What does it mean to be a ‘Conservative’?

Over the past few years with the rise of the Tea Party movement, many of my friends have asked me ‘what is a Conservative’?  Most of the time I am asked this question by my friends from the Libertarian persuasion who often give statements or quotes from certain founders, or Barry Goldwater that are often based in one form or another on ‘nonaggression’ trying to challenge me on what I refer to as ‘authentic Conservatism’.   While a component of Conservatism has elements of nonaggression embedded in it, our founders, who gave us the basis of American Conservatism would quickly disagree with the absolute nonaggression.

Many on the Libertarian side of the spectrum would argue that the individual has supremacy over the state and with that being the case, cannot be compelled to act against their will.  In ‘theory’ the supremacy of the individual over the state is correct on most issues however, it is not an absolute.  For example, the founders never created a system of governance (whether at the federal level, state level, county level, or community level) that all laws must be passed with 100% unanimity and all elected officials must get 100% of the vote in order for them to have legitimacy.  In fact, even the founding of the Republic in 1789 was not unanimous before it went into effect (two states North Carolina and Rhode Island didn’t ratify the Constitution until after Washington had already won the presidency and was already inaugurated) and Constitutional Amendments do not need to be ratified and approved by all the States.  With that being the case I must dismiss absolutist ‘nonaggression’ as the primary root of legitimate authority.  So if the government can compel an individual to comply, what prevents the State from becoming a tyrannical regime?

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force.  Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” ~ George Washington


While I acknowledge that there is much in Conservatism that shares much with Libertarian philosophy, Conservatism goes the all important next step of viewing the effects of governments through the prism of thousands of years of human experience to come to a conclusion of an effective government that respects and recognizes both Natural and Moral Laws.  I would like to go into depth on what defines Conservatism but a great man, with better communication skills than myself has already addressed this question 36 years ago, Ronaldus Magnus.  Reagan begins by refuting those that claim Conservatives are seeking ‘ideological purity’ and goes on to refute that Conservatism is an ‘ideology’ at all, thus delineating between Libertarian ideology and American Conservatism.  American Conservatism is based on guiding core principles as shaped and understood through human experience.

… I have always been puzzled by the inability of some political and media types to understand exactly what is meant by adherence to political principle. All too often in the press and the television evening news it is treated as a call for “ideological purity.” Whatever ideology may mean — and it seems to mean a variety of things, depending upon who is using it — it always conjures up in my mind a picture of a rigid, irrational clinging to abstract theory in the face of reality. We have to recognize that in this country “ideology” is a scare word. And for good reason. Marxist-Leninism is, to give but one example, an ideology. All the facts of the real world have to be fitted to the Procrustean bed of Marx and Lenin. If the facts don’t happen to fit the ideology, the facts are chopped off and discarded.

I consider this to be the complete opposite to principled conservatism. If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction, it is American conservatism.

When a conservative states that the free market is the best mechanism ever devised by the mind of man to meet material needs, he is merely stating what a careful examination of the real world has told him is the truth.

When a conservative says that totalitarian Communism is an absolute enemy of human freedom he is not theorizing — he is reporting the ugly reality captured so unforgettably in the writings of Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

When a conservative says it is bad for the government to spend more than it takes in, he is simply showing the same common sense that tells him to come in out of the rain.

When a conservative says that busing does not work, he is not appealing to some theory of education — he is merely reporting what he has seen down at the local school.

When a conservative quotes Jefferson that government that is closest to the people is best, it is because he knows that Jefferson risked his life, his fortune and his sacred honor to make certain that what he and his fellow patriots learned from experience was not crushed by an ideology of empire.

Conservatism is the antithesis of the kind of ideological fanaticism that has brought so much horror and destruction to the world. The common sense and common decency of ordinary men and women, working out their own lives in their own way — this is the heart of American conservatism today. Conservative wisdom and principles are derived from willingness to learn, not just from what is going on now, but from what has happened before.

The principles of conservatism are sound because they are based on what men and women have discovered through experience in not just one generation or a dozen, but in all the combined experience of mankind. When we conservatives say that we know something about political affairs, and that we know can be stated as principles, we are saying that the principles we hold dear are those that have been found, through experience, to be ultimately beneficial for individuals, for families, for communities and for nations — found through the often bitter testing of pain, or sacrifice and sorrow.

President Reagan continues

The American new conservative majority (here Reagan is speaking of an alliance of Social  Conservatives and Economic Conservatives) we represent is not based on abstract theorizing of the kind that turns off the American people, but on common sense, intelligence, reason, hard work, faith in God, and the guts to say: “Yes, there are things we do strongly believe in, that we are willing to live for, and yes, if necessary, to die for.” That is not “ideological purity.” It is simply what built this country and kept it great.

