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 ...
Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment among other things.
It’s one thing to say my argument doesn’t have any traction in today’s world, and certainly most people are ignorant of original intent and what the Commerce Clause was supposed to ensure. But it almost seems as if you support an expansive view of the Constitution; a “living, breathing” document if you will. Ah, but then you would be a liberal, and as you state in post 74, this IS a conservative forum.
It's total BS.
There would also be no Libertarian who would tolerate such a thing.
Libertarians limit their views to consenting adults, recognising that children are subject to the care of parents or guardians, and have rights limited by those constraints.
It's just another straw man argument.
In today's political climate ECONOMIC CONSEVERATIVES can and will get elected in 2010. The rest of the Conservative agenda can not be sold to a voting majority, as witnessed in the last election. FIRST you have to get elected and then maybe you can change minds!
Bravo... too few understand that today.
***...if you want deregulation in some part of the financial system, you have to make a precise and accurate case for it and not simply rail against government.***
I find this to be the problem with Republicans and the free market. I already believe in laissez faire, but when I hear Republicans just say we need to support the free market, I’m not convinced at all. Sell me on the idea.
And while you’re at it, rail against spending as hard as you do taxes! If spending stays the same, taxes don’t matter; the government takes in the same amount of money (they’re still sucking out money that would otherwise be used for the private sector) whether through borrowing or printing, and it means higher taxes in the future.
I believe that the fedgov could do its limited & constitutional duties w/ a budget of LESS than $1 trillion a year....much less! It should be limited to nothing but "war, peace, negociation, & foreign commerce" as James Madison stated in The Federalist Papaers #45.
The governments of the states should be as big or as tiny as the people of those states so desire. I guess the only Constitutional requirement of state governments is that they have a republican form of government, not a democratic or monarchical one. If the People's Republic of California or Massachusetts want to legalize all drugs produced w/in their state, LET THEM. If Utah or Mississippi choose to give the death penalty for the mere possession of a marijuana seed or for prostitution, LET THEM. We are 50 states, ea w/ a different view of things due to a variety of several factors, & the Founding Fathers knew & respected this.
That part wasn’t directed at you. I included you because I was interjecting myself into your dialogue with wagglebee
Evidently our FRiend Wagglebee is of a mind with certain Supreme Court justices past and present, and sees “penumbras and shadings” in plain language.
Interstate commerce and the 14th amendment indeed...
PING!
It depends on just how much a ‘social conservative’ is willing to give up to get their social conservatism passed.
If you’d gladly hand over to the state your freedom, your wealth, and your rights... to get abortion banned, then you’ll probably find ‘conserva-tarians’ *FAR* too liberal for you.
Nicely said.
I’d add that it is folly to legislate morality, for morality comes from G-d - who is perfect. Whereas law comes from man, who is not.
I’ve been arguing for that very case for the last 3 years.
Government has no business dictating what is or is not marriage. Marriage is a sacrament from G-d.
Why we feel the need to put that holiness into the hands of the most unholy - politicians - I’ll never understand.
You’ve got a very funny definition of ‘economic conservative’ if you find Arnold Schwarzenegger to fit the bill...
Me, too.
And ironically, what group is the current system (with government deciding what is a "marriage", rather than religious leaders deciding) protecting?
NOT the religious heterosexuals who'd likely get married in a church or synagogue anyway because they consider religious marriage to be sacred. But rather "government defined marriage" is already protecting the nonreligious who'd rather get married by a judge and claim that their secular marriage has the same validity as a religious ceremony.
In short, the walls of "the sanctity of (legal) marriage" have already been breached by non-religious heterosexuals. .
Yet whose leading the charge to protect the rights of the non-religious to call their heterosexual marriage, "sacred"? The Christian Right! It's absurd!
That’s cool....thanx for watching my back. :-)
One area that free marketers can make a winning stand is on energy and the technological advances that may go with it. Market driven innovation versus goverment scemes like cap and trade and boon doggles like ethanol, wind and solar.
Humph. Never really thought about that aspect of it.
Though, why should it matter so much for the non-religious? Simply co-habitating for XX number of years gives one ‘common-law marriage’ rights in most places.
I think you have exactly backwards, you change the minds and then they will elect you to office.
You can justify your desire for statism in the constitution? How conservative of you.
nailed it!
STFU! That's such a juvenile and xenophobic comment. If you're starting to sound like a statist, it's something that you're going to take flack for whether it's from a new forum participant or an older one. Maybe you could stop sounding like a statist around here.
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.