Posted on 06/05/2017 8:03:29 AM PDT by John Conlin
“The one consistent aspect is that”globalism”—humanist pretensions and arrogance—are never consistent with conservatism. “
How do you reconcile that statement with the Conservative Orthodoxy of today...led by the likes of Ted Cruz and Mark Levin?
Are you suggesting they are not “conservative”?
I believe they are not. One cannot be a conservative and also advocate for policies that destroy a nation.
Of course, millions disagree with me.
I am NOT a conservative, NOR am I liberal or any other political label. I find myself agreeing with most conservative positions most of the time, but I occasionally favor the liberal viewpoint and often disagree with both. I have my beliefs based on knowledge of history and personal experience. My beliefs and principles are much more important to me than any label concocted by people who seek to categorize me.
I will not vote for anyone, liberal or conservative, who lies to get my vote, or who is so corrupt that they will violate their “principles” for personal gain (not just financial). Labels don’t matter to me, actions, and principles are what I consider to be important.
You asked for our opinion.
The pro evolution, pro abortion Globalist NWO RoveBushites are famous for parsing out the nature of conservatism; but all Freepers know what Jim Rob wrote about Trump while under fire for those types of arguments:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3421722/posts
You’re a blog pimp if you don’t post your whole article.
Let’s hear those liberal viewpoints you agree with. It’ll be fun.
For my take on what has been going on in Academia--and by a consequence in the sheepish media--see:
Surrender By Subterfuge. I have been fighting it for over sixty years, and there is nothing conservative about it..
Can anyone say "Amen"?
Liberal/Progressive ideology and the individual minds who have promoted it have shifted this Constitutional Republic (consult any founding period/first-100-years-history or definition of the Constitutional structuring) to the commonly-used description by members of both Parties of "our democracy"
Where has that "conservatism" insisted on the use of the only appropriate reference to the form and purposes of what Benjamin Franklin, upon leaving the Convention, called "A Republic. . . " and which a child of the Revolution and himself President John Quincy Adams, upon the 50th Anniversary of the Constitution, at the invitation of the New York Historical Society, went to great lengths in his lengthy "Jubilee" Address, to refute any claim of the Constitution structuring a "Democracy."
Too many have slept under a banner of "conservatism" for too long, and while they have slept, Progressives have come close to robbing them of their liberty!
Just as Paul Revere is said to have sounded an alarm in America's early days, this President, no matter how unlikely it may seem, has sounded an alarm and has begun a work that "conservatives," no matter how well-intentioned, have failed to take on.
Now is their time to prove that they are capable of fulfilling the definition of their label provided by the wise and capable messenger of recent decades, Dr. Russell Kirk, in his The Conservative Mind. Up to now, they have not disrupted and turned back the "progressive" demolition-of-the-Founders'-Constitution effort, and now is the time to seize the opportunity Divine Providenc may have provided and prove their worth in the current battle if ideas.
"Ideas have consequences!" - Weaver
“it is all God”
Gnostic twaddle. God must be separate from His creation, since He must preexist it. Otherwise, He wouldn’t be God.
What passes for “Conservatism” in DC is actually Bushism. It as shaped and defined by the Bush families addiction to Globalism.
Trump is actually a cleansing of the Bush era corruption of Conservative and a return toward the Goldwater-Reagan brand of Conservatism. Most of those who define themselves as “Movement Conservatives” are actually Bushites, not Conservatives.
Too much damaged was don, and being done, by the Bushies to fix this overnight. However Trump is a step in the right direction.
OK note that none of these are absolutes, but here a a few to get started,
Abortion, I think in the first trimester the decision should be between the mother and her doctor, after the first trimester only for medical necessity. No federal or state funding.
Gay marriage, what two consenting adults do should not be the concern of any government.
Education, necessary for a free society to function. However education is the sole responsibility of the states, not the federal government. Note I said education not indoctrination.
Military adventurism, this one is difficult. We need the best and most powerful military the we can reasonably afford. People want to kill us and it’s always better to take the fight to the enemy. However, we don’t need to get involved in empire building or nation building just because we can.
