Randolph, participating in the 1787 constitutional convention demonstrated a clear grasp of Democracy’s inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was:

“[T]o provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of Democracy....”

Samuel Adams, Declaration of Independence signatory, championed the new Constitution in his State precisely because it would not create a Democracy, he stated:

“Democracy never lasts long,” “It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.” He insisted, “There was never a Democracy that ‘did not commit suicide’.”

New York’s Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his State, thundered:

“It has been observed that a pure Democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.”

Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated:

“We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”

Fisher Ames served in the United States Congress during the eight years of George Washington’s presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that State, he thus defined Democracy:

“[A] government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders.”

On another occasion, he labeled Democracy’s majority rule one of “the intermediate stages towards … tyranny.” Ames later opined:

“Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes.”

And in an essay entitled “The Mire of Democracy”, Ames wrote that the framers of the Constitution:

“[I]ntended our government should be a Republic, which differs more widely from a Democracy than a Democracy from a despotism.”

John Marshall, Supreme Court chief justice, 1801-1835, echoed the sentiments of Ames:

“Between a balanced Republic and a Democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

American poet James Russell Lowell warned:

“Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson joined Lowell in his disdain for Democracy, remarking:

“Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors.”

Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans:

“I have long been convinced, that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both.”

Perhaps the most concise and definitive condemnation of Democracy came from Lord Acton:

“The one prevailing evil of Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”

In light of the Founders’ view on the subject of Republics and Democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word “Democracy,” but does mandate:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government.”

By the 20th century however, the falsehoods that Democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established such a government for the United States of America became an increasingly widespread fallacy. This mis-information was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson’s famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I “to make the world safe for Democracy”, and by President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1940 exhortation that America “must be the great arsenal of Democracy” by rushing to England’s aid during WWII.

From the U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff, under the title of “Citizenship”:

“Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy.”

“Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress, is a standard for government around the world.”

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Republic_vs_Democracy.htm

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.