Posted on 06/10/2006 6:20:18 AM PDT by FerdieMurphy
Conservative Republicans held such hopes when Pres. Bush was heralded into office and the Republicans gained control of the Congress. That was then, this is now.
According to recent polls, conservative republicans are perplexed by the non-conservative actions of this president and the Republican-controlled Congress.
As I probed this latest confusion I found that I, and millions of other citizens, are f-o-s-s-i-l-s. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia online, we are "Paleo" or "Old" conservatives. We are living fossils, 'about-to-become-extinct' hangers-on of the Grand Old Party which no longer appears to represent traditional conservatism.
The Republican Party in its essentials has been taken over by a mutation. Wikipedia describes this line of thought as "Neo" or "New Wave" conservatism. It's tenets are not really new, just enjoined by present-day politicians and citizens as the direction our nation should pursue. But it is contrary to many basic "Paleocon" principles.
"Paleocons" believe in the principles of limited government, limited spending and borrowing, limited intervention into citizens' lives, and states' rights. They also believe in restraint of foreign entanglement, a strong national defense and traditional family values
"Neocons" believe in an agressive foreign policy, empiric intervention in other nations to spread democracy, and global economic-trade policies. Weak on domestic policies, they lack emphasis on national issues. Their vision includes motivating our nation towards what I believe Pres. Bush's father referred to as the "New World Order." Include growth of government and overspending too.
Sound familiar? Now we know why the media refers to Pres. Bush and his administration as "Neocons." Many congressional Republicans belong in this catagory too.
The Republican-controlled Congress has acted and evolved in accordance with the mutant Neocon concept of overspending and overgrowing government, ignoring the burgeoning National and Public Debt approaching $40-60 trillion, most of it owned by foreign investors.
Recent crises and scandals such as social security, medicare, tax reform, earmarks, budget deficits, illegal aliens and gasoline prices gain the media spotlight for a few days or weeks. Then they seem to fade away, crammed together on the "we'll deal with you later"shelf. Always later.
My wake-up call came the morning I woke up to Howard Dean saying, "The first thing we want is tough border control, we have to do a much better job on our borders than George Bush has done." Though I knew this was blatant political rhetoric, it was shocking because I completely agreed with him.
Pres. Bush and the Congress have ignored domestic security of our homeland, borders and ports — until it was raised by the people! But if I agree with a liberal democrat, that does not a democrat make.
It is clear that the Grand Old Party has evolved and mutated which leaves a large conservative group, the Paleocons, scratching their heads and wondering what happened? I, for one, feel isolated from the GOP. The Party has entombed the Paleocons on the sidelines, bleached fossils, puzzled eyes peering at the GOP's total embrace of Neo-conservatism.
There is excited talk about Congress gearing up and acting on a few issues before the upcoming elections so they won't lose voters. I've got news for them. They have already lost citizens like this old fossil, who have reflected on the last five years of non-conservative actions.
Where's the limits on spending, limits on growth in government, adherence to the U.S. Constitution? Where's the traditional values and seeking the good of the nation as a whole instead of the corruptive influence of special interests? Yes, there are a few "Paleocons" in Congress but they are not listened to nor even heard amongst the clamor of "Neocons" and "Liberals" calling each other names.
I am a living fossil as are million of citizens, which brings me to the point. Where's the party that speaks to my conscience? I am past that retort: "Oh no! you must vote Republican or the Democrats will win!" Oh Please! I say — so what? Has it made any difference?
The Grand Old Party appears to have accepted this "Neocon" mutation, to move towards a world economy policy, open borders and the "New World Order." Why would I, this old fossil of white-bleached bones, vote for any republican candidate? No longer does the Republican Party speak to or for my "conscience."
As for this Paleocon, I am searching for a party that matches my "conscience." This is the one freedom citizens still have in this country — a citizen's privilege and responsibility to vote his or her "conscience." This old fossil takes this duty seriously.
2. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.Clearly with the Southerner's shelling U.S. property, such as its forts, this was rebellion, clearly endangering Public Safety...and it was outright theft besides.
In fact this is really where the confederacy theory falls down big time, and that is the notion that they were freely sovereign still after having entered into the Constitution. They had exchanged that for union, which offered more. And the new states had been purchased by the U.S. via the Louisiana Purchase...or outright conquest from Mexico, and had defended at its cost of treasure and blood the Southwest acquisitions from the Army of Santa Anna.
They owed their very existence to the creation of the Federal government, and can never have been said to have had an prior independent sovereignty...with the lone exception of Texas, and yet Texas, too, was seriously beholden to the U.S.A.
The thinking that they could go their merry way without acquiescence by the U.S., or owed it nothing, shows the level of parochial self-rationalization that had taken hold.
2. The National Review printed scrawl by Deroy Murdock telling us that homosexualizing the military is a good idea: therefore the conservative position is that homosexualizing the military is a good idea?
3. There is more to the debate than foreign policy. Domestic policy looms large and the current crowd is wrong about nearly (spending, immigration, retaining Clinton institutional devolutions) everything.
2. This conservative thinks that homosexuals can serve usefully as bullet catchers in the front lines as long as they refrain from molesting fellow soldiers and know their place. I never read that article of Murdock's. National Review is far wiser than Chronicles but not quite infallible.
3. To update a famous saying of Ronaldus Maximus regarding the soviets and applying it to islamofascisti as another enemy of the USA, teach your children to speak Arabic and to worship at your local mosque. They will need these skills in case the paleopantywaists ever wind up running the military and foreign policy of the USA. This is the legacy that paleos are advancing.
4. I know that I am in the minority around here on the immigration but I don't feel one bit threatened by the influx of more socially conservative folks from south of our border coming here for a better life. In about three generations when they recover from their anger at the ignorance opposing their entry to our country, we will discover that they are far more valuable to America than Junior Leaguers, polo pony obsessives, paleopantywaists or coupon clippers. Not only are Latinos less likely to sit still for abortion or homosexuality or other perversions but they show a marked willingness to join our military and to fight in our wars. Even such despicables as Planned Barrenhood Pete Wilson respect those last two items. He said so on C-SPAN just this morning on Washington Journal.
5. Spending????? You can't be serious. I would certainly vote to cut spending if I were in Congress but neither you nor I will live long enough to see actual cuts. We live in a country in which liberal suggest a 50% increase in spending for any program, federal, state, local, interplanetary or whatever and when conservatives trim the increase to a 40% increase, the Demonrats and the pseudoGOP Mugwumps scream that the program is being slashed to the bone. Like St. Francis of Assisi, pray for the fortitude to accomplish what you can, the sense to refrain from wasting energy and resources on unattainable goals and the wisdom to know the difference.
6. What on earth is a "Clinton institutional devolution???" It has the word Clinton in it and so I probably agree with you on this but I'd like to know what I am agreeing with.
7. Paleos are also moonbatici maximi.
8. I note that you seem not to notice Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as relevant to domestic policy. Two more justices of that sort would do more for legitimate domestic agendas of conservatism than would ten thousand congressional votes on spending bills.
9. On spending, just you wait until the imminent retirement of baby boomers (and they vote) because, as jazz singer Al Jolson used to say, you ain't seen nothin' yet. We will probably see travelcare to guarantee all expense paid vacations for aging boomers, poochicare for their pets paid for by those still working, entertainmentcare to cover the rising cost of movie tickets and popcorn, snugglecare to provide federal, ummmm, COYOTE sex workers to tend to the, ummmm, needs, of, ummmm, seasoned citizens otherwise unindulged and the establishment of the tomb end of womb-to-tomb everything.
