Why I'm not a conservative

worldnetdaily.com ^ | 6/13/02 | Joseph Farah

[SerpentDove]

"arguing semantics" BUMP!

[Deb]

Farah said Washington was a "revolutionary". You say you're a "counter-revolutionary". That puts you nowhere.

Try paying attention, Mr. Counter.

[rebelsoldier]

When leaders, given limited power and specific authority to conduct public affairs according to a morally and ethically based, religiously inspired foundational document (the US Constitution), utterly abandon it and exercise unlimted power and general authority withour regard to the very laws by which they derive their authority; the social contract between the citizens and their "representatives" prohibiting political change via force of arms and popular revolution is severed. In short, when political change has been made impossible through the ballot box, the only recourse for political redress is by direct means and methods not unlike what Colonial America was forced to turn to in the first place. With the state of the nation now so fractured and chaotic, and the rule of law so meaningless and twisted, I see no alternative option to restoring the original intent of the government than to force its reformation by direct means.

[Darth Sidious]

And it was stated before mine that both parties are now the "revolutionaries": having revolted against and overthrown our Constitutional government.

Try reading, Miss Dyslexic!

[Eagle Eye]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people ... Benjamin Franklin

You libertarians are part of the problem.

You'd probably say that anyone who is promiscuous and repeately bears or conceives children out of wedlock is immoral.

I've never conceived a child outside wedlock.

Ben Franklin did.

And you have the audacity to quote someone who wouldn't pass the morality test today, to quote and slam people like me.

See that rolling donut? Take a flying leap.

[SerpentDove]

bttt

[f.Christian]

Originally liberals were social conservatives who advocated growth and progess mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change.

Atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and call all technology evolution(science) to substantiate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!

Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives too!

What's left?

[BillofRights]

Well we certainly can't look to the masses (sheople) to help save our freedom. The masses have never known how to get freedom or keep what little someone else got for them.

[SerpentDove]

>>Originally liberals were social conservatives who advocated growth and progess mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change.

Atheist secular materialists through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and call all technology evolution(science) to substantiate their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!

Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives too!

What's left?<<

I'm so CONFUSED!!!

[christine]

thank you ;)

[WIMom]

Free Republic is funded solely by donations from readers.
Donations and official correspondence should be mailed to:
Free Republic, LLC, PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794

Support Free Republic by secure credit card.

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

Thank you Registered!

[christine]

you gotta love that face!! lol!! :D

[JZoback]

To practice self-government again, we must have a people capable of self-government.

Bump

[Alan Chapman]

You libertarians are part of the problem.

I'm curious. Are you Michael Conder aka London? The computer game player?

[Alan Chapman]

Why I'm not a conservative...

Now you've gone and done it, you rebel rouser.

[Boxsford]

You don't get it.

[christine]

i know ;)

[christine]

figured, however, i was pretty safe with this one being that it's joe farah who authored it. ;)

[Reagan Man]

>>>You libertarians are part of the problem.

They are a minor pain in arse for conservatives and the conservative movement. Actually, libertarians/Libertarians/Constitutionalists/Reformers/Natural Lifers, are so insignificant in the big picture of American politics, they don't even show up on the radar screen at election time. Outside of FreeRepublic, they're never heard. harry browne received 384,440 votes, or 0.036% of the total votes in the last presidential election. Even Pat Buchanan beat out Browne.

Don't listen to these misfits, malcontents and militants. Fringe extremists and reactionary absolutists, one and all.

[WFTR]

For the most part, I agree with what he is saying. However, he is certainly not the first to say it. In fact, Whittaker Chambers said much of the same thing in his autobiography, Witness. They are good words, but they need to be applied carefully.

Specifically, I don't think that slowing the destruction of our society is always a bad thing. If we can't turn the tide in the right direction, slowing the descent is not a bad thing. The typical mindless argument against it is the boiling frog analogy, but this argument is silly. People are not frogs. Their political choices are not based on reflex but on evaluation of their situation. The problem we have is that they are evaluating the situation wrongly. I expand this idea at We Are Not Frogs.

An example of a great American president who typified this approach was Abe Lincoln and his approach to slavery. President Lincoln was a full-fledged moderate on slavery. He thought that it would be better to buy the slaves and free them than to go to war over the issue. He promised that slavery would not be hindered in the South in any way while he was president. His only action against slavery was that he wouldn't let it expand into the territories.

As a result of this stance, Mr. Lincoln was disliked by most of the anti-slavery movement. They thought that he wasn't sufficiently committed to the cause. They thought he was weak and indecisive. However, John Brown didn't free any slaves, and most people have never heard of most of the other members of this movement. In fact, neither Brown nor most of the others could have held the country together and ended slavery as well as Mr. Lincoln did.

I'm the first to criticize President Bush when he says or does something stupid. There's nothing wrong with criticizing an idea or action because it is the wrong action to take. However, the generalization that he (or anyone else) won't accomplish good things because he is "conservative" in the sense of not being radical enough is wrong.

WFTR
Bill