Senator Paul and Libertarians vs. Conservatives

Brace yourselves for what are admittedly very broad generalizations before reading this.

Republican Presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) stood on the Fox Business News/GOP debate stage Tuesday night and, as primarily a libertarian, presumed to tell Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) what is or is not "conservative." So, much like his father before him, Senator Paul gives us a good opportunity to explore the differences between libertarians and conservatives.

As a conservative and not a libertarian, my understanding is libertarians are primarily fiscal conservatives and social liberals who eschew so-called "victimless crimes" and are somewhat military and foreign policy isolationists.

Conservatives, on the other hand, primarily believe government has a somewhat more robust constitutional role to play in society in order to preserve "the general welfare," are fiscal conservatives and believe America must project military power in a very dangerous 21st Century world (not to be confused with neo-conservatives who believe in using our military to "spread democracy" and nation build).

Now in my conservative opinion, why are conservatives right in this debate and libertarians wrong? The short answer is American history; the proof is in our past juxtaposed against our present.

America has always had laws against so-called victimless crimes. We were founded on the Judeo-Christian ethos and always had laws against sodomy, adultery, cohabitation and blue laws forbidding certain commerce on Sunday and those laws never ran afoul of our Constitution until the mid-20th Century. And, America became the greatest, strongest, freest, richest, most innovative and benevolent nation in the history of the world while we had those laws.

The Judeo-Christian ethos with all of its so-called victimless crimes helps build and support the traditional family structure and the history of all Western Civilization proves that structure builds strong communities and societies. Now that's "the general welfare!"

We began to reject our Judeo-Christian founding in the 1950s and the rejection really picked up steam in the 1960s. I don't think you can argue with a straight face that we are not far worse for that rejection.

Our continued liberalization of society has degraded our traditional family structure through no-fault divorces, abortion, the removal of God and attendant morality from society and government; the whole "if it feels good - do it," "you can't judge me" and "to each his own" society has led to a dramatically increased number of single parents; a loss of personal shame, discipline and self respect allowing for an intense coarsening of our culture.    

People sometimes tell me that it's none of my business because none of it affects me; I don't have a vagina or I'm not gay and I don't have to shop on Sunday if that's not my thing. But that's not true at all. Just look around at the increased cost to taxpayers, of which I am one, due to all the state and federal government programs needed to care for our new victim culture, unwed mothers and fathers, kids raised in broken homes and so much more.

It negatively impacts me because it has all led to the degradation of the society in which I live and it steals the fruits of my labor in order to support the fallout. It negatively impacts "the general welfare" of our society and that negatively impacts my family and me in very real ways.  

Take Sandra Fluke for one example; she was the college student who famously testified before a congressional committee and demanded "free" birth control because "the pill" is apparently so expensive. That attitude is a direct result of the increased liberalization of our society since the 1960s and that cost will come out of my paycheck.

If you think about it, driving without a driver's license and even driving while intoxicated are "victimless" crimes. Sure, they have the potential to create victims but until or unless you hit another car they are victimless crimes. In fact, all traffic laws are victimless crimes until you have a crash. Poaching game out of season is another victimless crime.

I can give a hundred more examples but they would just bore you and those predisposed to reject my arguments will simply reject even more examples.

I do agree that our nation needed to make changes and fix a few things, things like our Jim Crow laws and institutionalized, systemic racism. There is always room for improvement; however, I believe that since the 1960s we threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater and rejected the very foundations that made us great. The pendulum, as it were, swung way too far in the other direction as we became increasingly libertarian - liberal.

I believe that if you take an honest look at American History from our founding through today you will see that conservatives are right about so-called victimless crimes and libertarians are wrong.

And thus endeth today's lesson - today's political shot from the right.

Reagan vs. Modern Conservatism

 If we are going to compare President Reagan to modern conservatives then let's at least try to do it correctly and honestly.

Today I saw yet another writer claim that Ronald Reagan would be considered a Republican in name only (RINO) by today's conservatives. And I don't just see Democrats using that comment to bash modern conservatives and "prove" how far to the right we've moved but also "establishment" Republicans. Worse than comparing apples and oranges though, it is literally comparing fruits and vegetables.

In 1980 Ronald Reagan campaigned on amnesty for illegal aliens, something that gives modern conservatives conniption fits. But here's the thing; amnesty, to my knowledge, had not been tried before 1980 and there were far fewer illegal aliens in the country. Additionally, Reagan wanted strong border controls in conjunction with amnesty.