10. Babykilling and fudgie make-believe "marriage" are domestic concerns. So is each additional moment of gummint misedjamakashun. So are special laws for special people. So are "fisting" classes in gummint skewels. The prudent recognize that money may not be the root of all evil but it is also not everything. Of course, we will all be upset when the shuttered no-tell motel in town is acquired by the Board of Miseducation as the new, ummmm, "hands-on" performance laboratory for a dramatically expanded sex education program.
11. AND, ummm, even if there IS more to the debate than foreign policy, how many 9/11s do you think we should endure before using the military to kick some anti-American patoot?????
Our Founding Fathers were quite literate and capable men. They might have prohibited secession but they did not. Subsequent to the effective date of the constitution, they got around to enacting the Bill of Rights which in the Ninth Amendment reserved to the states and the people respectively those rights unenumerated and in the Tenth Amendment prohibited to the federales such powers as were NOT specifically granted to the federales (like forcing departing states back into the Union, by God or otherwise, whether they agree or not). After secession, those states were no longer in the Union and no longer governed by the constitution and the federal claims to Fort Sumter, South Carolina, and to Fort Pickens, Florida, were hostile acts of foreign occupation. All of the rest of the forts, military supplies, etc., previously belonging to the federales were turned over by the Buchanan administration to southern state militias in anticipation of secession and the attorney general in that Buchanan administration was later Lincoln's Secretary of War: Edwin M. Stanton.
William Wallace was not guilty of treason. His nation was Scotland. Neither were the Confederates guilty of treason once secession was accomplished. Note that Jefferson Davis was NEVER PROSECUTED. To the best of my knowledge no one was prosecuted for treason for being a Confederate official.
Imagine, if you will, Slick Willie being tried before a DC federal jury. Do you think he would have been convicted regardless of the facts? OTOH, imagine that Karl Rove had been indicted and tried before a DC federal jury. I think he would have been convicted regardless of the facts. Well, the federal jury that would have had to have been impaneled to try Jeff Davis would have acquitted him in a Richmond second. Likewise, Robert E. Lee, James Longstreet, Alexander Stephens, and the surviving better men who ran the Confederacy. Depending on the facts at Fort Pillow, the feds might have convicted Nathan Bedford Forrest before a Kentucky federal jury.
Lest you imagine otherwise, I welcome the manumission of the slaves but can find no constitutional warrant whatsoever for Lincoln's actions in attacking those states which had formerly been members of the Union.
Finally, you may recall that the Articles of Confederation were the federal constitution before the present constitution. Read them and see that UNANIMITY of the states was required to change them in any way. Read the histories of the Mount Vernon Conference and the Annapolis Conference which, ostensibly called to deal with navigation issues affecting Maryland and Virginia as to the Potomac River, were actually planning sessions to trash the Articles of Confederation in favor of more centralized power to serve commerce, raise taxes, create exclusive federal power over the minting and evaluation of money, establish military power centrally and protect business receivables from such acts as were being perpetrated by the legislature of the Commonwealth of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. The constitution is in force but it was never legally enacted.
The argument of Lincoln was that the Confederate states could not leave the Union. If that were so, why did it take acts of Congress to "re-admit" them, including an utterly illegal requirement that the Confederate states actually ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments as a "condition" of "re-admission." If I remember correctly, the blockade of the southern ports was illegal (under well-established international and maritime law) if the war were a civil war or war of rebellion and were legal only if imposed on a recognized foreign nation in a state of belligerence.
Personally, I never had much zest for a war with communist Outer Mongolia but Castro's Cuba is another matter.
They will. It will give them ample opportunity to do they one thing they love the most, bitch and complain.
Yes, since I am one of those mislabeled "neo" and my only use for United Nations facilities is as a target for aerial bombardment. You guys have to get out into the real world and stop listening only to each other. I never met either a globalist or a paleopantywaist in the conservative movement and I was very involved in most of that movement local, state and national.
I guess that's two things. :)
See "Rebellion." Triggered the Presidential powers necessary to put down. Those Founding Fathers were indeed quite literate and capable men.
