Compromising Conservatism

Compromising Conservatism

- in Features, Uncategorized

By Brikony

We have an ironic set of definitions running around the political world today about what it means to be conservative and what it means to be liberal.  Conservatives are generally defined as those who want a smaller government (fiscally), want a large military presence, and want to pass legislation that says everybody should have the same moral values I have.  Liberals, on the other hand, need a bigger government to solve every problem, want a somewhat smaller military (although the reality is they tend to use it even more), and believe that their absence of moral values should be forced on everyone.  You may not like these generalizations but you know they’re true.

However, the traditional understanding of conservatism and liberalism are quite different. Traditionally a conservative is defined as someone who believes in a conservative use of government.  This was probably best encapsulated by Thomas Jefferson who once said, “That government is best which governs least.”  Conversely, a liberal is someone who believes in a liberal use of government.  Some people say that liberalism is “progressive” in that it never stops finding new ways to spend money and presumably help the very people they’re taxing.

However, I would like to suggest for your thoughtful consideration that true conservatism should cover all areas of governance.  Not only should true conservatives believe in a smaller government fiscally (less welfare systems, fewer entitlement programs, less health care, etc.), but also they should believe in a more conservative use of the military and less moral regulation.  Think with me. Is not a smaller military fiscally conservative?  And isn’t legislating morality actually an expansion of government?

Let’s be clear.  No reasonable person is advocating anarchy.  For instance, we don’t want to be so fiscally conservative we have no military, because that would be suicidal both from an economic and freedom perspective.  But perhaps having military bases in merely 100 countries around the world rather than the present 150 would be a reasonable amount of governance.  And nobody is saying we should not legislate morality when it comes to issues like murder.  But maybe allowing people to practice homosexuality even though some believe it is sin is a more conservative use of government.  Clearly there are degrees of governmental necessity and all of us fall somewhere in the continuum.

But today I see something happening in our government that concerns me.  Not only are we going broke because we want to rule the world (thus all the military bases), but also we are going broke because we want to rule our own citizenry.  It’s not enough that we manage our own resources and clean up our own environment; we want to demand the rest of the world does it as well.  It no longer seems enough that individuals find out what’s good for their own health and implement it in their own life; we now want to pass laws that say things like nobody can eat Big Macs.  Do you see the dilemma?  In our desire to fix all the problems of the world, we become so financially disabled we are unable to address any of them effectively.

And this issue becomes particularly aggressive when the Democrats and Republicans begin to compromise.   As an example, Republicans tend to desire religious and moral legislation while Democrats tend to oppose it.  However, Democrats tend to desire social legislation (like not eating Big Macs) that Republicans oppose.  But in our trend toward bigger government and our tendency to compromise, what do we end up with?  Historically the Republicans would have blocked the social legislation the Democrats wanted, and the Democrats would have blocked the religious legislation the Republicans wanted.  This traditional battle between the two parties resulted in a more conservative government.  But today the spirit is one of compromise.  When that happens the Democrats tell the Republicans, “listen we’ll give you the moral mandates you want.”  And the Republicans, in the spirit of unity, tell the Democrats, “Great, we’ll give you the social requirements you desire.”  And the result is bigger government.  I hope you get this:  Compromise always results in a more liberal, expansive government.

Therefore, as I look at the upcoming election and evaluate how I want to vote there is one thing in particular that I hold as an irrefutable value:  Freedom may not be free, but it is always worth the price.  Even if that price means other people are allowed to do things I think are stupid (like smoke cigarettes).  Even if that means other countries are allowed to do things we think are stupid (like have nuclear weapons [even if we only think it’s stupid when they want them]).  While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.  This election, choose freedom not compromise.

 

++++++++++++

Thank you for visiting Grumpy Opinions and sharing our work. Feel free to SUBSCRIBE to Grumpy Opinions near top of the right sidebar, our newsletter or in your Wordpress.com READER. You are welcome to check Grumpy Opinions out or leave a message at:

https://www.facebook.com/GrumpyOpinions2016/, https://gab.ai/PUMABydesign, https://twitter.com/PUMABydesign001, https://twitter.com/PUMAbydesign and https://plus.google.com/+GrumpyelderGrumpyOpinions2016.