Let us lay to rest, once and for all, the myth of a small group of ideological purists trying to capture a majority. Replace it with the reality of a majority trying to assert its rights against the tyranny of powerful academics, fashionable left-revolutionaries, some economic illiterates who happen to hold elective office and the social engineers who dominate the dialogue and set the format in political and social affairs. If there is any ideological fanaticism in American political life, it is to be found among the enemies of freedom on the left or rightthose who would sacrifice principle to theory, those who worship only the god of political, social and economic abstractions, ignoring the realities of everyday life. They are not conservatives.

Our first job is to get this message across to those who share most of our principles. If we allow ourselves to be portrayed as ideological shock troops without correcting this error we are doing ourselves and our cause a disservice. Wherever and whenever we can, we should gently but firmly correct our political and media friends who have been perpetuating the myth of conservatism as a narrow ideology. Whatever the word may have meant in the past, today conservatism means principles evolving from experience and a belief in change when necessary, but not just for the sake of change.

Once we have established this, the next question is: What will be the political vehicle by which the majority can assert its rights? …

This is an excerpt from Reagan’s ‘The New Republican Party’ speech (CPAC 1977), and THIS is Conservatism.

Read it, learn it, live it, and as Ric Flair said ‘Learn to LOVE IT! Because it’s the best thing going today — WOOOOO!”

Tagged , , , , , ,

A message of hope to Obama cultists

Matt Walsh is Brilliant!

The Matt Walsh Blog

Free yourselves.

Obama cultists: free yourselves.

Shed those chains of compliance and apathy. Walk free.

I’m not here to attack you. I’m here to reach out with a joyful message of hope. I’m also not here to tell you to become a Republican. I’m not a Republican; I’m proudly and aggressively unaffiliated with any political party. And I know your immediate, visceral, instinctual reaction, when someone challenges you or your Leader, is to shout, “BUT YOU DIDN’T SAY THIS WHEN BUSH DID [xyz]!” Well, I was a kid when Bush came into office, but for what it’s worth, I did criticize many of his actions and policies. When he signed the No Child Left Behind Act, for instance, I was vociferously opposed. And I let everyone at the lunch table know about it.

So, I’ve disarmed your only defense mechanisms. You can’t bring Republicans into this one, because I’m not…

View original post 2,304 more words

Judge Napolitano Hints at Anti-Boehner ‘Coup’. My Sources Say “Not Likely, but…”


SOURCE: Speaker Boehner’s website

During the last 48 hours the blogosphere, especially the Libertarian/Tea Party ones, have been burning up with what some would call a shocking ‘prediction’ by Judge Napolitano that there is a ‘Coup’ in the works to oust Speaker Boehner by February when the next debt-ceiling/Continuing Resolution fight is expected to take place.  This isn’t the 1st time that there was a rumor of Speaker Boehner being ousted in a Tea Party-led ‘coup’.  As we all know, there was the threat of a big ‘coup’ in the works last January when it looked like Speaker Boehner was heading for an embarrassing defeat at the hands of Grassroots Tea Party Conservatives only to be ‘saved’ at the very last-minute after promising ‘Regular Order’ and adherence to the ‘Hastert Rule’ (which he has violated 5 times since January).

I have been working my sources over for over three weeks on another similar story before the Judge’s ‘prediction’ and will put what I’ve heard from multiple sources that may shed light on the matter.  I leave it up to you as the reader to decide what’s True and what’s bullshit.  Then we all will have to wait and see what happens:

