Posted on 03/23/2009 10:30:09 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
BY JERRY A. KANE
At what point does complacency end and panic set in for the members and leaders of the Republican Party? When will they notice the empty hour glass and recognize wickedness for what it is? The hordes of satiated simpletons shouting in rhythmic cadence, “Oh we love, the O-One … Oh we love, the O-One” is not the Winkie chant of guards entering a castle in a scene from a classic fantasy film. The ill winds of the 2006 and 2008 elections that uprooted the GOP House and Senate leadership and sent Republicans spiraling downward were not flash-in-the-pan Kansas dust devils but full-blown Category-5 whirlwinds.
The party of Ronald Reagan has been victimized by disorganized thinking, held spellbound, and led astray by the siren call for moderation from its left wing, which by nature votes for progressive governance. Before Republicans begin their assault on the castle to douse the progressive Democrats’ power grab, the party’s conservatives and libertarians, i.e., Conserva-tarians, must come out from under the spell and cast out the treacherous progressive element from the positions of power in their own ranks.
Caught up in the tidal wave of the ’94 election, Republican exuberance soon gave way to a heightened sense of self-importance; instead of governing on principles and fulfilling their Contract with America, Republicans lost their way and spent the next 12 years trying to convince the electorate that their compromises were smart, courageous, and compassionate. Now, it’s up to Conserva-tarians to rise to the occasion, accept the challenge facing them, and move the party in the direction of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
*Ping!*
Are “Conserv-atarians” also socially conservative? If so, I’m on board. But I’ve avoided the Libertarian party because they tend to be socially liberal.
Paleoping
They tend to be against the federal government getting involved in things that aren’t in the Constitution. This would leave social issues mostly to the states.
|
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals of our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." |
|
The shortest road to the objective is for the Republicans to regain their soul. The long road is the third party option. Either way it must and will happen.
It takes the CANADA FREE PRESS to tell US what is needed? Now that is a sad statement!
Limited government - dead
Individual liberty - dead
Personal Responsibility - dead
greater economic opportunity - through oppressive taxation? - nope
Respect of this nation and its heritage? - Died when God was kicked out of public schools. Now, Millions of children are indoctrinated to respect what the liberalize/Marxist view of this country is -
bookmark
In today's political climate ECONOMIC CONSEVERATIVES can and will get elected in 2010. The rest of the Conservative agenda can not be sold to a voting majority, as witnessed in the last election. FIRST you have to get elected and then maybe you can change minds!
***Republicans lost their way and spent the next 12 years trying to convince the electorate that their compromises were smart, courageous, and compassionate.***
Oh they spent alright.
Now they have no credibility in the fight against the Marxist.
I agree. The economic message needs to be articulated and sold to the public. And we can’t just rely on tax cuts; we need to throw spending cuts and sound monetary policy in there too. Right now all I hear is *that* the free market is good, not *why* it is good.
Unfortunately, I think the treacherous "progressive" republicrats might have us outnumbered.
Have you looked into the Constitution Party?
For those who are willing to ACT, not just talk:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2212701/posts
Conservatives actually showing up in large numbers to vote for GOP candidates would help too. Not stabbing the GOP President and candidates in the backs because there not Santa Claus wouldn’t hurt either.
Thanks for the heads up. I might throw a contribution her way later today.
A ping of your list to that thread would be helpful as well.
Thanks!
Conserva-tarian... is that pronounced the same way planetarium is pronounced at South Park? I’m having a problem reading it any other way.
A couple of adjustments IMO though...
"Republicans lost their way focus and spent the next 12 years trying to convince the electorate that their compromises were smart, courageous, and compassionate."
"For more than a decade, the far-left progressive movement has been advancing its socialist ideas and positions through an all-out war against conservative and libertarian principles the United States Constitution."
It is a war. It is a war that must be recognized as a war, and must be fought with great vigor. We are going to lose our country unless we recognize we are at war with internal enemies supported by international non State entities that have been fighting their war against our Nation whom doesn't appear to realize there is a war.
Bump! You can't win the game when your quarterback is playing for the other team.
"Conserva-tarian" = Libertarian/libertarian driven hogwash!
I am sick of the GOP. We need to have a strict a constitutional party. Repeal some absurd amendments. Stop foreign aid, get out of Afganistan. Get back to state rights. This government is useless and too big.
I will never again vote for a RINO. I don’t care about the ramifications of Supreme Court appointments or what else the RINO’s promise. 90% of all GOP are worthless. It is truly time (if not already too late) to get rid of this lot self serving idiots.
Is that a white flag, I'm looking at?
“... Stop foreign aid, get out of Afganistan. ...”
While I agree with you, ANY suggestion of ANY change to our foreign policy gets you immediately removed from electoral consideration.
Perfect descriptions!
Exactly! The party of Ronald Reagan has been victimized by disorganized thinking, held spellbound, and led astray by the siren call for moderation from its left wing,
Like all of the liberaltarians who want to legalize drugs, prostitution, provide greater access to pornography, legalize homosexual marriage and forget about abortion?
If you are truly against those issues, your best bet at eliminating them IS at the State level, not at the national level.
And it is too bad that no one in the GOP has told you (or any of us) that, before!
That ONLY works if you amend the Constitution to remove the interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment. So, it IS a federal issue.