Please share with fellow patriots and friends everywhere.

Facebook Comments

  • Hey guys, for what it’s worth, I love the discussion. No one ever changed their mind without hearing the other side. And SpaceCoast is doing a great job of making her points (some of which are very good). Some of which I fundamentally disagree with. But in reality, in where we stand on the rightness of the moral issues, we are very close.

  • grumpy

    Nope— the comments go into the moderation file if if they contain more than 2 links, Spammers frequently load up comments with links.. just a security feature.. has nothing to do with the content..

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    Grumpy, I noticed our comments are now being moderated. Is this getting too hot to handle?

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    I can find no better way to respond to you, Brikony, than to insert my responses into what you say so that (perhaps) my responses will be clearer. I admit, this may be copyright infringement, but I hope and pray that you will forgive me due to the circumstances.

    My response is inside the asterisks and in italics within your writing (quotes of your words are not italicized). Maybe that will make what I am saying clearer.

    ____

    I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. We agree on that. Not all of society does, however. But you need to be very careful here. In a Constitutional society, just because I can get the majority of people to vote for a certain thing, does not make it good law. For instance, in pre-revolutionary America there was a majority of people who would have voted that slavery should remain legal. It had, after all, been that way for many centuries. If it’s not broke, why fix it? There were even states that placed the issue on the ballot and it won overwhelmingly.

    **** You say, “[I]n pre-revolutionary America there was a majority of people who would have voted that slavery should remain legal.” I disagree. All of the reading I have done said that it may have been so in some states, but not in all of America. Southern states were majority pro-slavery folks: northern states not so much.
    I never said that any law passed by the majority was a good law (a majority passed a Constitutional Amendment to the FL Constitution about pigs in crates, for Pete’s sake!). I said that every time the voters get to vote on a state’s homosexual marriage law, it has failed by a large majority. There is a difference between a
    “good law” and voter majority: agreed. I was stating that there are others besides Conservatives who think that homosexual marriage laws would be bad for America. ******

    As for, “will homosexual marriage affect my children’s rights,” not as long as freedom is a two-way street. The problem is when the homosexual lobby defines anyone who says homosexuality is a sin as a bigot (and they will **** DO ****). What we should be fighting for is the right of Christians (and people of other religions) to be stating what they believe is true. Truth has a way of winning but it never wins in a society that doesn’t allow freedom of speech (even speech that offends me).

    ****** You put the caveat there, “not as long as freedom is a two-way street”. That caveat is what the libs/progressives are trying to make disappear. I am not saying that the Conservative right to free speech trumps the lib/progressive right to free speech. I am saying – clearly, I thought – that we have the right to stand up and speak no matter who objects to it and no matter what subject it is on. We have the right and, yes, even the obligation to stand up and speak. George Santayana (allegedly) said, “The only thing necessary for evil to prosper is for good men to remain silent” (or something very similar since I’ve seen many versions of that quote). I agree with him. My standing up and saying that homosexual marriage is wrong does not take away their right to say it is permissible. It only means that we disagree. No one has the right to take away my right to say what I believe, to intimidate me out of speaking, nor to squash dissent via legislation or any other action.

    You allege that “truth has a way of winning but it never wins in a society that doesn’t allow free speech (even speech that offends me).” I respectfully disagree to a certain extent. If “truth has a way of winning”, then why isn’t O.J. Simpson in jail for murder? Why do we have courts of law that totally disregard the truth – favoring one side over the other, as we see in the Clintoon and obamination appointees – and rule in accordance with their personal beliefs, their friends’ desires, or their political affiliations? If truth always had “a way of winning” then no innocent man would ever have gone to jail and no guilty man ever gone free. In the long run, GOD has the final say and truth will out. But when it comes to the corruption of the human heart and mind, truth is often ignored, twisted, halved, or buried under a pile of excrement so deep that it would take all of China’s population years to extricate. Jesus is “the way, the truth and the life”, in that I rest. The truth that humans are depraved enough to want to marry man/man and woman/woman is the result of centuries of believing the lies of satan. If those lies have stood since the days of the Old Testament, I don’t see those lies going away any time soon.******

    I further suggest that allowing freedom is not the same as allowing things to slide into entropy. The way to prevent that is to speak truth not squash freedom. Who cannot see that a law that is passed in support of one religion can just as easily be replaced by a law in favor of another?

