7 posts tagged “conservative”
William F. Buckley Jr. died today at the age of 82. I did not always see I to eye with Buckley since his was more of a rigid Paleocon and I leaning toward a Neocon; however it must be said he was a bastion of Conservatism in a day when it was ridiculed as followers without intellect and the true political giants were the supposed intellectual Left Wing Liberals.
Buckley did not buckle and demonstrated an intellectual wit that diminished a Lefty even if the person had key factual points to support an argument. Buckley was no moron as the Leftists of his day considered a Conservative in the 50’s and 60’s. Lefties might think twice before locking horns a truly superior political intellect with a remarkable command of the English language.
I cancelled my RSS feed of Buckley today when I read that he had left this world for the next. My RSS feed was from Yahoo and Buckley last post about a debate between Obama and Hillary had. The article was dated February 1, 2008.
I wonder if any of Buckley’s observations will prescient of the race.
My man Fred Thompson is the best man to lead America in the next Administration. As a Republican, Fred does have some baggage; however way less than any other candidate that is electable except John McCain. On McCain, I think he would be a great leader in war (that the Democrats are trying to lose); however I believe McCain’s Conservative bona fides is unpredictable. I sense McCain would sacrifice social issues in compromise to push an agenda through to his liking. McCain may line with the Democratic Party Christophobes to move things along in a McCain Administration. I do not like that thought.
I really like Huckabee’s stand to vocally utilize Christianity as a political forum. Way too many Republicans are too concerned about being Politically Correct in addressing Christian Conservative social issues. On the other hand is Huckabee stumping for votes that he may later abandon due to the pressures of Presidential politics? Huckabee’s history makes him a Conservative gamble in trustworthiness; however fighting for Christian Conservative social issues is something I believe could reverse the moral darkness that the moral relativity of Secular Humanism (err … Democratic Party) has infected America’s culture.
Here is the latest update email I have received from the Fred Thompson’s Fred08 Blog:
Great news this morning from the Iowa bus tour. An important Iowa newspaper endorses Fred for President!
"Thompson is unapologetic on his views and is a straight-shooter," writes the Ottumwa Courier. Read why this Iowa newspaper say Thompson is the best man to lead America... http://www.ottumwacourier.com/opinion/local_story_360221446.html?keyword=secondarystory
· "...Thompson believes work must continue in Iraq despite growing concerns American troops should return home. We have to 'finish what we're doing,' he said, adding the United States must continue the fight there and in Afghanistan."
· "On economic issues, Thompson is blunt. The time is now to reform the American economy. He says the country needs 'market-based approaches to reform that guarantee benefits for those who need them and embrace personal responsibility and cost-effectiveness without raising taxes.'"
· "Thompson said 'it is a moral imperative that requires action now' and he wants a full account of the government's fiscal books for 'all to see and understand.'"
· "The man from Tennessee is no-nonsense, speaks plainly and believes action is needed now, not later.... Fred Thompson will do just that."
Fred is back in Iowa this week, where he continues the final push to the caucus on January 3rd. And he has a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.
Fred needs your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.
As of this morning, we've raised more than $70,000. With your help, we can reach our goal for Fred! You can be part of the momentum by making a contribution today.
In 1996, more than 40% of Republican caucus voters said they made their decision of who to vote for in the final week. Click here to watch video of a couple from Creston, IA. 5 Republican presidential candidates have come through their town, but after hearing Fred last night, they believe he's the right man to lead America and take the GOP to victory in 2008! Together, we can move votes to Fred if we get his TV ad on the air!
Show your support today by donating or signing up to make phone calls into Iowa to encourage people to vote for Fred on January 3rd.
The part you should notice is the insightful endorsement of Fred Thompson for President by the Ottumwa Courier. If you are convinced Fred is the man as I am you may wish to consider to help in some way with the links for donations or leg work.
Were you aware of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week of October 22 – 26, 2007? It was a week in which David Horowitz sponsored a tour of experts to speak at Colleges across the nation about Islamist Theo-political ideology and its dangers. Horowitz had to receive an invitation from a College/University or a group affiliated with said College/University.
