Is The Conservative Movement DEAD?

3/2102 | AntiDemoCommie

[antidemocommie]

From:

---

Conservatism is Dead

---

By Chuck Baldwin

---

The Covenant News ~ March 2, 2001

---

 

Bill Clinton did more than destroy America's moral conscience; he destroyed the conservative movement. What passes for conservatism today isn't even closely related to the true meaning of the term.

At one time conservatism stood for limited government and personal freedom. No more. Today, conservatism stands for an ever increasing, ever encroaching federal monstrosity, promoted in the name of bipartisanship and compassion. Nothing illustrates this reality more than President Bush's proposed budget.

Hailed by Republicans everywhere as a model of conservative ideology, the Bush budget actually inflates federal spending to just under $2 trillion. If this trends continues throughout Bush's presidency (and it will), federal spending will more than double what it was when Republicans took control of Congress back in 1995. And we are supposed to believe that these people are conservatives?

Bush began his speech before Congress by giving himself away. He said, "Tonight I challenge and invite Congress to work with me to solve the problems of our people."

Genuine conservatives knew at that very moment that Bush was not one of them. Requisite to conservative understanding is that government is not the solution to our problems. Just the opposite is true: government encroachment only serves to exacerbate a problem. To quote Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."

Today's "conservatives" have forgotten Reagan's sagacious instructions. Just like Democrats, Republicans now believe that our nation's problems can be fixed by throwing more federal tax dollars at them.

Instead of dismantling the federal Department of Education (which Republicans promised to do back in 1994), Bush's budget increases expenditures by more than $5 billion. Welfare and other entitlement programs are increased by over $81 billion. The Bush budget also more than doubles expenditures for the National Institutes of Health.

Have conservatives forgotten that it is through the NIH that pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood receive tax dollars? If Bush were truly pro-life, he would insist that such organizations be eliminated from the federal budget. Instead, the Bush budget insures that these left wing, extremist groups will receive even more funds from the public treasury.

Bush's desire to reduce the tax burden is commendable, but it misses the major component of conservatism, which is reducing the size and scope of the federal government. The Bush budget gives us more IRS, more ATF, more FBI, more NEA, more welfare, more socialized medicine, ad infinitum, ad naseum.

If Republicans want to continue to take our country down the road to bigger and bigger government, that's one thing, but they should at least be honest enough to stop calling themselves conservatives.

Chuck Baldwin

PETER HITCHENS ON FREEDOM AND MORALITY

"God-fearing man enters politics knowing that much of modern political thought is bunkum - that power is the opposite of love, that men are not created equal, even if they are equal before God, and that the earthly pursuit of happiness is likely to end with a kick in the teeth.

"He knows that society is not perfectible and that small and modest improvement is wise. He knows that, in the long run, we are NOT all dead. He knows that an action can have consequences far distant in time and place, and unintended as well.

"Lord Hailsham one said, quite rightly in my view, that it was absurd for any faction or party to claim it was closer to the gospel to any other. The Holy Ghost, as he put it, moves some men to be socialists and others to be Tories, some even to be Trotskyists.

"I would go further. It would be absurd for any of us to imagine that politics, in its current form, is anything other than a threat and a rival to religion. We should go into it, and affect it, only to reduce its influence and return to people the choice between good and evil that they alone can make."

[antidemocommie]

There was an amensty in Reagan's days, however, Congress was fully under the control of commie democrats. Reagan did wrong by signing the bill, however. And, if Bush signs on to anything that helps illegal aliens, he will be equally wrong.

Steve Sailer, member of the Hudson Institute, says:

"Finally, Bush will simply alienate many Hispanics who vote Republican now because they don't like illegal immigration. In a Gallup poll in June, only one-third of Hispanics favored increased immigration. A full one-quarter wanted to cut immigration."

[Cultural Jihad]

The fact that jurisdog refuses to identify his previous handle belies his claim that he simply forgot how to login and apparently was too dense to use email to find out. More than likely he is a returning banned poster who forgot not to mention his previous posting history.

