Posted on 03/18/2008 8:24:59 AM PDT by kc8ukw
I’m a lifelong Republican. You should be reaching out to disaffected conservatives — if you have any hopes of electing Bob Dole 2.0... err, McCain.
Y’know the way some people here argue politics, one might conclude the Top40 radio broadcast the best music available.
Bahhh! Standing apart from the crowd is scary. Bahhh!
“You should be reaching out to disaffected conservatives — if you have any hopes of electing Bob Dole 2.0... err, McCain.”
I’ll let them make their own choice UNCOERCED, unlike the Paulbots who think it’s their choice and their choice only that counts.
In terms of national defense, drugs, abortion, lavender “marriage”, twelvesomes with space aliens and what not, as well as on the borders fantasies, paleoPaulie or John the Traitor: No real difference except some occasional meaningless rhetoric. Unlike paleoPaulie, John the Traitor probably believes that the fedgov has some business maintaining lighthouses, highways and an Air Force but that tax cuts for anyone will be the end of us.
You are a lot more optimistic (from the Obama anti-American point of view) as to Obama's chances than most Americans are right now. Hussein Osama bin Obama is a very talented doubletalker but the issues of his connections to William Ayres, Bernardine (the SDS queen) Doehrn, his racist and anti-American pastor, and the federal corruption trial in Chicago of Reczko (sp.?) his finance guy, suggest that you will be spending election night watching McCain win. Ooops, there I go again using those complicated multiple clause sentences when I KNEW you were a libertoonian!
Apparently you scare all too easily which may explain your support for El Run Paulie.
For someone who touts tactics and logic, you also seem rather blase about leftist judges cramming their agendas (like baby-killing and lavender perversion posing as marriage) down our throats and our letting them continue to get away with it either by failing to appoint judges with conservative backbones or by letting SOME of the states outlaw these atrocities and SOME of the states become Meccas for them. It is not unreasonable to assume that libertoonian airheads (not Doris Gordon or John Walker or Libertarians for Life) actually prefer to keep the abortion mills in business and to bless perversions as though they could be the basis for marriage.
The United States and not the individual states must be in charge of wars, foreign policy and the raising, funding and deployment of the military, the coining of money (it would be nice if they actually coined specie instead of printing greenies), interstate commerce, and a few other of the actual purposes of the 1787 convention.
You reference the republic as though it were a false god and some apparently believe in republic worship. I don't. The best form of government was Christendom. Monarchy is not a total failure. Democracy has merits. Republics and representative republics have their defenders. Whatever resulted in 50 million abortions allegedly under the "rule of law" needs drastic revision.
Do you take your marching orders on the limits of authority of Congress from the Constitution, or the Vatican?
Apparently but it is true nonetheless. Even the paleobirdbrain understands the significance of getting less than 5% of the overall primary vote.
OK...while I can agree with you that Ron Paul's foreign policy prescriptions are out of touch with reality, what you state above is inaccurate.
Paleoconservatism, including a large dose of isolationism, is what conservatism largely was prior to the progressive movement and the New Deal, and has been a shrinking faction of conservatism since.
Heck, Russell Kirk was more or less a paleoconservative. He even opposed the Gulf War.
Now, whether Ron Paul is truly a paleoconservative is arguable, as he has many libertarian views, some of which are opposed to paleoconservative views.
God comes first regardless of what nation a Christian may inhabit. There were Christians in the old ussr and in nazi germany and now in the European Union and in red china. There were also many Christians in ancient Rome but we Catholics buried the Roman Empire long ago. We will also be here when the USA is over with. This nation in which we live made an important compromise at the enactment of the First Amendment. We will have, as Catholics, our Masses and our sacraments and all that you have referenced whether anyone anti-Catholic likes it or not and NOTHING in the constitution or our laws suggests that the government itself would suggest otherwise. If you happen to be an atheist or an agnostic, or of some other faith, you are protected too.
I think that Pope Benedict XVI (on Church matters as pope) is infinitely superior as an authority to tyhe likes of Nancy Facelift, Bawney Fwank, Ted the Swimmer, John the Traitor and their ilk. So sue me.
If Congress or the constitution violate God's Law, then Congress and the constitution will just have to yield and that can be accomplished by any means necessary.
Though I and the catechism would disagree with the Vatican's criticism of the Iraq War, the catechism amply demonstrates that the decision as to just war MUST be that of civil authority which always has sperior information and intelligence available and that civil authority is directly answerable to God.
I take no marching orders whatsoever from Congress, constitution or courts when they directly violate the natural law.
I don't know for sure but your quote beginning with 1842 looks like something Cranmer might have written. You may recall that he was burned at the stake under good Queen Mary during her unfortunately brief reign. If you don't care for "papists", too bad. We are here and we aren't going anywhere else. We vote and we tend not to vote for paleomoonbats.
Even in England (despite very poor "Catholic" leadership like Cormac Cardinal McCarthy and his predecessor) there are and have been for decades more churchgoing Catholics than churchgoing Anglicans in England.
Get back to us when the USA is 1975 years old as the Roman Catholic Church is.
It seems to be a general term in the context used. The quote is from Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, written in 1833.
Your "New Conservativism" doesn't appear to be anything "new" at all. It was around before the founding of the republic, and addressed at the outset.
The third paragraph of your post starting with the unimaginable word "paleoconservatism" is straight out of the Rockford Institute playbook and consistent with antiwar.com and with Justin(e) Raimondo (the pacifist lavender queen) and with Llewellyn Rockwell and the rest of the moonbats. Their tribe has included the atheist Sam Francis who was fired by the Washington Times for addressing a neo-nazi conference and then went on to edit the newspaper of the "Conservative" Citizens' Councils, a direct successor to the old White Citizens' Councils of Mississippi (transplanted to and renamed in Missouri to protect the guilty).
Paleowhateverism had the good grace to disappear just about altogether as the obsolete hodgepodge of ideological eccentricities of which it consists.
Russell Kirk was undoubtedly a fine man but, even though he converted at the end, it is hard to imagine him as either mainstream conservative or as a particularly exciting political inspiration. He was an eccentric of occasional wisdom (such as the concept of the importance of "permanent things" to a society or as an advocate of higher education being conducted in small enough venues to provide for the possibility of actual learning and an intimate intellectual environment as opposed to what he rightfully referenced as Behemoth State University).
I was initially persuaded by Catholics who attend the Tridentine Masses here (when I knew them back in Connecticut) that the first Gulf War was unnecessary. Then I came to my senses and remembered that even if Saddam Hussein was protective of Catholicism in Iraq, we really did not need him taking over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and then maybe Iran. If anyone is going to do that, the need for cheap gasoline and heating fuel dictates that the hegemon be us. Uday and Kucay were also persuasive reasons for that war and we ventilated both.
I am ordinarily no fan of David Frum but his demolition of the "paleos" in an April 2004 (?) issue of National Review pins the tail on the paleos and their very short history.
Note that this entire post does not reference racism or antiSemitism directly but neither are strangers to "paleo" ranks.
Today's "paleos" have the nerve to suggest that their lineage goes back to America First, Lindberg, McCormack and John Flynn. Baloney! America First folded its tent within one day after Pearl Harbor. Lindberg even begged successfully for a military commission to fly for the US Army Air Corps in the war (only allowed late in the war).
"Paleos" (and few others) are generally allergic to the progressive movement which is the reason why one suspects that you are reading their stuff and being influenced.
In any event, God less you and yours.
"Progressive" is what they're dressing up "socialism" as these days.
Actually, I am a conservative. It is the paleobirdbrains (and the editors of the Nation and the New Republic) who came up with the common tactic (you should pardon the expression) of calling actual conservatives "neo"conservatives or "New" conservatives. They all wish that actual conservatism would go away since it is a fighting political faith that has generally humiliated them all for about thirty years recently. Properly used, "neoconservatives" are LBJ liberals (mostly elderly NYC intellectuals now) who fled the Demonratic Party when it was seized by McGovernite communists in 1972. Most are dead now.
Since Frank Meyer's useful 1950s concept of "fusionism" there has been no meaningful division among actual conservatives only the wish list of its enemies that the "paleos" be viewed as "conservative" to be convenient punching bags and to suggest a non-existent or irrelevant division (despite paleoPaulie's abysmal primary showing as the candidate most liked at Berserkley for his antiAmericanism.
That is because the “socialist” or more accurately Marxist-Leninist and left-leaning division of antiAmericans would like to avoid the obvious stigma just like the neo-Neville Chamberlains and constitutional eccentrics of “paleoism” would like to avoid obvious characterizations by calling themselves “paleoconservatives” when they have not a conservative idea in their vacant heads. They are not fans of our military or of our allies such as Israel or of the US itself for that matter, genuflect before America’s enemies, obediently put Al Qaeda’s talking points out as their own, create irrelevant distractions over their curious views of what passes for “constitutionalism,” are not offended by sodomy posing as “marriage” or by mass murder of babies. AND they have the nerve to claim to be some eccentric form of conservative.
Thankyou for your learned opinion.
You are welcome. Any time.
I don't see any reason your claims of being "progressive" shouldn't be subject to the same standard.
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.