THE HIJACKING OF TERMINOLOGY: CONSERVATIVE

Recent polls suggest that a great many Americans are self-identifying as conservative and what does that actually mean?

If 40% are self-identifying as conservative, in order to win elections, Republicans are going to need to convince another 11% of the electorate that their platform is one that is worth pursuing.

 

The problem is that some Republicans have hijacked the term “conservative” and created its meaning to be one of religion instead of what the word really means: limited.

 

We speak of conserving, we speak of limiting – government, abuse of resources, money, time, energy. Conservative has nothing to do with religion.   Disenfranchising the other 60% of the population because they don’t hold a religious view is rather absurd, especially if you want to win elections and make change toward individual freedom.

 

Good people with solid values about limited government, safety of our nation and personal responsibility do not have to endorse a religious viewpoint.   Hard to believe as it might be, there are some stand up citizens who have never believed in a god or a religion. Astounding as it might be there are some who never speak of their religious views and are upstanding politicians.   The law of averages tells you that out of 535 members, it’s not possible that all believe in a deity or religion.

 

Isn’t it infringing on the individual freedom of another human being’s conscious mind to, not only assume for them that the god you believe in certainly exists for them, but that they would have to endorse your specific acceptance of such deity and/or religion? Isn’t that viewpoint antithetical to freedom itself? Isn’t freedom of religion one of our establishment clauses? 

 

No freedom loving American wants any other American to not have his faith or to be silenced because of his faith. The question to ask yourself is this: if I want to have the freedom of my beliefs, why is it that I am insisting that others share that belief?

 

Isn’t freedom, individual freedom, personal responsibility, safety of our nation and limited government what truly unites ANY human being?

 

“Conservatives” don’t own right, goodness, charity, benevolence – so why do they keep acting like they do?  

 

Great Americans who contribute and will continue to contribute to America’s freedoms don’t need to be religious to do so. And if you think they do, then what does it say about where you are in terms of extending freedom of the individual’s conscious mind to decide for self how his life should be lived? 

 

What does it say about your position that mirrors the liberal democrats who want to control our lives with their version of religion?

 

Conservative isn’t about religion but about limiting government’s reach into our lives.  If beyond limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation are your agenda, then you’re behaving as liberals behave: thinking you own righteousness, seeking to control others & their choices and doing so through force.

 

And why should any of the other 60% of our population vote for another candidate who just wants to behave like liberals do, doing the same thing liberals do, forcing their values & morality on the rest of us.

 

The fact is: we don’t.  Judging from emails I receive, a lot of us don’t.

 

We need not care if you’re black, white, Jewish, Hindu, gay, straight, man, woman – any differentiation is merely used to seek favor and entitlement.

 

Our personal choices in life of religion, food, car, family, etc. are irrelevant.   If you believe these are relevant to politics, then there’s something else at work other than upholding and advancing personal freedom.

 

We’re all Americans seeking individual freedom so we can create the life we want to live. When we make choices only with the consent of others, we uphold the Constitutional foundation of contract, agreed upon by any two people.  What is more representative of freedom than that?

 

We live in a Republic; we are chartered by a Constitution. I am a Republican and I uphold the Constitution.  I defend individual freedom and individual choice irrespective of whether or not I agree with the choice. If your choice does not inhibit my freedom of choice, what care do I have that you make it? 

 

What care do you have that others make choice that you don’t agree with? What is your agenda?

 

Republicans can take back the terminology of conservative to its meaning of limited government.

HONORING OUR MILITARY AT CHRISTMAS!

WE AWAIT YOUR SAFE RETURN!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

CLUB FOR GROWTH - A SOCIETY FOR ALL

Club For Growth  understands that limited government will create the environment which will move our society toward resolving all other issues, however, being involved in social issues just creates more problems than it solves. 

If you want government involved in social issues, consider why that is?  What personal agenda are you attempting to thrust onto society for your comfort?

Free Market solutions can manage social issues which concern all of us, while upholding individual freedom. 

Asking government to be involved in social issues is asking for favor and entitlement; social issues are not the role of government.

Milton Friedman once said that the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is because of the inefficiency of government.

If you think government should or will solve social issues, you're a RINO - you are motivated by personal agenda at a cost of individual freedoms to others.  Society doesn't exist for you or I. 

Personal comfort is not a right. 

