Posted on 02/06/2016 12:35:32 PM PST by Ohioan
There is no real litmus test for Conservatism; as should be obvious to anyone on brief reflection. Conservatism is--and always has been, as the term connotes--about preserving what one considers important, in a social, cultural, historic & genetic heritage. One person may be more focused on one aspect, another on another. There is no natural law that demands that all have the same focus--indeed, the notion flies in the face of the concept that man is Blessed with Free Will; with freedom to decide priorities--and, of course, bear the consequences.
Conservatism is about preserving social--both cultural & material, as well as spiritual, family & historic--achievement. It is not about the purity of particular stands on particular issues; not judged by an arbitrary check list; nor about the weight to be given to any particular stand, in understanding the total perspective of any subject. Attempts to redefine "conservatism," so as to measure adherence to an arbitrary litmus test, do not measure conservatism, but the subjectivity of the litmus test designer--one who, whether or not truly conservative is, at least to the extent that he deigns to measure others by so subjective a standard, clearly an egoist.
(Excerpt) Read more at truthbasedlogic.com ...
I asked that my post be removed because I felt it wasn’t in keeping with the sincere thoughts expressed by the poster. So I won’t be answering your post directly. The mods are slow today, I guess.
That might be the case if Trump had not changed his liberal positions recently. I still look at candidate records for consistency.
Patriots, please beware that ”conservativism” is a PC buzzword that arguably has nothing to do with the federal governments constitutionally limited powers.
For example, the ”conservative” front-end of the corrupt Washington cartel will tell conservative voters that the feds need to lower spending on public schools and school lunches.
But the Constitution indicates that the states have never have delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate public schooling purposes. So the feds should not be appropriating any tax dollars for such purposes.
In fact, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of 10th Amendment-protected state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, federal funding of intrastate schools for any reason not among those powers with the exception of military training.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Note that if patriots were to work with their local and state lawmakers to put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, such taxes arguably stolen state revenues, the sovereign states would not have to rely on illegal, vote-winning federal funding to support their schools.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they need to also elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.
The hundreds of articles & collected literary pieces, are fixtures.
Wise words, I hope the small group of scorched earth Cruzers read this
Cool! [96% Cruzer]
Thanks for the link.
But certainly, as I have defined "Conservatism" in the article, is precisely consistent with what you advocate. The cultural heritage is not what the Left has tried to redefine in its propaganda. The basic plan to deal with almost all of the areas that the Left has usurped to Washington, was to leave them to the States and the local subdivisions (counties & towns). Nothing is really more idiotic than efforts to transfer such clearly local concerns as education, medical treatments, morals & safety, to Washington.
Not having a clear answer, we have deliberately not weighed in on the Ted Cruz eligibility issue. There are complicating factors, which almost no one has addressed. It would be tragically ironic--yet not necessarily juridically wrong--if the candidate, who shows the clearest understanding of the Founders' philosophic perspective, were to be disqualified from serving. Our prayer is that Cruz will take Trump's advice and seek an expedited Declaratory Judgment, so we can all look forward. Our other prayer is that the supporters of each will tone down the unnecessary antagonism.
The Cruz people just cannot seem to grasp that this is an important issue that should not be avoided. I have been trying in vain to push this narrative as something they need to get involved in having Ted get clarified. Are they, including Ted, afraid of the outcome? If that is the case then they must also have deep concerns as to Ted's qualifications to become President. Ted and his supporters can claim this is a settled issue, and that includes Mark Levin whom I have the utmost respect for, it does need to become a true non-issue now and not later. It might even provide a tremendous boost to Ted's campaign. The same goes for Rubio as well.
We need a hero. Of any who find they have come this far - who might that be? We need a superman to overcome the damage done to our nation. Can one man alone accomplish all that must be done? Why fight? Join forces and become ONE, THE FORCE.
To Trump:
To Cruz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY
BonnieTyler - I Need a Hero
53% support for Hillary!!! Really?
Is this where, as a Trump supporter, I am suppose to chide you of not being a conservative, or conservative enough, LOL.
All I can say is don't let your fellow Cruz supporters get wind of this. While they won't ride you out of town on a rail, because you support Cruz, they will most likely shun you. /sarcasm
BRAVO!! I get so sick of the professional conservatives who set themselves up as some sort of Politburo of Conservative Correctness.
Though I don't know how accurate this is because next would be Ben Carson 94%, followed by Marco Rubio 92%, then Ted 90% Cruz, with Jeb Bush garnering 86%. But that is not how they stack up in my mind. which would be Trump, Cruz, Carson a distant 3rd, and Jeb & Marco hovering only slightly higher than my Clinton rating.
At least my Hillary rating came out at 37% with the Bern at 17%
I concur 100%.
Thanks for the link.
Should it be “Which Candidate side with me (the voter.)
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz
I thought it was funny. But then again I have a perverse sense of humor sometimes. At least that clears up the question I had as to why the moderators felt compelled to delete your comment.
A little bit of good joining forces can obliterate much of the evil (chokepoints - monetary/neck) that threatens the republic.
DEFUND/DEPOPULATE evil as necessary.
It's easy to
live
free republic
#18 BUMP!
The comparison is id ridiculous
Is that what you call a ‘Freudian Slip’...?
Trump is not a conservative.
And besides, I think he meant “egotist” rather than “egoist”.
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.