The Emerging Conservative Consensus
Ask yourself who would win in a theoretical election: Obama ’09 or Reagan ’84? Sure, President Obama’s victory last year was impressive, but his approval ratings are dropping by the hour and the late Reagan is consistently cited as one of the country’s most beloved former presidents. Perhaps Reagan wouldn’t win 49 states as in 1984, but is there any doubt, knowing what we know now, that Reagan would emerge victorious — and do so decisively?
So how did Ronnie do it? He had the support of the appropriately named “Reagan coalition.” Mitt Romney prefers to call it the “three-legged stool.” Whatever one wants to call it, the coalition was comprised of three factions of conservatives: social conservatives, who championed a strong moral sense and family values; economic conservatives, who favored small government and lower taxes; and national security-minded conservatives, who supported a robust and aggressive foreign policy against tyrants and adversaries. Each faction had subdivisions of its own, where strong debates raged. Nevertheless, the coalition remained intact for Reagan throughout the duration of his presidency.
The country has changed much since the 1980s — the Reagan coalition, seemingly dormant. But I suspect the reemergence of a conservative consensus in time for the elections in 2010 and 2012. No, this does not mean we will be graced with another Reagan-type political figure. There likely isn’t one. Nor does it mean Republicans will have to “moderate” their views and undermine their convictions, in order to pander to specific interest groups or demographics. It does mean, however, that conservatives will have to modify the coalition and their message to meet contemporary realities. This could be done — and will be done, I believe — using a simple three-step political formula.
First, social conservatives (or “so-cons”) ought to begin emphasizing means over ends. On social issues, the United States has become more liberal since the 1980s. As a result, so-cons have allowed themselves to become caricatured as Bible-thumpin’, gay-hatin’ bigots. But they could destroy this image, and in fact win more policy debates on a local level, if so-cons publicly embraced the libertarian live-and-let-live roots of conservatism, as well as America’s federalist history.
It’s been said that conservatives want government out of the boardroom, whereas liberals want government out of the bedroom. Well, keeping government out of the bedroom — a metaphor for all “social issues” — is actually a conservative battle as well. The Founders knew they could not predict all of the divisive social issues that would emerge in the future, so they established an ideal system to address these contentious issues: federalism. In other words, the decentralization of authority. Constitutionally, when it comes to social issues, every state could effectively do what it wants.
But that’s not what so-cons have advocated as of late. With so-con support, President Bush tried to ban gay marriage and stem cell research on a national level. Additionally, so-cons oppose the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, et al. — all on the grounds that these things are immoral and thus should become (or remain) illegal throughout the entire country. This is a losing battle — not because the United States is destined to become a morally decadent power, but because America’s natural impulse toward federalism is too strong. The people in Vermont are a lot different than the people in Texas. Why should they abide by the same social constructs? “We’re all adults, here; let’s talk about bigger things” should be the message. When asked about same-sex marriage, GOP presidential candidates should be saying, “Bring it up with your governor; that’s not the job I’m running for.”
Despite the caricatures, so-cons have proven their clout in recent years (the bluest of states have all rejected same-sex marriage and people are still ludicrously getting locked up for smoking various forms of plant life). But so-cons would be far more philosophically consistent, and therefore less harmful to the conservative image, if they concentrated on their own states’ social issues and appealed to the law as opposed to their personal opinions. For example, rather than remain fixated on the immorality of abortion, why not emphasize the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade itself? The former method of argument is inflammatory and hardly ever gets us anywhere; the latter method is empirical and has the additional benefit of being in sync with the U.S. Constitution. It’s still fighting for the same cause, just in a different, more effective manner.
The things you illustrate in this article are some of the reasons I am no more comfortable having the “right” make the rules as I am the “left”. From where I sit both sides just want to tell others how to live and what to do, whether stemming from a perceived “intellectual superiority” or “moral superiority”. Both sides should worry about themselves, and leave the rest of us (who, by the way, imho represent the true majority) alone.
What I am in favor of is limited government, period. This should be even more prominent at the federal level than at the state level.
“economic liberty, individual freedom, states’ rights, and opposition to international tyranny”
Excellent article. I, as a libertarian leaning conservative, have argued for years that divisive social issues should be worked out in the states, the only limit being that individual states should be protected from being unduly burdened by the actions of other states. Health care would be a good example. If some states want to provide universal health care for their residents that’s their option but they should be able to protect themselves from an influx from other states by being able to set stringent residency requirements. Gay marriage is another. If a state wants to allow it so be it but other states should have the option of not recognizing those marriages. The federal government needs to occupy itself with protecting the nation, promoting the general welfare and doing those things that the states alone can’t do. Government in general needs to only limit that behavior that affects other people. The old adage that one’s freedom of speech ends at the point of another’s nose should be the rule.
Has to Laugh@1: What libertarians, presumably you and the author, fail to realize is that since the commerce clause has been so bastardized, and federalism marginalized, states no longer have the power to limit things like abortion, taxation, gay marriage,etc. All it takes is one state, say MASS, to legalize gay marriage and then they petition the SCOTUS and then every state must legalize it. So the SocCons have a point. We don’t want the government to rule over everybody’s morality, but since states cannot disengage from the government and decide for themselves, it must be done from top down.
“This message doesn’t resonate so much in an era where big government and big business cooperate and collude on nearly everything imaginable, from credit loans, to subprime mortgages, to environmental regulations, to pharmaceuticals — and as a result, got us in the mess we’re in today.” This is exactly my point: It was not the “right” who ruined our economy, it has been the left’s steady and insidious movement toward co-opting business by sheer force (read litigation or regulation) and threat that we are in the mess we’re in. From off-the-chart litigation, to EPA rules to OSHA regulations, to EEOC quotas and finally taxation, our industries have been forced to comply or die. Many businesses left the CONUS and many more businesses died. But I don’t think both of you can blame the right for this.
Finally, I take issue with and diverge with neocons in that I believe in bringing ALL our troops back home. Let Europe, Japan, S.Korea and Africa defend themselves and settle their own disputes. Or let the vaunted UN settle things-yet something else we must remove from our shores and disengage with immediately.
Constitutionalism is the way to go, for more reasons than one.
First, the Constitution remains “the Supreme Law of the Land.” Either that means what it says — i.e., that all law and government action must conform strictly to the Constitution’s provisions and constraints — or it doesn’t. When given a choice, Americans have always preferred plain, clear speaking to policy-wonk “nuance.”
Second, unbounded government has produced a state of affairs Thomas Hobbes would recognize as “a war of each against all.” The law’s luxuriance virtually compels us to struggle for control of it; the alternative is to let someone else control it, potentially at our expense. Law confined by Constitutional constraints would allow the great majority of us to relax, as we could trust that our rights to our lives, liberty, and property will be respected.
Third, as Friedrich Hayek wrote several times, a strictly interpreted Constitutional scheme so narrows the scope of legislation that individuals and businesses could plan their futures in confidence that the legal environment would not suddenly and perversely be turned against them. One cannot plan for the unknown — and when the unknown includes the possibility of arbitrary taxes, laws, and regulations that can touch any and every aspect of human affairs, one cannot plan at all. Economic near-paralysis of the sort we know today would not occur under a strictly Constitutional legal regime.
A return to Constitutionalism would be wildly popular for those reasons and others. Of course, our
reprogressives are rabidly opposed to such a transformation. It would rob them of virtually all their opportunities to boss us around at our expense. To me, that says everything one needs to know about “progressivism.”I, as a Libertarian leaning toward anarchy, think you’re nuts.
Stop underestimating the stupidity of the public and the venality of their teachers, and you’ll see it’s all undone. You can’t change anything.
It’s over. If you’re under 65, YOU lost the Republic. You haven’t a clue what you’ve done. How can you reverse it?
Reagan would defeat Obama in a landslide at least as big as ’84.
Imagine the debates. Obama rolls out long lists of government this and government that. Reagan skewrs them all with facts, humor, common sense, and faith in the American people. “There you go again” would haunt Obama into early retirement.
Ladies and Gents:
Fasten your seatbelts
it is going to be a rough flight.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
The Re-United States of America will
have to put some of its Territories
under Martial Law until their people
have recovered the ability to govern
themselves; Move to the SouthWest, now.
“A return to Constitutionalism would be wildly popular for those reasons and others.” Would that were the case. I don’t think so. While I would favor such a change, my appreciation of the facts are that a majority would not. What people want is a free lunch – they WANT government goodies, and want someone else to pay for them. Witness socialism security – a morally abhorrent program if there ever was one. It’s purpose is to buy enough votes with other people’s money so that the Democrats can stay in power forever, bleeding the productive to feed the aged parasites who didn’t plan ahead, but who have the numbers to steal from the young. When I start hearing politicians say they want to kill socialism security, then I’ll know we’re on the right track. Not before. Ditto medicare, which is socialized medicine for the old and sick.
#1: “The things you illustrate in this article are some of the reasons I am no more comfortable having the “right” make the rules as I am the “left”. From where I sit both sides just want to tell others how to live and what to do, whether stemming from a perceived “intellectual superiority” or “moral superiority”. Both sides should worry about themselves, and leave the rest of us (who, by the way, imho represent the true majority) alone.
What I am in favor of is limited government, period. This should be even more prominent at the federal level than at the state level.”
Well said!!! and to #3…well the states need to take back the power as well. It can be done…is it hard?…hell yes, but liberty aint easy! Too many want to take away that Liberty due to the above reasons in paragraph one in my comment.
Not sure how I feel ’84 Reagan would do with todays conservatives. Considering that he protected government entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, ballooned the national deficit, cut-and-ran from Lebanon, cozied up to dictators and terrorists; these are things that today’s conservatives would eviscerate a candidate for.
A return to strict Constitutionalism, including the clarification about the limits of the Commerce Clause, would go a long way to resolving the death spiral that we are currently experiencing.
I agree that the States are the place for SoCons to exercise their power without alienating folks nationally. Though I personally abhor abortion, I understand how someone could want to end an unplanned pregnancy. God gave us free will and the ability to do so, after all. Meanwhile, it isn’t good politics to cleave half of the population out of your potential coalition.
I’ve reached the view that we need to abandon our world policeman role, we simply can’t afford it, and we have a border that needs to adequately defended. Included in that idea should be the deportation of all illegals to ease the unemployment burden. We can then liberalize legal immigration, work permits, etc. to resolve the resultant dislocations.
