Conservatism is a political and social term from the Latin verb conservare meaning to save or preserve. As the name suggests it usually indicates support for tradition and traditional values. According to my dictionary a political conservative is one who is:
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate; avoiding unnecessary risk taking.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit; conservative in speech or actions.
Now that I have defined the term for us, and we're all on the same page intellectually speaking, let's look at what makes a political conservative "tick". Everything from here on down is my personal world view, which may or may not be in agreement with the world view of anybody else... and it doesn't have to in order to be valid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A conservative is one who believes that our culture, traditions and Constitutional guarantees are invaluable (that word means priceless - it does not mean without value, Bubba). The conservative believes that change may become necessary in many things, but holds culture, tradition, and the Constitution to be sacrosanct (consult Webster's). He believes that it is a personal responsibility for all true Americans to preserve those things so that future generations may enjoy them. Yes, you read that correctly. The conservative considers anyone who does not hold those same values in the highest esteem to be something less than a true American. The good news is that conservatives do not see those people as subhuman... just as terribly misguided and irrevocably ignorant.
Conservatives attempt to choose their words with reasonable care, so as not to unwittingly offend another person. They also see offending the sensitivities of others as acceptable when the ignorance of those "others" cannot be overcome by pure reason.
Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, perhaps to a fault. This belief includes all human life, from the moment of conception to the moment of unavoidable death . At the same time, they believe in the penalty of death for those who have committed crimes deserving of that penalty against others. A conservative's sympathies are with the victims of crime, not those who commit the crimes. They also believe that there are those among us whose characters are not salvageable, and therefore unfit to live among civilized persons. And why should one who has taken a life, other than in self-defense or in defense of the life of another, be allowed to live out their life to its natural conclusion at the expense of the honest citizen? A swift application of Mosaic Law (that's the "eye-for-an-eye" thing) would make the world a safer, better place. A lawful death sentence in the USA takes an average of 17 years to reach its conclusion.
Conservatives understand that children, who are the most innocent and defenseless among us, should be protected to the "nth degree" of the law, yet our liberal courts are (for the most-part) issuing judicial slaps upon the wrist to those who molest and murder children. We are not happy about that.
Conservatives believe that personal satisfaction comes from a job well done, and that a person should be able to reap the rewards of their own labors, skills and talents without having to support those who choose not to labor for the rewards our society can provide. Those who are physically and mentally capable of earning their own way should be required to do so. There is no birthright to success. Just a birthright to be afforded an opportunity to become successful through personal effort. You have no right to ask anybody to give you some of what they have earned because you are too lazy to work. The world owes you absolutely nothing. The fact that you are simply present on this planet is not a particular blessing to the rest of the occupants until you apply yourself, and become a productive member of the society in which you live.
Conservatives support energy conservation - and, by and large, we think that Political Correctness is a ridiculous waste of energy. How did Americans ever let it become incorrect to speak one's mind using the normal everyday words of the English language - including idiom, cant, colloquialisms and jargon? Why should we have to search our entire vocabulary inventory to avoid the possibility of offending somebody? Nowhere is it written that we have the right to go through life without ever being offended. If you should find yourself offended tell the other party "I find that offensive." (Then either stand your ground and prepare to argue against whatever it was that offended you, or turn on your heel and leave the area. After which you should just suck it up and get on with your life.) Other than that, we also support the conservative management of our natural energy resources! The natural transition from this point would be to explore...
"Hate crimes". Hatred is not a "crime" in the real world. Hatred is an emotion... an attitude... a state of mind... the end result of a thought process. It is the physical expression of that emotion, in some otherwise illegal manner, that may constitute a crime. Hatred is at the extreme negative end of the love-hate emotional continuum, and is a particularly unsatisfactory - but natural - emotion. Hatred is a learned emotion, and hatred of a person or thing may be learned from a very negative personal experience, or it may be unintentionally - or intentionally - taught. (Neo-Nazi's teach their children to hate "niggers and Jews" from an age that predates reason and the ability to fully understand. The children, seeking the approval and love of their parents, learn and recite these mantras of hate by rote.) The terrorist attack of 9-11 generated a significantly strong and wide-spread dislike for anything Muslim among the people of the United States. In some it instilled fear, in others anger, and in many it instilled hatred of the Muslim culture, all things Islamic, and anyone who even appeared to be of middle eastern descent. But, in almost all Americans, 9-11 instilled some degree of distrust! Human beings tend to be distrustful of anything out of the ordinary... especially if they can easily identify those "things" from their size, shape, manner of dress, speech, or color. Look upon that distrust as a survival mechanism.
Conservatives had a self-imposed "vow of silence". Until recently conservatives were the fabled "silent majority". You did not see conservatives rioting in the 1950s and 1960s. You did not see conservatives "dropping out" and running off to join the drug infested liberal "hippie" communes of the 1960s and '70s. However, in 2009, the "silent majority" realized they were not being heard over the tumultuous clamor of the socialist/Marxist liberals. The cacophonous whining of the "entitlement whores" (those who think the government owes them something for simply existing) and their "pimps" (the bleeding heart, liberal politicians who wish to increase their voter base by giving the first group anything they ask for) echo through the halls of the Congress, reverberating almost as loudly as the big money of corporate America and labor unions. We know that "money talks while....". Seeing the direction in which the NObama Administration was taking the country with bailouts, stimulus packages, increased entitlement programs, amnesty for illegal aliens, B.O.'s Global Apology Tour, and mortgaging the country to China (of all people), conservatives organized, mobilized, and gave birth to the 21st century version of the Boston Tea Party. For those of you who have never attended a Tea Party, it is a non-violent demonstration of the people's frustration with gargantuan government continuing to grow, and consuming everything in sight in order to keep the beast moving. There have been no calls for a revolution, or even a coup d'etat... yet. We are not happy with the government, and we see nothing on the horizon that might mollify us. We are, in typical conservative fashion, expressing our displeasure peacefully.
Conservatives generally accept and support everybody's religious beliefs, but without internalizing those beliefs or adopting them as their own... as long as there is no harm to man or beast in their "worship services". Conservatives may disagree with the practice of "Religion X", but they will not try to stop anybody else from the practice of that religion. Conservatives may believe that anyone without a religion is foolish, but they won't try to force their beliefs on others. If you have chosen to be an atheist, and someone approaches you to proselytize for "The First Church of XYZ", a simple "No thank you." should suffice. A loudly yelled "Get outta my face, Buttlips!" should work equally well, but that approach is a bloody nose looking for a place to happen... and may even initiate some hard feelings. You do not have a right to never see or hear something religious, but if you find it offensive you do have the right not to look or listen. Conservatives also don't believe that you have a right to try to ruin the holidays of those who do have religious convictions.
Conservatives are the folks who will literally stand up for the Constitution, when the left-wingers try to repeal it. Being conservative doesn't mean you have an insatiable desire to consume the seemingly interminable supply of male bovine excrement that political Washington D.C. keeps feeding the nation. We are not mushrooms... if we are kept in the dark and fed BS long enough we will turn bad!
Conservatives believe that our Constitution is the oldest "living" document in the world. But it is fully mature, and needs no further "growth". It is complete and perfect the way it reads today, just as it was 233 years ago. The bad news is that there hasn't been a true conservative in the White House since Ronald Reagan!
That may not be, as my heading claims, "exactly" what a conservative is, but it's close enough to get you thinking about conservatism!
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Dissent Not Permitted: The Assault on Our First Amendment Rights
A quick review of Amendment I to the Constitution of the United States of America reveals the intent of our Nation's founders was very straightforward:
Amendment I
Now that we all know the human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling legalese definition) we can proceed.
The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":
Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".
There's an old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach." This brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's far left politically, and has an unusual v
iew of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing." Excuse me, but where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would click on them... or would that be mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is FREEDOM! Freedom of speech, of expression, of thought, and of action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. - not PC). That's what "freedom" IS - the right of the individual to CHOOSE!
Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be NO democratic process in our REPUBLIC!
Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":
I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to insure that any story with political implications has the proper "I own this company, and you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is not likely.
The thirst for power is the great motivator. Gaining personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.
The media has power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of churches, synagogues, and mosques have power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The public school boards have power over the primary and secondary "education" (read: social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes, greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost all people, of almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews - anything which that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is power.
If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it won't be the least bit enjoyable!
There is a remote chance that I could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?
Amendment I
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. (Emphases added for clarification)
Now, let's play the Bill Clinton game... "it depends on what abridge means". Here we go:
abridge- Pronunciation:
- \ə-ˈbrij\
- Function:
- transitive verb
- Inflected Form(s):
- abridged; abridg·ing
- Etymology:
- Middle English abregen, from Anglo-French abreger, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short — more at
- Date:
- 14th century
1 archaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish abridges distance>
synonyms see shorten
Now that we all know the human definition of "abridged" (as opposed to the expectedly complex and mind-boggling legalese definition) we can proceed.
The abridging of our "freedom of speech" began ever-so-innocently with what was humorously referred to as "political correctness", or PC. To be politically correct meant that certain long established phrases were now considered insensitive, and we could no longer use honest, straightforward language to express our thoughts. We could no longer "call a spade a spade", as it was now more PC to call it a manually operated entrenchment device. While we're on that subject, let's look at the etymology, or origins, of that particular phrase - to "call a spade a spade":
- spade (1)
- "tool for digging," O.E. spadu, from P.Gmc. *spadon (cf. O.Fris. spada, M.Du. spade, O.S. spado, M.L.G. spade, Ger. Spaten), from PIE *spe- "long, flat piece of wood" (cf. Gk. spathe "wooden blade, paddle," O.E. spon "chip of wood, splinter," O.N. spann "shingle, chip"). To call a spade a spade "use blunt language" (1542) translates a Gk. proverb (known to the Romans)
Speaking of radical left-wing liberals... Supreme Court Justice Souter has announced his plans to retire from "The Bench", and B. Hussein Obama is considering about eight frothing-at-the-mouth radical lefties as Souter's replacement. Among these are Hillary Clinton (no additional comment necessary), four actual sitting judges at various levels of the judiciary, and the lesser-known Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's claim to fame is that he's an "old friend" of Obama's, and a notoriously left-wing but "brilliant constitutional law professor".
There's an old saying, "Those who can, do - those who can't, teach." This brilliant constitutional law professor is considered "brilliant" primarily because he's far left politically, and has an unusual v
iew of the First and Second Amendments. Sunstein has been an outspoken proponent of tough restriction on gun sales and ownership, a ban on hunting, animal rights and what has been characterized as a "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet! According to Sunstein "the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing." Excuse me, but where is it written that the Internet is supposed to be "democratic"? You can link all the opposing opinion sites "until the cows come home", that doesn't mean anybody would click on them... or would that be mandatory surfing behavior also? The word is FREEDOM! Freedom of speech, of expression, of thought, and of action (within the law) even if others believe the manner in which you choose to exercise those freedoms to be insensitive, or otherwise wrong (i.e. - not PC). That's what "freedom" IS - the right of the individual to CHOOSE!Here's another example of Sunstein's brilliant wisdom - "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." Apparently he has redefined the word "democratic" to exclude any and all thought outside the left-wing box. If it weren't FOR those freedom's he so cavalierly discredits, there would be NO democratic process in our REPUBLIC!
Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views. Here are a few more examples of Sunstein's "brilliance":
- In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.
- In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms."
- In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …"
- In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture."
I still support freedom of the press, regardless of the fact that 95% of the media are biased toward the left. The news is no longer reported. It's manufactured, or otherwise modified, by the left-wing publishers who require their "reporters" to insure that any story with political implications has the proper "I own this company, and you work for me" slant. I hope (against hope) that someday they will see the error of their ways, but it is not likely.
The thirst for power is the great motivator. Gaining personal power through the use of increasingly powerful connections. Personal, political and business connections that are untiringly networked toward the goal of high degrees of personal influence within a society. That "society" can be anything from a small commune to an international society - the level at which the leaderships of nations ostensibly operate.
The media has power over what information, and in which manner, it is delivered to the people. The leaderships of churches, synagogues, and mosques have power over influencing how people think about questions of morality, and their beliefs in obedience to whatever deity that particular entity supports. The public school boards have power over the primary and secondary "education" (read: social indoctrination) of the vast majority our children. Power feeds their greed. Yes, greed is a strong word, but it exists in most of us. Almost all people, of almost all modern societies, are acquisition oriented. For many, it is simply the acquisition of the basic necessities for sustaining life. For others it is how they gain the respect - and in some cases the adulation - of their peers, and the confused fear of those significantly "beneath them" in the social hierarchy. And for still others, power is reflected in big homes, fancy cars, expensive designer clothing, television appearances, magazine interviews - anything which that person feels is an outward sign of significant success, and may attract other like-minded people to their side, is power.
If we sit silently as our Constitution is marginalized, minimized, ignored and obstructed, we deserve whatever the outcome may be... and it won't be the least bit enjoyable!
There is a remote chance that I could be wrong about this ... any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)