Reagan and Goldwater were also nationalists. What passes as “Conservatism” today is actually a corruption introduced by 30 years of Bush family domination of the GOP. Trump is actually a turn back towards Goldwater-Reagan style conservatism and away from Bush-ism.
Total BS spun by a hysteric whiner still pouting because his prefect lost the 2016 primary.
Cruz supported TPP.
He also supporter the Corker Amendment to undermine the Constitution in international affairs.
He’s an open borders free trader, as are all the Republicans...the so-called embodiment of the “Conservative Movement”.
They are NOT conservatives. They are anti-American.
Globalism. NAU. `Dreamers’ & compassionate conservatism. Thousand points of light, family values, it takes a village, diversity, “You don’t get it.” blah blah blah ... all contemptible.
The reason socialism always fails in whatever guise it appears: “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith
Heineken? No thanks.
“con·ser·va·tism
NOUN
commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation:
“proponents of theological conservatism”
the holding of political views that favor free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas:
“a party that espoused conservatism”. (Oxford Dictionary)
Except for the “opposition to change or innovation”, sounds good to me. Obviously, there are individual republicans, libertarians, and even democrats who believe these ideals. If you’re for these, I’m with you. To those who call themselves republicans, who do NOT espouse these values, what are you, then? NeverTrumpers need to find a new name for themselves, instead of republicans; or perhaps there needs to be a new party, simply called the conservative party. Up until Trump, not since Reagan, we have not had a president who actively espouses these ideals. The word “republican” is not sacred, at least not anymore. We cannot confidently put the two in the same box, anymore. I am fed up with republicans who are not conservative. We need to draw a line, and designate who we really are. As soon as the 2018 election is over (because there isn’t really time to make a name change right now), there needs to be a serious, “are you with us or against us” decision. We can no longer welcome any person in to the republican party, who is not a true conservative. By the same token, we cannot afford to split our ticket. Republicans need to be united as conservatives, or get out. Enough of this false flag nonsense. NeverTrumpers cause more damage than liberals, many times. We must be unified as conservatives. Yes, I know there are republicans who are not conservative, for example, when it comes to lgbtq issues, or other “moral” issues, and that does bother me. But when a president who is trying to keep American interests first (and shouldn’t all presidents want this?), is supported by whomever, it’s a good thing. And whether NeverTrumpers are willing to admit it, it puts President Trump FIRMLY in the conservative column.
Right now, conservatives are being elected on his coattails. We can never allow democrats and progressives to take power, again; they nearly ruined us, as a nation. We must unite under a conservative banner, with national, constitutional interests as our guides.
Agreed.
“The first and most fundamental truth is we, humans, evolved on this planet.”
Here’s the first glaring problem with the article. This “fundamental truth” is a piece of speculation with an enormous uncertainty interval.
The actual truth is we don’t know. That’s one guess. There are other guesses, and further possibilities we haven’t guessed. We don’t have anywhere near enough evidence to establish a reasonable degree of certainty of the veracity of that claim.
It might be true. It might not be. It is certainly light years from being a fundamental truth.
Screw CONservatism as practiced by our pols, I’m Trump style Pro-America/American!
Reminds me of von Mies argument that a socialist, command economy must always underperform an unregulated one because the former cannot capture the intelligence distributed throughout the latter’s network of uncoordinated economic agents. But, on the other hand, crowds are notorious for being less intelligent than their individual members, and some psychology experiments seem to show that groups do best when they turn decision making over to an individual or subgroup recognized as smarter than the average member.
90% of professors are leftist - socially and economically. Their “science” happens to prove Marxism is Utopia in many cases. So, whose science and statistics are we to decide is fact? And what is Marxism’s no-questions-asked “settled science?”
I read a lot but filter it through common sense. I have a economical, constitutional, moral and ethical framework as well and I don’t really care if “scientists” and social Marxists agree or not. It’s not negotiable - which is why we have political and religious freedom.
I’m a conservative. You are suggesting a technocratic civilization. That is one devoid of rights, morals and ethics if “logic” demands otherwise. For example, suppose our leftist professors decide that gun ownership is not logical and come up with a bunch of statistics and studies to “prove” it? Suppose they decide your sex is not determined by your genetics/biology; rather the sex you want to be and produce studies to “prove’ biology or genetics is wrong.
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.