We need to regain control of the education establishment, the heart of the progressive beast. Frankly, all educators should be required to demonstrate competency in understanding, explaining, and supporting our Constitutional system, to be allowed access to our educational system. The creative tension inherent in the separation of powers, the determination to keep the central government small, the States stronger, and the individual strongest in Rights, are core to the American ethos.
Some changes to the Constitution are needed, such as reasonable term limits and a requirement for a balanced budget. Recognizing the unfairness and failure of the progressive income tax cries for a turn to a consumption tax.
Other changes are needed by statute, the elimination of all federal pensions to prevent government careerism. We are a government of and by the people, thus overlords must be excised. All officials must be exposed to the effects of the legislation and regulations they pass, so that they won’t be so cavalier about enacting limitations on a free people.
I believe that without prompt affirmative action, the situation is lost politically, and will therefore inevitably lead to bloodshed, and national dissolution.
To all those adopting the mantle of “Libertarian”: I respect your views but there is a big difference between “telling people how to live” and being bold enough to speak out against behavior that every indicator shows is harmful. We have reached a point where stating the obvious about homosexuality, the sexualizing of children, the sanctity of marriage, abortion, etc. is called “intolerant”. Nonsense. The problem with adhering to the adage “An’ it hurt none, do what thou wilt” is that very few of those doing what they will actually take the time to do the calculus. They don’t really want to know if it hurts someone ’cause it feels so good. Conservatives (F*** Republicans) should indeed focus primarily on economic and defense issues, but be willing to stand up for a decent society as well. #3 Blotto is spot on. You can say that it would be right if gay rights laws in MA had no effect elsewhere, but the commerce clause in the Constitution has been bastardized to the point where that is not enough. You have to be willing to take a stand and promise that you will lead the effort to ensure that their crap morals don’t infect the rest of the country (unless the rest of the country votes for it). Just saying “hey, I’m a Libertarian, not my problem” is a cop-out.
So it is your position that individual States should be able to decide if they want slavery or not?
6. Old Soldier:
Your Jello 123 is ready.
The Re-United States of America will have to put some of its Territories under Martial Law until their people
have recovered the ability to govern themselves.
Won’t be the first time its happened.
Guariglia: “the bluest of states have all rejected same-sex marriage”
blotto: “states no longer have the power to limit things like abortion, taxation, gay marriage”
Boys, boys, boys, you gotta get your stories straight. The right doesn’t know what it believes, doesn’t know what it stands for – people living under the charade of principle – whose only principle is principle – because to claim anything more specific only reveals relentless hypocrisy.
Nobody more so than . . . Enjoy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/christopher-hitchens-slam_n_392511.html
I give Thanks to G-d for Obama. He has done for the Conservatives what nobody could have dreamt few years ago: UNITE US!
Yes! The sleepy Bear was sleeping and now is awake and the more I watch Obamacare on C-span and I hear of Illegal Inmigration and Cap and Trade…the more I want the Conservatives to win!
Palin, Rubio, Lt.Col. West, Thune, DeMint, Barrosso, Pat Robertson, and so many who are fighting tooth and nails to save this country from a Kenyan style communism!
Where are the Jobs? Why so many are loosing their homes to foreclosers? Why everything is so expensive these days?
Why we don’t feel safe anymore?
Why are so many soldiers being killed in Afghanistan?
RKV has the right of it. People are looking to take advantage of “legalized robbery” and it merely grows and grows. From Welfare, to Cap & Enslave, to Hopenchangen, to the UN its all people who’ve made a mess of their lives or nation and want to live at other’s expense.
I don’t mind Social Security so much if it were actually run like it should be. It should basically be a “insurance fund” for those that have their life savings wiped out not something people look forward to retiring on, the fund should be off limits to a greedy Congress, and disability should be addressed elsewhere. People should be saving for their own retirement without expectancies from the government, however sometimes things happen that we cannot foresee and people lose everything. If run like that everyone’s contribution to Social Security would be small and the amount of people needed to manage it would be drastically reduced.
So it is your position that individual States should be able to decide if they want slavery or not?
Well let me ask you this, how is paying an effective 50% of my income to the various governments any differnt from slavery?
Slaves were provided the necessities by their owner, some were even given a little money that they eventually bought their freedom with. Sure I get to keep a little and pay for the necessities and some stuff I want, but the majority of my income goes to providing the necessities; food, transportation, clothing, housing. Massah in the form of Uncle Sam takes a major part. In fact if you factor in all the taxation that factors into the costs/prices of the goods I buy then Massah takes even more from me.
I can move sure, but that just means the “plantation” is really big, and due to all the confiscated income I’m restricted from living in certain parts of the “plantation” because I can’t afford to live there. I’m assigned to the “slave quarters” for my “income bracket” after Uncle Sam takes his chunk. If I stop giving Massah his part of the “sweat off my brow” he gets mad and sends the slave overseer Mr. IRS to punish me by demanding even more back breaking work from me (fines and penalties) and even imprisoning me. If I resist Mr. IRS then he and his hounds (the Police) may use deadly force to make me comply.
“Republicans can win big in 2010 and 2012 by talking less about social issues and more about economic liberty and federalism.”
Yeah, keep hiding your antisocial beliefs and the stupid electorate will swallow it . . . Keep dreaming . . .
Or, be honest and lose? Love your integrity!
Bill:
I have no problem with people standing up and saying _____ is morally bad. I just dont think its the Gov’s job to tell us abortion is/isnt good, gay marriage is bad/good, ect…. Gov should stay out of it! Thats why there is a first amendment right…speak out all you want! And “every indicator” is subjective, just because you think “every indicator” say something is bad, i bet someone will disagree. Thus the reason Gov should stay out of social/moral issues.
That all being said i do agree that there are a few, very very few instances they need to step in…Slavery comes to mind
I’m tired about the big lie “Bush wanted to stop stem cell research”. The FACT of the matter is that he wanted to stop FEDERAL funding of what were deemed dead end stem cell research.
Companies and other labs were perfectly free to do any research on any stem cell lines they wanted, as long as they used their own money and resources.
Interestingly enough, NONE of these new lines have shown any promise. Only the older, established lines.
steve4liberty,
Thank you for your respectful response
You do not believe that the disrespect for human life required to perform late-term abortions is an obvious indicator that the practice is wrong? Is having a safe-schools “czar” who has openly advocated sexualizing the nation’s youth not an indicator that it’s time to take a stand? Do you believe that his agenda will have no effect on impressionable minds? Kevin Jennings is only one man, but now that he is in a position of executive authority the incremental effect will continue to build. I personally don’t care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but it needs to stay out of tax-funded public schools. Mine are not radical stances; they have been portrayed as radical by people who want to destroy this country from within. You can be a Libertarian and still take a moral stand. In fact, Libertarianism cannot function without a basic moral foundation in society. Read (or re-read) “Atlas Shrugged” – especially Gault’s radio speech. Have a great day.
vivo: do you have any principles? you seem to point whichever way the wind blows like a weather vane.
steve4liberty@21: The trouble is if we get all libertine like you want, I and you will have to pay the consequences of drugs ruining lives and killing people, HIV sreading, rampant violence because even the poor will then want more, etc, etc. The government has to have the authority to declare something is bad and illegal for the sake of the majority. What you suggest is anarchy and the survival of the fittest. As much as I want limited government, I cannot go that far.
I as a conservative care about the lives of the unborn and new born. Under your government, they would have even less rights than they do today; they would be totally disposable. Is that where you are coming from? What about the elderly? Remember this right to abortion was made whole cloth out of nothing… More babies have died of abortion than slavery and the holocaust combined…
People especially in today’s dumbed down society of little or no idea of consequences (see Jackass) would tear this nation apart if the government were to abdicate all responsibilities.
Republicans can win big in 2010 and future elections if we focus on being inclusive, rather than exclusive… what do I mean by that? We need to underscore our main fiscal platform- limited government, lower taxes, less regulation. These are the keys to getting out of the recession and economic mire that we’re currently in.
It doesn’t hurt to tone it down with the exclusive rhetoric, either. Only the hardcore ideologues in the party really care about criminalizing abortion and homosexuality, I certainly don’t- and I’m certain that I represent a growing fringe in the party (as I represent an Independent libertarian-leaning convert). It’s OK if you feel strongly about your morals, if you can muster the intra-party support, you can write the platform, but I- personally- don’t care about a conservative social agenda. If the likes of Sean Hannity and the likes of fiscal conservatives and social liberals like me can come together, we can recreate American politics by eliminating the era of “entitlement” and working together to find a happy middle-ground on the social issues.
Don’t let the likes of “Vivo – #20″ wedge us apart. The Moderates and Independents are here to help you win if you can embrace people with different opinions on your social agenda issues.
For what it’s worth. The Hard Right has never scared me as much as the Hard Left. The Hard Right has been unsuccessful in preventing the groundswell of slow social liberalization in the country, but the Hard Left seems like they’re poised to destroy our economic future with their Fiscal Leftism.
Pet peeve here: When you say “stem cell research” please specify which type. There has been a ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. There is no federal funding ban on adult stem cell research — and that would be the area of stem cell therapy that has actually produced true medical miracles — not the embryonic stem cell research which, to my knowledge, has only produced tumors.
Furthermore, it was President Clinton who first put the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research — NOT President Bush.
Facts are important. The lefty media and their lapdogs have gleefully lied about who enacted the ban, muddied the issue by not specifying the type of stem cell research involved, and consistently refused to even address the moral issues.
Mr. Guariglia, please stop enabling them.
13. Fantom:
So it is your position that individual States should be able to decide if they want slavery or not?
Slavery would restrict the freedom of an individual as Protected in the Constitution. Don’t be stupid.
Sadly, Stupid is all that we get in political debates these days. The article makes some good points, but sadly, the predictions are wrong. The crazy people will still make crazy arguments and believe crazy things… and make everyone associated with them appear crazy.
I want small government… I want States to have the right to make many of their own decisions… but I don’t want to be associated with the numb skulls that claim to be conservative and then prattle on about decidedly non-conservative positions.
“No Big Government (except for the bits I want the Government to enforce)!” … pathetic…
Jefferson warned that government is like a fire, the more you feed it, the more difficult it becomes to control. It doesn’t matter if you’re feeding it ‘National Healthcare’. ‘Cap and Trade’ or ‘Federal ban on *Moral Issue*.
I support all Americans right to believe what they want to believe and speak on behalf of their beliefs. But I reserve the right to call them out for being a hypocrite about it. Sadly, the hypocrisy is obvious to most people in my generation and until its fixed… I doubt we’ll see a major resurgance of trust in the GOP.