Yes, I have and that is most likely where I’m headed. Irregardless if that means another Dim in the Whitehouse. Bottom line there is very little difference in the 2 parties.
***That ONLY works if you amend the Constitution to remove the interstate commerce clause and the 14th Amendment. So, it IS a federal issue.***
Not really. All you need to do is “interpret” them the way the founder’s intended (or in the 14th Amendment’s case, the drafters). The Interstate Commerce Clause was added to prevent states from enacting trade barriers such as tariffs and such against one another; it was a free trade clause among states.
AND get a FEDERAL court to agree with you and since that WILL NOT HAPPEN, your argument is moot.
Right, so I should just stop arguing for original intent. That’s a much better idea! /s
Your argument will never work in these areas.
So of most all you have stated is already allowed under the law. I agree that states need to assert their sovereignty under the constitution
It is exactly that thinking that has us where we find ourselves today. Don't expect widespread conservative support when you abandon conservative principles. Bush 43 was solidly supported by conservatives on issues where he acted like a conservative. When he acted in the middle, he did not receive strong resistance. When he governed no differently than a big-spending, open-borders liberal he received little conservative support.
What is it that you want other than blind party loyalty?
Would you kindly show us all where in the US Constitution any of these things you mention are in the legal purview of the federal government?
Every one of those issues looks like either state or personal issues, and the fedgov (including all RINO's too)is WAY overstepping its legal grounds in proposing and enacting any form of legislation, or otherwise usurping the will of the people over the level that actually HAS legal jurisdiction.
Then again, many who claim a conservative mantle are merely control freaks who don't know the difference between legal and moral. Morality must be taught from an early age, it cannot be legislated into existance, no matter how badly it is desidred.
The big question really is whether or not Conservatives abide by ‘live and let live’ for other adults or whether Conservatives want to enforce their values and standards on others.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
-------------------------------------
There is one and only one way that I can think of under this clause to ultimately prevent legally recognized "gay marriage" -- and you are not going to like it.
That is to remove "marriage" from government jurisdiction, so that it cannot decide one way or another what constitutes "a marriage".
Instead, we'd all have legal "domestic partnerships" , and leave the concept of "marriage" to priests, ministers and rabbis to interpret, individually, instead of "casting pearls (the concept of marriage) before swine (politicians). In a sense, this would be "only rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's" -- the legality of the issue, not the Sacramental nature of it.
I live in California where a bitter election battle was just fought over this very issue and it is being challenged in the courts. I don't expect the clause added to the State Constitution preventing gay marriage to hold, specifically because of the 14th Amendment. But if we had taken the concept of "marriage" out of their reach and placed it where it belonged -- with religious leaders -- to begin with, we wouldn't be having this problem.
Great point. I stand by the former and can't stand the latter.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
You mean like “economic conservative”/social liberal Arnold Schwarzenegger in California? We see now how well that turned out.
I know it’s fashionable to say one is economically conservative but socially and morally liberal. However, ultimately the social and moral liberalism always leads to economic liberalism/statism/socialism.
Good discussion on this topic here-
“Why Moral Conservatism Is Indispensable to Liberty.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2208536/posts
Interstate Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment among other places.
Many small-l libertarian are socially conservative but check their activism at the door in oredr to reduce the size and scope of the state from meddling in the business of others. I've got no problems with dope smokers and same sex couple but I know a whole lot of So-Cons that abhor the behaviors so much, they're willing to want to legislate. How these people are pro-liberty is beyond me.
Actually, you were responding to wagglebee’s points, but I agree with you.
Standing ovation!!!!!!!
You just said it all!
The base listened to the din of Katrina, wiretaps, torture, Plame, inside job!, and were cowed. The most vocal put on fronts of righteous indignation and a lot of people stayed home.
As a result we have the O-man, who has spent more in the past 60 days than all 8 years of Bush's extra spending. The protections of the unborn are being undone as we speak. Gun rights are in jeopardy. The military is on the verge of being gutted. Not to mention the fact that the economy is being taxed and regulated to death, The dollar is becoming a joke. Diplomatically, we're making fools of ourselves. And our children are headed for a life of forced service.
Great plan - throwing the election to an avowed commie in the hopes of reforming and winning the future great battle. I hope it works.
I’ve attempted to argue this point with folks on this board for a long time.
I’ve finally come to the conclusion, advanced succintly on the blog “Classical Values”, that many conservatives have about as much respect for the Constitution as the vast majority of liberals, i.e., none. In the service of some noble goal, both conservatives and liberals will run rough-shod over the Constitution (witness the Schiavo case; likewise, witness the War on Drugs, which still enjoys considerable support among social conservatives).
Generally, liberals tend to favor a form of “economic socialism”: the use of the State to enforce economic justice through regulation, taxation, and/or confiscation. Conservatives tend to favor a form of “moral socialism”: the use of the State to enforce moral codes, such as the banning of abortion, the banning of gay marriage, extensive regulations on pornography, etc.
For government to “leave us alone” will require the People of this country to learn, once and for all, that government is the answer to nothing: “that government is best which governs least.”
Precisely! I don’t want to hear any of these turncoats’ whining when the man they helped elect turns his brown shirts loose against them.
The main fault of the conservative movement is that it is just as likely to seek government solutions to the problems it perceives in society as the left is. Consequently, there is currently no major party that believes in limited and restrained government across the board. Too bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