[antidemocommie]

Since Ronald Reagan, not nearly enough things have gone Right for Conservatives. Government expanded during the Reagan administration. Abortion didn't end during the Reagan administration. Illegal immigration didn't end during the Reagan administration. Public schools didn't improve during the Reagan administration. Are you willing to say Conservatism died in 1980? 8 posted on 3/23/02 1:56 PM Pacific by #3Fan

HEHE! I hate to, but I have to do this: No, I am willing to admit that the Soviet Union died shortly after Reagan became president.

[NMC EXP]

So in your opinion, things really started getting bad during the Reagan Administration when government expanded, abortion didn't end, schools didn't improve, illegal immigration didn't end

It started before Reagan.

Regards

J.R.

[lavaroise]

We are traped today in a divisive politics of rich vs. poor that is aimed to favor the poor. What it should have been is politics bent on continuing the Founding Fathers' design to deal with jurisdiction and districting problems of this new nation. Today the fight is between left and right, in the past it was between pro-Federal and pro-Local authority.

We do not think in terms of jurisdiction anymore, but in terms of favoring a social class or another, and this is precisely what Bush is doing: districting social classes and trying to make them content, rich and poor, bipartisan.

Meanwhile, the neglect on issues of jurisdiction means that no social class in the US is immune from jurisdiction encroachments and violations.

I am not surprised Blair seem to like Bush. Both seem to believe that humanism can be contributed by both rich and poor and a diversity of classes in this third way concept of inter-dependence.

This is dangerous because it still leaves the issue of jurisdictional respect and rights respects vulnerable to social engineerings of all classes. We are experiencing a soft communism that is going to deteriorate progressively into a society that does not see evil through jurisdiction violations (as examplified by the Bible when Adam and Eve thought to know more about each other and God's powers through socialy engineered good and evil), rather we will tend to see evil as bad social technical performance aka PC.

It is terrible. I'd rather have a king like BUsh in power than a drug addicted queer like Clinton. But I can't help foresee that one day some people will assert their inalienable jurisdictions and much sufferance will come from that. If not from Civil Wars and world wars, surely through continuous civil rights strife and paralysis of the economy and deep depressions.

[Rowdee]

You nailed that! BTW, how you been?

[antidemocommie]

This is dangerous because it still leaves the issue of jurisdictional respect and rights respects vulnerable to social engineerings of all classes. We are experiencing a soft communism that is going to deteriorate progressively into a society that does not see evil through jurisdiction violations (as examplified by the Bible when Adam and Eve thought to know more about each other and God's powers through socialy engineered good and evil), rather we will tend to see evil as bad social technical performance aka PC.

Thats a good point. The solution will be the removal of offensive rights i.e. free speech, etc., and the enactment of global wealth redistribution. Christ must be standing in the door.

[timm22]

Republicans Should Say: No, we don't. Gun ownership is protected under the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Instead, we should reverse 90% of the gun laws on the books.

Republicans Should Say: No, we don't. This social spending is all a result of dishonest perversion of the Constitution, and the Federal Government should not be redistributing the wealth of its citizens under the guise of "compassion" or "social responsibility". Instead, we should eliminate Welfare, Medicare, Social Security and every single other Federal entitlement and return the money to the people.

I think you are largely correct. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment.

If Republicans stayed true to conservatism, do you think they would get anything accomplished? President Bush, for example, is not a dictator, and ultimately he must rely on Congress to write our laws. And Congressional Republicans will always have any eye on re-election.

Being generous, I'd say that maybe 30% of the public would be ready for significant spending cuts and a return to Constitutional government. That's just not enough popular support to keep the Democrats and socialists from dominating the next election, destroying any reforms conservatives make, and even furthering the cause of socialism in this country.

[#3Fan]

It's a little strange he/she won't reveal the original handle.

[NMC EXP]

Other than my frustration with the gop sycophants, I am fine as frog hair. I trust you and yours are well.

Are you actually Claire Wolfe, and if so, where is Hardyville? I'm ready to move.

Take care,

J.R.

[#3Fan]

HEHE! I hate to, but I have to do this: No, I am willing to admit that the Soviet Union died shortly after Reagan became president.

So it's OK to commit political sins as long as there is a foreign enemy? We have a foreign enemy now.

I think Reagan was our greatest president of the twentieth century, but you're condemning Bush43 for the same sins of Reagan without condemning Reagan. You're not being consistant.

[#3Fan]

It started before Reagan.

So you consider Reagan as part of the problem just as you consider Bush43 as part of the problem?

[NMC EXP]

So you consider Reagan as part of the problem just as you consider Bush43 as part of the problem?

To Reagan's credit he did not do a lot of damage. However, beyond his tax cut he did nothing to repair the rot and damage in place when he was elected.

Regards

J.R.

[Texasforever]

There was an amensty in Reagan's days, however, Congress was fully under the control of commie democrats. Reagan did wrong by signing the bill, however. And, if Bush signs on to anything that helps illegal aliens, he will be equally wrong.

That was a complete lie. Reagan proposed the amnesty and pushed it through congress.

[Don Corleone]

Are you willing to say Conservatism died in 1980?

Conservatism had the biggest nail driven in its coffin with the passage of the personal income tax. An additional nail was hammered home with the election of FDR. From there on it was a greased downhill slide!!! It is now a certainty that the USA will become a socialist republic. It is only a question of when.

[Tuor]

I would say the Neo-Cons and the Globalists have taken over the Republican Party. Paleo-Cons seem to be an endangered species, if not extinct in the political arena.

Tuor

[jurisdog]

The fact that jurisdog refuses to identify his previous handle belies his claim that he simply forgot how to login and apparently was too dense to use email to find out. More than likely he is a returning banned poster who forgot not to mention his previous posting history.

Hey genius, try reading post #25 above. Not only did I identify my previous posting handle, but I also linked you to an article posted by me that was picked up by an outside source. Jesus god above, pull your head out.

[FITZ]

This is kind of an interesting article from the El Paso Times Wednesday (from what I hear locally, is the Hispanic people who have been here for generations are refusing to call themselves "Mexican" because they don't like the Mexicans too much and everyone thinks of Mexicans as illegals.

Demographers debate source of 'Hispanic' census results
Mark Babineck
Associated Press
Another round of Census 2000 figures released today does nothing to quell a debate among Texas demographers over the remarkable jump in the number of Hispanics not of Mexican ancestry.

The latest figures, further ethnic and racial breakdowns of previous short-form results, offer little new information about Texas. They are more relevant in states with large American Indian populations, which are enumerated in better detail.

In Texas, the numbers are another reminder that nearly two years after the head count began, demographers still aren't completely sure of the ancestry of about 1.5 million "other Hispanics," or 7 percent of the state's 20.9 million residents.

The short form gave Hispanic respondents only three specific options for ancestry: Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban. Everything else fell under "other," where people were asked to fill in a blank. However, many are thought to have checked "other" without being specific.

Demographer Steve Murdock, head of the State Data Center at Texas A&M University, thinks the population swell came from an influx of Central Americans during the 1990s.

"I don't think they're of Mexican origin," he said of the "other" category, which increased by 287 percent from about 388,000 in 1990. "I think there's a substantial diversification taking place within the Hispanic community."

Karl Eschbach, a sociology professor at the University of Houston, counters that his number-crunching indicates that a vast majority of the "other" Hispanics are probably Mexican-Americans who, for whatever reason, simply did not check the appropriate box.

[jurisdog]

It's a little strange he/she won't reveal the original handle.

Try reading post #25 above.

[#3Fan]

To Reagan's credit he did not do a lot of damage. However, beyond his tax cut he did nothing to repair the rot and damage in place when he was elected.

That's what I wanted to know. Those that think they are perfect are the enemy of the good.