← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 8684 | Posts: 15 | Started: 2003-08-02
2003-08-02 05:43 | User Profile
**WHY DO CONSERVATIVES CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?
International Politics by Chuck Baldwin August 1, 2003
It should be obvious to every rational person that the Republican Party has totally lost whatever conservative moorings it had. Since seizing control of the federal government and many state governments, Republicans have consistently promoted bigger and bigger government, have betrayed virtually every conservative cause, and have broken virtually every conservative promise. Even columnist George Will observed that under President Bush, conservatism has developed "an identity crisis." However, the greater crisis is the willingness of grassroots conservatives to continue to support such a party.
Since becoming President, G.W. Bush has exploded the size and growth of the federal government. Furthermore, he has betrayed gun owners with his support of the Clinton gun ban and has done nothing but give lip service to pro-life voters. Now we learn that Bush has decided to defend Bill Clinton's national monuments proclamation.
When Bill Clinton restricted millions of acres of prime western land, then candidate Bush called the policy "willy-nilly" and promised to nullify it when elected President. Instead, he has sent Justice Department officials to the U.S. Supreme Court to lobby in favor of Clinton's land grab...
Not only is the Clinton/Bush policy to seize millions of acres "willy-nilly," it is blatantly unconstitutional! If this policy is allowed to stand, it means any president may, with the stroke of a pen, convert any property in the United States to a national monument. Such an act is void of any interpretation of law previously understood.
The thing that should concern us is the increasing propensity of the executive branch to deliberately assume powers either not assigned to it or assigned to other branches of government, and Republicans are proving themselves as adept at such unlawful activity as Democrats!
Constitutional lawyer William J. Olson, a Republican who lobbied Congress "to restrict a president's ability to legislate by executive order or proclamation," said, "You'd hope presidents would view power in their own hands with the same suspicion they view it in the hands of people they distrust." But, that's the problem: they don't.
Instead, Republicans, like Democrats, only criticize the misuse of power when the other party is to blame. When one of their own is the culprit, they seem willing to tolerate virtually any abuse or abridgement.
It is past time for grassroots conservatives to begin standing courageously and uncompromisingly for the principles they profess to believe. How one can do that and still support the Republican Party is beyond my comprehension.
[If you found this article of interest, please consider perusing the FriendsOfLiberty/SiaNews archives [url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Stories_Archive]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=St...Stories_Archive[/url]
Please also consider registering (free) as a FriendOfLiberty at our Front Page, and taking the current Poll: Should the Council on Foreign Relations be Investigated for Treason?]
FriendOfLiberty [url=http://www.sianews.com]http://www.sianews.com[/url]
[url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1163]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...rticle&sid=1163[/url]
**
2003-08-02 05:48 | User Profile
**Bush's "Third-Way" Communitarianism the Worst Way
International Politics by Patrick B. Briley July 30, 2003
President George W. Bush speaks conservative words about Christian Right values but then takes pro gay, pro fetal research and weak anti-abortion stances. While Bush is saying he is a Christian he stays silent about ill-advised gay and sodomy Supreme Court decisions, appoints gays to high level Republican positions, calls Islam a religion of peace and attacks Christian leaders publicly who say otherwise.
Bush talks of American freedom but then attempts to greatly reduce individual freedoms permanently in power grabs with Patriot Acts I and II. Bush has declared a war on terror and justifies the martial law attributes of the Patriot Acts by saying the war on terror may be very prolonged if not indefinite. And Bush backs more and more gun control.
Bush says the UN has serious problems that are not helpful to the US interests but then Bush puts the US back into UNESCO and actively promotes the UN and world government that does take American freedoms away...
Bush used his declared need to make the UN more powerful to justify the liberation of Iraq rather than rely on the international law principle of the sovereign national right of the US to use self defense for Iraqââ¬â¢s direct assistance in 1993 WTC, OKC bombing and 9/11 attacks and giving Iraqi WMDS to terrorists who want to use them on Americans.
Bush talks of good sound fiscal policies and financial conservatism but then out sources American high tech jobs to China (backs L1 visa program), proposes legalizing millions of illegal Mexicans and including Mexicoââ¬â¢s work force in the US Social Security System, and dramatically expands the size of government in social areas beyond what Americans want, areas that liberal Democrats like Hilary and Bill Clinton and world government socialists are always in favor of. Will Bush be backing a global tax any day now to pay for these world socialism programs and the UN to administer them?
Are Bushââ¬â¢s unprincipled hypocrisies (really lying if you "read his lips" closely) due to what Bush and Karl Rove think need to be done to get just enough liberal Democratic and Conservative Republican votes to get reelected?
