Political Conservatism vs Republicanism

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am what I refer to as a Conservative Traditionalist. I am not a card-carrying member of either major political party, because I do not believe in blindly supporting party agendas. I am in charge of my life, and when I enter the voting booth I will make the decision as to what I believe is best for my country.

One of the biggest problems of the "two party system" is that the majority of those registered as R or D, view the Presidential electoral process as a "them or us" situation. Presidential elections are always an us condition, because the outcome impacts the entire country for the next four years. On the other hand, we do not need the overwhelming quagmire of political parties that some of the European countries have - the UK for example:

• 158 parties have their name registered for use only in England
• 9 parties have their name registered for use in England and Wales.
• 129 parties have their name registered for use in England, Scotland and Wales.
• 19 parties have their name registered for use only in Scotland.
• 9 parties have their name registered for use only in Wales.
• In Northern Ireland, 48 parties are on the register, including the Conservative Party which fights elections in the province.
• 4 parties are registered as "Minor Parties"

With as many as 158 registered parties, there should be a party for each and every issue under consideration! We certainly don't need that ... but, we do need a viable third party, a party whose primary interest is the good of the nation, rather than just the good of the party. A pork-free party!

Along with that, we would need representation for the nation as a whole, not just their home state. Why? Because that which is good for the nation is also good for the individual states! It cannot help but be beneficial in some respect. No more "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" backroom deals for earmarked state spending. But, I digress ... getting back to my topic:

A Conservative Traditionalist believes that our country, in spite of what few shortcomings it may have, is still the best country in the world. They also believe that the culture, traditions, and laws that made it the best country in the world are worth protecting from those who would scrap it all and reinvent the USA in the image of recently liberal Europe. And, I say recently, because Europe's conversion to liberalism has taken shape over the last 60 years.

We are not Europe ... nor are we Asia, Africa, or any of the remaining continents. We are the United States of America - the centerpiece of North America, a relatively new continent in the cultural sense. Yet in a scant 233 years - and because of the formula of that culture - we have overtaken and surpassed cultures a thousand years or more our senior. Economically, physically, spiritually, militarily and technologically we have advanced from relative obscurity, to a position of global leadership. The principles of our founding fathers have worked well for us for over two centuries, so where is the obvious indicator of a need for change? "Change", as someone once said, "is inevitable", but the result of change simply for the sake of change is frequently counterproductive, and sometimes destructive.

Who desires change in the American culture? Those who refuse to assimilate into that culture, and those who believe that the responsibility for providing the unearned rewards of individual success rests with the government. They believe that the government's role is to reward indolence and slothfulness with benefits equal or superior to those enjoyed by the productive, tax-paying members of our society. I strongly disagree with those people, whatever their party affiliation. We have too many grasshoppers and too few ants ... and if the ants should someday realize that the free ride is much easier than laboring for ones support, then we shall surely all perish of starvation.

I could be wrong about this ... and the Pope could be Jewish!

Freedom of Speech vs The "Fairness Doctrine" = The U.S. Constitution vs. Congress

Here we go again ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has decided we should - once again - ignore that pesky old document called the Constitution, and do things the way the loony left thinks they should be done. That damned First Amendment just keeps impeding their progress toward turning the USA into a genuine 3rd world country. Amendment I says, in part, "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 ..." etc. I added the emphasis for ... emphasis! Where is the need for discussion there? Does some moron not understand the meaning of the word "abridged"? Here's the first 3 meanings shown in one 'Dictionary of The English Language':

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book. 2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish, curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom. 3. to deprive; cut off.

I'm assuming that - if you have read that - you can, in fact, read! Comprehension is an entirely different skill though, so let me make it eve more clear: Congress cannot make into law anything that would lessen your ability to say what you wish ... other than the recently created concepts of "hate speech" and "hate crimes", anyway. (Am I wrong, or is defining hate speech, and making it illegal, creating a law that abbreviates our right to free speech? Keep in mind though, that through the exercise of hateful free speech, you may discover the meaning of "Can o' Whup-ass".) Nowhere in the Constitution does it guarantee us the right not to have our feelings hurt!

At the same time we must understand that the Constitution does not require the Government, or any other entity, to provide a platform for your free expression of thoughts. If there is no commercial support for the way you exercise your 1st Amendment rights, then you have no right to expect somebody else to pick up the tab! The so-called "Fairness Doctrine" would be more appropriately called the "Liberal Left Loser Doctrine". If the ultra-liberal NPR (National Public Radio) can't hold its own in the marketplace - even with the assistance of George Soros' millions of dollars - that should be an indication that the vast majority of American citizens don't believe in the crap that's being broadcast on NPR!