Well certainly the Mainstream Media (MSM) and Leftists Professors became aware. There was inspiration from some academia to Left Wing Affiliated groups to not respect “Free Speech” and heckle and disrupt the speaking engagements.
Imagine if Conservative anti-jihadists heckled Ahmadinejad who was invited by Left leaning Ivy League University Columbia to speak. The MSM would have had a field day of condemnation accusing Conservatives of being rude fascists interrupting the “Free Speech” of man that has been involved in actions hostile to Americans since the very beginning of the Khomeini Iranian Revolution in the late Seventies. Ahmadinejad was one of the key figures that held Americans hostage at the American Embassy in Tehran under President Carter’s Administration. It has been speculated that he was even involved in torture of those Americans (which is far above what the Left calls torture in by American Intelligence).
Don Feder believes the Slanted Right should go to the next level probably due to the lack of balanced respect for “Free Speech” on the part of the Slanted Left. Feder is arbitrarily (via a personal concerned journalistic perspective) calling for the week of November fifth to be “Left-Fascism Awareness Week.”
Although I doubt that Feder has the resources of a Horowitz to construct a National tour, the point is the LEFT are closer to fascism then the Slanted Right.
For example both Hitler’s Nazi party and Mussolini’s fascist movement were Slanted Left movements, not right wing movements as the Leftist propagandists might have the average American believe.
The word “Nazi” was a German acronym for National Socialist German Workers Party. Hello! The words “socialist” and “workers” are Leftist terms.
Here is an excerpt from a Sheldon Richman article written in The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics about Mussolini’s fascism:
The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had "reached the end of its historical function," Mussolini wrote:
"To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual."
This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.
Fascism in Italy grew out of two other movements: syndicalism and nationalism. The syndicalists believed that economic life should be governed by groups representing the workers in various industries and crafts. The nationalists, angered by Italy's treatment after World War I, combined the idea of class struggle with that of national struggle. Italy was a proletarian nation, they said, and to win a greater share of the world's wealth, all of Italy's classes must unite. Mussolini was a syndicalist who turned nationalist during World War I.
Did you catch the words “class struggle” and “proletarian?” Again, Fascism is a variation of Slanted Left concepts not the concepts of Freedom, Liberty and Individualistic Rights by government manipulation of the citizens of a nation.
Equating fascism with right wingers is the typical propagandist lie of left wingers.
Ergo friends, support Feder’s call for a Left-Fascism Awareness Week on a personal level. Educate a friend, a co-worker or write in a blog or editorialize in your local newspaper. You will probably discover first hand what fascism is truly like. You will be shouted down in an encounter with a Leftist or censored by a newspaper, for that is the nature of the “Free Speech” from the Slanted Left.
JRH (Hat tip towards CD of Blind Conservatives)
According to this Bio I am reading at Jewish World Review, Nicolas Sarkozy has a stronger attachment to a Jewish family heritage maternally than his paternal family history from Hungary (which is Roman Catholic).
Think about it: On personal a level Sarkozy’s influence have been maternal Judaic (actually his mother’s side represents a recent Roman
Catholic conversion), Eastern Europe sympathies coming from a Hungarian upper crest family paternally, Sarkozy was born in France but is a first generation Frenchman paternally and Sarkozy has an admiration for American Conservativism.
If Sarkozy proceeds with any revolutionary transformation, his ancestry will have an impact.
John H. Fund looks at who the political Sarkozy is. According Fund Sarkozy may be easier to work with than past French Presidents; however he has indicated there will be little change in foreign policy. On a brighter note Sarkozy has also indicated a concentrated effort on the positive commonalities between America and France.
Victor Davis Hanson is awesome! Hanson explains the reasons as to why the Democrats will be bellicose against Bush, but will do little to actually stop the troop surge.
The bottom line is the hypocritical Dems are going to wait and see which way the fortunes of war turn so they can turn with it. The Dems simply wish to continue to transform America into a socialist morally relative nation. To do so the Dems have to maintain political power. To maintain political power they have to undermine Republican, Neocon and Christian Right successes by twisting the light into darkness.