    ********No one suggested that allowing freedom is allowing things to slide into entropy. I said that allowing certain actions – homosexual marriage included – is entropy. It is part of the degradation of the traditional nuclear family (how I abhor that term) as well as the degradation of society as a whole. What you seem to be saying is that “allowing freedom” should include anything and everything that does not hurt anyone else is a-okay: including taking down the basic building block of society. I say that homosexual “marriage” is hurting society because it does exactly that: destroys the nuclear family, the resource for procreation, male/female ties that are genetically necessary for the continuance of the species. It destroys the whole idea of a mother and father household that children need to grow and thrive as a traditional family would. It negates a standard set by GOD, man and tradition for thousands of years prior to the modern era. If that is not doing harm to anyone, then I do not know what is. Your version of “allowing freedom” also allows for the destruction of the human race. If all of us accept homosexuality as a natural, accepted practice and condone “marriage” within it, there will be no babies to continue the species. But what harm is in that? ***********

    I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that Saturday (the Sabbath) is the true day of worship. There are moral obligations in my mind about how that affects family and society. However, I would not favor the government passing a law mandating that Saturday be kept. I hope you would not favor a law mandating Sunday observance. But the bigger point is that we live in a society that believes in a government that is religiously neutral. It should not favor one religion over another or over none at all.

    ********** Guess what. I was born and raised Seventh-Day Adventist. I know where you are coming from. (BTW, look up the history of the calendar and then tell me what day is the actual Saturday of creation and we’ll talk Sabbath observances when you’re done.) I do not support a law saying that any day in particular should be made “mandating Sunday observance”. For more reasons than the biblical reason, I do not believe that it should be even suggested. (See for instance, “History of Our Calendar” and Saturday).
    Our government should be religiously neutral in regards to NOT ESTABLISHING A RELIGION, but in any society that wishes to continue, the nuclear family should be protected and promoted due to the procreative possibilities that reside most often within a male/female relationship – even though more and more often outside of the traditional marriage. Single parenthood is so prevalent nowadays that children born out of wedlock in 2008 was up to 40.6% and that does not count the number of babies aborted. That 40.6% number was vastly lower in the 1950s, 16%, and “about 50 percent of all women who had an out-of-wedlock pregnancy married before the birth”. So even then the babies had a father in the house, married to the mother.
    **********

    Think of school prayer. ***Are you sure you wish to go down that road?********* Should teachers be allowed to pray in school? We instinctively say, “Yes!” How about if that teacher is a Muslim? ******Yes. They should be allowed to pray in school, but using your own words, they should be allowed to pray in school, not teach my child how to pray. ****** Are you still okay if that teacher teaches your child how to pray? **** No. Then they are infringing upon my rights as a parent to teach my child what I think is correct and good. When a teacher wants to pray in school, let them, as long as they are not influencing the children around them to follow their religion. Christians within a school setting have the right to pray. That has been established via the U.S. Supreme Court. I happen to believe that Muslims also have the right to pray in school – but not to teach my child to pray, not to teach hatred of America, and not to try to convert my child away from whatever religion I may believe best for MY child. ****** What if he/she is a Satanist? ***** There are Satanists in schools. But they don’t get to teach my child to pray, nor can they prevent my CHRISTIAN child FROM praying: even praying for the Satanist. ********* The separation of church and state is a vital principle. It means we have the freedom, and we allow the freedom of others to have a moral set of values different from our own. ******* You really don’t want to go down that road. Look up the truth of the non-existent “Separation of Church and State.” Thomas Jefferson used that term once in a private letter sent to the Danbury Baptist Association – not on record – and he was using it as a warning that the Church has a wall of separation between itself and the government and the government cannot touch the Church. Jefferson was saying that the government’s mitts do not belong in the Church, not vice versa (Church belonging in the government). Read about it: here and here.********

    I know it’s hard, but anything else is not religious freedom. It’s forced religion.

