We wish it grew there
Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will donate $10 for each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/09/2012 8:29:48 PM PST by hocndoc
There's no conflict between the three legs of Conservatism, in spite of the confusion surrounding contraception and homosexual “rights” we witnessed during the New Hampshire debates. Social issues such as the right to life and traditional marriage are equally compatible with small government and States' rights as National security and fiscal responsibility, just as the Declaration of Independence is compatible with the10th Amendment to the US Constitution. Conservatives agree that the best government governs least, but we don't forget that there is a proper role for even the Federal government.
After all, the Constitution is based on the existence of inalienable rights endowed by our Creator as outlined in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explains the States' desire to ensure Constitutional limits on the Federal Government, using the least force and intervention possible to prevent or punish the infringement of our inalienable rights.
Liberals and Libertarians accuse Conservatives who advocate for social issues and national security of abandoning both the Constitution and the ideal of a small Federal government that is as “inconsequential in our lives as possible.” There are even some in the Tea Party willing to sacrifice these issues in order to form a coalition with the Libertarians to cut spending and lower taxes.
Unfortunately, the Left, Right and middle all manage to stir up not only the divide between Libertarians and Conservatives. They would also exaggerate conflict between socially conservative Catholics and Evangelicals who agree on the definition of marriage and that life begins at conception, but disagree on whether or not true contraception is ethical.
Abortion, medicine and research which result in the destruction of embryos or fetuses infringe on the right to life by causing the death of a human being. (See “Why Ethics.”) In contrast, true contraception prevents conception without endangering any human life. Therefore, unlike abortion, it does not infringe the right to life.
Marriage as a public institution is not merely a means to insurance and legal benefits. The definition of marriage predates the Constitution and goes far beyond culture, religion or National boundaries. Marriage affects the stability of the family and the well-being of both children and the husband and wife. (There’s strong research supporting the latter.) We define and defend traditional marriage in order to secure liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These same inalienable rights are the justification for establishing National borders, protecting National security, and punishing those who break the law, while opposing high taxes and big Government bureaucracy and regulation that serves to not only redistribute wealth, but creates a dependency on more and bigger Government intervention.
Conservatives like Governor Rick Perry have been just as vocal in opposing the attacks on religious freedom and conscience by the Obama Administration as we have been in opposing increased taxes and regulations and the EPA’s over-reaching. We can stand secure in our understanding that the Conservative, Constitutional and proper use of government is to prevent and punish infringement of inalienable rights.
That should be “embarrass and divide us.”
Gov. Rick Perry has lived and governed with conservatism and he has the will and the drive (in spades as we are witnessing) to keep working for conservative principles. And he understands the urgency of this election.
Rick Perry wouldn’t be a placeholder, a nibble around the edges — work with “my friends” in the “loyal opposition” president, at the expense of the country. He is the outsider. He isn’t K Street or Washington D.C. But Perry knows what they’ve done to our freedoms.
And he is the only candidate who has a record the Left will find difficult using against him (not that they won’t try but better than getting knocked out in the third round like the others). Thus the MSM (and sad to say conservatives) attempt to portray him as dumb (haven’t we seen this before?) drunk, racist, Islamofascist sympathizer or anti-Muslim bigot, spoiler, etc. etc. etc. They have to attack his character and ridicule him to marginalize him and his record. The record Obama and the Left don’t want to face in an election contest.
Texas is where 1000 people a day are moving to find work. And I really am annoyed that I have to clarify this for the reader, they’re coming from other U.S. states (where their governors aren’t working so hard to fight the Obama recession) and not from Mexico. But since that is the MSM “talking point,” I must.
Thank you hocndoc.
Yes, if he “reaches out,” much less “crosses over,” to the other side of the aisle, it’ll be in a leap over the brass rail. Just ask Senator Lucio.
I still say the Press just doesn’t want to spend weekends in Paint Creek.
Beautiful.
Okay. I'm drawing on a more "classical" definition, a conservative being someone who wants to "conserve" or leave a politcal system unchanged. You can be socially conservative, fiscally responsible, and for a strong national defense, and still think the Commerce Clause is an open ended grant of power to control anything you do that could conceivably result in your buying or selling something that could possibly have crossed a state line some time during it's existence.
When asked what they had given us, Ben Frankline said "A republic, if you can keep it!". That kind of power in DC is incompatible with a having a republic. As Rush likes to say "Words mean things." I don't see how we can be "conservative" if we can't even conserve the republic.
IMO you are caught in the trap of ethno-centrism. i.e. you refuse /or seem incapable of understanding the term used (pursuit of happiness) in the profane and modern sense and ignore its original meaning—oops— just knocked the old lid off that can of worms again—Sorry.
Isn’t it easily explained by stating that ‘the pursuit of happiness’s was tied with virtue?
O thou seer of man’s understanding and intent, at least do us the favor of expounding on original intent as it applies to the words, “pursuit of happiness.” Obviously it means more than the shallow pursuit of self-gratification. On the other hand, I would not go so far as to suggest it completely rules out the right for an individual to use substances that lighten the burdens of every day life, or increase industry.
Thank you.
Bear in mind that the term “the pursuit of happiness” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Finding the original intent and meaning of the phrase as used in the DoI may be instructive, but it’s not part of the Constitution.
Or how about this explanation from the Governor’S “Fed Up!” (he made similar statements in “On My Honor,” personal appearances and at least one radio interview that I heard, so I’m convinced that he understands what he is saying):
pp 19-20 “This is the essence of liberty in America. Through freedom and mutual respect, each of us is free to pursue our dreams and to become the best versions of our selves, together creating a community of people reaching their highest God-given potential.
Page 20 “And the idea that government exist to serve the will of the people – further individual freedom rather than the appetites of rulers – is what made the American System unique and attractive to people around the globe. “
“Now, some claim that there can be too much liberty or that people cannot be trusted if they have too much freedom. I do not believe that is true. The kind of liberty we construe as harmful is not really liberty but rather license. And license serves only the selfish appetite at the expense of others. Liberty is a God-given virtue; license is a destructive vice fomented by the forces of evil. If liberty were to include the freedom to harm others, then of course that would be too much of it. But with liberty’s essence is recognition of the inherent value of other human beings. This “rightful” liberty is the blessing that our federal system of government was established to preserve and protect. Liberty is our birthright as Americans. It exists within moral boundaries that protect the rights of others.”
Thank you.
Let us examine Ronald Reagan a bit:
1.) He was a Democrat who changed over to the Republican Party. He once said: “I didn’t leave the Democrat Party, it left me!”
2.) As Governor of California, he raised the State income taxes.
3.) As President, he was a BIG spender, and added significantly to our National Debt. He once said: “Deficits don’t matter.” This quote was later repeated by another BIG spender, GWB.
4.) “The Big Tent” Republican Party idea grew under Reagan’s tenure, winning elections at the cost of causing the Ship of State to drift with the strongest PC wind of the Court of Public Opinion, from then to now.
5.) Reagan trusted the Democrats in Congress to do what they promised to do with alien illegal entry on our southern border.
____________________
It is all well and good to carve out new ideas for past deeds, but let us be honest about the source of flaws that will doom our efforts to repeating the same mistakes that were made in the past. Reality knows no loyalty to anyone.
Reagan was one of our greatest Presidents, but we now have to correct the errors made by him and all the other Presidents. We cannot do that by being everything to everybody. We must clearly define our limited goals, and not be distracted.
BTW, it pains me to say it, but President Harry Truman said it best: “Those who cannot learn from the lessons of History are doomed to repeat them.”
I think we can agree. but I admit I have not seen the TV series.”Adams” It is my understanding that pursuit of happiness was originally relative to obeying Gods’ will.Much was tied to the principles Religion, Morality,and Knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind,schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. Article III Northwest Ordinance. I seem to recall John Eidsmoe speaking of how Jefferson changed “life, Liberty, and Property, from a European Enlightenment source to the much maligned Life Liberty and pursuit of happiness.
but need to revisit Eidsmoe.
People need to re-discover Calvin Coolidge and what resulted with true small government, massive reductions in govt and spending...to the tune of 80% cuts in government, taxes...etc...
What resulted? The roaring 20’s along with many major inventions that changed our country.
President Calvin Coolidge once said: “The business of America is Business.”
To our peril, we have strayed far from Calvin’s quote.
The man is not the focus, the idea is.
Our conservative coalition was formed under the guidance of Ronald Reagan, and became known as “Reagan conservatism” with those three factions coming together in recognition of the common goal to oppose socialism and its infringement of our rights.
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.