Sympathy, empathy, personal experiences are not synonyms for legislation.

 

 

ARE YOU READY TO GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM TO OBAMA?

ARE YOU READY TO GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM TO THE OBAMA THUGOCRACY?

TO AVOID PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SO YOU CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE OBAMANITES?

WHEN PEOPLE STARTING THINKING THEY KNOW HOW YOU SHOULD LIVE, WHAT CHOICES YOU SHOULD MAKE, THE "DEMOLITION MAN" TYPE OF WORLD IS WHAT WE FACE.

FREEDOM OR CHOICE, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

"You see, according to OBAMA'S plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener. You live up top, you live OBAMA'S way, what he wants, when he wants, how he wants..."

GOREBAL WARMING & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

With the recent climategate, my call to the Terry Gilberg Show on Sundays here in Phoenix, AZ on 550 AM KFYI, we discussed the importance of understanding the scientific method and how science is never a consensus.

Christopher Horner, Fred Singer and other great researchers and scientists disagree with the "hypothesis" regarding gorebal warming.

Years ago the M&M Project was created by Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntrye, who did amazing research unmasking and uncovering the fraud behind the "Hockey Stick" graph inserted into the IPCC report over a decade ago.

In their research, McKitrick and McIntrye found that the data sets utilized to create the hockey stick were fraudulent. Data had been skewed to make it appear as it did in the report claiming climate temperatures were rising at dangerous levels.

Stories of television dramas are made of these: the stonewalling done by Mann, who created the graph and the false data, is something right out of the book, State of Fear by Michael Crichton (which,if you haven't read is one of the best researched books told in story form I've enjoyed regarding climate research).

Two aspects of great importance for any politician to be able to, not only understand, but have the ability to explain are: the scientific method and free market capitalism. These two important aspects of how we advance technology and increase the quality of life here in America and the world abroad are not to be taken lightly, nor utilized for politicizing at a cost to Americans.

As a citizen, I will, and I encourage you to do so as well, hold our future candidates and elected officials to these understandings.

Not assimilating the scientific method leads to blind acceptance, which is a method of avoiding personal responsibility. It's like voting on a budget with no understanding of what a spreadsheet looks like or knowing what the receivables and payables are all about.

Not understanding the basics and power of free market capitalism leads to destructive socialistic ideology, which avoids personal responsibility.

Both science and capitalism are right in line with this nation's foundation: FREEDOM

Capitalism is a voluntary contract; consent of two Americans negotiating goods & services which create jobs, self-reliance and self-governance. Regulations, controls and the like are what skew, distort and create problems in capitalistic societies.

Science creates freedom in understanding our universe, the world in which we live and how to best utilize our resources for creating better quality of living. Claims of consensus are what create problems by people attempting to control information rather than releasing information and letting citizens draw their conclusions along with making their own decisions toward personal choice.

Not subjects to be taken lightly; clearly subjects neglected over the years in exchange for wealth building and politicizing life instead of upholding freedom along with personal responsibility.

SCIENCE IS THE ONLY DISCIPLINE AND METHOD WHICH ACTUALLY SEEKS TO FALSIFY ITSELF, TO FIND WHERE IT'S IN ERROR IN ORDER TO CORRECT ITSELF AND ADVANCE.

Consider all the people, methods and claims which never think they're in error and will make choices at a cost to you & I in pursuit of personal agenda, "because I know I'm right".

ON THE ISSUES: THERE IS NO WAR ON CHRISTMAS!

There is no war on Christmas.


It’s a media ploy to garner ratings from riling people up and making them think their rights are being infringed upon. Schools, Business, Government Entities, name it and someone thinks there is a war on Christmas.

It’s theater of the absurd.

If you’re having issue with a pluralistic society and getting religion out of government, you need to look seriously at your motives and agenda.

Each must decide within his own conscious mind how to live this life, even our founders understood that.

No one religion, religious view or ideology owns this nation. We are a nation of pluralism, where we acknowledge all and favor none – the one thing we all favor: freedom.

If you think you own this nation, you have more serious issues than someone not saying Merry Christmas. The nation doesn’t exist for you.

Public schools are funded with tax dollars from everyone: Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Jainists, Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, Lutherans and the list goes on for some 2000+ religions & beliefs in this nation. Has this fact been lost on Americans? How do you think public schools get funded? From the PUBLIC!