    ******* First, Don’t patronize me. Second, Anything else in your definition may be called “forced religion” but in reality is protection of the species. Two male sperm whales may have what it takes to make babies with other whales, but together, they can no more create another sperm whale without extraordinary measures than could I create a child with another female. “Forcing religion” has nothing to do with procreative facts but you never hear the cry for “Separation of Church and Science” from those wishing to marry one of their own gender.

    • grumpy

      Almost looks like this should be posted as a blog

  • I agree that marriage is between one man and one woman. We agree on that. Not all of society does, however. But you need to be very careful here. In a Constitutional society, just because I can get the majority of people to vote for a certain thing, does not make it good law. For instance, in pre-revolutionary America there was a majority of people who would have voted that slavery should remain legal. It had, after all, been that way for many centuries. If it’s not broke, why fix it? There were even states that placed the issue on the ballot and it won overwhelmingly.

    As for, “will homosexual marriage affect my children’s rights,” not as long as freedom is a two-way street. The problem is when the homosexual lobby defines anyone who says homosexuality is a sin as a bigot (and they will). What we should be fighting for is the right of Christians (and people of other religions) to be stating what they believe is true. Truth has a way of winning but it never wins in a society that doesn’t allow freedom of speech (even speech that offends me).

    I further suggest that allowing freedom is not the same as allowing things to slide into entropy. The way to prevent that is to speak truth not squash freedom. Who cannot see that a law that is passed in support of one religion can just as easily be replaced by a law in favor of another?

    I am a Seventh-day Adventist. I believe that Saturday (the Sabbath) is the true day of worship. There are moral obligations in my mind about how that affects family and society. However, I would not favor the government passing a law mandating that Saturday be kept. I hope you would not favor a law mandating Sunday observance. But the bigger point is that we live in a society that believes in a government that is religiously neutral. It should not favor one religion over another or over none at all.

    Think of school prayer. Should teachers be allowed to pray in school? We instinctively say, “Yes!” How about if that teacher is a Muslim? Are you still okay if that teacher teaches your child how to pray? What if he/she is a Satanist? The separation of church and state is a vital principle. It means we have the freedom, and we allow the freedom of others to have a moral set of values different from our own.

    I know it’s hard, but anything else is not religious freedom. It’s forced religion.

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    NOTE: I “mis-wrote” a sentence in the second to the last paragraph: “If we are Conservative we are supposed to do the former.” I intended to say “If we are Conservative we are supposed to do the latter.”

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    Brikony,

    IF I missed the point, sorry. The way you wrote it the point was not that clear. Now, to the paragraphs in your response:

    You say that “Telling people who they can’t marry, is a conservative thing”. No. Telling people who they can’t marry is a GOD thing. When the vast majority of voters — once given the opportunity to vote on it — is a VOTER thing. Those who vote against homosexual marriage are not ONLY the Conservatives. They are a mixed bag of folks who believe that marriage is between one man, one woman and that’s the way it has been traditionally and if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

    You say “Allowing homosexual marriage, while I think it is wrong and a sin and while I wish it never happened is not likely to directly affect my marriage.” You don’t know that it won’t directly affect your marriage. Do you know what an America with a 50/50 split would look like, or can you even envision it? Will it directly affect your children’s marriages, rights, the way their futures are shaped if it ever got to that? The Second Law of Thermodynamics is that “the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time.” The same holds true for the rest of the universe: things deteriorate. A “Conservative” tries to “conserve” the things in as correct, as close to original, as possible. When we do nothing to prevent entropy, to prevent the slide of our country — and our society — into a deteriorated condition we are doing WRONG, not right. Our children pay the price. Would you agree or disagree that our society has changed for the worse since the 1960s? Are we more self-disciplined, better behaved as a society, of a higher moral value? If not, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics is in effect and the Conservatives should be standing strong and making sure that our children don’t live in an even worse situation. Is that not our GOD given duty and our right as parents and grandparents?