See U.S. v. Greathouse, 26 Federal Cases 18 (1863). From Frontpage magazine:
The second case, in the Supreme Court of the United States, occurred in 1863, and arose out of the Civil War:
On the fifteenth day of March, 1863, the schooner J. M. Chapman was seized in the harbor of San Francisco, by the United States revenue officers, while sailing, or about to sail, on a cruise in the service of the Confederate States, against the United States; and the leaders . . . [including Greathouse] were indicted . . . for engaging in, and giving aid and comfort, to the then existing rebellion against the government of the United States.[xiv]
And you are blind, biased, and boring.
Arrowhead>>>---RINOS-->
BLATANT lie? Then, why do you in your next sentence say that "SOME" of it is true? There is nothing true about a blatant lie.
You are obviously a NEOCON!
The principles which constitute freedom are intrinsically connected to national identity and security. REMEMBER, 9/11, heck, both World Trade Center bombings never happened until we started compromising national security for open border trade policies. YOU KNOW as well as I that the greed of the financial/industrial cartels have created these policies and the NEOCONS are the puppets compromising long-held principles of Liberty, which has provided a purdy darn secure American until the STUPID Neocons took over.
Ah heck....you are not worth my time...
Arrowhead>>>---Rightwing Nutcase-->
You did not think of that on your own, now did you? You sound like the mainstream media idiots.
And who says we have to "shut our eyes?" You? And who says that the ONLY other option is ISOLATIONISM? Man, will you people wake up! This kind of thinking is stupid and NARROW. We CAN tell the "New World Order" to go to hell and still maintain positive relations with other countries while securing our own.
The fact is, we have compromised our moral fortitude in the name of trade. At one time, we would not trade with counties that did not espouse the principles of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." Non, we trade with every Tom, Dick, & Harry and BELIEVE that this is the only way to "World Peace?" SPARE ME! Dealing with the DEVIL is a betrayal to the Hand of Providence.
I get SICK of hearing you so-called conservatives throwing ISOLATIONISM as the only option against what the NEOCONS are destroying as the last vestiges of what was truly a great nation. THINK! DAMN IT!
So, go ahead all you "Republicans." Throw away all your freedom for what you perceived to be a secure world. The world is LESS secure now than in the history of man. The fact is, while you all are being fooled into this false sense of security, the author of this thread is seeing things AS THEY REALLY ARE.
Anyone who defends the direction the so-called Republicans are taking us as a defense of long-espoused principles which has been rewarded from the Hand in Providence are BLIND and STUPID! PERIOD!
Arrowhead>>>---Stupid republicans-->
HEAR!!! HERE!!!
...you just don't unnerstan' "Pee-numbras and Emm-inn-ayshuns."
Both parties are awashed with greed, dependency, economic slavery, and death. Unfortunately, you fail to understand the very Constitution for which you raised your arm to the square to defend. How could you have taken an oath for something you understand not? And if you DO understand it, then why do you support a man, a President, I guess, who has violated more constitutional prescriptions than even that stupid womanizer Clinton?
George Washington warned us of blind loyalties to political paties and said they would lead to our nations demise. He was right! He IS right!
Arrowhead>>>---Both Parties-->
P.S. There is an answer to him StrongBlackWoman
You might try investigating the Independent American Party.
http://www.usiap.org
Their platform is great, but their name says it all for me.
Arrowhead>>>---two-party system-->
Never rely on Wikidpedia. The district had changed. Kirk's district now encompasses the much of Rumsfeld's old territory as well as that of Abner Mikva. IL continues to lose representation, thus while the district number remains the same the territory does not.
You seem to have serious problems with reading things in context. If you are still in elementary school, that would be understandable. However, I somehow doubt that, so any attempt to clarify this would be useless as you couldn't comprehend it. Have a nice day.
Actually, you are just overwhelmingly stupid and/or a liar.
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.