Bill/blotto:
Np for the respectful response! That should be the norm anywhere there is discourse.
I agree with almost ever point you make. However, i still feel the gov should stay out of it. Kevin Jenning should stay out of schools, this goes with my whole Gov should stay out or it….both Left and Right.
Drugs are bad, too much drinking is bad, ect…i agree but we need social pressure to make them bad..its not the gov’s place to force them into being bad. In the beginning of this country was there total anarchy? No, even with a very limited Gov, this was due to other factors(religion, ect.) deciding what is social acceptable. Even religion got in on the act and Gov started issuing laws based on it, no sunday drinking, no shopping on Sun, ect.. these laws came about…and now look what we have?? There was a back lash to that as well. Prohibition…bombed.
There was a time where religion and social norms would keep people from doing these things. That is mostly gone, parents for the most part dont teach crap, totally disengaged from there kids, let them do anything, dont ever tell them NO, which is a whole other debate.
Anywhoo…i think we can agree, what we have now really sucks!!
I think it may be the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the Constitution which you should be worrying about, rather than the ‘Commerce’ clause. The problem would be easily taken care of by a state which cared to deal with it. Simply get your state out of the ‘marriage’ business. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious issue, and unrelated to state law. In France, they have two ceremonies, religious and civil. The former is performed privately, and the latter at city hall by the mayor. When you marry, it is customary to perform the civil ceremony first, then the religious later the same day. The state only cares about the civil ceremony for purposes of marriage benefits etc. Also, benefits are conveyed by your ‘Carte Famille Nombreuse’, which is issued to you when you have children, for the benefit of your children. (The family gets to ride the Metro for free and other such benefits). It seems to work pretty well for the French. (France is a Catholic country.)
When it comes to cultural issues, I have this question to this who don’t want any position taken on it: What have you done with your time, so that you employ a double standard. Take a look at what was accomplished, and see how it came about.
Frankly a word picture of something to strive for has worked time and time again. So, eschewing that approach when it
comes to cultural matters shows a double standard.
“It seems to work pretty well for the French. (France is a Catholic country.)”
Nothing could be further from the truth. France’s lack of respect for the institution of marriage has resulted in its dangerously low birth rate. Some even argue that the country is doomed. It is hysterical that you are pointing to an example that thoroughly contradicts your argument. You obviously prefer to ignore some inconvenient facts.
President Bush tried to ban gay marriage and stem cell research on a national level.
This is a false and pernicious myth. President Bush merely refused to provide federal funding for stem-cell research from new embryos. Adult stem-cell research continued to receive federal funding, as did a limited amount of embryonic. And there was no “ban” on any stem-cell research. States and private individuals were free to do as much as they wanted, with their own money.
David, thank you for your comment. I’m happy to amuse you. I lived and worked in France for several years. Your observation about the French birth rate is correct, but not directly related to their marriage practices. Personally, I attribute it to the effects of living in a socialist economy, where it is very difficult to do anything innovative. When the most you can look forward to in your life is a better government guaranteed job than the next guy, you can’t really hope that your children will have a better life than you did. That’s stultifying, and leads to many prevailing social pathologies.
Drew @26,
You are wasting your breath. Or CPU time. Some people never let the facts to stand in a way of a good lie ( paraphrasing an old saying).
Best
“Ronnie” is not exactly so well loved by people who actually looked at his overall legacy, from the declassified documents showing that the CIA really was in the blood, death, and drug business in Central and South America during his term, to how his BS free market health care “reforms” made the cost escalation much worse, and how his pro-deregulation philosophy set the greedfest foundation for the recent financial meltdown.
Conservatives and Republicans now seem to always look at things from an hyper polarized and touchy ideological viewpoint even when it’s responsible or makes no sense whatsoever, from what movies to see (some numbnuts on Hot Air are bad mouthing Avatar before it gets released strictly on the basis of its supposes politics) to what laws to be passed: if it’s a good, well-researched, well thought out proposal by a Democrat, click “Nay” and make up excuses later; if it’s a brain dead crap proposal by a Republican, click “Yay” and read off supplied talking points to justify it later. Until this messed-up attitude changes, nothing could be worse for the health of this country than to get more Republicans in to obstruct getting anything good done.
An aside to “Drew”: go look up “The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act” that was passed in 1993 and signed by Clinton.
THE HIDDEN ECONOMIC LIBERTY ANSWER FOR AMERICA’S RESTORATION
If everyone in the conservative media, bloggers, professional
writers, such as those who contribute to American Thinker, Hot Air, Red State.com et al., including all the financial wizards on Fox Business News, including their leader Mr.Neil Cavuto were as serious about the financial well being of America as they claim too be, they could change the entire political dynamics in this Country by rolling out the Fair Tax Plan[FTP]NON STOP 24/7 to capture the attention of the American people.
This could and should become the Central Theme and Main Platform of the Republican/Consevative Party if they have any sense left whatsoever [Michael Steel]! No demagougery in the “No Spin Zone” Mr. O’Reilly nor the rest of the Fox News cast of real JOURNALISTS and opinion makers, Hannity, Beck etc.
The FTP fits the Tea Party movement like a taylor made glove as well,including all their other meritorious grievances. But one thing at at time. First the FTP, then the control on spending and the printing of more inflationary dollars.
However the American public [voters] remains ignorant of the FTP or are swayed against it by the poison of liberal demagougery or outright lies about the FTP from all other MSM outlets to undermind support of it intenionally or dismiss it through concealment, never bringing it up. Keeping the public in the dark like mushrooms and feeding them bulls**t.
The beneificial merits to the American Citizens and the Country as a whole are much to long to post here. The fairtax.org website has it all layed out in simple terms for understanding the simple concept of a National sales tax while abolishing the IRS into the wilderness forevermore. Also “The Fair Tax Book” & “Fair Tax Answering The Critics” has it all spelled out.
The Plan is backed solidly by boilerplate research to the tune of over $20 million dollars of PRIVATE funding. The Following quotes apply. The Fair Tax Plan turns “American Into The Tax Haven Of The World” as well as “Lets Make April 15th Just Another Spring Day” by elimination of ALL taxes on “Capital” and “Labor” as well as all other taxes as a whole contained in more than 70,000 pages of the U.S. Tax Code[and growing in the health care hoax] including the elimination of over $400 Billion dollars in compliance cost which burdens all of us every year.
Now is the time for serious action,rather than all the rightful complaining and lip service by everyone concerned in saving American from the Maxist And Chief in the White House and his sell-out cronies in power. Funny, Obama keeps the African American communities in the dark about the FTP while claiming his concerns for the POOR! We all know he is a fraud, phoney, fake now as much as he was in Illinois. They will never learn in that state as evidenced by the constant re-election of Mayor Daley and the La Cosa Nostra partners of Chicago.
The vast segment of the African-American population throughout this entire Nation is the focal point to address and explain the FTP including the “Monthly Prebate Check” every “American Citizen” receives for the purposes of untaxing all of us “On The Basic Necessities Of Life”. The FTP is self supporting, the prebate check IS NOT WELFARE! The 23% National Sales Tax is incorporated in the price of all “New Goods & Services” in the retail free market.[used items are exempt]. It also allows for 13 trillion dollars of off shore American dollars to return to the Ameican economy. More than all the wastefull spending Obama has done thus far combind. An influx of cash this Country needs NOW.
Now, there is enough limited information within this post for its readers to investigate the FTP to save American by demanding its implimitation though the passage of House Bill HR-25 & Senate Bill S-1025. The ball is now the court for all those who have become aware of it for the first time. Call everyone you know, including your family members and particularlly your questionable politicians following your own research and the reading of the aforementioned books to advocat the FTP.
Contact you media sources including Fox News the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and every Consrvative Media outlet, magazine and organization on the planet and tell them to get the guts and have the fortitude to roll it out in its true form for America’ future and the future of our children and grandchildren.Teach the segement of the “Youth Vote” who voted in the last election for the Marxist & Chief.
I coined this phrase; Liberty=Freedom—Financial Freedom=True Liberty. This IS the “Domestic Policy” that everyone should demand! Only and idiot would advocate for the status quo in favor of the Internal Racketeering Service Of The United States Of America,and only a flaming FOOL wouldn’t want to keep every penny they earn as the “Fruit” of their labor. Where are the Union[s] on behave of their Membership[s]. The biggest FOOLS of all. The IRS is the biggest oppressor and punishers of success in America. The FTP removes the chains of bondage. JOBS ,JOBS, JOBS, the magic cure.
And Life is any less protected by the Constitution?
You see, that is where abortion outlawed nationally comes in. It is the Feds job to insure a base level of freedom nationwide. The Right to Life being the most basic right of all. Slavery is just the next most basic right.. The right to freedom.
Do you gasp that yet?
Great comments all around with a few exception, of course.
Darius@25:”Only the hardcore ideologues in the party really care about criminalizing abortion and homosexuality,…” I am a hard core conservative and I certainly DO NOT want to criminalize abortion or homosexuality. But I want abortion returned to the states to decide be it limits or curtailment. And I do not want special rights and marriage for gays. They deserve the same rights of any couple and no more. I will not be acquiescent in defending the sacrament of marriage to be denigrated by their movement.
Other than that we are sympatico.
Steve@28: I would whole heartedly agree with you but religion has been banished from public education and even the public square. And as you said, today there are no limits put on children or adults-no judgement-no shame-and no consequences. I would much rather have a social construct that took care of these things but progressives have removed this from society–on purpose so that we can more easily be manipulated and it is working.
Nice talking to you.
BC,Vivo, Now and then: Your messiah has failed, as we predicted. He is as stupid as the pathetic beagle-like devotion that you all exude.
That said, please feel free to go on down to the corner store and buy some malt liquor with your SSI checks because the grownups are here to have a conversation.
“Personally, I attribute it to the effects of living in a socialist economy”
This is merely a secondary reason. The number one factor is France’s increasing secularism. Abortion is rampant. Sex is only about pleasure and not procreation. Even very wealthy people are having fewer children.
As I was say, and have been saying is that the Republican Party cannot be trusted, cannot be left to it’s own devices.
What we need is a binding PLEDGE from all elected Republican officials to never engage in deficit spending except in the case of an immediate existential threat to the country.
In other words:it’s a binding contract that stipulates what the recipient of party funds and support may NOT do.
This would need to be non negotiable, anyone who won’t sign it doesn’t get to be a republican, anyone who violates it is kicked out immediately and permanently.
Now, I know the libertarian leaning conservatives would have no problem with this, the question then comes down to cultural conservatives…what’s in it for them?