  1. THE JANUARY COUP – As stated above, Boehner survived a well-advertised coup in January, but was it all that much of a threat to his Speakership?  There are conflicting stories to how and why it went down.  From my DC sources, the word is that the reason Speaker Boehner survived the ‘coup’ was for one reason alone, NO ONE wanted to take the seat  (This may be where the ‘Book of Samuel’ explanation comes in to play). My sources say that they were not afraid of going against the Speaker, but it’s worse than that, the House GOP is scared shitless of the media scrutiny and the Obama/MSM slander machine.  Very few politicians in DC are eager and willing to immediately become the Obama and Pop-Culture’s Public Enemy Number 1 and by default, Speaker Boehner remained Speaker Boehner.  Basically to get the change we need, we need a Conservative with a DGAF attitude to take the position.
  2. CANTOR AND MCCARTHY DON’T WANT THE SPEAKERSHIP – A shocking ‘dime’ that was dropped me was that the rest of TeamBoehner do NOT want to follow the ‘next in line’ template and rise up the ladder to assume the Speakership once Boehner decides to step down from the position.  The takeaway here is that there is a power-vacuum and the Speakership is there for the taking.  No word if first-class jerk, Rep Peter King will seek this instead of the Presidency in 2016, but I would NOT doubt it.  But if I had any sway on the issue, I think ‘Speaker Gohmert’ sounds wonderful.  One can hope.
  3. THERE WILL BE A ‘BLOODBATH’ BETWEEN THE GRASSROOTS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT – A few sources have opened up and told me what we all expected to happen after the recent deal, that there will be and I quote ‘a knock-down, drag-out brass-knuckle bloodbath inside the GOP’, especially in the House of Representatives.  Another source also stated recently that there essentially 3 political parties in operation in DC – The Ruling class (consisted of Leadership in both parties), the Hardcore Leftist Democrats who are driving the issues, and the Tea Party base which the other 2 parties utterly despise.   The way they said it breaks down follows:  the Ruling Class ‘TeamBoehner’ and “TeamPelosi’ have a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ of a 70/30 deal.  That the Majority will move forward on 70% of what they want and give in to the opposition 30% of what they want because they know that one day they will become the ‘minority party’ and with the 30%, they still have a seat at the table and hold on to their power-base, ie Money.  The Tea Party, and even much of the radical Left HATE this working arrangement and would like to see more of a genuine open fight on principles and the direction of the Republic and allow the chips fall where they may.
  4. BOEHNER WILL NOT STEP DOWN BEFORE FEBRUARY – Only one source got back to me regarding this part of the Judge’s story (so take it for what it’s worth) but they say that it is not likely that Boehner will step down before February.  The Tea Party MAY try to force the issue but a strange alliance (which my source suggested about 10 days ago) has been made, and as TMP’s reports that House Democrats have assured Boehner that they will not allow him to lose the gavel.  Now we all know Aesop’s fable of ‘The Frog and the Scorpion’ so they could be lying but it would NOT surprise me if they remained True on this, if it’s just to screw over the Tea Party insurgency.  However my source did imply, which backs what the Judge said, that the ‘standing-O’ Boehner received after the Debt-ceiling fight had definitely a ‘farewell’ feel to it.  So that does leave the door open to a mid-term change at Speaker but I do not think it’s likely. I give this a 10% chance of occurring.
  5. BOEHNER WILL NOT SEEK REELECTION – Yup, you read that right.  Now this rumor has been out there before and as recently as last month but this one seems to be one of those ‘worst-kept-secrets’ in the Beltway among those in the know.    Boehner recently denied the rumor as ‘silly’ when it was suggested in September, but my sources say it’s a done deal.  A 100% sure bet. And with Boehner’s district so gerrymandered, they are just seeking and vetting establishment replacements as we speak.  Once they ‘crown’ the replacement establishment candidate, he’ll announce that he’s not seeking reelection in 2014.  The sources state that Boehner is just worn out and tired of all the DC drama and is sick of being America’s most-hated Republican.   So we will have a new Speaker but that won’t take place until after the next election cycle.

Initially I was really shocked that not a single representative felt compelled to challenge Speaker Boehner back in January but this debt-ceiling fight may be the impetus for Conservatives to step up to the plate.  And with the info that no one in TeamBoehner wants the seat, it could be a great way for the Tea Party to take the gavel and begin real change and a real challenge to the status quo.   We will not get a real IRS investigation, nor answers on Benghazi with the current LeaderShit so this rumor, if it comes to pass, will be an immediate ‘game-changer’ almost as big as winning the Presidency and give us real answers.

Well, that’s all the news I have ‘fit to print’.


Tagged , , , , ,

Rowdy Roddy Piper: ‘Don’t let anyone take your guns away’

Gotta Love ‘HOT ROD’!

Ex ‘Real World’ Star Attacked In DC — Because of Government Shutdown???

In a story that flew under the pop-culture radar last week, former ‘REAL WORLD: BOSTON‘ star and present day Republican Congressman, Sean Duffy (Wisc.) was attacked in what was described as a minor physical altercation due in large part, to the Sen. Harry Reid’s actions that triggered the current Government Shutdown.

CBS Minnesota reports:

“A random individual, unknown to the congressman, began screaming at him and grabbed his arm,” said spokeswoman Cassie Smedile in a Thursday morning statement. “Mr. Duffy was unharmed. He reported the incident in compliance with House security procedures. Congressman Duffy has requested no further action be taken and there will be no further comment on the matter at this time.”

Unlike prior stories of Democrats being assaulted by Tea Party activists, this story has been verified by multiple sources.


Days later Rep. Sean Duffy decided lay the ‘smack-down’ where it would hurt the Progressive media the most, not by pressing charges against a Leftist nutter, but by schooling Andrea Mitchell when he laid that facts out that Republicans are fighting for equal application of the current ObamaCare law which is at the heart of the current ObamaCare/Government Shutdown debate.

Getchya popcorn ready, sit back, turn down the lights, and enjoy the Conservative Porn.


Tagged , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: