"Take back our country" --- from those who are against the U.S. Constitution, and put it in the hands of those who are for it. Simple as that.
Posted on 11/02/2010 7:19:00 AM PDT by The Pack Knight
The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans, and now they are throwing out the Democrats.
What Americans want is a government that stays out of their pocketbooks and out of their private lives. Under Presidents Bush and Obama, we've gotten just the opposite: government program after government program created with our money to socially engineer the economy.
Evidence of voters’ desires lies in the huge swing we are seeing in the so-called independents. They are leaning heavily Republican in every poll. Pundits and political observers use the word independents frequently, but rarely do they define it. Now would be a good time.
I believe independents are fiscally-conservative, yet socially-liberal. How do I know? I’m one of them. I don’t want to be taxed to death, and I don’t want to tell other people how to live their lives.
Yet, for decades the choice has been either A.) a party that didn’t want to overtax me, but seemed awfully concerned about what happens in people bedrooms, or B.) a party that was far more tolerant on social issues but loved spending taxpayer money to “fix” things.
But many believers in small-government think it is a concept that should dictate every aspect of Washington, not just the size of say, the Department of Commerce. Laws designed to legislate social values run contrary to the idea of small government because making laws about peoples private lives is about making government bigger, not smaller.
Now to today’s election and the supposed flip-flop of the American public. To independent voters, Presidents Obama and Bush look awfully similar. Both have presided over enormous increases in government spending, and deep government intervention into large portions of the economy. From President Obama we got health care reform, from President Bush we got the largest federal intervention into education in the nations history, and huge subsidies for people to buy homes. Both have given us protectionism. Both bailed out the banks. Both bailed out the auto industry. For 10 years now we’ve had no difference in governing policies regardless of who was in power.
So now what?
After the Republican sweep of 1994, President Clinton was forced to find fiscal religion, and independents finally got policy changes they wanted: welfare reform, an embrace of the free markets with the passage of NAFTA, and a balanced budget driven in large part by less spending. (Thank you Newt Gingrich.) With the glaring exceptions of the tax-hike of 1993 and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton looks pretty good to the independent voter of today.
Will President Obama learn from President Clinton? Only if he corrects his view of history.
Right now, the President consistently blames a lack of government oversight and regulation under the Bush years, as one of the key reasons for the nations economic woes. The truth is just the opposite and the American people know that. President Bush may have been Republican, but he didn’t preside like one. We haven’t seen a Republican president who truly believed in keeping government small in the lives of its people since Ronald Reagan.
Despite an enormous amount of new legislation (the stimulus bill, health care reform, financial regulatory reform, and education finance reform) President Obama’s ratings have never been lower.
He needs to ask himself why.
The answer: because he is doing exactly the same thing his predecessor did. Spending too much, regulating too much, and intervening too much, with little to show for it in the way of economic improvement.
To the American people, less is more. They know exactly what they want. Now if only the politicians they vote for would give it to them.
Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is an anchor of CNBCs Power Lunch and author of 'You Know I’m Right, More Prosperity, Less Government.'
Now you're talkin!"
That's a concept that this fiscal conservative can get 100% on board with.
“On a more direct note - if we were truly “fiscally conservative” with no programs that alleviated the consequences for immoral choices,
“social issues” would regulate themselves.”
They would regulate themselves by creating a constituency for the end of fiscal conservatism. That is why fiscal and social liberalism go hand in hand.
If the money to pay for someone else's health care is extracted from my wallet with the threat of imprisonment, then I say to the hacks, deny away, with my blessing.
“and I don’t want to tell other people how to live their lives.”
Then either you are not a Social Liberal or else you are lying and DO want to control their lives.
I don’t know much about her politics but she does have a nice set of knockers:
Liberalism revolves around substituting the “elites” decisions for the the individuals’ decisions.
Being “liberal” and wanting to tell people how to live their lives are one and the same.
"Take back our country" --- from those who are against the U.S. Constitution, and put it in the hands of those who are for it. Simple as that.
The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans
Is the person that wrote these words just stone cold f*cking stupid? How can you “expect” an upset?
The Republicans weren’t thrown out of congress TWO years ago but FOUR years ago.
My God what a friggin’ idiot.
I agree with you 100% -- which is why the whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" idea is complete nonsense as it relates to our current political landscape.
I'd also point out that anyone who was truly "fiscally conservative" would probably be lucky to get more than 20% of the vote in any given election. Just look at how damned impossible it is to address the biggest, most unsustainable, Ponzi schemes out there today -- Medicare and Social Security.
“Sorry, I don’t buy it. Hussain certainly never campaigned on these ideas either. If anything, he promised MORE government intervention...much more.”
You are correct. My guess on why Obama was elected has to do with middle and upper class whites wanting to finally get past the race issue by electing a black president even though he was openly to the left of them politically. However, little did they know that he was and is an outright communist and that he had a history of associating with left wing radials and known communists. We have the so called main stream media to thank for that. So, ok, we’re now past the “a black person can not be elected to POTUS” mantra. Now, we can evaluate Obama on merit - which is what’s happening today.
Fiscal conservative is right, but that needs definition. One could be a “balance the budget via additional taxation” and call oneself a fiscal conservative because of belief in balanced budgets. A true fiscal conservative believes in balanced budgets via limited spending and low taxation.
Social liberal is not an accurate description of this independent conservative. We want less government in those areas that do not injure lives or threaten others.
Like it or not, such things as prostitution, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, alcohol use, marital policy, education technique, and welfare do have the ability, when overdone/ignored, to injure others.
The question is where to draw the line limiting those social issues.
Roe v Wade is a really good litmus test. A judge who thinks it should be overturned is not going to let someone take your home and give it to a pharmaceutical company or tell a state they can't ask lawbreakers for ID.
Judges who say Roe is fine and dandy say those other things are fine and dandy as well.
Great picture. That’s just what the American people are going to start doing with this election. However, the only certain way to do so on a permanent basis is to thump the statists (of both parties) in the next 2 or 3 election cycles, and to re-educate our kids (and adults) about what the founding principles of our nation mean (as well as what those alien ideologies like fascism and socialism mean, and what they’ve done to this nation). We have to not only take away power from them in the short run, but BURY the b@st@rds and their ideologies.
Amen to that.
Never stop your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Make no mistake, the libs/leftists ARE the enemy - the domestic enemy of our liberties, of the ideas and practices that made this country great. Obama did at least keep one promise, to "change" the country; however, I don't think that enough people took that seriously. A certain Austrian painter-wannabee also made promises that no one took seriously, and we know the results. A world without the USA as we have known it (i.e. with a destroyed economy and withdrawal from world affairs) would be equally as bad (and I say that as a Jew who had relatives murdered by that Austrian).
OK, Beltway morons, I'll tell you what the American people want. It is embodied in this quote:
"That government governs best which governs least." It is not known who said that (Jefferson, Thoreau and Thomas Paine are candidates), but whomever did had their finger on the pulse of the people and on the wisdom of the ages.
Here's another quote (Paine):
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."
To keep it simple enough for the Beltway idiots:
"We want you to get out of our lives. Defend us against foreign enemies, build roads that actually go somewhere, ensure that commerce flows well between the states and run the post office - and then go home and mind your own business!"
I doubt we’ll end up with smaller gvt too.
The thing is, there are entrenched interests supporting larger gvt on either side.
The average citizen doesn’t have a lobbyist. :(
“...a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby...”
Spot-on, csmusaret.
The socialist/communist/liberal/progressives have managed to convince a large portion of women (all over the world - not just here) that it’s perfectly natural and fine to MURDER their own infants, and be absolutely FINE with it.
A mother...allowing the murder of her own child. Sickening. Horrifying. And yet...it happens every day.
We have a sitting senator from California (Boxer) who once stated that a baby isn’t even a human being until it LEAVES the hospital - basically saying that’s it perfectly all right to MURDER that brand new, helpless life up, at the behest of his/her mother, until the moment it goes out the door because that brand new person has no human right to live.
Yet...WE’RE called “Nazis” because we oppose “a woman’s right to CHOOSE” - to choose what? Murdering a person that can’t even fight back to defend his/her own life?.
Any sane person WOULD oppose it. We’re allowing the slaughtering of generations of Americans, because “it’s the law of the land” since 1973.
How any doctor could do this and look himself/herself in the mirror day after day is absolutely beyond comprehension to me. They are scum, pure and simple, and legislators that push this are criminals in my eyes - as guilty of murder as any psychopathic serial killer; maybe even worse, because the repercussions of these laws have affected generations of souls who never even had the chance to breathe the air of life...
Pessimist: “...It all depends what’s important to you...”
It’s critical to ALL of us - because if you are able to convince (brainwash, perhaps?) a large enough portion of people that it’s OK to MURDER a helpless baby, how much more of a leap is it to convincing them that it’s OK to eventually murder the elderly (”well, gee, after all, you know, like they’re SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO non-productive, like, and it costs SOOOOOOOOOOO much to keep them alive, and you young people are like the future and all that, and it’s costing YOU personally now...”);
Or the mentally handicapped; ever hear of a program back in the 20’s or 30’s of government enforced sterilization so that the mentally handicapped couldn’t “breed”? Believe that was ALSO a Margaret Sanger Special, that one...;
Or perhaps they’ll get around to George Bernard Shaw’s (another wonderful, compassionate “liberal”) “final solution” of disposing of those “useless eaters and the non-productive....”
Or maybe they could finally get around to “the Christian Problem”, those of us who they’ve been demonizing for the better part of the last four decades in film, plays, media, etc...
Or how about orthodox/conservative Jews...
Or conservative Blacks...
Or Irishmen...
Or Mormons...
Or any other “group-du-jour” that happens to fall outside the liberal/socialist Utopian world/plans/goals...i.e., those of us who just want to be left alone to live out our natural lives - and are prepared to defend that choice. Ultimately, we’re ALL “enemies of the state” at one time or another when these people are in power.
How many people went to jail over the slaughter at Waco or Ruby Ridge?
Abortion is a mindset - if it’s OK to murder the completely helpless with the blessings of the State and the tacit compliance of the citizens, eventually it’ll be OK to murder ANYONE, with the full backing of the law and sanction of the State, just because the majority says so.
See “Germany, 1933-1945”.
See “Russia, 1917-1925, Ukrainian forced collectivization and famine”
China is a perfect example. It’s state policy to murder infant girls. And the people go along with it. I don’t think that they would even resist it if they COULD, after several generations of brainwashing/conditioning.
That’s the road that abortion WILL lead to, ultimately; and I do believe whole-heartedly that THAT’S where the socialists intended to take society all along - to be able to “purge” at will, with impunity.
So yeah, it matters. It matters a lot. Because it’s ultimately a matter of absolute life and death for all of us, on a real and personal level.
It is and always has been a battle between good and evil - between those who believe that every single human being has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those who believe that hey, if it’s politically expedient to mass-slaughter millions of people in the name of some “greater common good”, then tally-ho and have at it, and the State will bless it.
This is THE battle of our lifetime, and we’re all engaged, whether we want to be or not. All of the issues mentioned are connected to this, and are born out of it. It’s about respect for another human’s right to exist. Without that, it’s barbarism.
In other words - “if we’re all to be targets, then we ALL must be warriors.”
God forgive us for letting it get to the point where it is now.
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.