That’s what needs to be explained.
So, ask yourselves this:How much of you taxpayer dollar do you want to go to pay for abortions here or abroad?
If the amount of money the government is able to spend is limited by the fact that one party is simply not allowed to engage in deficit spending at all…
I’d really like to know what you all have to say–if you agree, please take the few moments to say so.
Not one mention of the key to Reagan’s victories — Reagan Democrats. And why do you think they flocked to the Reaganized Republican Party? Because their party, the party they had been raised in, the Democratic Party, had become the antinomian party par excellence. It had become the anti-social conservatives party. So it is nonsense to say that Republicans should run away from the issues that energize social conservatives. Let the Democrats have all the envelope pushing withit swingers. All the Republicans have to be is with the squares, unapologetically with the squares, and they’ll win every election from here on out.
To baal: ummmm, the economy is <a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/news/0907/gallery.Obama_200_days/index.html"on the mend, al-Qaeda is on the run, and people are liking us again. If you had voted for Bush, man up and admit that you did something really, really stupid instead of trash talking Obama for fixing Bush’s many — and indirectly, your — screw-ups. Otherwise don’t let the facts hit your sorry butt when you go out to down your 40 oz King Cobras with “teh boyz”.
No, thank you.
America has already fallen into the hands of a conspiracy of commies and internationalist subversives because McCain run, instead of a true Republican.
We must not repeat the same mistake in the hope to get different results, that would be plain stupid.
The independents have to fear from the TOTALITARIANS only, not from the GOP.
I have contended for while that we as a nation have had it too good for too long. It has created a soft, needy society full of people with their hands out. Hard work and making it on our own is no longer the rule of the land.
Look at the new show Jersey Shores, Ms. Hilton, music/tv in general, ect…all reflect a wussy society of “give me give me” people. Thus my new term: Wussification of America!
been a great read here today..been enjoying it very much!
David Thompson,
I think Mark Steyn agrees with you. He said something about how the secular social security and lifestyle of Europe depended on a Christian or maybe he said Catholic birth rate.
Nick,
Keep in mind that its not really a three legged stool. Its more of a Turkey (great American bird). On one wing, you have the Libertarians, and on the other the National Security Hawks, and in the middle you have The Base. The Base is the body of the bird, and much larger than the rest of the bird. Its socially conservative, strong on defense, and pragmatically Libertarian to a great degree (but not enough to satisfy the doctrinaire Libertarian).
The Turkey could live, and perhaps prosper without its wings. The wings could not live without the body. Its conceivable that a Base politico could win without the support of the Libertarians or the Hawks. Particularly because both wings spend a lot of their ammo on the Base.
One particular thing that needs to be done is to offer the Base actual success. Aim to deliver, in other words. The anti-abortion arguements are winning, and we continue those. But we add to them the Federalism arguements. And we promise the Base that yes, this time we really are going to do something serious about the worship of Moloch.
And lets point out that Libertarians should be pro-lifers to the right of Operation Rescue. What is more statist than the murder of an innocent human being by the illegtimate sanction of government? And I know what some Libertarians would say. “I don’t know that it is…” Yup, you don’t know. So that means you’re supporting what might be homicide.
I’m sure every libertarian would be opposed to someone opening a door at a public establishment, and a shooter with a blindfold on, hosing down the room beyond. He might hit nobody. The room might be even empty. Or he might be a mass murderer. In any case, its a criminal act. And any Libertarian would be against it. Many would clear leather, and prevent the madman from opening the door by any means necessary.
Ultimately, federalism is probably the appropriate response in an American system to abortion. But, to forsake the moral discussion is not wise. It is to support statism.
Slavery is illegal because it is prohibited by the Constitution. Those who advocate for a Federal ban on abortion are doing it the right way- advocating for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion.
#35 BC: Clinton lifted the embryonic stem cell research ban in 1993, but reversed his decision in 1994.
See: http://www.livescience.com/health/090317-bad-stem-cells.html
In 1974, Congress banned federal funding on fetal tissue research and established the Ethics Advisory Board to study the nascent field of in vitro fertilization. In 1980 Ronald Reagan killed the Board, which was friendly to embryonic research, resulting in a de facto moratorium on funding. Congress tried to override the moratorium in 1992, but George H.W. Bush vetoed it. Bill Clinton lifted the moratorium in 1993 but reversed his decision in 1994 after public outcry. In 1995, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, banning federal funding on any research that destroys human embryos.
In 2001 Bush enabled limited funding on embryonic stem cell lines already derived from discarded embryos; the life or death decision already had been made, he said. He thought more than 60 lines existed, but within months scientists realized that only about 20 were viable, not enough to do substantial research.
But this isn’t really what the topic is about. It’s just a pet peeve of mine that whenever the subject comes up, there is an incredible amount of disinformation that is allowed to spread.
#42 ticpic – Great post. Be unapologetically with the squares, and they’ll win every election from here no out. Magnificent!
As to the French birthrate, this is a result of the devastation of WWI. The cream of French manhood was destroyed in WWI. The birthrate took a dive from 1916 on. Too many of the men with balls got killed and maimed, and the spirits of the rest were totally broken. The French simply never recovered. That’s why they collapsed so easily in WWII. They just wanted “to go home to their little jobs”, and continued to flee. The French were once mighty warriors. Now? Not so much.
Women don’t favor carrying the seed of wimps. When a man is strong and dynamic, suddenly, women want to bear children. The men drive the procreation, not the women. A woman might use a man for sex in our hedonistic society, but birth control becomes a must. That includes the ex post facto birth control, abortion. Can’t be breeding with wimps. It’s a sunconscious thing.
This article is a good step. Yes there does need to be a coherent conservative consensus. Yes it should be based upon economic liberty, individual freedom, states’ rights, and opposition to international tyranny.
But it isn’t here yet. It needs steady development and articulation with many more articles like this.
Yes modern society is wussy, selfish, neurotic, suffused with victim and entitlement syndromes and a whole bunch of other unpleasant things. So what? All the more reason to build a strong and attractive declaration of common sense conservatism. Keep going Mr Guariglia!
Things may look different from this side of the Atlantic but I’d guess by the time campaigning gets serious next year the big issues will be debt, the collapsing dollar and unemployment.
Recent talk of recovery is based on a misinterpretation of data. The US, like Britain, is trying to finance its recovery with new debt.
BTW..even if we do contain what is going on…no lasting change will happen until we TAKE BACK THE SCHOOLS from the left and their dogma!!
Otherwise we may stem the tide and loose the war. More and more children growing up with all the lefty socialist babble in our schools will ultimately mean the end of the USA…
wake up parents and DEMAND the schools listen to you and make sure you vote for school officials who are not all lefty!!
DEc 1,2008-30,000 US govt employeesd making more than 150k/yr . Dec 1 2009-67,000 US govt employees making more than 150k/yr. Dec 1,2008-1 transportation dept employee making more than 150k/yr. dEC 1 2009- 1700 Transportation dept employees making 150/k yr. These are the kind sof things that need to BE EXPOSED. If you want to know where the TARP money and bailout money is going, its going to BRIBE OBAMA VOTERS WITH O VERPAID,UNDERWORKED GOVERNMENT JOBS. Ive long said ABORTION should be a states rights issue. Roe Vs Wade is what it is-Bad Law. Lets have the SOCONS take over LOCAL governments. The worse and most corrupt governments are the local ones. Ask Joe the Plumber. The left attacked our institutions in accordance with the Antonio Grmasci communist attack line. We as conservatives need to do as George Patton did to Rommel. Turn there OWN TACTICS against them. Retake our institutions. But start LOCALLY.
To Drew: not to nag on the details, but….
Robert V: If you can’t remember that far back, check the history books. 1984 was the height of the Cold War. I know because I was being trained to Russian armor, not goatherds.
Just like today, a Democrat controlled Congress was in charge of spending. You think Reagan would have vetoed spending cuts? The deficit did increase for a while, then started a slow decline as the economy grew – until Bush I decided to bailout the S&L’s.
Well here’s a theory to throw into the mix: There is actually not a whole lot of difference between all of our last ten or so Presidents, because they, since the country demanded it, all had to support big government. If you take Reagan and Clinton, who varied widely in their talking points and the people whose buttons they pushed, the overall results and general policy were very similar. Only GWB stands out from the rest, because he overtly started two medium-sized wars,(We just sort of slid into Vietnam.) but otherwise his policy was right in line with the centrist lurchings.
Politics is mostly PR and talk. One side gets outraged when they lose, then the other, but the underlying policies are generally similar, which makes for a certain kind of stability. The excitable types get excited, but our booms rotate with our busts; the government gets bigger and controls (or pretends to) more and more.
It is what it is.
I am a huge Reagan fan, but don’t consider myself a conservative under any of the prefixes used above. My concern is with the pace of regulation – with the advance of government power into everyday life – with treating citizens like helpless infants surrounded by predatory businessmen. Infants never ran a democracy. Regulation is a class system, in essence – and anyone who advocates rolling it back should be cheered on.
See “The regulated citizen”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-regulated-citizen/
Let us hope that there is indeed a, “emerging conservative consensus,” as Mr Guariglia so skillfully opines. A “constitutional renaissance” is definitely in order if the American Nation is to survive. But is it too late for this to evolve CONSTITUTIONALLY? The current administration and its companion congress, along with powerful economic interests, have succeeded in constructing a fascist government that is one crucial crisis away from declaring martial law and dealing the coup de grace to our Constitution.
Don’t think that Obama and Company would never declare some sort of emergency that “required” their astute guidance and indefinite governance. Such things do happen. I grew up in a country where this happened. It was a supposed constitutional republic, patterened much like our very own, and one Saturday morning, there was no TV, no newspapers, but lots of tanks and checkpoints in the streets. I saw the military police take my neighbor away. To think that this can’t happen in the USA (especially in its present state of degeneracy), is the height of delusionary thinking. It CAN happen here, and under this current crew in Washington -coupled with the dumbed down, entitlement-minded population- the likelihood is very possible.
The Marxist/fascists (this is what they are: they are redistributionists who still want the economic engine that only large corporations can provide) have NEVER had the prize in their hand like they have now. Do you honestly think that they will ever have this opportunity again (now that their true colors have been exposed to the light of day)? NO. So, it is in their existential best interest to SEIZE and HOLD ON to all organs of power and never let go because the people just may not ever choose them again. The Left was successful in their deconstruction of the American Nation; their “work” for all intents and purposes, is done. What they are concentrating on now is maintenance of control.
