Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
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 ...
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.
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.