A better reason couldn’t be offered for getting government out of schools so that parents can put their dollars where they desire into private schools which espouse their belief systems and values.

Asking your neighbors to fund your child’s education is like asking you to fund a woman’s abortion.

Somehow certain people of faith think that their religion should dominate all others to the extent that the Hindu, Jew and Muslim down the street should be paying for their child to go to public school and be forced into a specific prayer, or forced to accept a particular view of religion.

We’ve forgotten what objective freedom means vs. subjective ideology.

It’s a CHOICE to send your child to public school.

If parents make a choice to not fund their child’s education into a private school and instead use the entitlement of education, then sending their kid through the public school system funded with tax dollars of ALL AMERICANS with ALL BELIEFS, compels neutrality in order to serve such systems to educate all and not indoctrinate none - that's what home is for - teaching the values & beliefs you desire.

“Why should my child, who is Jewish, be forced to say a Christian prayer in public school? My taxes pay for that school just as the Christian parents.”

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”. We are a Republic, guided by a charter, not a democracy where “majority rules” takes away the freedom of others.

Do some organizations get crazy about Christmas? Sure. Not allowing green and red paper? Really? I digress.

If Wal-Mart, a privately owned company enjoying the benefits of free market supply/demand economics doesn’t want to say “Merry Christmas”, that’s their prerogative. If consumers want to send a message, not of threats, but of supply/demand economics by simply stating, “We disagree with your policy and will shop elsewhere”, it is likely that Wal-Mart will shift its policy if it matters to them.

Just because our nation has done something for years doesn’t mean the action taken has upheld freedom.

We enslaved people for decades, then self-evaluated and self-corrected.

We held women in suffrage for decades, then self-evaluated and self-corrected.

We continue to grow as a nation and find where we are not upholding freedom of the individual, we self-evaluate and self-correct.

We acknowledge all and favor none.

If you hold to the idea that you have a particular belief system and rituals must be favored by “government funding or endorsement” then you are asking for an entitlement along with bullying others into subjugation – it's what Muslims do to their women and would do to all of us, given the opportunity.

It’s not a war on Christmas; it is self-evaluation and self-correction.

The Christmas Tree, as an example, has come to symbolize a time of giving in our society which has nothing to do with religion of any kind. The tree was a pagan tradition to start with and wasn't endorsed by religious people. What difference does it make where it came from unless you're trying to take ownership by which to control others?

Not sure who put it into your head that your particular beliefs in life about ANYTHING are given credential toward entitlement, limiting the freedom of another American.

On your home, at your private business, on your shirt, in your car put up all the stickers, nativity scenes, and crosses you desire. In and on government funded entities which represent ALL THE PEOPLE (remember that phrase,WE THE PEOPLE, meaning everyone?) then we seek neutrality to acknowledge all but favor none.

Shout out Merry Christmas! Sing out Happy Holidays! Celebrate any or all of the holidays you desire! Get government out of such things and no one cares who celebrates what holiday and “goes around making merry”!

If you want to create drama in your life, then see through the filter of victimization that there’s a war on Christmas thus a war on your religion.

Or see life through the filter of freedom. How do we create more freedom for self and other Americans by self-evaluation, self-correction and developing our understanding of expanding freedom, not limiting it?

“Why should religion be removed from the public square!”

Because society doesn’t exist for you and your personal beliefs, that’s why!

If you’re having issue with religion being out of the government funded public square, you need to ask yourself some serious questions about wanting to control others.

Republicans don’t want to be controlled regarding health care, education, abortion, marriage and the like, yet find no hypocrisy in wanting to control others by demanding their religious views be favored on government property or government funded schools.

You think winning elections is by manipulating voters to your side? By playing to the sleight of hand touting freedom all the while in subtle form attempting to maneuver to get your way?

We will continue to lose elections if we don't start cleaning up where we've not upheld individual freedom and start speaking to a pluralistic society that can make decisions for themselves within their own conscious minds of how to live this life.

You can't fake freedom, either you assimilate freedom to your core and can speak to it, or you cannot.

People and voters, know the difference - we can spot it a mile away when people start injecting their own subjective ideology instead of objective freedom in their actions, their words and their deeds.

Freedom or control - which side are you on?

ON THE ISSUES: THE ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

Recently at my precinct meeting a representative from the Alliance Defense Fund gave a speech. It started with demonizing the ACLU, followed by invoking entitlement, advanced with subjective ideology of what government is about and lacking in character and integrity

Demonizing the ACLU to further your personal agenda brings no credibility.

You mean this ACLU:

2004: trial regarding allegations of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, the ACLU argued that his privacy should not have been compromised by allowing law enforcement examination of his medical records

1997: Internet Free Speech in ACLU v. Reno, the court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by banning "indecent" speech. Although this was a major First Amendment victory for the information age, the battle continues; the ACLU often finds itself defending online free speech from further assault. (one reason we have the ability to speak openly on blogs)

1986: The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

In 1973: the ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, giving as reasons the Nixon administration's violations of civil liberties.

In 1967: the ACLU successfully argued against state bans on interracial marriage, in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

1954: Brown v. Board of Education: the ACLU, having long supported the legal battle for equal education, celebrated a majority victory when the Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case brought by the NAACP

1942: Fighting for the Internment of Japanese Americans: the ACLU stood almost alone in denouncing the federal government’s interment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

The favor and entitlement ADF screams about the ACLU doing, is exactly what ADF is doing: seeking favor from legislators or the courts to support their personal specific view of life, what choices a person should make and how to live life, even to the assumption of existence – they believe and you best, too! What happened to the founders idea of freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self?

Crosses on mountains that are on government property utilizing pluralistic tax dollars does not limit government, it expands its reach and favors one religious view over another. Private property, no problem, no one cares. Government property – it’s gotta go. Society doesn’t exist for you!

Just because we haven’t developed past certain discriminations, doesn’t mean the courts aren’t accurately reversing some of the bullying that has gone on with regard to the upholding personal freedom.

Slavery, suffrage, interracial marriage, discrimination – any of these sound familiar, all “traditions” at one time in our society, all tolerated by society, some even using the bible as credential to continue or further it.

Finally, the speaker had the Obama-audacity to say that government has interest in the family propagating to help pay taxes and fund our society. How absurd! This is antithetical to freedom, free choice, free markets and limited government. Not to mention bigoted – there are lots of variants when it comes to creating families through a variety of methods. This myopic view of life is breathtaking.

Society existed long before any government came upon it to tax it and spend like thieves. If government “cannot run its household on the liberal allowance it receives” from the current tax payers then it is the legislators responsibility to live within their means and cut spending.

The ONLY reason a person would make such a declaration is to impose a subjective and ideological view of the world upon everyone else – just like liberal democrats.

Yes, the ACLU & ADF over-reach; yes, the ACLU & ADF fight for freedom; yes, the ACLU & ADF have their place in society.

However, for the Alliance Defense Fund to propagate certain “values” and thus seek protectionism from the courts or through legislation is acting in hypocrisy to freedom, free choice and freedom of the individual conscious mind to decide for self. Not to mention that it’s the same behavior they are accusing the ACLU of doing – forcing opinions and behavior onto society!
In so much as your personal choice does not infringe on a personal choice of another without consent – without contract – without agreement, it’s not the governments business, nor mine, nor yours. In free markets we call this: choice.

If you are asking courts and legislators to favor your religion, your definition of marriage, or any other social agenda for which you disagree about the free choice of another American, you live in hypocrisy toward freedom itself.

No one should be listening to or be lectured by an organization that seeks its own personal agenda antithetical to freedom of the individual all the while demonizing the ACLU or any other organization.

Both organizations need to clean up their acts.

The Alliance Defense Fund can start that self-evaluation leading to self-correction (long before the ACLU ever will) by seeking to get government out of our lives, out of marriage, out of religion, out of education, out of abortion, out of health care and all other social issues where government has no business. Do that and it takes away the weapon of hypocrisy that liberals easily wield at Republicans. Unless, of course, demanding favor for subjective ideology, overstepping the Constitution and insisting others believe as they believe, is their goal

With this kind of thinking, Conservatives are fast becoming liberals with religion – and guess what? People are onto the scam.

Limited government, personal & fiscal responsibility, safety of the nation – no one can argue these foundations who does not reveal himself anti-American.

If the ADF wants to fight battles, then fight the battle for equality of freedom by getting government out of it all so that free people can make free choices and stop looking for endorsements from government.