So, what to do, what to do…? We can vote. And pray that we do not have to water the tree of liberty in a time of moral drought.
“the coalition was comprised of three factions of conservatives”
NO NO NO. The coalition “comprised” three factions of conservatives
Stingy: I agree it can happen here…almost. Three big differences, 1: MANY of us own guns(few countries allow the sheep to be armed) 2: not sure the military would go along with it,and if they did, not sure how long, 3: Some states would rebel at that point…pretty sure my state SC(man i love this state)wouldnt put up with too much stuff like that, which would prolly lead to another civil war of some kind.
They dont have enough control over the media, economy and military or the states to make what happened in your past country…yet. Very few countries have such strong state rights or least states that have the balls to tell the Fed to stuff it when the SHTF.
If they manage to take away our guns and turn the special forces lefty…then we maybe in trouble. But no way they can get our guns at this point(in most states), i think if they tried, armed rebellion and states splitting off would happen.
I am however very concerned we could very easily fly apart and descend into anarchy. Which again i think you would see the states split up.
Either way i prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and get along the best i can!
EVERYONE should read this and be very scared…the ultimate bypass of the American people if President BHO actually allows the EPA to do what it wants or he signs some treaty in Carbonhagon…be scared that this admin even thinks about it, that the EPA even NOW has this power..this is here and now with the EPA..
Anywhoo…a good read…
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/16/obamas-push-copenhagen-deal-violate-constitution-critics-say/
43. BC:
I’m not exactly sure how spending at 5x the rate of Bush and blowing Hugo, Mahmood, and Vlad qualify as “fixing Bush’s mistakes.”
But, that said, Obama is an idiot and failure and will go down in history as more pathetic, ineffectual and weak than Carter.
Get used to the words:Idiot, Failure, Pathetic, Weak, and Mistake–because you’re going to hear them for the next three years as your Idiot In Chief drags along the bottom.
BAAL has spoken!
steve4libertyinSC:
“Three big differences, 1: MANY of us own guns(few countries allow the sheep to be armed) 2: not sure the military would go along with it,and if they did, not sure how long, 3: Some states would rebel at that point…pretty sure my state SC(man i love this state)wouldnt put up with too much stuff like that, which would prolly lead to another civil war of some kind.”
I agree with you. But you have to admit it will get ugly and disruptive. I hope the military’s allegiance remains to the people. I would not want to be up against a military with Apaches and Hellfire missiles clinging onto my military surplus semi-automatic rifle. I have seen too many videos of terrorists getting smoked from the sky.
Conservatives will ultimately have to learn from the Left and develop and sustain an autonomous counter-culture and the practices of civil disobedience. This will be the case even if Republicans get into power, for reasons many commenters have given. We will have to carry out the transactions that the law forbids (how many transactions between doctors and patients will become illegal if the Left gets its way!) and construct institutions that ignore regulations and either accept losing access to government money or be arrested. The more laws the government creates, the more ways we will need to find to evade and subvert them–and there will always be ways, thanks to new technologies (what can stop us from putting ads on the internet in violation of campaign finance laws?). The idea would simply be to make over-reaching government impossible, regardless of what even the majority wants–the majority doesn’t have the right to take a single individual’s money or prevent anyone from buying what they want, with very few exceptions. This will take a lot of discipline and patience (and courage and intelligence), but it’s the only way to restore republican government.
This is probably going to bring out a few trolls but I have to say it.
This goes out to the some of the social conservatives- Stop telling people that the biblical story of creation is literally true! Do you know how stupid this makes you sound? This isn’t a bash against religion (I’m a church-going Catholic), but it’s hard to promote Conservative/Libertarian views when holding a core belief that is about as legitimate as thinking the moon landing was faked.
Actually, using “the Bible says so” is a pretty lousy way to frame any argument, especially since people love to pick and choose from various (especially Old Testament) prohibitions.
Focus on liberty and the rest will follow.
Yep i agree Stiggy(sorry for the wrong name last post”stingy”) LOL
As long as the military stays with the people and my state stays with us i feel ok…sort of
This could get more than disruptive and ugly. Dangerous and hungry is how i would see it. our guns would be for self protection against the hordes who will be pillaging in the chaos, my little guns wouldn’t do much against the military.
I copied this post from a British blog today that was full of unrest. The Brit is talking to a frustrated fellow citizen who is going to go with the Independents next election:
“If you vote for the UKIP, I’m sure Cameron, the BBC and the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties love you, but do you not suspect it might be unhealthy for democracy (if you believe in it of course) that there is no political party representing those (like me) who’s views are to the right of centre?
Next year we hope to have a general election (Civil Contingencies
permitting). We are told that only the left of centre Labour party or the left of centre “Conservatives” have any chance of forming the government while the left of centre Liberal Democrats might hold the balance of power if there is a hung parliament. Outside this cosy stitch up we could vote for the extreme left wing Greens, or the further left BNP. Those of us to the
right of centre (not “RIGHT wing” and why the capitals?) can vote UKIP or stay at home. Although the internet has changed politics as it has changed many other things there is, I concede, a risk that UKIP may be unable to mobilise its support to the necessary extent but I am optimistic they will get enough to deny Cameron his victory and create the circumstances in which the 40%+ of voters who are ignored by the established parties will get a
voice.”
I see my country, America, as being only a step away from this situation.
I agree that we must focus on liberty. I agree that the rest may follow. But there are many, many Americans who Hate anything connected to Christianity. I said Hate.
#11 “Frankly, all educators should be required to demonstrate competency in understanding, explaining, and supporting our Constitutional system, to be allowed access to our educational system.”
I am an educator and can tell you that the National Education Association is very similar to SEIU, a powerful union.
Lots of good posters here
25. Darius Thomson:
“Republicans can win big in 2010 and future elections if we focus on being inclusive, rather than exclusive… what do I mean by that? We need to underscore our main fiscal platform- limited government, lower taxes, less regulation. These are the keys to getting out of the recession and economic mire that we’re currently in.
It doesn’t hurt to tone it down with the exclusive rhetoric, either. Only the hardcore ideologues in the party really care about criminalizing abortion and homosexuality, I certainly don’t- and I’m certain that I represent a growing fringe in the party (as I represent an Independent libertarian-leaning convert). It’s OK if you feel strongly about your morals, if you can muster the intra-party support, you can write the platform, but I- personally- don’t care about a conservative social agenda. If the likes of Sean Hannity and the likes of fiscal conservatives and social liberals like me can come together, we can recreate American politics by eliminating the era of “entitlement” and working together to find a happy middle-ground on the social issues.”
Don’t let the likes of “Vivo – #20″ wedge us apart. The Moderates and Independents are here to help you win if you can embrace people with different opinions on your social agenda issues.
I am willing to learn from you. You must understand that the term Inclusion is used against Christians in particular to let us know we are Bigots.
47. myth buster:
Slavery is illegal because it is prohibited by the Constitution. Those who advocate for a Federal ban on abortion are doing it the right way- advocating for a Constitutional Amendment to ban abortion.
Yes , I am glad someone gets IT. For Slavery’s banishment, it only took 600,000 dead. So far abortion has claimed the lives of over 40 million of our most innocent.
Of course there are those who would not ban slavery… “Federal ban on *Moral Issue*.” To them it is only a “Moral Issue”, and a Black only being 3/5ths human should suffice.
I work at a large west coast Army post, and have talked with a number of soldiers about some of the ideas posted here. Specifically, what would the military do if martial law was ordered. Unanimously I was reminded that the military took an oath to defend the Constitution, NOT an oath of loyalty to any person. As for Special Forces, the Green Berets I’ve spoken to are no fan of Nancy Pelosi. I think that if the Teleprompter Messiah, Soros and Rahm Emmanuel are counting on military support for their revolution, they are counting wrong.
However, I do think it may very likely get ugly. Cold and hungry people have nothing to lose. I’ve been researching sunspots and solar minimums since I first heard about it almost two years ago. As each day goes by and the Sun remains spot free, an extended minimum, decades long or more, becomes increasingly likely. As I’m sure readers of PJM know, excluding the basement trolls, the past few years have been unusually cold.
Food, Firewood, and Firearms…
The Republican Party needs to remember Abraham Lincoln’s description of the genius of the American Constitution – “government of the people, by the people and for the people”. The Founding Fathers designed the constitution to leave as much of the governmental authority as close to the people as possible by enacting the Tenth Amendment – The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution , nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. In other words, “government by the people” can be best achieved at the local level, closest to the people. This concept began to be undermined, first with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the income tax amendment” and then further with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment which calls for the popular election of Senators. The statists have used these tools to move more and more governmental power to the Federal Government at the expense of the States. Thus we loose the benefits of the competition between the states with respect to services provided and taxes levied, and replace it with mandates from Washington.
The Republicans need to develop candidates at the local level that support the rights, obligations and benefits of local government and are willing to take on the full responsibilities of local government. The Republicans also need to produce national candidates who also are committed to returning the bulk of government to local control. Practically, this means that virtually all social conservative issues should be returned to the states, including education, welfare, social safety nets, health care and moral issues. Economically, the role of the Federal Government should be reduced to strictly those duties spelled out in the Constitution, essentially, establishing the money system and providing such regulation and oversight as needed to insure the free flow of interstate commerce. National Security, that is military and diplomatic activities are the province of the Federal Government.
Implementing such policies will be difficult at best, but could be done piece by piece over time. As the role of the Federal government is reduced, Federal taxation can be reduced making more revenue available to the states to fund the programs. Because people and jobs can move freely from state to state, states will be free to develop a governmental environment that suits the people in the state. Citizens can then choose where to live based on government environment as well as other characteristics. Ultimately, the Federal Government should get out of the income tax business and rely on a small value added tax to fund the primary costs which are national security. Income taxation should be the major source of revenue for the states. Competition between the states will insure efficient government.
71. Fairbanks99:
Why wait? Secure your location now! Gather munitions. Stockpile saltines. Dehydrate your water. Secure a minimum of 400 rolls of Saran Wrap to serve as a hardship substitute for underwear. Sell your belongings. Cancel all traceable forms of identification – driver’s license, passport, credit cards, ccp. Fifth-wheel a dual storage tank of propane and gasoline to a remote location just below tree line. Dig your bunker. Establish your perimeter. Start a fire. Break out the binoculars. And waste what’s left of your life living in a paranoid psychogenic fugue.
My two cents. It is not “Freedom” and “Restoration of the Constitution” that will get people voting your way sir. People who think like that are both already likely to vote – and to vote your way.
