I recently read an article in the July 2007 issue of The Limbaugh Letter that I found disturbing. I'm not sure how many people are familiar with what Hillary Clinton has been saying lately, and what it might mean, so I thought I'd share it here to help spread the word.
What concerns me the most is the communist lien in Clinton's political philosophy. The article I read refers to a “major economic policy speech” according to Clinton's campaign, which was delivered on May 29th, 2007 at New Hampshire's Manchester school of Technology. The speech was titled “Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity.”
In this speech Ms. Clinton said “[T]he Administration's [George W. Bush's administration] theory about how we should manage our economy [is]: leave it all up to the individual ... They call it the ownership society. But it's really the 'on your own' society ... It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an 'on your own' society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society.”
What are your feelings on Karl Marx? Because in 1875 Marx said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” He also said, in 1858 that “Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations with which these individuals stand.” I don't know about you, but Clinton's modern day statement sounds very much like those of Karl Marx from over a hundred years ago.
Many attempts throughout history and across the world have been made to live an ideal, or Utopian, society and virtually all have incorporated some form or another of a communal sharing of prosperity. All such societies have either failed, or have engendered the hate and fear of its citizens. The People's Republic of China, Cuba, North Korea, North Vietnam, Laos, Angola and Mozambique are a few. I don't want to live in any of these places, do you?
On February 9th, 1831 the prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Joseph Smith, received a revelation from the Lord. Designated the law of consecration and aimed at the total elimination of poverty, the law is to “remember the poor, and consecrate of thy properties for their support that which thou hast to impart unto them, with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken.” (Doctrine & Covenants 42:30)
“The law of consecration is a law of the celestial kingdom, requiring that all members of the Church shall consecrate their property (including time, talents, and material wealth) to the Church for the building of the kingdom of God and the establishment of Zion. The legal administrative agency for carrying out the law is the united order. This organization receives consecrated properties, gives stewardships to donors, and regulates the use of surplus commodities. The law of consecration is the commandment; the united order is the revealed economic system.” (William O. Nelson, “To Prepare A People”, Ensign, January 1979)
The Church at that time tried to live by the united order; tried and failed. It was not successful because “there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.” (D&C 101:1-7) In his article, Brother Nelson says that to live by the law of consecration, or shared prosperity, one's heart and soul must be purged “ ... by the Holy Ghost of all un-Christlike motives; it means overcoming selfishness, covetousness, greediness, and idleness—problems specifically condemned by the Lord in these early revelations; it means overcoming tendencies to complain, criticize, and backbite; it means serving God with all one’s heart, might, mind, and strength; it means self-mastery; it means being endowed with the power of God through keeping covenants; it means willingly sacrificing all that one has for the sake of the kingdom of God; it means taking on the divine nature; it requires becoming a holy person.”
We are no nearer now to holiness than we were one hundred and fifty years ago. While the appeal of a Utopian society is universal, our inability to live it at this time is likewise universal. Such ideals are beyond our current human state, and our pursuit of them will only lead to further despair and desolation.
I fear for our future as a nation if such political philosophies as Hillary Clinton now promotes are allowed to take shape and are implemented in our society. We have a great land, with such freedoms that we are still, despite our shortcomings, the most highly favored nation in the world. We will not remain the same if our 'on your own' society is replaced by a 'we're all in it together' society. We will falter and fail.
