Conservatism Lives! - Latest Comments

Re: What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Panderer…

G. Norman — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:24:36 -0000

I agree completely, Yvette. I recall reading that George Washington, upon being elected president, was reluctant to leave his farm for his new government job. Upon its completion, he was glad t go back to Mount Vernon. If only politicians today were that connected to "normal" life.

We definitely need more average-joe political leaders, as you say. We've become so enthralled with political credentials and experience that we've forgotten that the single most important thing any candidate can bring to the table is character.

A politician with character but no experience can surround him/herself with advisers to provide the credentials. A politician with credentials but no character cannot obtain the latter from any number of advisers. For this reason alone, you are right: fire ALL the bums and replace them with a bunch of us-- regular people with character, wisdom, and common sense.

But I suppose we can keep the bums around in advisory roles to help us remember who the president of Kazakstan is. After all, after so many years in Washington, they won't be any good for anything else.

Re: What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Panderer…

yvetteL — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:13:36 -0000

Great post!

I think you need to start getting your feet wet in politics as an actual candidate. If we vote all the bums out...who will be left?

Although I am being a bit facetious, I am quite serious about us, the common citizen, fining individuals of integrity (spine in tact) to support and elect to our public offices.

Re: The Christian Left

ReluctantR — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:46:18 -0000

The only element of "fear" involved for me personally, is "fear" of the damage that is being done and or will be done to the country; specifically in regards to its moral fabric and economic stability.

Re: The Christian Left

josh22n — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:20:37 -0000

So true. When will people take responsibility for their own actions and take the mission given to us for themselves. We don't vote for someone else to do it. In my view that is doing less for the least. It is saying "I would rather someone else take care of it. I'll vote for someone to do it and then just walk away." If christians would take up the call to take care of the "least of these" then there would be no need for the government to do it. Thanks for what you do. Keep it up. Go conservatism!!!

Re: The Christian Left

brackman — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:25:06 -0000

i think its more about fear than you'd like to admit.

Re: Journalism Is Dead

John Lofton — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:00:53 -0000

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

Re: Captain Planet Meets Resistance From a Rogue Democrat

Steve — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:48:28 -0000

I can Belive on this Guy Any more

Re: Is America Off the Cliff?

brent — Wed, 13 May 2009 14:35:03 -0000

I like your blog. Would you like to put each others links on our sites? Spread conservatism. Let me know and I'll put you in our blogroll. http://rightsquared.com/

Re: Is America Off the Cliff?

garret — Wed, 13 May 2009 08:29:57 -0000

Very nice work. i would add that at whatever point we're either sliding down the slope or going over the cliff, the media culture characatures are pointing their fingers at conservatives and shouting, "He's trying to kill me!".

Re: Is America Off the Cliff?

G. Norman — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:28:52 -0000

Brackman: I'm not interested in any subjective interpretation of "personal" truths-- I am interested in Truth. While there are indeed jerks and dimwits on both sides of the political aisle, it does not stand to reason that both sides are, therefore, equally correct. In short, it does not matter how many heads are up asses on any given "side". What matters, in reference to the above article, is whether or not people are voting for either side based on an examination of the merits of any given philosophy, or merely on a knee-jerk parroting of what they see on the false-reality of TV.

I would, therefore, be interested in any argument that asserts that 1) the current media climate, from sitcoms to all but one of the 24 hour news networks, are NOT seamlessly liberal-leaning, and 2) the majority of Americans are NOT now voting primarily on the leanings of popular culture rather than on an intellectual pursuit of what is actually best for themselves and the country.

The argument about which political philosophy is based more on intellect and logic and which is based more on feel-good emotional instant gratification is a bit harder to take seriously, since the answers are so plainly obvious, but I would be curious to read any attempts.

Re: Is America Off the Cliff?

Brackman — Mon, 11 May 2009 16:07:03 -0000

As long as conservatives have the attitude that they are the only moral, intelligent, honest, and logical people out there, "Conservatism relies on a moral, intellectually honest, logic-based worldview.", there will always be a problem. Its not a matter of who's more popular or cool, its about people. I know plenty of conservatives that don't fit any of your criteria. I also know a few bleeding heart liberals that fit your bill a lot better in regards to your criteria. If conservatives would stop the mind set that its "us against them" we could be a lot more productive as a people. Neither side does it perfect, having been on both sides though, I have found fewer heads up asses by the left. We're all down here together going through this crap together.