No, the power behind this uprising that cements the swing voter with the conservative voter is a fiscal reality check. The jobs problem plus out of control spending is what will push a voter into the conservative fold. Maybe there should be a nice catch phrase like “It’s the economic conditions, dummy” (or something like that).
My problem is that I no longer trust the Republicans to do the right thing. Scant years after they retook the house via a “contract with America”, they used it for toilet paper. A decade later Bush abandoned the principles of limited government.
I wish there was a viable third party alternative that would put principle first.
Nothing to fear from our own military. Sure, some 35% voted Dem last time. Lots of young folks in the military. Thing is, liberal Presidents disabuse the youthful military of such idiocy in a hurry. If it came down to violence, the military would stay out, at least. Some would take up arms in support.
Ex-military civilians and such tend towards Conservative values. In a shooting war, the Left loses big. Sure, they have some thugs, but when the good people decide to organize to violence, the thugs will be hunted down ruthlessly. Violence WILL solve this. Good people are loathe to use it, of course. It’s a matter if the frog boils to death before it jumps from the pot.
The proper time for a revolution was the Kelo decision in ’05. That was simply the final destruction of our property rights. Without these rights, there can be no prosperity. (Even now, it is being replayed in another case. Also, Congress is looking to pass enforced insurance purchase… or go to jail.) Shoulda marched on DC then, and hung 5 Justices from the court building, then marched home. That message would have ended all this Progressive nonsense. Shoulda watered the ol’ Tree of Liberty.
I agree with the author’s plea for Socio-conservatives to drop the gay bashing. As a right-of center independent, I do NOT understand why someone should tell me or anyone else how to live their lives if that has no impact on them or their property? How am I- and my log cabin Republican partner- destroying the fabric of the American family/society? It’s absurd on a level that is incomprehensible to me and millions of other Americans.
I am afraid that if the Republicans and conservatives do not drop their Culture War against gays, atheists, feminists/pro-choicers, etc…, they will never get the Presidency back- and we need to get it back!!
Without a republican in the White House we will lose even more clout in the international arena! We need to stop the infighting and indeed focus on the economy, as well as our teetering foreign relations. Iran, Syria, N. Korea and yes China, will only become more determined to unseat the US as a global player (so far they have proven to be quite effective!).
In saying that, I don’t think that giving States the right to choose on social issues will lend results; it is not a panacea for the core issues. For example, if I marry my partner in my state, how can another state not recognize that if we were to move there? A historical comparison from US history: inter-racial couples who married in the North and moved to the South 50 years ago were not recognized as married, forcing them to go to court, which eventually made inter-racial marriage a legal Federal right.
It would be inconceivable that a gay married couple’s marriage would be refused recognition in even a neighboring state! Simply put, the author’s suggestion to give States the right to choose is an untenable solution.
A nation-wide consensus must be reached on this issue, perhaps by calling gay marriage a “civil union” etc… rather than “marriage” – as long as the rights are the same; if that’s what it takes to gain consensus, then that is what should be done!
Ultimately, the Christian Right’s influence in the Republican party needs to be diffused or even uprooted; they are damaging the right’s reputation and blurring our common goals like the economy and international relations.
In short, we Americans do NOT live in a theocracy and we do NOT abide by supposed Christian “moral” principles (principles represented by minority-sects: Mormon, S. Baptist, etc, and not by others- Anglican, methodist, Lutheran, unitarian, etc).
What I don’t like about this article is it’s defensiveness. What I want is Obamas new welfare state throttled in it’s cradle.
ohh and two sodomites can’t start no matter what you call it.
Why is it that Liberals and many Libertarians seem to have their heads up their own arse when it comes to the “Social Conservatives”? Yeah you have the whackado’s at the Westboro Baptist Church but they aren’t representative of Christian views even though you drink the Media Kool-aid that it is.
First, the Bible condemns homosexuality and does so for very logical reasons. Without artificial insemination a homosexual society dies out, its a genetic dead end, also the resulting decline in and aging of the homosexual society’s population weakens the society and leaves it vulnerable to take over by larger and “younger” nations.
Second, rejection of another person’s lifestyle as sinful is not “gay bashing”. Christan’s would also reject a person who makes a living by stealing from others, would you then call them “thief bashers”? If a Christian is actually following Christ’s teachings they will not validate a homosexual’s sin, but should not behave as the people from WBC, and will encourage the sinner to turn away from sin.
The whole “gay marriage” issue is one of validation (and expanding the divorce lawyers clientele pool) not legal rights, most Americans are just too ignorant to understand it. Homosexuals legally have things easier than heterosexuals, for example when I applied for health benefits for my wife I had to provide proof of marriage. Had I been a homosexual applying for coverage from my partner I merely had to prove we had been living together for three months. Legally all the “rights” attributed to married couples are easily obtained with a few legal documents, often the very same documents that heterosexual married couples are encouraged to draw up. Several states even have “civil union” for same sex partners that grants them the same legal rights yet lacks the “Marriage” title. These documents are rather easily modified, the Marriage License is not and requires a lengthy and often expensive divorce procedure.
Personally “marriage” should be reserved for religious unions and up to the church as to whether or not they recognize same sex unions. The state(s) should merely issue legal contracts that are civil unions for everyone regardless.
For the record I don’t even attend church nor can I quote the Bible from memory.
Good to hear from our military folks on here! Thx for all the hard work over the yrs!
I always thought most of the military would lean heavily to the right for 2 reasons, first the Dems always the abuse the military when they get power. Just look at the big O, took 3 months of our men and women dying in Afghanistan to make up his freaking mind…while it took much less time on the stimulus bill???? 2: most lefties dont have the stones to enter the military, sure are good at throwing stones(look at the violence in carbonhagen) but actual fighting??
Speaking of which..anyone see Nancy Pelosi crying over the violent lefty protesters in carbonhagen, like she did over the peaceful tea party protests??????
75. Marc Malone:
Ah, the Kelo decision, those were the days. You lament that you didn’t kill five Supreme Court justices, no doubt because “Good people are loathe to use (violence.)” You fantasize about a “shooting war” and imbue yourself with the right to speak for active and ex military. So what’s stopping you? Apparently you’re mad as hell and gonna take it some more. You already have a leader in Rachel Peepers. S/he has volunteered to lead whatever cause is necessary in as obnoxious a way as possible to stem the rising tide of whatever it is you’re whining about. Butch up! Be a malvo! Drill some holes in the trunk, load up a couple of carbines up, stuff a sock down your pants, and go out in the world and prove your manhood. Come on, we need a hero.
There’s a real possibility that the Obamunists, arrogant creatures that they are, sincerely believe that they could mobilize the American military against the American people. Remember, these are folks who worship political power and believe it to be omnipotent. But the noncommissioned soldier is a better grade of human being than anyone in the political class. That’s why Obama wants his own national security force.
What might happen in the event of a civilian revolt and an Army stand-down is terrifying to contemplate…but not nearly as terrifying as the extremely remote possibility of the Army acting as enforcers of the Obamunists’ totalitarian will.
If Obama gets his national security force, then we are really in trouble and even the Dems should see the danger in it. If he tries to get a national security force, thats when i say we need to really revolt…there is NO need for his own security force…..NONE!
Good article, and some very good commenters. Having said that, I notice some persistent commenters who are here not to add critique to the article, but to throw caustic darts at the other commenters. I would suggest that these are in violation of the protocol and be blocked as they add nothing to the dialogue, do not enlighten, and are consistently boring.
JohnMMM,
Half of America is Young Earth Creationist. Most of the rest is some other form of Creationist (I suspect you fall into that category.)
Its not that we sound dumb, its that the evos sound fraudulent, ignorant, or brainwashed. The facts, as always, are on the Bible’s side. Sometimes, it takes a lot of faith to see this, but other times, like now, it takes very little faith indeed as the facts are shouting very loudly.
If you pick up your science from TV and from mainstream popsci mags, then yeah, you think that evo is solid. If you dig broader and perhaps deeper, then not so much.
I reccomend for you the blog Post-Darwinist by a Catholic writer of skill and humor. I believe she’s an Old Earther, but she’ll enlighten you, and you can move on to other sources to find the data supporting a Young Creation.
Here we have yet another post bashing social conservatives and promoting the libertine moral philosophy that has actually led to the problems we have today.
The author is correct in pointing out that the United States has become more liberal since the time of Reagan and the reason is that the social issues were never addressed by Reagan or any other conservative since. How can you expect someone to support limiited and responsible government when you tell them it is okay to be a libertine and unresponsilbe in their private life? The very values that lead to fiscal responsibility are social values – thrift, honesty, industry, etc.
Here are several questions for the authhor:
1. “…America’s natural impulse toward federalism is too strong.” – Really. Federalism is virtually dead as a constitutional. Since the dawn of the 20th century the driving force in politics has been to strip power from the states and localities and concentrated it in Washington D.C. If Americans have a natural impulse toward federalism then it is an implulse they have stifled for a 100 years. Where exactly do you see otherwise?
2. The Founding Fathers did not adopt federalism as a libertarian method of allowing the states to pursue diverse social issues. The only area where a social issue and federalism intersected was over slaver and we all know how ignoring that issue turned out. Please provide evidence to support your contention about federalism.
3. Why do you want us to ignore issues that the majority of Americans oppose? Opposition to abortion is now over 50% and opposition to gay marriage in in the mid-80s. The Democratic Party is out of touch with the American people on these issues. Why do we abandon these issues and allow the Democrats to get a free path. John McCain did not and we all know how that worked out.
4. Why do you want us to ignore issues which will actually give us inroads into traditionally Democratic constituents? African Americans turned the tide against gay marriage in CA and Hispanics are Catholic and social conservatives. Why not exploit the similar opinions on social issues to form an extended coalition?
As for your recommendations for the fiscal conservatives and the national security conservatives, I can support most of those.
As a social conservative I propose the following compromise. Whatever coalition that forms must take a firm stand on social issues for me to be a part of it. It must oppose abortion and gay marriage. It can argue abortion on constiutional and moral grounds. I am perfectly fine with the issue be reserved to the states but liberals will never let the issue be one on which the people can speak or vote. They know they will lose that debate. On gay marriage, maintain the status quo and refuse to allow tradiional marriage to be redefined by a small group of radical activists.
A government that can allow, in some cases in the proposed heath care plain promote and reward, the slaughter of innocent unborn child and which can redefine one of the oldest institutions of western civilization is not a limited one.
Our slogan cannot be “The world can go to hell in a hand basket as long as it does so in a fiscally responsible manner.”
Tennwriter thanks for your comment. I won’t even debate you since (to paraphrase Steven Jay Gould) it’s pointless.
Thanks for making my point that the Conservative movement will never make any progress with educated individuals as long as the tent-revival crowd is part of the party. Keep using the myths of a bunch of goad-herders as a foundation for scientific thought.
My nightmare scenario for 2012 is Huckabee running as some sort of “Christian Conservative” and the party splits, leading to four more years of Obama. Social Conservatives will be able to take credit for the One’s re-election.
Maybe that will lead to a real small-Government party (if the Republic survives). One can only hope.
79. steve4libertyinSC:
“took 3 months of our men and women dying in Afghanistan to make up his freaking mind”
Just how stupid ignorant, uneducated, blind, disingenuous, clueless, ideological, short-sighted, resentful and just plain candyass brainwashed can one person be? Bush. Troop requests. DYUH!. People like you, the willfully dim and blindly obedient, absolutely disgust me. God, what an complete effing putz you are. You know nothing about this world, this war, or this life. Stay in your effing trailer and don’t come out until we tell you to make a beer run. Same goes for you, Francis W. Porretto, you soft-centered bag of gut wind.
86. As long as we put up someone remotely competent, Obama’s done for. Even George W. Bush (if he were eligible) could beat Obama in 2012. MY nightmare scenario is that we put up another lethargic guy like McCain, who, even if he does manage to defeat Obama, won’t have the guts to implement the radical reforms needed, and we end up on a dead end course, with the country falling apart around 2020.
87. For all your bluster, you never bothered to state what was wrong with his comment. When you are in command, you must make decisions quickly, not hastily, but quickly. If you dither, people will die. Two weeks was enough time to make a decision. Why? Because it has to be- there’s no time to wait for more information, more debate, more examination of the facts. Make decisions fast, and make them right, because indecision kills, and only in rare instances is making the wrong decision worse than being indecisive. Can’t handle making critical decisions quickly? Then you don’t belong anywhere near command.
Real Deal,
Second, rejection of another person’s lifestyle as sinful is not “gay bashing”. Christan’s would also reject a person who makes a living by stealing from others
The Bible condemns a hell of a lot of behaviors. Yet, for some reason I don’t see anti-usery rallies… Hell, many of the GOP faithful Christians I know support the assbag politicians that get caught making time on the side (as long as they’re on their side).
I am relatively certain that the best method to deal with issues of gay marriage etc is to divorce ‘marriage’ from a legally binding relationship… marriage is the thing you do in a church, ‘legal contract’ is the bit the government cares about. Then those that believe God doesn’t like gays, can have marriages free of gay people in their churches. People that are gay can get the protections etc they need… and if some church wants to marry them, that’s their business and not the governments.
If your morality is based on the Bible, thats good… but it should be your personal morality, not the thing you try to impose on others. Its that last bit that conservatives need to grok if they want to stay in the game.
I think the general problem is that the Republican leadership switched to a centralized decisionmaking model for everything. On social issues, instead of letting people suffer social censure for bad behavior, we’ll just outlaw it. No need to worry about counting on people to learn the difference between right and wrong, we’ll have a central authority that rolls out a moral society for the rest of us. Likewise on economics, instead of letting individuals and small businesses prosper or fail on their own merits, we’ll, ahem, centralize economic liberty with a few big corporations and let them roll out economic prosperity to the rest of us.
Both cases were betrayals of fundamental principles, and both were obviously going to be ineffective anyway. Seriously, having the average politician (think Mark Stanford) voting on morality is going to strengthen the fabric of our society about as well as having Wall Street CEOs runing the economy strengthed our pocket book.
Response to Ratatosk @90: The rallys are a response to an aggressvie gay rights agenda bent on redefining marriage from its traditional definition to embrace their lifestyle choices. The rallys are also a response to an aggressvie gay rights agenda which has recently led to the passing of “hate crimes” legislation that now makes it a crime to teach certain passages from the Bible and to speak out against the radical gay agenda.
The compromise you proposed has already been suggested and rejected by the gay activists. They want nothing short of redefining the institution of marriage.
Another group working on Consensus http://www.resistnet.com/group/itstimetoroar
And unfortunately, lots of us on the Right are falling for the trap. Yes, it is a trap. What the Left is doing is saying “Government should define morality, and it should define it as anit-Christian.” The Right responds by saying “No! It should define it as Christian!” To which the Left says “So you agree Government should define morality. Thank you, we win.”
Because once morality is in the hands of legislators, it’s doomed. We need to respond to leftist attempts to redefine our society via the power of Government by rejecting the power of Government, not by trying to bend it to our will. It won’t bend to our will, ever. We can win temporary victories, but in the long run if morality is not a personal choice but rather public law, we will sink into the same morass that consumed Rome.
Even with the issue of Gay Marriage, whether the local county clerk can put his stamp on a piece of paper saying that Bill and Stan are “married” isn’t as damaging to the institution of marriage as the current Family Court system that punishes men for saying “I do” to a woman instead of just shacking up with her. Or the welfare system that punishes a woman for marrying the father of her child. Or the public school system that wants to marinate every boy in Ritalin until he’s got no hope of growing into a man fit to be a husband or rather.
Every social conservative dime that went into Prop 8 would’ve been better spent electing legislators who would roll back the havoc Progressives have wrought in the courts, the welfare bureaus, and the schools. Yes, I know, it’s easy to pass an initiative like Prop 8 and it’s hard to elect real conservatives who will make real changes, but taking the easy way out is for Liberals. Getting Prop 8 passed make a lot of people feel good, but it didn’t change anything. Gays can’t be married in California, but San Francisco is still a disaster of a city. Hollywood still pours out cultureal poison. The illigitamate birth rate in California is still abysmally high. If an Archangel stuck his head into almost any church in the country and said “Excuse me, I’m looking for the American Sodom and Gomorrah, could anyone give me directions?” about the only dissagreement among the congregation would be whether San Francisco was Sodom and Los Angeles Gomorroh, or the other way around.
And the person that represents the three stools, all the areas mentioned above is….drumroll…Sarah Palin. She’s the one!
[Kipling wrote:
4. Why do you want us to ignore issues which will actually give us inroads into traditionally Democratic constituents? African Americans turned the tide against gay marriage in CA and Hispanics are Catholic and social conservatives. Why not exploit the similar opinions on social issues to form an extended coalition?]
Exactly.
This Tuesday the overwhelmingly Democrat Council of Washington DC legalized “same-sex” marriage. The mostly Black populace of the city was denied its right to vote on the issue. Read more here:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=omL2KeN0LzH&b=5075187&content_id={A746DB45-722D-44CF-A567-E6C3E131D3F9}¬oc=1
http://onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=815838
You’d think the GOP would all over this farce. The Council’s actions demolishes the myth of “The evil GOP wants to take away Black voting rights.” However, the GOP is silent on this clear attack on democracy. It’s as if the GOP is so terrified of being labeled “homophobic” that they’ve turned into wimps.
Now, imagine if more Republicans followed the lead of Governor-elect Bob McDonnell who used his social conservatism as well as a clear economic plan to win over some Black voters in Virginia. The biggest shock was McDonnell winning the support of Sheila Johnson, a high-profile pro-Obama Democrat:
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16082
So, on a practical level, it makes no sense focusing just on fiscal conservatism while ignoring the social conservatism that would expand the GOP’s numbers.
Conservative activist Star Parker recently posted a commentary, Challenges for a Republican renaissance, that is very relevant to this discussion.
An excerpt:
The more libertarian stream — Republicans whose principal concerns are limited government, low taxes, and free markets — have viewed Christian social conservatism as dead weight in the party. This is a mistake.
Christian conservatives, on the other hand, with legitimate concerns about the moral framework of the nation — concerns about the integrity of the American family and about the ongoing abortion holocaust, have given shorter shrift to the importance of constitutionally limited government and free markets.
These two streams within the Republican Party that have been flowing in parallel must be channeled into one powerful river. It is not either or. Both are essential.
We cannot lose sight that we won’t have a prosperous nation without free markets and government limited as our constitution originally intended.
But we also must recognize that a free economy cannot function without trust, that trust will not exist without a moral people, and that the means through which values and morality are transmitted, generation to generation, is family.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Star-Parker_-Challenges-for-a-Republican-renaissance-8503128.html
Response to JMH @ 34: A lot depends on what you mean by “morality is in the hands of legislators.” I would agree that legislators can not and should not define what is moral and immoral. However, the government must recognize a standard and call society to abide by it. Otherwise, we have chaos. My guess is that you are a libertarian and the simple truth is that libertarians are not really conservatives. What do they wish to conserve but an individual’s freedom to do whatever he wants. Conservatism is about conserving the western civilization handed to us by our fore fathers. At no point did western civilization glorify the unfettered liberty of the individual to do good or evil without social restraint. The Founding Fathers defined liberty as freedom to do what is right. They considered unfettered or un-ordered libery in that gave the individual freedom to do evil without consequence to be licentiousness, not liberty.
The leftists and gay activists are attempting to redifine traditional marriage and by doing so destroy the very institution of marriage. Marriage is one of the oldest institutions known to man and is the traditional home is the foundation of western civilization. Asking the government to protect an institution – which if destroyed will lead to the further breakdown of our society – hardly falling into a trap. What you ask for is the outright surrender of a conservative position held for over 2000 years?
Morality must be a personal choice but how does it benefit the moral cause if the government itself become amoral or even immoral in that it encourages evil. If Christianity and social conservatives abandoned the public arena, the government would not become amoral. It would become immoral and continue its attack on people of faith.
Question for stever4liberty @21:
On what grounds do you approve of the government making the call on slavery? In regards to slavery, what gives the government the right to push its moral value upon others?
Please not that I do not condone slavery. In fact I would support government intervention to prohibit slavery. My opposition to it comes from my moral beliefs. Where does your opposition to it come from and why is slavery an exception to your general statement?
Response to JohnMMM @65: First you scold social conservatives who believe in the Bible to stop publicly holding to the creation account as literal. Then you tell us to focus on liberty. How does denying creationists the right to speak contribute to your call for liberty? Or do you simply support liberty with which you agree?
If the creation account contained in Genesis 1-3 is not true, then here is what you lose. 1. The origin of man, of sin, and of redemption. 2. The belief that man is made in the image of God and thus has inate worth. 3. The concept that man is fallen and thus is not perfectable, no matter what the progressives say.
Genesis 1-3 is the foundation for the Christians world view and for the western worldview.