Or is Bush really using "1984, Qrwellian double speak" to help implement a brand of capitalistic socialism called communitarianism that Bush, Tony Blair and the Clintons believe must be used to usher in a world government? There is enough information out there now about what Bush thinks and believes and does so that you can read Bushââ¬â¢s mind if you can't bring yourself to "read"ââ¬Å his lying, hypocritical and duplicitous lips.
If you believe that Bush listens to his communitarianism advisor Don Eberly in the White House and if you believe what Blair and Hilary Clinton have said about communitarism and its equivalent to the ââ¬ÅThird Wayââ¬Â, then you might be inclined to believe President Bush is a world government socialist. You also might start to think Bush believes the "ends" of world government justify the Bush "illegal means" even if it means neutering the US Constitution with the Patriot Acts, giving US missile defense to Russia, giving US high tech jobs to China, growing the US government to make Americans totally subservient to the government, staying silent about Supreme Court Judges who now say they base their US decisions on the EU Constitution the Justices helped to write.
[url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1158]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...rticle&sid=1158[/url]**
2003-08-02 05:53 | User Profile
**Americans: Free Yourselves from the Two Party Death Grip
International Politics By Chuck Baldwin July 29, 2003
It's time to say it: the two major parties hold a death grip on the American people! Instead of representing the people, both parties are bought and paid for by special interest groups. Neither party pays any attention to the U.S. Constitution but are largely marching in lock-step toward bigger and bigger government. Both Republicans and Democrats eagerly sacrifice what's good for the country with what's good for the party. As they now exist, neither major party deserves the support of patriotic Americans.
Furthermore, blind allegiance to the two major parties has created a "lesser of two evils" mindset that has warped the thinking and perverted the values of otherwise good people. What people would never accept in any other venue of society, they gladly and willingly accept from their chosen party's candidates.
People expect honesty and integrity from clergymen, bankers, doctors, businessmen, realtors, even journalists and used car salesmen. Those same people, however, quickly tolerate and even excuse dishonesty and chicanery from their chosen political party.
Consider the excuse conservatives give for President Bush's recent announcement that he supports the Clinton gun ban. Rather than holding Bush accountable for his inexcusable statement, they rush to his defense by saying, "Bush is just saying this to placate moderates. He doesn't really mean it." What they don't stop to consider is that if they are correct, G.W. Bush is a liar!...
It is clear, therefore, that conservatives are more than willing to support and defend someone they believe to be deliberately lying. In other words, it doesn't matter to them whether Bush tells the truth or not. He has an "R" behind his name and, therefore, they will support him.
However, the same people who will justify dishonesty in the lives of their favored party's politicians would never accept such conduct from anyone else. Furthermore, many of these conservatives actually call themselves Christians; many are preachers. They preach and teach the virtues of honesty and integrity. What is even more amazing is that they find no inconsistency with what they are doing.
In his Farewell Address, our first and greatest President, George Washington, loquaciously lobbied the American people to guard against over-infatuation with political parties. Anyone reading his warnings today will be impressed with his insight and sagacity. Virtually everything he predicted has come to pass. Blind loyalty to political parties has corrupted our public institutions, blinded the hearts and minds of the American people, and opened wide the door to undue foreign influence.
If everyone who believes and teaches honesty and accountability would put it into practice when they walk into the voting booth, we could put a stop to this pathetic practice of electing dishonest and despicable people to high public office. Instead of hiding their own character and integrity under the bushel basket of party partisanship, voters could be proud of the fact that are actually helping to set the ship of state aright by helping to elect men and women of honesty and character.
Though I do not share this opinion, many people believe Abraham Lincoln to be one of America's greatest presidents. Personal opinion aside, it is a fact that Lincoln's election and subsequent influence upon this country was huge. Therefore, it is more than significant to realize that Lincoln was first elected from a four- person ticket with less than 40% of the vote! So much for the importance of receiving a majority vote.
In practically every presidential election, there are candidates from a variety of independent or "third" parties on the ballot. To ignore them merely because they are not Republicans or Democrats is absurd! If a worthy candidate cannot be found within the two major parties (and they are becoming increasingly harder to find), voters should look to alternative parties.
Remember, the object is to elect honest and honorable leaders for our country, not to promote and protect the private agendas of the fat cats who control the two major parties!