Now, however, amnesty has been tried and is not only a proven failure but actually exacerbated the problem; conservatives were lied to about border security by the political establishment; there are far more illegal aliens in our country including drug gangs and other criminals and the world is a far more dangerous place than 1980 with modern terrorism. So, there are legitimate reasons we conservatives have "evolved" on the issue of amnesty and I personally believe President Reagan would have evolved as well.

So, what else has changed since the days of Reagan? Democrats have changed - they have become far more extremist, radical, openly socialist and anti-American and, as I always say, Newton's third law of motion is my first law of politics; for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Remember, Reagan was not politically static, having once been a rabid anti-Republican Democrat who aggressively campaigned for Harry Truman. So I believe he too would have moved even further right in response to the extreme leftward shift of modern Democrats. That's what made him become Republican in the first place!

President Reagan was able to "reach across the political aisle" and compromise in a bipartisan manner, settling for 80% of what he wanted because Democrats were not as dangerously radical in his day. So while we are comparing Reagan to modern conservatives let's not forget to compare Democrat Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill or Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan with modern Democrat leaders such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan reaching across the political divide to work with a Democrat hell-bent on "fundamentally transforming" America from a capitalist nation with a healthy respect for individual liberty and unalienable rights to a more socialist - collectivist - nation where the citizens just sit down, shut up and do what we're told by Washington? I can't. 

Let us also remember something else; as Reagan was reaching across the aisle and working with Democrats in a bipartisan manner, there were at least 8 government shutdowns during his administration. That's right, let's correctly remember the past and the Reagan Administration. So let's compare with clear eyes when modern conservatives bash Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for not effectively fighting against Obama's fundamental transformation and literally disarming Congress.

I never heard him say it, but I believe Reagan knew America arrived where she was in 1980 through incremental "change" pushed by Democrats and it was only through incremental "change" that she would get back on solid constitutional footing. I believe he thought we had more time to return to our roots and that his incremental change back to our constitutional principles and philosophies would survive after he left office and that future politicians, and the people, would actually expound on what he started. But, they didn't - we didn't - and things have become exponentially more perilous.

Modern conservatives know we no longer have the same luxury of time Reagan had - the hour is late for American freedom and liberty. Modern Democrats, our opposition, are not the Democrats of our fathers and the situation is far more dangerous now than in Reagan's day. What worked in WW I did not work in WW II and what worked politically in the 1980s will not work now.

If you are going to compare Ronald Reagan with modern conservatives then let's do it honestly and correctly.  

 

"Journalism" and the Planned Parenthood Videos

I was just reading an article about a judge in California issuing a restraining order, or injunction, against the group releasing the Planned Parenthood videos and noticed it referred to "citizen journalists," and that got me thinking; who is a journalist in the internet age?

Congress has tried to define journalists. For example, here is a 2013 article about the Senate Judiciary Committee "sparring" over the definition of journalist. The people we commonly call journalists in the mainstream media look down their sophisticated noses at "citizen journalists," bloggers, talk show peeps and others because, well, as Chris Matthews once said "we went to college for this!"

So, do you have to go to J-school to be a journalist? I tried to take journalism 101 after I retired from the Air Force and went back to college but dropped the course in short order. As a 39 year old military retiree I was very quickly able to discern the attempted indoctrination versus the simple teaching of fact and technique.

As a blogger and sometime radio show host I don't consider myself a "journalist." I consider myself an essayist, an editorialist - an opinionator, if you will, but not a journalist. Miriam-Webster defines a journalist thusly;

journalist

Bottom of Form

noun jour·nal·ist \-nə-list\

Definition of JOURNALIST

1 a :  a person engaged in journalism; especially :  a writer or editor for a news medium

b :  a writer who aims at a mass audience

2:  a person who keeps a journal

 

Here is a little something I found when researching the history of journalism in America:

 

"America's first continuously-published newspaper, the

Boston News-Letter published its first issue on April 24, 1704. John Campbell, a bookseller and postmaster of Boston, was its first editor, printing the newspaper on what was then referred to as a half-sheet."

 

Now, that guy certainly wasn't a "journalist" by today's standards and I don't believe our country was intended to evolve in a way that freezes people out of things. I think our nation was intended to evolve in a way that allowed more and more people to join in, unless, of course, it could lead to serious injury or loss of life such as in the case of the medical profession.

 

The fact is, I believe, in the internet age virtually everyone can be a journalist whether you go to J-school or not. The lack of a journalism degree may hinder you landing that cushy at your local paper but it certainly doesn't mean you cannot be a journalist afforded all of the 1st Amendment protections enjoyed by the establishment media. 

Attorney General Comments Very Chilling

Speaking about gun control on that progressive faux news network, MSNBC, Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently said, "If we can get past talking at each other, maybe we can talk to each other about how to manage the firearms in our society," and I find that to be both revealing and chilling.

Ask yourself this question; what does the government have to do in order to "manage" guns in our society? Well, it has to "manage" a fundamental, God-given unalienable right that is explicitly protected in the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, and that's chilling.

Rank and file patriotic conservatives know in their gut that it isn't the federal government's right or responsibility to "manage" our rights. Our rights exist separate from government and all levels of government in America are subservient to the People and our rights. In fact, the foremost mission of government in America is the protection of our rights.

The primary difference between the government in a free nation versus the despotic government of tyrannical nations is that in a free nation the government does not use prior restraint to deter or limit crime. The government of a free nation deals with criminals after they have committed crimes and does not infringe the liberty of the majority. In a free country we do not infringe the rights of the many due to the crimes of the few.

As I often say, freedom can be a difficult and dangerous thing but there simply are no legitimate alternatives. Infringe, or "manage" one right and you infringe them all. Undermine one protection in the Bill of Rights and you undermine them all.

Advice For Married Men

I woke up early this morning and had a very quiet introspective hour in the rocking chair on the side porch with my coffee. I haven't written in a while and after some quality alone time with my thoughts I decided to write, but didn't really want to write about politics. So, I decided to write a little advice for men in long-term relationships based on a memory I had this morning.

 Stay with me here for a little bit while I give you the background.

There is a movie called The Family Man staring Nicholas Cage and Tea Leoni that is a pretty good movie for a rainy Sunday afternoon when there isn't much else to do...kind of a "chick flick."

In the movie Nicholas Cage is a single man who works on Wall Street and believes he has everything he needs in life, money, prestige and power - even without a wife and kids. After a brief encounter with an armed man in a convenience store Cage is magically transported through time and space and wakes up the next morning in bed with a woman he let go 12 years prior (Tea Leoni), his old college girlfriend, and finds that he's married and has two kids and gets a look at the life he could have had and what he is missing in his life. He, of course, remembers his real life and is confused by what is happening while Tea Leoni knows nothing of what is going on and believes she has been his wife all along.  

Now the advice for men:

There is a scene where Cage and Leoni are kneeing on the bed looking at each other and Leoni is suddenly struck with a thought and says to Cage, "How do you do that (after 12 years of marriage)? How do you look at me like you're seeing me for the first time?"

Men, learn how to do that, learn how to look at your wife as if you are seeing her for the first time and your breath has been taken away.

Do this, and you'll be able to watch football uninterrupted every Sunday!

 

Why isn't Christmas on the Brevard County, Fl School District calendar?

I saw the controversy a week or two ago wherein some Muslims complained that Christmas was listed on some school board's annual calendar and they wanted their holidays added. So I went and checked our local school board's calendar and Christmas isn't there either - and hasn't been for years, or so I'm told.

Are you telling me we can't even acknowledge our official state and federal holidays anymore? Are you guys okay with that?

Oklahoma was the last state to make Christmas an official state holiday in 1907. Of course, Alaska and Hawaii didn't become states until the late 1950s but as territories they had already made Christmas an official holiday even before 1907. Congress made Christmas an official federal holiday in 1870.

For my entire 12 years of public education up through 1976 we were always out of school for the "Christmas Holiday," not a winter break or a "holiday for all."

There really is something wrong with the PC belief that we have to scrub our calendars, offices and government institutions of all references to our state and federal "Christmas Holiday" in order to be inclusive...isn't that pretty exclusive and discriminatory of Christians as well as our American history, traditions, heritage and culture. If "being inclusive" means denying who and what we are then I want no part of it.

And including Christmas would not mean we have to include religious holidays from other religions and Associate Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story told us why in 1833:

The place for your political "Shots from the Right"