Re: Where Do We Go From Here?

Brackman — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:17:31 -0000

i personally would add (because Leftists are masters of changing word definitions or omitting key words to manipulate their audience) "...at the expense of the productive."

--good point, the right have never manipulated anything...ignorance?

Re: Where Do We Go From Here?

garret — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:14:42 -0000

Hey,

Martyholman.com sent me to see you. i've only a short time to respond. Though i don't sense despair, i concur with your general assessments on the current state of political/cultural affairs.

A friend of mine shared with me a quote in response to my inquiry regarding 'social justice'. He said he'd heard it a long time ago and doesn't recall to whom the quote is attributed:

"Social Justice is the process of comforting the afflicted, and afflicting the comfortable."

i personally would add (because Leftists are masters of changing word definitions or omitting key words to manipulate their audience) "...at the expense of the productive."

Re: Bumper Sticker People

justinchina — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:42:20 -0000

plus, bumper stickers bring down the resale value of your car. unless you have really funny ones, like, Gore/Lieberman 2000. that one cracks me up every time.

Re: Who “Inherited” What Deficit, Exactly?

Quotes — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:12:17 -0000

The pleasure is all mine!

Re: Who “Inherited” What Deficit, Exactly?

ReluctantR — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:33:36 -0000

Thanks for reading.

Re: Who “Inherited” What Deficit, Exactly?

Quotes — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:42:38 -0000

Thanks for insight, I am impressed.

Re: Ron Silver Passes; Conservatives lose An Ally

John Lofton — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:51:02 -0000

Re: "Obamalogic" on "Reducing the Number of Abortions"

ReluctantR — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:35:07 -0000

Ah, my friend, as usual you miss my point. Nowhere here do I say or imply that removing a doctor's right to refuse to perform "procedures" to which he/she morally objects will cause a skyrocket in the number of abortions performed. My point is that conservatives, moderates, and evangelicals in particular were sold something by Obama that is nothing short of a flat out lie on his supposed "stance" on the abortion issue. He claimed to, first and foremost, be interested in pursuing courses of action that "reduced the number of abortions". Literally EVERYTHING he has done since taking office in regard to the issue has either directly increased the number of abortions that will be performed (green lighting the use of U.S. foreign aid to fund overseas abortions) or in this case, knocked down a barrier to an abortion being performed. Or more to the point in this case, not only knocked down a barrier (assuming he actually signs the bill) but setting up a situation in which health care providers can be PUNISHED either criminally or civilly for refusing to do what they believe constitutes murder. I have not seen one item come out of his office aimed at "reducing the number of abortions". Every single item is about one thing and one thing only; increasing access to abortion.

Re: "Obamalogic" on "Reducing the Number of Abortions"

Jeff Brackman — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:27:43 -0000

making it illegal for doctors to deny an abortion isn't, necessarily, going to make the amount of abortions sky rocket. when will the conservatives learn that ignoring the issue or passing a law to ignore an issue doesn't fix anything. it may give you a warm and fuzzy knowing that you had a hand in passing a law that prevents abortion but it doesn't take care of the issue. by providing education and contraception you can greatly decrease the amount of abortions. i'm not saying i agree with doctors having to give abortions but to act like there is going to be an abortion holiday(slight exaggeration) now is completely ignorant. the world is going to do what the world is going to do. i'd rather aid in minimizing the tragedy that is abortion instead of acting like its not an issue or that if you make it illegal it going to solve the problem. you are such a smart guy but sometimes i feel that you are so stuck in your ways that you abandon common sense. i still love you and enjoy when we cuddle.

Re: Maybe the Best White Can Hope for is a Presidential Pardon…

Appreciative Reader — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:47:14 -0000

Excellent.

Re: Why Read a Bill When You Can Just Vote On It Instead?

Credit Debt Eliminate — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:18:25 -0000

Good blog. I hope more Republicans can stand up.

Re: Tracking Obama’s Promises

ReluctantR — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:01:27 -0000

Martin,

Honestly, I don't even know where to begin these days. The sheer volume of BS flowing out of D.C. is staggering. I'm working on something for you though. I hope to have it up before I leave this weekend.

Re: Tracking Obama’s Promises

Marty — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:18:10 -0000

If you don't post on the speech last night, I'm voting for Obama in 4 years.

Re: Tracking Obama’s Promises

John Lofton — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:39:30 -0000

And forget, please, "conservatism," please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com