    You say, “Where freedom stops is when one side begins to tell the other side, you can’t speak”. Wrong. Where freedom stops is when one side begins to physically punish, fine, imprison, or create laws against our right to speak. Telling us — words — that say we can’t speak are nothing. When they legislate against us or physically take action against us, that’s when freedom stops.

    You say, “As a Christian I do not believe we should use government to force our behavior on others.” As a Christian, I do not believe we should use government to force — nor can we use government to force — our bahavior on others. However, there is a difference between saying you HAVE TO DO “X” and saying, “No, you can’t do ‘X’.” We already legislate against abusing animals. We already legislate against burning crosses in people’s front yards. We already legislate against child pornography — and have set legal punishments for those who have done those things.

    The track you are taking leads us to saying that all things are okay as long as Conservatives aren’t FORCING anyone to do what we think is right because we don’t have the right to do so and we are for smaller government. That’s a specious argument at best. We don’t have to use FORCE — or laws — for us to want and do the right thing. When we come across someone beating an emaciated horse do we say “That’s okay. We don’t want to force them to do the right thing.”? Or do we say, “Stop. I’m calling the police and you aren’t going to get away with that!”? If we are Conservative we are supposed to do the former. If we are Conservative, there is nothing wrong with saying, “If there’s not a law against that, then there should be.”

    Being Conservative also means understanding that for the other side, it is sometimes ONLY laws that will prevent things from getting worse. Not that they believe in, obey, or actually pay any attention to the laws that currently are on the books, but it gives a chance for teaching them a better way. If there were no laws on the books against pedophiles, would they ever be caught, prosecuted and punished? Remember, some folks say that’s okay, too.

  • Uh, I think you missed the point that some things are pushed by conservatives and some by liberals. Telling people what to eat, for instance, is a liberal thing (even if some religions do it). Telling people who they can’t marry, is a conservative thing (in general political terms). Believing in a conservative use of government, I believe the government should intervene only in the most egregious of areas where a person’s actions are likely to directly affect the life of another.

    Allowing homosexual marriage, while I think it is wrong and a sin and while I wish it never happened, is not likely to directly affect my marriage. The bigger issue for me is when homosexuals, as a protected class, demand that I accept the rightness of it. It is one thing to say they can get married (some would argue it’s an issue of freedom). It is quite another thing when they put me (as a pastor) in prison because I will not marry them (that’s a freedom issue too). Freedom is a two-way street.

    While I should be free to tell others about my Jesus, they should be free to tell me how strongly they disagree. Where freedom stops is when one side begins to tell the other side, you can’t speak. It was a Christian nation that allowed religious freedom (even for non-Christians. It is the atheists who are trying to stop it. Is the issue marriage? Evolution vs. creation? The freedom to tell a belief? You name it, Christians are tolerant of dissent. Atheists aren’t. And as a Christian I do not believe we should use government to force our behavior on others. But I will fight to the death to make sure the other side doesn’t use it to force their behavior on us. It is the conservative thing to do.

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    NOTE: That smiley face was a product of the programming, not my effort. That smiley face was supposed to be a #8.

  • SpaceCoastConservative.com

    Brikony,

    How did I know this was coming? When you suggested I listen to your “Unintended Consequences” sermon, I actually did listen to it. I think this posting stems from that sermon.

    I shall respond.

    1) You said:
    “Conservatives are generally defined as those who want a smaller government (fiscally), want a large military presence, and want to pass legislation that says everybody should have the same moral values I have.”

    To which I say:
    WRONG! Conservatives do not want to pass legislation that says “everybody should have the same moral values I have”. What a TRUE CONSERVATIVE wants is to not be forced to accept everyone ELSE’S moral values because ours are too stuffy, too precise and demanding, too “old fashioned” to suffice for everyone else’s life choices. What we want is to NOT legislate their “moral values” — which is actually impossible — but to legislate certain actions. Murder is an action, but hatred is an emotion. You can legislate one without legislating the other (although the liberals (progressives, etc.) have decided to legislate an emotion anyways). Actions can be legislated while — in reality — other things like emotions (hatred or love — can neither be prevented nor enforced via legislation. Morality is one of those things that cannot be legislated. It is a belief system, not an action. Yes, people act upon their beliefs, but it is the ACTION we legislate, not the belief, the “morals”. Legislation should be strictly applied to ACTIONS.

    2) You said:
    “Traditionally a conservative is defined as someone who believes in a conservative use of government.”

    To which I say:
    WRONG! You cannot define a word by using the same word. That’s like telling someone that “tintinnabulation” means “tintinnabulation”. A “conservative” has traditionally been defined as someone who believes in smaller government, lower taxes, fewer rules and regulations to govern us, a strong military that can defend America when necessary, and biblically based moral values that the government neither defines nor legislates because GOD puts them into our hearts when we are conceived and we live by them because GOD says they are right.

    3) You said:
    “Not only should true conservatives believe in a smaller government fiscally (less welfare systems, fewer entitlement programs, less health care, etc.), but also they should believe in a more conservative use of the military and less moral regulation. Think with me. Is not a smaller military fiscally conservative? And isn’t legislating morality actually an expansion of government?”

    To which I say:
    A) As to the idea that we “should believe in a more conservative use of the military”: Agree. We should believe in a conservative use of the military. I do not believe in sending our military around the world to be “policing” the world, nor do I believe that they should participate in nation building, humanitarian efforts, nor half-ahemed efforts to do payback (if they’re not going to be serious about it, don’t go at all!). We should be serious with every deployment and we should be willing to go in, kick butt and come home without nation building efforts afterward. That nation building is costing us lives and money. It should not happen. Using the military to protect our borders, protect our allies, exact punishment (kick butt and leave), and provide security for our citizens is all we should do with our military. Other than that, they deserve to be with their families.

    B) “Legislating morality” is not possible. Progressives and libs try to do so, but you cannot make a law that actually prevents people from DOING something immoral. GOD said, “Thou shalt not commit murder”, yet people commit murder. GOD said, “Thou shalt not lie”, yet people lie. GOD said, “Thou shalt not covet”, yet people covet and then they steal. If GOD’s word can’t do it, then how on earth can man even begin to think they can legislate morality? It is impossible to legislate morality. Only progressives/libs think they can do so. TRUE Conservatives know better than to try and know that true morality comes only from GOD within your heart. Otherwise, you’re just faking it and you’re going to lose sooner rather than later.

    4) You said:
    “But perhaps having military bases in merely 100 countries around the world rather than the present 150 would be a reasonable amount of governance.”

    To which I say:
    As far as I’m concerned, we should have military bases in as few countries as possible. I’m thinking keep it to, say, America only? Keep our military and our alternative weapons (satellite weaponry, etc.) in such numbers and strengths and as far advanced over other countries as possible so that they can’t even think about an attack on our country or on our allies without knowing they are going to pay a price.

    5) You said:
    “And nobody is saying we should not legislate morality when it comes to issues like murder. But maybe allowing people to practice homosexuality even though some believe it is sin is a more conservative use of government. Clearly there are degrees of governmental necessity and all of us fall somewhere in the continuum.”

    To which I say:
    A) Who is stopping anyone from practicing homosexuality? Not I. I neither believe it is possible to legislate morality, nor a practical thing. Doing so would include things like legislating against lying anywhere and everywhere instead of just under oath in court. Legislating against lusting, against all pornography, against all forms of fornication, against gluttony, sloth and greed and many other things. That’s not possible.

    B) Homosexuality is not legislated against. Homosexual marriage is. The difference being that marriage is GOD’s creation and shall remain in GOD’s domain, not man’s. There are two reasons man got involved in the marriage business, regulating interracial marriages and money. People pay for a license and that is revenue. Homosexuality is GOD’s problem, not man’s. GOD dealt with homosexuality in Sodom and Gomorrah; if that does not show us what GOD thinks of it, nothing will.

    C) Legislating homosexuality is only possible if we legislate the ACTIONS of a homosexual. BEING homosexual is not illegal. Breaking the current marriage laws, the tradition of marriage, is what is legislated against via the majority vote of the people in almost every state legalizing homosexual marriage is tried. That is not wrong because we do so with other ACTIONS as well: i.e. stealing, murder, embezzling, hurting animals, selling drugs, etc., etc., etc.

    6) You said:
    “Not only are we going broke because we want to rule the world (thus all the military bases), but also we are going broke because we want to rule our own citizenry. It’s not enough that we manage our own resources and clean up our own environment; we want to demand the rest of the world does it as well. It no longer seems enough that individuals find out what’s good for their own health and implement it in their own life; we now want to pass laws that say things like nobody can eat Big Macs. Do you see the dilemma? In our desire to fix all the problems of the world, we become so financially disabled we are unable to address any of them effectively.”

    To which I say:
    A) WRONG! We are not going broke because “we want to rule the world”, we are going broke because there are people either currently in a leadership position, or who have been in leadership positions in our country who are trying to do wrong. We are going broke because that was obamination’s whole goal from the get-go.

    B) “but also we are going broke because we want to rule our own citizenry.” That’s the progressives/libs/Wrongies who want to do that. NOT Conservatives; not TRUE COONSERVATIVES, at least. TRUE CONSERVATIVES want freedom and morality coming from GOD.

    C) We don’t tell the whole world to clean up their environments. Read the United Nations Reports and see who is demanding what of whom. We have been told by the U.N. that we will be paying to clean up the environment of other countries, even if we have no desire to do so.

    D) No one being “allowed” to eat Big Macs is NOT a CONSERVATIVE idea. Ask ms obamination whose idea it is and I bet you fifty bucks, she will not say it’s a CONSERVATIVE’S idea. It was her idea and it was her choice to implement it and it was she — a progressive, big government, leftie, liberal — who did so without reservation nor regard to our rights, our desires, our taste buds. Liberals did that. Conservatives had nothing to do with it.

    7) You said:
    “Compromise always results in a more liberal, expansive government.”

    To which I say:
    WRONG! Compromise that is Conservatives giving in to liberals always results in a “more liberal, expansive government.” That is what the definition of “compromise” has become lately. If we Conservatives do not cave to liberals, then it is not considered “compromise”. Libs say we are hard liners who are standing in the way of children eating, our military vets getting medical care, or cops staying on the street. IF liberals ever compromised with Conservatives — as in agreeing to pass our legislation — then we would have a smaller government and fewer taxes. Period.

    8) You said:
    “While granting sovereign rights will always be fraught with potential calamity, taking those rights away will always result in the greater calamity of dictatorship.”

    To which I say:
    A) No one is totally “sovereign”. If anyone were totally “sovereign” that person could murder anyone and have no price to pay. They could rape two-year-olds with no price to pay. They could walk into a bank, demand all their money and have no price to pay. Sovereignty denotes no one and nothing having authority to prevent anyone from doing anything. ALL OF US HAVE RULES TO LIVE BY. NO ONE IS TRULY “SOVEREIGN“. Whether it is our parents telling us to do our homework, the government telling us we cannot park somewhere, the permitting office telling us we have to pay a fine for not getting a permit to re-roof our house, or the government regulating marriage, we are ALL under a law of some sort or another for almost all areas of our lives. Am I totally content with that? No. But I have to face reality as does everyone else: there are rules and we all have to live by those rules.

    B) Equating homosexual marriage with big government, our enemies having nuclear weapons and our country’s security is apples and oranges, a non-sequitor and a sign of desperation.

    C) Homosexual marriage is not a form of freedom. It is a form of legalalized slavery to sin. The Bible teaches us that. In the desire to do what is “best” (in the liberal’s mind at least) for a select few you are willing to damn those few to the price they will pay for their sin. How is that better for them?

You may also like

UNICEF’s Endangered Children

  A mission statement is defined on the