Response to Now and Then @80: Once again you come to a discussion and bring absolutely nothing. You contribute nothing except your own bile. I truly hope, as some have suggested, that you trolls are paid for your work. I would hate to think that your life is as full of hatred and vemon as your posts seem to indicate.
John MMM,
Interesting! I’ve never seen correctly translated Biblical statements contradicted by any scientific facts. The Bible speaks of different time and space continuums, science only imagines them. Human history is at least the fourth universal epoch mentioned. Might the other three have something to do with geologic discrepancies?
I don’t pretend to know it all, Lord knows! But given what has just been revealed in Climategate, including the revelation today that over 40% of the Russian reported ecodata was studiously excluded, leaves Science as sadly lacking in basic beleavability when there is any question. I would suspect that Climate isn’t the only area that science has bastardized to make political hay!
Scientific Theories are very evidently in contradiction with the Bible, and in that case, I’ll take the Bible’s side.
If your morality is based on the Bible, thats good… but it should be your personal morality, not the thing you try to impose on others.
However it seems you don’t grok the issue. You see Leftists are doing the same thing, and when/if homosexual marriage passes it will be used to further destroy the various religions that do not condone homosexuality, well at least until Sharia is implemented. Churches will be forced to perform homosexual marriages or a) face financially crippling law suits that will bankrupt them and/or b) face the loss of tax exempt status. Other groups like the Boys Scouts and Christian organizations will see their access to publicly funded venues like schools and parks rescinded.
For example:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-na-court-christians8-2009dec08,0,6381342.story
You’re also having the homosexual agenda forced down your throat all the time in various entertainment media. I really don’t care what other people do in private, in private establishments, but I do care when people attempt to rub my nose in it or violate other people’s right to disapprove of and reject their views, practices, or lifestyle. It is also a fallacy that homosexuals are “second class citizens” they have equal protection under the law that heterosexuals have. Its not like heterosexuals can get married to a member of the same sex but homosexuals cannot.
What is the basis of the argument for homosexual marriage? They cannot produce offspring using their own genetic material, they require the sperm or an egg from the opposite sex. Maybe one day they will figure out how to make two sperm or two eggs produce a fetus, but until then its an impossibility. Is it love? Companionship? If that is the case it becomes a slippery slope, if its ok to marry another individual of the same sex then why is it not ok to marry multiple individuals of the opposite sex? Then what about multiple individuals of the same sex? If all that is okay why can’t someone marry their sibling or first cousin? What about parents marrying their children(hello Woody Allen)? How about their dog or other animal? In fact polygamy has a better case than homosexual marriage.
#71 Fairbanks, do you expect another Maunder Minimum?
Why do people believe that Creation and Evolution are incompatible? What is a “day” to an entity that create the Universe? The term “day” is one revolution of the Earth, it is how Mankind measures time. We know that “days” and “years” (one orbit around the system’s star) are longer and shorter depending on which planet you are on.
Perhaps when God related the Creation to Moses He simplified things a bit to make comprehension easier, or maybe Moses did in writing it down. Explaining the concept of billions of years and all the various things like gravity, singularities, plate tectonics, and evolution to people who possessed an even more limited understanding of math and the world around them 4000 years ago than we do would have left them with glazed eyes. Working in IT I know exactly what its like to try and explain things to people who’ve go no understanding of technical issues. Also to be honest it also involves a lot less writing.
Personally I don’t believe the two are mutually exclusive.
I am SERIOUSLY hating the pathetic ” fiscal conservatives/social liberals ” in here
Take a HIKE you North East liberal elites
And while I am not American ( hard to believe but deal with it ) I will not let my global conservative brothers and sisters be stomped by lunatics like you
You think that America is turning more socially liberal ? As in your face sexuality , cussing , rudeness , lack of personability , order , obsession with pornography and lovers of abortion ?
You know what’s funny ? Now that the loony Christian Right is dead the lunatic Social Liberal Left is getting weaker
Whom would have thought ? Hhhhmmmmm …
My prediction is that America will turn into a nominal Christian Deist – Atheist – Agnostic hybrid nation whom despises social liberalism and is in favour of a hybrid social moderation – social conservative – social libertarian consesus
I’m already seeing it happening and it’s a bit scary
Google ” Atheists for Life ”
Google ” Secular Social Conservatism ”
There are a lot of people whom are secular and though have some doubts on religion believe in ” pragmatic social conservatism ” and can understand and appreciate some things from the Judeo Christian faith ( and Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome and what not as their basis )
The GayPatriot ALL the way
10 times better than the Login Cabin Republicans and their victim mentality
Go GayPatriot the true gay conservative!
Nicholas Guariglia you GO!
GREAT ARTICLE!
100 % on spot!
LOVE YOU!
GO THE CONSERVATIVE COALITION!!!
Real Deal,
However, if this is true and God ‘simplified’ evolution and the development of the planet… then that means the Garden of Eden is myth, Adam and Eve are myth, the talking snake is myth…
The whole reason that Jesus came to Earth was to save imperfect man… to sacrifice his perfect blood as a ransom for the perfect blood that Adam lost… If there was no Adam… if this is all evolved (even if God is involved in the evolving)… then the whole argument of Sin, imperfection and the need for Jesus ransom blood sacrifice are out the door.
The entire Bible is focused on the fulfillment of the first prophecy in Genesis. The ‘seed’ that would someday bruise the serpent in the head. Abraham was selected as the progenitor of that seed and the Jewish nation became the venue for that seed. The Prophets were all focused on that Seed… the Christian Greek Scriptures are entirely about that Seed, Jesus.
If we evolved, then we had no perfect parents. If we had no perfect parents, then the whole metaphysical system is on the rocks.
Personally, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to knowing the truth, either via the Bible or science…
How does it make the Garden of Eden a myth? How does it preclude an Adam & Eve? I’ll have to double check the language in the Bible but I don’t think it says mankind was “perfect” but rather “without Sin”. Not exactly the same thing. Also I don’t read or speak Hebrew so I can’t read the original Hebrew language. “Perfect” could be a language translation approximation don’t forget, that and languages change over time.
What made Adam and Eve perfect? The lack of the knowledge of good and evil. We also classify this as insanity now days, animals also have not concept of good and evil BTW. Do you believe God is omniscient? Do you believe He has a plan, or in “God’s will”? If so then you have to accept that God knew what Adam and Eve would do and thus deliberately placed the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden so that they would eat of it. It would have been easy enough for God to not create the Tree or to place it out of their reach. The fall of Man was God’s will as surely as Jesus’ crucifixion. He wanted us to have that knowledge, without knowing one or the other we cannot choose to be good or evil. Its about free will, and had he wanted to keep mankind without free will He certainly could have.
As you said though, I don’t think religion nor science can wholly explain everything at this time.
” Real Deal,
However, if this is true and God ’simplified’ evolution and the development of the planet… then that means the Garden of Eden is myth, Adam and Eve are myth, the talking snake is myth…
The whole reason that Jesus came to Earth was to save imperfect man… to sacrifice his perfect blood as a ransom for the perfect blood that Adam lost… If there was no Adam… if this is all evolved (even if God is involved in the evolving)… then the whole argument of Sin, imperfection and the need for Jesus ransom blood sacrifice are out the door.
The entire Bible is focused on the fulfillment of the first prophecy in Genesis. The ’seed’ that would someday bruise the serpent in the head. Abraham was selected as the progenitor of that seed and the Jewish nation became the venue for that seed. The Prophets were all focused on that Seed… the Christian Greek Scriptures are entirely about that Seed, Jesus.
If we evolved, then we had no perfect parents. If we had no perfect parents, then the whole metaphysical system is on the rocks.
Personally, I don’t think we’re anywhere close to knowing the truth, either via the Bible or science… ”
Kinda like me… I believe in the Bible as a moral guide, have faith, believe in creation, support evolution in schools and against creationism in schools and don’t know when creation occured and is agnostic on that
Also look what science is trying to do — http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Evolution-Promise-Enhancing-Bodies/dp/0767915038/ref=pd_sim_b_11
Scary isn’t it?
The term ”Post human” just freaks me out
BIG TIME
I used to take the whole science and technology replacing God, ethics and morality with a grain of salt but right now it’s pretty much becoming a reality )=
Science is starting to mess with humanity’s nature
What it means to be human
Our very souls
Why do you confuse Republicans with Conservatives?
I think that you demonstrate the problem. Your platform is the RINO Express. It is the same compassionate Conservativism that got Republicans in the mess they are in now.
The problem America has today isn’t that the Democrats are in power. The problem is those Democrats have no principals. No morals. No anything expect a calculated eagerness to steal as much money from the taxpayer as they can get away with.
Replacing them with Republicans that have no principals, no morals, just a willingness to steal as much money from the taxpayer as they can get away with is NOT an improvement.
Republicans cannot win without Conservative backing. They won’t get that backing until they express conservative values. That means no to abortion, no to Hedonist sexual practices, yes to Guns and God.
Republicans fooled conservatives in 2000. In ’04 there was a war on. In ’06 and ’08 the conservatives stayed home.
Now it is time for the Republicans to figure it out. Conservatives HAVE principals and moral values. That is what makes them conservative. Republicans will have to embrace Conservative principals to get the conservative vote. That especially includes conservative social principals.
If they don’t, then FooK’em and feed ‘em fish heads. Better Democrats then Democrats pretending to be Republicans.
I suggest they start talking about national security, and fast. And for two reasons:
1. Strategically, if the economy is better in 2010 and all the GOP has harped on is the economy, where does that leave them?
2. More importantly, national security has been one of the strong points of conservatives and it seems to be falling by the waist side. If we don’t awaken sleeping Americans on this issue, who will? If not now, when? If not soon enough, nothing else will matter.
The United States has to be very careful to protect their sovereignty. There was a tremendous push associated with Copenhagen to organize international activities under one umbrella. The European Union (EU) is feeling their oats, and Europeans, especially the French, are smugly superior in their approach to the not so sophisticated Americans. They would like nothing better than to outvote the United States and give them their comeuppance.
The Republicans need to do cost analyses of Obama’s dreams, how much bang for the buck, and concentrate on being the masters of their own destiny.
I’m a social conservative too but PLEASE highlight on FEDERALISM and STATES’s RIGHTS
America is a Republic
With forms of Democratic government
But it’s NOT a Democracy for sure
Most Americans tend to be social moderates leaning conservative with a strain of social libertarianism mixed in
Forget the all or nothing method
It will NOT work
Social liberalism may be despised but nobody likes fundamentalist social conservatism either