[If you found this article of interest, please consider perusing the FriendsOfLiberty/SiaNews archives [url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Stories_Archive]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=St...Stories_Archive[/url]
Please also consider registering (free) as a FriendOfLiberty at our Front Page, and taking the current Poll: Should the Council on Foreign Relations be Investigated for Treason?]
FriendOfLiberty [url=http://www.sianews.com]http://www.sianews.com[/url]
[url=http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1151]http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=Ne...rticle&sid=1151[/url] **
2003-08-02 06:05 | User Profile
It is because of the old two party rat race. Conservatives continue to vote for the Republicans because "the Democrats must be stopped." This is probably the fundamental reason. This is more a by-product of the Union than anything else. It is merely the result of the fact that America is such a conglomerate of peoples with so little in common. The nature of the Union is what determines the mediocrity of American presidents. Only such individuals as mediocre as George W. Bush can have a limited appeal over the broad constituencies necessary to reach power.
Secession is the gateway to real change. Secession of the Southeast for example would remove the check in Congress and the Electoral College by the other more radical parts of the country like California and New England that stifle each and every attempt at real reform. Most of our problems could be solved quite easily within the context of a Southern Congress, immigration reform in particular. Things like diversity and multiculturalism and all the other leftist radical garbage would wither on the vine in an independent Southland. The South would move rapidly in the right direction politically toward its own preferences - the exact opposite of the direction the country is going in today, dragging us along with it.
2003-08-02 13:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Aug 2 2003, 05:53 * *Americans: Free Yourselves from the Two Party Death Grip
International Politics By Chuck Baldwin July 29, 2003
It's time to say it: the two major parties hold a death grip on the American people!**
Interesting point. But the reason his arguments don't get traction with most people is, the question "what's the alternative"?
2003-08-02 16:09 | User Profile
Originally posted by Octopod@Aug 2 2003, 15:52 * ** > Interesting point. But the reason his arguments don't get traction with most people is, the question "what's the alternative"?* **
Look to the Founding Fathers. **
Right, and other hi-falutin but extremely vague rhetoric.
2003-08-02 23:15 | User Profile
The question "why do conservatives continue to support the GOP" is nonsense because with the rare exception of someone like my old compatriots like FWI conservativism doesn't exist in America. Most Americans seem to think that the anti Occidental monstrosity known as neo-conservatism or simplistic yahoo hatred of what ever the propasphere condemns is some how conservatism. As I have spoken about at lenght, almost of what passes for paleo-con is shallow and subject to fadism over principle. I would say that FAEM's McGuire had some excellent articles about the practical matters of gutting the GOP which I highly recomend.
2003-08-02 23:25 | User Profile
**Things like diversity and multiculturalism and all the other leftist radical garbage would wither on the vine in an independent Southland. The South would move rapidly in the right direction politically toward its own preferences - the exact opposite of the direction the country is going in today, dragging us along with it. **
What about all the Christian Zionists in the South? I'd hate to see a "New Dixie" foreign policy, fawning all over Israel, though it couldn't possibly be any worse than the current one.
2003-08-02 23:34 | User Profile
What is left to conserve? We exist in a last ditch camp of saints, and our ammunition is running out. It is ridiculous, at this point, to even talk about conservatism or constitutionalism. It is all f*cking bullshit now. If we are to have any future, white people that is, we will have to keep land to ourselves, and fine principles of separation of power, freedom of press, invisible hands of capitalism, are all going to have to go out the window, like they do during any national emergency. I doubt if they will ever come back and who cares if they do, as it allowed the present dire situation to happen to begin with.
2003-08-03 00:19 | User Profile
***>>>What about all the Christian Zionists in the South? I'd hate to see a "New Dixie" foreign policy, fawning all over Israel, though it couldn't possibly be any worse than the current one. ***
LOL you seriously overestimate the influence Christianity in the South has over our foreign policy. These people go out and vote for the Republicans only to be largely ignored afterwards. Over the past three years their social agenda has been rolled back on pretty much all fronts and stigmatized by the Supreme Court as immoral. These people also tend to be much more concerned with domestic social issues than foreign policy. The people who are actually making foreign policy today are hardly evangelical types from the South. Dubya may appear that way, but in reality, he is only giving lipservice to the base of his party like the Republicans always do. Real power in the Republican Party lies elsewhere. Secession would reduce the capacity of America for such foreign adventures as well. If the South DID secede from the United States its attention would hardly be focused on foreign affairs with respect to the Middle East anyway. Relations with the old Union and domestic upheaval would predominate.
2003-08-03 00:21 | User Profile
>>>What is left to conserve?
Exactly. There is not much about the present system I would like to "conserve" in the first place.
