Posted on 12/31/2015 11:28:34 AM PST by Isara
“If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism…The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” – Ronald Reagan
We’re entering an unusual time in politics. It used to be conservatism versus liberalism; that was the standard by which everything was judged. There was little to no nuance within the two groups. I’m not saying that was incorrect. For the time, it was perfectly appropriate. Now, however, we’ve become a less homogenous voting public. We’ve become fractured–and that’s not a bad thing. This fracturing has revealed to us who people really are.
There was a time when I believed Rick Santorum was a conservative. The problem with this belief is that it’s too broad. There are aspects of Santorum’s policy that are conservative, but his overall political belief system is not conservative.
Rick Santorum is a theocrat.
This fact was made clear when the former Senator appeared on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show” Monday, and attacked Ted Cruz for being too constitutional. Yes. Your eyes do not deceive you.
Here’s the exact quote from Santorum:
“Most of the social conservative votes are going to Cruz and Trump, neither of which are particularly strong social conservatives. I mean, Donald Trump has never been a social conservative up until the last few months. And Ted Cruz takes the position of very much the Tenth Amendment and State's rights, you know, which is sort of a Rand Paul/Ron Paul position.”
Uh, what?
Specifically referencing gay marriage and marijuana legalization, Santorum said:
“[Cruz] doesn’t agree with it but he’s not going to fight it…That’s not what people are looking for. They’re looking for someone who has a very clear vision of what’s right and what’s wrong and be able to lay that vision out for the American people.”
Ted Cruz is a constitutional conservative, and as such, he believes strongly in the Tenth Amendment, which says that the powers not enumerated to the federal government are to be left to the states. It’s a powerful amendment that was designed to protect Americans from federal overreach. Given this belief, Ted Cruz has stated numerous times that while he is personally opposed to gay marriage and marijuana legalization, it’s a question that must be left up to the states, per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Now, for Rick Santorum, this is a bad thing. He believes that the federal government should dictate these decisions. This is in defiance of the Tenth Amendment–but he doesn’t care. He wants to use his authority–were he to have it–to impose his will on the entirety of the American people. Even if the majority of Americans were in favor of gay marriage, he would have it banned on a federal level.
I’m as socially conservative as they come, but I understand that there are certain things that cannot and must not be decided federally. I also understand that there is good reason for this rule. Overabundant centralized power never works out; it metastasizes, and eventually strangles the people. The Tenth Amendment is a wall protecting us from the wolves of federal aggression. As a constitutional conservative, I can look at the issue of gay marriage and know that while I may personally oppose it, it is not the role of the federal government to make the call as to whether or not it is legally recognized.
This is one of the differences among conservatives that has been made exceedingly clear this election cycle. Some running are constitutional conservatives, while others are theocrats. Some are status quo Republicans, while some are hybrids.
A constitutional conservative is what we need. We’ve moved so far away from what the Founders designed that we need someone who will take us back to our original framework. Ted Cruz is that person. Rick Santorum is a theocrat, and he has a right to be a theocrat, but to castigate Ted Cruz for not being conservative enough is ludicrous.
I guess polling at 0.5% makes one mad.
Challenge ME all you want. It’s challenging the Lord that’s the risk for you.
God isn’t going to let Himself get reduced to what the bible calls “rules taught by men.” Even the most conscientious men, let alone those pressing some kind of identifiable earthly agenda, are not going to be able to carry this off. It has to be a Spirit guided enterprise. And it’s going to be impartial to all. Cooperate and God brings you into the reward. Buck and God leaves you out in relative cold till you get the hint.
All you gotta do is trash anyone not of the bastardized ‘church’ of Hitek/his ‘gospel’ and you shall be forgiven.
In his zeal to damn the ‘sinners’ he forgets his church is populated by himself and his ‘god’ isn’t one actual Christians would recognize.
One need only to look through his post history to see how far his preaching is from actual doctrine to see it clearly.
I do like his take on the RC faith though, since it gave birth to the rest. Entertaining but so is he.
I think more people must be checking out that history and finding out the truth...from what I’ve seen lately, anyway.
They should. Then they can make an informed decision about his ‘Christianity’ and his credibility. He has no issue with spouting it and words mean things/actions have consequences.
The fewer CANCERvatives that can hide in broad daylight, the better for America.
I’ll try post 53 in a few hours......maybe by then I’ll be drunk enough to figure it out....
Hardly surprising, seeing that Santorum is a Latin (in the sense that the most scrupulous among us Orthodox use the word to not credit the claim of the adherents of the Papal Throne of Rome with their claim to catholicity).
I think Santorum is upset that Cruz would allow the states to have their traditional say on moral matters, rather than using the same concentration of power in the Federal government that now assaults traditional morals to enforce a one-size-fits-all version of traditional morals on the country as a whole. Maybe Santorum should review the notion of subsidiarity in his church's social teaching, and remember that the old notion that "error has no rights" has been replaced with the realization that those who hold errors do have rights. The use of Federal power to enforce a one-size-fits-all policy of any sort (leaving aside in foreign affairs) is the negation of subsidiarity.
I’d help you out, but I’m a lightweight, and I think it’s gonna take more than two glasses.
the old notion that "error has no rights" has been replaced with the realization that those who hold errors do have rights.
I don't think that's a replacement so much as a clarification. (I've speculated - with, of course, no evidence possible - that the Pope who wrote the former humanly intended the latter but was steered away from it by Divine intervention.)
I’ll add to post 53 Ted Cruz’s vote for the Corker Amendment and his support for TPA/TPP both those things are in pure violation of the Constitution and undermines our National Sovereignty.
Eternal Vigilance is more of a constitutionalist than Ted Cruz could ever be in ten life life Times.
That absurd statement needs some back up from you.......or else I’ll file is under D for dumb and ignore.
you clearly don’t understand Corker, TPA versus TPP - I mean you are LOST on that one...you also don’t understand TARP, Stimulus, Auto bail outs, Universal Care, or a lot of other things.
Stop before you hurt yourself.
I take note that you had absolutely no response to any of my well-thought out, succinctly-expressed, well-grounded reasons for not supporting the Senator.
Well, aside from the juvenile, specious personal attacks, that is.
Points 1,2,3 and 5 were just absurd and ludicrous....point 4 I believe is a misunderstanding on your part......and I would not agree that it was well thought out or succinct or well grounded. And it wasn’t Non support, it was sliming.
Well, lookey here EV, You and me in disagreement - Probably for the first time ever.
1. His enthusiastic support for immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” and other regulatory bills which violate the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendment’s explicit equal protection and due process requirements and encode governmental permission to kill babies, all of the babies, as long as they are killed on schedule, or by some arbitrary set of man-made rules.
I agree with you in spirit - You know my views on this issue mirror yours - Outside of the obvious religious reasons, my main argument for Life has always been Equal Protection, heavy toward 'Due Process/Just Cause' - Thus, in my mind you are precisely right.
Providing increment, structure, and definitions, by the nature of the argument, assumes (takes for granted) that life is a right the government can legitimately take away, thus by inference, it declares the government to be the giver/owner of the right in the first place - A grave abuse to the Constitution and the DOI.
However, In committing to the Pro-Life movement, I recognize that the coalition formed therein is composed of somewhat diverse views. The concern of some of those folks leans more toward saving babies (go figure, eh?) than dwelling on the letter of the law. In that:
1.) I understand that differences exist and that Cruz's view fall well in the right of an already rightly bent organization... His is a decidedly Pro-Life view.
2.)I recognize that the definition and increment already exist in the present form of abortion law - and that Cruz's view drives that current criteria vastly to the right, and in the process, causes life to be protected sooner for many children at risk...
3.) And since the damage is already done (criteria already presently established) tinkering with the criteria is not adding injury - and if we ever get a court or a congress willing to address the issue head on, these new criteria perish with the overturning. It does not provide further damage or risk, and will certainly save lives.
The only downside to supporting Cruz in this endeavor is to provide a more comfortable point of justification. As people are more comfortable, it becomes harder to make them willing to address the letter of the law - which I fully admit must necessarily be addressed. But saving babies ultimately is the point, and I will give this one to Cruz.
2. His constitutional republic-destroying judicial supremacist views.
I am not well versed in his position here, although I see where you are coming from - Considering his long association with the court, and that his fame is largely derived therein, I can understand his preference. However, my question to you would be, since Cruz is by far the most federalist oriented candidate that has been on the horizon in my lifetime, Can you set aside your disdain for an idea that is already the mainstream view, in order to get things done wrt state sovereignty? IOW, in the trade off, Judicial supremacy already exists in the mind of legislators... So it is not adding any insult to injury... but we gain a powerful positioning for Federalism... If we can't fix it all anyway, is it worth the trade to fix some of it?
3. His pro-choice for states position on marriage.
Again, is the glass half empty or half full? My argument against his position is harm to reciprocity - But it also puts a tourniquet on the states' wound - If it can be done, within months all of flyover country will have passed laws preventing further erosion on the subject of gay marriage. It isn't the right fix - Congress should be jealous for their authority and impeach it's way through the courts with abandon- That's the proper fix (and only real fix). It will not stop until judges fear for their position. But, it is a fix, and will stop the bleeding. Is that worth a nod?
4. His horrid tax plan, which retains the federal income tax, while piling an insidious value-added tax in on top of it.
Oh, that's not good. Can you give me some links? I thought he was a flat tax/ fair tax guy... Won't work if you leave income tax, or any other tax in place, they'll just raise both and grab more.
5. His support for the continuation of the unconstitutional treasury-busting, posterity-robbing centerpiece socialistic programs of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society.
That's rather too broad a statement to comment upon. Is it your position that Cruz is big gov then? Because I find that hard to believe.
I am more than inclined to support Cruz - He is not perfect. He's too young, with a pretty short record. He doesn't have much for DefCons... But even with his shortened resume, he is by far and away the most Conservative thing we've seen in a long, long time. I am rather disinclined to pass that up.
Take your time in replying - It's Shabbat, and I really shouldn't be wading around in politics at all... I will await/attend your reply in the evening or on the morrow...
Shabbat Shalom, brother.
Ted Cruz’s and Rand Paul’s Strange Embrace of the VAT
Ted Cruz’s “Business Flat Tax:” A Primer
Ted Cruz’s “Business Flat Tax” is what most tax policy experts would call a “tax-inclusive subtraction-method value-added tax” (VAT) or a “business transfer tax” (BTT).
http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ted-cruz-s-business-flat-tax-primer
It’s facts. Facts you obviously aren’t equipped to handle.
You don’t understand how damaging the Cruz position, and the position of the rest of these “leaders” of the GOP, is on life. What it amounts to, time and time again, is the surrender of the only real moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion on demand.
It’s been tried over and over for four decades, and it has accomplished nothing, except to further embed permission to commit abortions into our statutes.
Those who continue down this failed path are really telling you that they will do nothing of any substance to end the abortion holocaust.
They aren’t facts...they are mostly opinions and mostly not just wrong, but absurd. You don’t seem to understand how legisltaion works.
It is what it is. Learn to deal with reality. You are on the one hand destroying yourself in the purity of your own irrelevance while on the other giving massive quarter denying your self professed principles. The intellectual dishonesty is just staggering.
(CNSNews.com) - “If I’m elected in November 2016, I hope to lead the effort to...preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare for decades going forward,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Thursday....
...”The reforms I would like to see — and I’m campaigning on fundamental reform to preserve entitlements...
....”It’s not worth tilting at windmills. I don’t know. I wasn’t alive then,” he told Harwood. “What I do know is that today, we have got to preserve and reform Medicare.”....
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.