The Dem alliance with the Mainstream Media (MSM) and fringe Left Wing organizations is all about an American society transformation. The Dems will not talk about this transformation because when Joe Voter hears it the Dems know they will not like it.
Thus the Dem strategy is not to put forth solutions but twist truth or blacken Conservative Republicans. In today’s case it is this mantra: “if Bush said it or thought of it, it must not be good for America.” It is a hate Bush mantra, not solve problems mantra.
I dedicate these thoughts to my flaming liberal friend A VOICE For Now.
Here are some website citing pertaining the French Revolution and Church/State issues in the early American government.
I am a Christian Right kind-of-guy and I doubt that will change for me; however I have come to the realization that America has come full circle since the establishment of the U.S. Constitution. There seems to have been just as much political and religious polarity in the post American Revolutionary War days as there is now.
Washington, Adams and Hamilton represented the Conservative narrow view of Liberty, Civil Rights and Religious Liberty. Jefferson, Madison and Monroe represented an expanded (some what Leftist) view of Liberty, Civil Rights and Freedom of Religion.
The irony I discovered is that the Evangelicals (emerging Baptists) of the Founding Father’s day favored the Jeffersonian path on Church/State issues and what we call mainline Churches today followed the Conservative view. The irony being the Evangelicals today promote mingling of Christianity and politics due activist Conservativism while the mainline Churches today tend to be liberal (nearly Deist of the Jeffersonian style).
The one thing I perceive is that the Founding Fathers agreed on Christian Foundations for American Rule of Law; however they disagreed on Church involvement in government, a co-mingling with religion.
I am a Christian Right man thus a fall on the co-mingling of government and Christianity. Under the consideration that I perceive society through the glass of the Christian Right, I abhor the co-mingling of government with non-Judeo/Christian religions.
I am quite aware that position irritates Jeffersonian liberals and non-Christians so save the scathing comments. I support the idea of a Constitutional Amendment to install Christian ideals (not faith) without establishing a Christian sect or Denomination. In order to prevent persecution of non-Christian religions I endorse an emphasis of a Freedom of Religion and Thought clause in this Amendment. In this way the “hate speech” laws of Europe would not become applicable in America except in the case of the incitement of violence and breaking the common law.
But I digress with personal feelings.
An other thing I noticed about the Founding Fathers is their remarkable ability to NOT allow polarity of thought to fracture the young nation. When push came to shove Adams and Jefferson came down to national unity. Hamilton and Madison worked to get the Constitution ratified as the law of the land. Will such statesmanship be found in 21st century America?
Founding Fathers Against French Revolution & Church/State
Washington was reelected president in 1792, and the following year the most divisive crisis arising out of the personal and political conflicts within his cabinet occurred--over the issue of American neutrality during the war between England and France. Washington, whose policy of neutrality angered the pro-French Jeffersonians, was horrified by the excesses of the French Revolution and enraged by the tactics of Edmond Genet, the French minister in the United States, which amounted to foreign interference in American politics. Further, with an eye toward developing closer commercial ties with the British, the president agreed with the Hamiltonians on the need for peace with Great Britain. (George Washington)
__________________________________________
Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) represented the Federalist Party perspective on events in France. He, and they, supported the moderate phase of the Revolution, which they understood to be about U.S.–style liberty, but detested the attacks on security and property that took place during the Terror. In particular, Hamilton distrusted the popular masses. However, even he concedes how important the French Revolution is.
…
“The French Revolution is a political convulsion that in a great or less degree shakes the whole civilized world and it is of real consequence to the principles and of course to the happiness of a Nation to estimate it rightly.” (Alexander Hamilton)
________________________________________
Napoleon would eventually declare himself "Emperor of the French." John Adams had feared just such a chaotic end: A revolution of this sort, he had argued, would lead not to democracy but despotism. France had abolished its monarchy only to find itself under the rule of an emperor. Years later Thomas Jefferson would admit that his own support for the French Revolution was misguided: "Your prophecies," he wrote to Adams, "... proved truer than mine. ... I did not, in '89, believe they would have lasted so long, nor have cost so much blood." (PBS on John Adams and Thomas Jefferson – Emphasis Mine)
______________________________________________
Edmund Burke (1729-1797) was not a reactionary. As a member of Parliament, he had supported the American colonists in their initial protests against the British government. He is most famous, however, for his writings on the French Revolution. His Reflections, written in the form of a long letter in 1791, in a sense marks the origin of modern conservative thought.
“Compute your gains: see what is got by those extravagant and presumptuous speculations which have taught your leaders to despise all their predecessors, and all their contemporaries, and even to despise themselves, until the moment in which they became truly despicable. By following those false lights, France has bought undisguised calamities at a higher price than any nation has purchased the most unequivocal blessings! France has bought poverty by crime! France has not sacrificed her virtue to her interest, but she has abandoned her interest, that she might prostitute her virtue. All other nations have begun the fabric of a new government, or the reformation of an old, by establishing originally, or by enforcing with greater exactness some rites or other of religion. All other people have laid the foundations of civil freedom in severer manners, and a system of a more austere and masculine morality. France, when she let loose the reins of regal authority, doubled the license of a ferocious dissoluteness in manners, and of an insolent irreligion in opinions and practices; and has extended through all ranks of life, as if she were communicating some privilege, or laying open some secluded benefit, all the unhappy corruptions that usually were the disease of wealth and power. This is one of the new principles of equality in France.” (Edmund Burke)
__________________________________________
The American Revolution was a conservative revolution unlike the violent French Revolution that set the stage for fascism and communism. The American founders sought liberty and freedom of conscience within the framework of the established society. They knew issues such as slavery and the status of women couldn't be resolved in their time, so they left a way open for later changes. They emphasized individualism, which already existed within Protestant culture to begin with.
But it was a belief in God that did guide the Founding Fathers, but not the raving bible-god of Augustine and Calvin. To quote: "Jefferson and other founders were Deists, believing in a universal God and a scientific universe. Since their writings constitute the legal foundation of the government, it is worth noting what they wrote and from where they derived their principles: Natural Law. Drawing from Locke, the Declaration of Independence grounds its legitimacy in the people; but why are the people the ultimate authority? Because "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" and institute governments to secure these rights. (Christian Fundamentalism Exposed)
_________________________________________
After the revolution, there was a sense throughout the state that religion was in decline: Churches were struggling, and immorality was on the rise. Leaders of the dominant Anglican Church--which had turned into today's Episcopal Church--began pressing for state support of religion.
In 1784, Patrick Henry, the most popular leader in the state, campaigned for a law that would tax Virginians to support the promotion of Christianity. It is important to realize that Henry was not pushing to create a formal establishment of the Anglican church, and obviously Henry was no Royalist. He was taking the far more liberal view that religion in general should be aided. Under his proposal, voters could designate the denomination, or even the specific church, that their tax dollars would fund. Baptists could give money to the Baptist Church, and Presbyterians to their own church. Henry's bill even went so far as to provide that those who didn't want to support religion could have the option of targeting their tax dollars toward education in general.
The measure, "A Bill for Establishing a Provision for the Teachers of the Christian Religion," gained wide support. It was viewed as a gentle and flexible approach to encouraging religion--surely an important goal--while remaining consistent with the spirit of the revolution. Richard Henry Lee declared that "avarice is accomplishing the destruction of religion for want of legal obligation to contribute something to its support." A petition sent in by citizens in Amelia, Va., declared that "As every Man in the state partakes of the Blessings of Peace and Order" --and peace and order flow directly from the morality produced by religion--"every Man should be obliged to contribute as well to the Support of Religion." Even George Washington supported the approach. (The Framers and the Faithful)
…
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" he asked. The bill, he said, was "an offense against God," and previous efforts throughout history to provide financial support for religion had backfired. "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." [*Note: The thoughts are of the Deist James Madison. Take notice is against Establishing a Virginia State Church yet supports the foundational truths of Christianity] (The Framers and the Faithful)
…
Some religious conservatives today point to a slew of comments and actions from the Founding Fathers indicating their support for an intermingling of religion and state. These are not hard to find--in part for a reason rarely acknowledged by either side in the culture wars: The founders did not agree with one another on how to interpret the First Amendment.
John Adams, Patrick Henry, and others believed the First Amendment really was meant to block the formal establishment of an official church, but allowed much mixing of church and state. For instance, Adams endorsed national days of fasting and prayer and appointment of congressional chaplains. Jefferson and Madison were on the other end of the spectrum, demanding the clearest separation of church and state. As president, Jefferson reversed the practice initiated by Washington and Adams, and refused to have a national day of prayer. Madison agreed. He cited the appointment of chaplains as being a direct violation of the "pure principle of religious freedom," especially given how "strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Government in the Constitution of the United States." (The Framers and the Faithful)
Much of the Academic Lefties spewing an education into the young minds of Secondary and Collegiate American Students is revisionist and based on an agenda that every perception evolves.
For Lefties the U.S. Constitution is a living document in that it evolves for what is relevant for the now as the Constitution ages. Thus relative to yesteryear today’s culture and morality has transformed to what is applicable to culture and life today. This Secular Humanistic relative morality has allowed Lefties to infiltrate government and media influences to fight for a secularism that relegates America’s Judeo/Christians to the realm of archaic myth instead of foundational faith.
As Christians began to wake up to what was occurring in America they began to gravitate toward an activist Christian based politics. The Lefties hated this stiffening of opposition. Their hatred first became public by publicly proclaiming the old Christian morality was archaic therefore these Christians must be backward mindless morons. The arrogant Leftie attitude meant we are correct because we are intelligent and Christians are cretinous because they follow faith. Secondly Christian faith evokes racism and hate crime thought because Christianity stands against the debauchery known as homosexuality and atheism. Thirdly Christianity should not have any influence in America because the Lefties have trained Americans that an extra-Constitutional terminology “Separation of Church and State” prohibits Christians from any activity within any form of governmental auspices.
The Leftie first objection is the ranting of a child that cannot stand to be told it is wrong.
The later two Leftie objections to Christianity are justified by revising history misconstruing facts to fit the mold of ever evolving cultural relativity. When a Christian or Conservative offers a valid refutation to Leftie revision, the Leftie falls back on their first objection: i.e. Christians are archaic mindless morons. If a Christian is a moron then it follows that any presentation of their data must be tainted and invalid.
Christians that follow Christ Jesus do not practice racism or intolerance; however a good Christian does not accept behavior counter to Biblical morality as valid. Adultery, sex outside of marriage, homosexuality and other Biblically scandalous behavior is not to be validated but rather to be reached out in love to follow The Way of Jesus Christ. That is not hatred; it is standing for what is good and strait rather than what is wrong and twisted.
As far as the “Separation of Church and State” goes, there is NO such phraseology in the United States Constitution. The term is derived from a speech President Jefferson delivered at a Church speaking his opinion that there is a “Wall of Separation” between what the government tells the Church or individuals to believe and visa versa as regard to the Church controlling government laws.
The First Amendment of the Constitution reads thus:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Constitution)
One must notice that the clause pertaining to religion does not disenfranchise Christianity from government, indeed the clause prohibits the government from establishing a National State Church and most importantly the clause prohibits the government from interfering in the practice of “religion.”
In the Founding Father’s day religion was Christianity in the sense of getting “That old time religion.” The clause also implies the government cannot force an individual to practice the tenets of Christianity. Nonetheless the Constitution is a Rule of Law based on the tenets of Christian faith: no murder, no theft, and protection of life, liberty and the lawful pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness does not mean legalizing unrestrained moral deviation.
With that in mind read Dennis Prager’s essay entitled, America founded to be free, not secular. Prager demonstrates how Leftie educational elites in America are processing revisionist history in America’s Schools!
JRH
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.