2003-08-03 02:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Centinel@Aug 2 2003, 17:25 * > *Things like diversity and multiculturalism and all the other leftist radical garbage would wither on the vine in an independent Southland. The South would move rapidly in the right direction politically toward its own preferences - the exact opposite of the direction the country is going in today, dragging us along with it. **
What about all the Christian Zionists in the South? I'd hate to see a "New Dixie" foreign policy, fawning all over Israel, though it couldn't possibly be any worse than the current one.**
This is an understandable but (I think) false assumption. Yes, there are more self-described "fundamentalist" and "evangelical" Christians in the South. What many analysts fail to realize is that the average Southerner's "patriotism" rivals his religion. While nowadays he's also a self-described conservative, his patriotism is dangerously (for the Jew) America-first. Don't laugh! At least, his instinct is such, and while this is watered down considerably by "conservative" politicians constantly associating both Christianity and conservatism with support for Israel, that support for a foreign flag is increasingly in conflict with his instinctive allegiance. It gets moreso every day, with every anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Southern, and anti-patriotic act of his "conservative" government.
There'll always be dumbbells, in all regions, who have no instincts and will do what the authorities tell them is righteous. I won't say that Southerners are yet more wise to how they've been duped than are other Americans, but I don't think they're any further behind in their awakening. Not any more at least. And probably less so in upcoming years.
One way to test this is to call one a Christian Zionist. Even if the one you pick is an idiot, you'll still see him flinch at it because, from deep in his instincts, his allegiance will seem torn to him.
So I definitely recommend teasing him with this term, "Christian Zionist". Or better, just "Zionist". He may offer some defense, he may not. He will, reflexively, go home and think more about his allegiance.
One last thing. If you've a mind to confront one in this way, find a fellow Southerner to do it. Less likelihood of feigned deafness and all that, you know.
2003-08-03 05:51 | User Profile
Those that mention that nothing worth preserving (in an institutional sense) remains are corect. That does not mean that genuine (and by nature racial) conservatism is lacking but it does mean that what is needed is restoration of Tradition rather then preservation of the vestigaes of a dead order and that means that revolutionary and folkish concervatism is the only real option worth persueing.
2003-08-03 06:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by FadeTheButcher@Aug 3 2003, 00:19 * ****>>>What about all the Christian Zionists in the South? I'd hate to see a "New Dixie" foreign policy, fawning all over Israel, though it couldn't possibly be any worse than the current one. ***
LOL you seriously overestimate the influence Christianity in the South has over our foreign policy. These people go out and vote for the Republicans only to be largely ignored afterwards. Over the past three years their social agenda has been rolled back on pretty much all fronts and stigmatized by the Supreme Court as immoral. These people also tend to be much more concerned with domestic social issues than foreign policy. The people who are actually making foreign policy today are hardly evangelical types from the South. Dubya may appear that way, but in reality, he is only giving lipservice to the base of his party like the Republicans always do. Real power in the Republican Party lies elsewhere.**
Here here Butch. Exactly what I have been trying to say, although the NS types here always like to use Falwell/Robinson like a club to beat southerners over the head with.
The reality is few Southerners/Christians I am sure can even place Israel on the map, or tell you what the Bible's position on it really is. They go along with the Falwell's/Robertson's position on it because as a powerless minority in a downtrodden region they rightly assume they have little influence anyway and most don't bother themselves about the subject. True democracy and self-determination would change a great deal about this.
2003-08-03 06:23 | User Profile
Originally posted by Ruffin@Aug 3 2003, 02:11 * What many analysts fail to realize is that the average Southerner's "patriotism" rivals his religion. While nowadays he's also a self-described conservative, his patriotism is dangerously (for the Jew) America-first. Don't laugh! At least, his instinct is such, and while this is watered down considerably by "conservative" politicians constantly associating both Christianity and conservatism with support for Israel, that support for a foreign flag is increasingly in conflict with his instinctive allegiance. It gets moreso every day, with every anti-white, anti-Christian, anti-Southern, and anti-patriotic* act of his "conservative" government.
There'll always be dumbbells, in all regions, who have no instincts and will do what the authorities tell them is righteous. I won't say that Southerners are yet more wise to how they've been duped than are other Americans, but I don't think they're any further behind in their awakening. Not any more at least. And probably less so in upcoming years.
One way to test this is to call one a Christian Zionist. Even if the one you pick is an idiot, you'll still see him flinch at it because, from deep in his instincts, his allegiance will seem torn to him.
**
Great points also Ruffin. :th: