Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Ken Blackwell :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Case for Political Fusion
by Ken Blackwell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
- Benjamin Franklin, In the Continental Congress before signing the Declaration of Independence

The conservative movement in America must unite. The movement is often spoken of as having three parts: economic, social and national security. All three parts of the conservative movement are gravely threatened by the alliance of President Barack Obama, Congressional Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid, activist judges, and the president’s loyal supporters in the mainstream media. Conservatives must realize their common interests and unite around a shared agenda to preserve the core conservative principles of limited government, individual opportunity, personal responsibility and strong families. The conservative vision of faith, family and freedom hangs in the balance.

There are those who say compromise with the Far Left is the only way forward. They say the Republican Party must divorce itself from conservatives and embrace a new era of politics, or that conservatives must adapt to the times and buy into the leftist rhetoric of entitlements, accommodation and collective responsibility. Some of these voices are from Democratic leaders or media pundits. But the most dangerous voices are from those who claim to be part of the conservative movement but prove by their actions and their positions they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

What conservatives need are not new principles. What’s needed are new policies that embody the old principles. Conservatives must disavow and oppose those who claim to be conservatives but embrace the policies or priorities of the liberal left. And all conservatives must understand the threats the country faces in order to propose aggressive, positive solutions for America’s challenges.

Some threats and challenges are obvious. The most obvious are the growing ascendancy of the state and judicial activism.

On the economic front, the federal government is exploding in size and scope. This expansion entails a staggering increase in federal spending; creating trillion-dollar deficits for years to come that will bury our children and even our grandchildren under an entire mountain range of debt. The government is indebting people who have not even been born by spending wealth that not even been created.

Government is decimating the private sector. It is directly taking over the financial sector, not only with massive regulation but now also claiming ownership rights over those firms that took bailout funds. It is promulgating an enormous “cap and trade” system for carbon emissions that could cripple companies, putting them at the mercy of the government. And President Obama seeks to commandeer the entire American healthcare system.

On the social front, liberals are pursuing same-sex marriage, funding overseas abortion, repealing protections of conscience, and seeking legislation to abolish even modest restrictions on abortion. All this while seeking to completely secularize society, especially in the public square and public schools.

On the national security front, the government is publicizing sensitive details on fighting terrorism that must be kept secret, extending habeas corpus rights to terrorists, and ending programs that intelligence officials who served under both parties declare saved American lives. All this, while rogue regimes continue to pursue nuclear weapons.

But as serious as all these matters are, conservatives need to grasp their common ground.

The foundation of this common ground is the fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals regarding the role of the individual vis-à-vis the government. For conservatives, our fundamental human rights come from God. For liberals, rights are granted by government. In their secular worldview, this actually elevates government to stand in the place of God as the final arbiter of right and wrong. Government becomes the ultimate source of liberty and rights. Conservatives believe in the primacy of the individual and the centrality of God in the life of the nation.

This common philosophy in turn points to many issues where conservatives are naturally united, and must stand together.

All conservatives should be concerned about the federal courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court. Although framed as a social conservative cause, the courts are now involved in economic and national security matters. Last year, the Court extended the writ of habeas corpus to terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, and struck down the military commissions created by Congress and the president, marking the most egregious intrusion ever of the judiciary into wartime national security measures. And the year before that, the Court invaded economic policy by holding that states had standing to challenge the federal government’s decision not to incur the trillion-plus dollar cost of regulating carbon emissions, committing the federal government to investigate the matter. Activist judges assault every aspect of American life and endanger all of our liberties, and so every conservative should join hands to seek judges that will confine themselves to their proper role and adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution.

All conservatives should also oppose the culture of debt. For some time, America has been moving from a culture of free markets, limited government and entrepreneurship to a culture of debt and redistribution. This culture is what led to the ongoing financial and housing crisis, and is an indictment of our society of instant gratification.

People should always strive to live without debt. Not long ago, living in debt was considered undesirable. Parents taught their children that such profligate living was perilous, impressing the lesson that a wise person lives within his means and plans for the future.

So the ideal situation is to only buy what you can afford, with money you already have. If someone cannot afford something, they must save and invest until they can buy it outright, not obtain it with debt involving interest that over time doubles the total price. And for massive purchases like a house, for which debt is often necessary unless the purchaser is wealthy, people need to not buy more house than they can afford.

But the culture of debt removes the stigma of running up massive credit card balances and buying the biggest house they can finance, putting people out on a limb that breaks during economic downturns. When that culture is manifest not only in personal and household finances but also in corporate decision-making and bank lending practices, these reckless habits inevitably lead to a financial crisis such as the one America currently faces. And then voters also allow such appalling behavior from their elected officials, leading to the titanic debt and deficits now being incurred by the government.

This is a national security issue, not just economic. China holds almost a trillion dollars in U.S. debt, and could seriously weaken our nation by flooding the market with treasury securities. The mounting interest on this debt also deprives us of resources needed for military priorities, border security and intelligence gathering.

It is also a social issue. In Proverbs, the Bible teaches us that “The borrower is a slave to the lender.” Biblical instruction includes faithful financial stewardship that focuses on responsible living rather than covetous pursuit of every shiny new toy. Strong families are essential to strong economies, and sound financial management is a family value.

Strong families have never been more important. They provide good learning and nurturing environments for the next generation of American workers, and patriotic citizens that either join the national defense or support and honor those who do.

Here too, all conservatives must unite. A recent Obama Administration reports shows that the government now considers pro-life, pro-gun and pro-family Americans to be potential terrorists. The government also outrageously warns that U.S. military veterans should be monitored as potential terror threats. All this, while Barack Obama kowtows to foreign leaders and tries to build friendly relationships with anti-American tyrants. The current government is diverting attention from terrorists to those fighting terrorists, and conservatives must fight this shift.

Unfortunately, one final reason that some conservatives do not work together is because some of their leaders simply do not like each other. Some economic leaders look upon social conservatives with disdain. Some social leaders have taken troubling stances on various economic issues, often because they do not understand the complex long-term consequences of such policies. These social leaders are also appalled by the actions and lifestyle choices of some of their conservative counterparts, and do not want to appear to condone such behaviors.

These divisions are real, making it difficult for the few leaders that genuinely belong to all three camps to build bridges between them. But these bridges must be built.

Ronald Reagan spoke of America as a shining city upon a hill. Those words were first uttered by Puritan John Winthrop in 1630, in what was then the colony of Massachusetts. Three and a half centuries later, one of this nation’s greatest presidents declared that America was indeed that shining city.

All three types of conservatives in the Reagan Coalition are found in that image. The city is shining, alight with commerce and prosperity. It is secure, sitting atop a hill in a defensible position, protected and able to send aid to others. And it holds to the deep and eternal truths that form the foundation of our faith and values, as reflected in the biblical language from which Reverend Winthrop himself drew in speaking of this city. In that city all conservatives, economic, national security and social, stand united to declare a philosophy for safety, prosperity and happiness for all Americans.

During the American Revolution, Benjamin Franklin said, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” All of the current dangers of government control over our lives and economy, undermining family values and secularizing society, and abandoning the war against terrorist threats to start implying that conservatives are the true threat, constitute a massive power grab by the Far Left to forever remake America in their image. The most liberal president in history is working with the most liberal Congress in history to enact this ultra-liberal agenda, and to pack America’s courts with liberal judges who will do by judicial fiat whatever the president and Congress cannot do through legislation or regulation. Only by standing together can conservatives hope to thwart this radical remaking of America.

We must all stand united in this struggle. The future of our children and grandchildren depend on our success.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Mr. Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and American Civil Rights Union.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Oust Obama and all Liberals
Great Article Mr. Blackwell. You describe it so sublimely how corrupt and amoral Obama, Sebelius and the entire Liberal Establishment in this country are. And, these same Humane Liberals, will sit outside prisons and cry, chant, pray and moan over the impending death sentences of some who have tortured, raped and murdered children, but fully support the torture and dismemberment of unborn children without shedding a single tear for the fetus or for the would-be mother who has lost her soul, and in most cases, the taxpayers are forced to pay for these procedures that most civilzed people do not agree with.

God, help us all, if Obama and his diabolical schemes actually succeed. Obama and his entire administration and his cohorts in the U.S. Congress need to be exposed and removed from office. The only means that, We The People, have to do that is to Unite and Vote in Record numbers to replace these morally bankrupt individuals from office, and for the MSM and their talking heads such as Oprah Winfrey, The Nags on The View, and others, they need to be boycotted and their miserable shows that support and promote these Scoundrels and the Despicable Acts that they condone, will also disappear from the airwaves, and then Oprah and these other Immoral Feel Good performers can disappear into the dark shadows where they belong.

Great Job!
Ken this was a great article. I believe you make the best case for conservatives to get in gear. I do want to address the abortion issue that has been brought up in the comments.
Aniko said
I disagree with the Christian Right’s religious based view on “life”.
Stop right there. If you don't agree with Christians and there view say so. The Christian Right offends me. I am a Christian and I very conservative, but there are people who call themselves Christians who are not on the right.
Life is a blade of grass, a virus, a bacteria, a mushroom, etc. Human life, when it begins, and how it ends is based, at least partly, on individual “choices”.
What the hell are you talking about? My son will be here in 4 weeks. I am excited and scared. I am married to one woman (you know women can reproduce unlike the man on man and woman on woman). Looking at the sonogram when our son was just 5 weeks changed my view forever. I have been a conservative all of my life, but did not give much thought to the "life" issue. After watching Baby J moving around on that screen, I knew he was alive. It wasn't my "choice" to determine when Baby J was alive you dumb dumb (I don't usually defer to name calling,but for you I will make an exception). He moved and moved and moved some more. He was alive and well. The thing with you liberals that I don't understand is if this was a dog or a cat that had puppies or kittens you would be up in arms if we killed them or harmed them in anyway.

DNA in of itself, doesn’t define a “human life”.
WOW! Did a light bulb go off in your head? DNA does define life. A plant, bacteria,etc. for the most part anything that has life has DNA. Life + Life = Life.

Again thank you Ken.
roddrepub.townhall.com

RR

Upside Down America
Terrorists/Illegal Aliens Above The Law
In this upside-down world of Obama and Company, the only enemies of the United States are us hardworking men and women who actually support our own families, go to church, believe in traditional values, customs, traditions and the U.S. Constitution of this Great Republic.

Under the Obama regime, we have a Justice Department that believes Foreign Enemies and Terrorists have the same rights as U.S. Citizens and are protected under our constitution, while at the same time this same so-called Justice Department is trying to deny Legitimate Rights protected by our Constitution to the legitimate citizens of this country.

Under the Obama regime, they hand out all Citizen Rights including Entitlments of welfare checks, food stamps, free medical care, social security to tens of millions of illegals who have invaded our country and are driving up our unemployment rates and drive down our wage rates.

It is time that patriots get busy and demonstrate against this upside-down administration and congress who are willing to go to any lengths to gain power at the expense of the citizens and the U.S. Constitution. Illegal aliens, terrorists and other asssorted Criminals are above the Law, and we hardworking citizens are being put under the Boot of these Socialists who are busy undermining the very foundations of this nation.

I like Ken's column....
But (you knew there was a but, right?) I wonder if "social and national security" conservatives really embrace "the core conservative principles of limited government."

Social conservatives seem all to willing to accept if not cry out for government involvement to enforce morality. They can be as aggressive "nanny-staters" as liberals always trying to protect us from ourselves.

The national security conservatives are usually focused on 2nd amendment rights and adequate funding of the military. But they too can demand that government take on actions and responsibilities that are inappropriate, overreaching and unconstitutional.

Chris
Since I am "dimwitted" according to JMartin, and not a linguist to argue definitions, I’ll just use "common sense". I am a “person” since the day I was born. A person has "personality". Mothers of identical twins differentiate them through their infant’s personalities. For the sake of my argument I should perhaps use the word "personhood". I was pregnant and I could not define the "personhood" of my own fetus, even as far as whether it was a girl or a boy, until it emerged from my womb, and became a "baby".
I adore babies, and I would love to save all the suffering babies in the world. Being a poor Christian, I can only offer prayers for them, as well as for their suffering mothers.
I hated myself when my body "betryed" me and I got pregnant by "accident"; actually because I had an abusive husband with an inconsiderate, forceful libido. No, where I come form a husband cannot "rape" his wife! The accidents happened, because (as I have revealed this very private realities about myself previously) an early hormone-related benign breast tumor so I could not use contraceptives; an IUD almost bled me to death, my ex refused to wear prophylactics, and had no patience for me to use one, and rhythm method fails.
Pragmatic that I am, I know such things happen more often than you may think! I DO NOT REGRET TO HAVE HAD ABORTIONS! I am just very happy, that in this country abortion was legal when I needed it. It was better than my children being “counseled” by the "child protective" services for abuse from their father.
Fanatics, who have no clue what hard life is, and re-define the word “murder” and “baby”, should not debate the abortion issue, because they are more emotional than rational about it. I am very happy that our government is rational about this issue not ideological.
I am merely concerned about the future of our country, not what its population number is.

JMartin
Are you a lawyer or a reverend? For all I know, you might be a “constitutional” lawyer. I immigrated to this country as a young adult, who was exiled from Ceausescu’s Romania, in my 4th year of medial school, because I opposed the Ceausescu regime, as a minority Hungarian . You calling me “dimwitted” is the slightest insult I experienced from TH commentators, who are extremely fluent in Bible verses, but very coarse in Christian faith. I’ve been called a liar, a murderer, Anicow etc. You, I am sure, if you are a lawyer, are very fluent in what I like to call “legalese”. Maybe I have difficulty to express my reasoning in English adequately to a lawyer, and my pursuit in life was not biblical scholarship. I understand biology, and human gestation. No, I categorically refuse to call a human entity in its first trimester a “person”. Based on this reasoning, a D & C abortion, in the embryonic stage, is not “murder” of a “baby”. Since I have a son who is 33 and a daughter who is 28, I am a mother and a proud grandmother. Through their friends I talk to a lot of young people, and when I am telling them that I am a conservative Republican, they always bring up the issue of the Republican party’s stance on abortion. They think the Republicans are against women’s rights. I’d like to change the party’s bad reputation, and try to argue for a compromise on this much touted Roe v. Wade decision. Apparently its reversal did not succeed, even when republicans were in full power. Could it be that more people, even in the republican party, are more rational than emotional? Can conservatives come to a reasonable compromise on this issue? Not with the likes of you, who prefer to insult, rather than know the medical facts and reason out this emotional issue.
Thanks, for your mild insult. I don’t take it personally.

Talk Radio Fusion
Chris - Good comments about most talk radio's 'support' for McCain, though in almost every case it seemed tepid, i.e. the lesser of evils approach.

I hear you on the petty differences and egos getting in the way on several potentially big conservative issues like the Fair Tax. I'm with you there. That was the point of my post. Too many of these guys are sadly pulling in opposite directions for ego and competitive reasons.


Conservatives, Please listen
All of this article is true but we have to focus. We can inundate Americans with all these knowns and allow the dims multiple fronts to counterattack or we can use the Tea Parties to drive home one message. This one message resonates and will continue to resonate. Governments from the feds on down are wasteful, corrupted and bloated jokes. Politicians that promote this waste, specifically dims, have only one way to win because they're on the wrong side of every issue. The majority of every state vote against gay marriage yet the courts, dims and the pmm (Propaganda Media Machine aka msm) promote it as a civil rights issue. They know Republicans want cheap Mexican labor but their constituents want the border closed so the dims blame Bush and McCain, rightfully, and keep the borders open and will pass shamnesty to improve their voter base. They've used the indoctrination of students to build on bad America, bad corporations, bad Christianity and bad and dirty energy. So they shutdown drilling, coal and nuclear to cleanse the earth and the indoctrinated think everyone gladly pays higher utilities, fuel costs and everything else because all businesses will pass through utility and fuel costs. In reality the country goes bankrupt while the rest of the world chugs away into the atmosphere on cheap energy.

If we use the Tea Parties to bring home the nonsense that Oblaba, Peloser and Harry Fraud intend to perpetrate to drain each and every person's pocketbook we can turn the tide.

Speaking of "Persuasion" on Abortion
A Catholic priest wrote a book about his and his fellow Protestant Christian ministers' missionary experiences delivering people from demons in Africa. As the demons were expelled, the priest and his fellow ministers all said that certain demons identified themselves as the spirit of "ABORTION". These demons did not just come from the women seeking an Abortion; they also came from boyfriends, husbands, mothers, and relatives who paid for and/or encouraged their abortions. How's that for "persuasion". Those who are not social Conservatives I have often found to be the most spiritually and biblically clueless among us. This not surprising considering how spiritually DEAD the American church truly is.

Pete/CA, you're only 2/3 a
conservative.

"While I might be described as a fiscal and a national security conservative, I have some trouble with the social conservatives. You see, the social conservatives want to involve themselves in medical decisions and want to proselytize their beliefs at every turn."

I am a fiscal and national security conservative, in that i am for a smaller government/less taxes, and a strong defense, which for me means less offense.

But social conservatives do NOT want to involve themselves in medical decisions nor want to proselytize their thoughts/beliefs. It is the Fedgov, in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which involved itself in the medical decision of when life begins and when that human life could be destroyed. Prior to that, if you were/are a true conservative, you would have said, 'leave it to the states, and do not have the unelected judicial branch FORCE its musings on the rest of us.'

You use the word "proselytize," which shows that you have a problem with religion. Problem for you: religion is at the foundation of true conservatism. That is, we true conservatives want to 'conserve' the basic structure of the Judaeo-Christian culture as handed down through Anglo-Saxon law, as in traditional marriage.

By themselves, conservative economics and defense policy was known as 'liberalism' during the 1700 and 1800's. Make your choice, along with Spectre and Colon Powell.

The Reagan coalition was built on
a "big tent" and boiled down to the Tax Payers vs. the Tax Spenders.

Liberals are addicted to spending and control. They can never do enough of either even if they drive us all to impoverishment and control ever aspect of what we do. (They already tell me how much water I use in my toilet and when I can and can not have a fire in my fireplace...)

While I might be described as a fiscal and a national security conservative, I have some trouble with the social conservatives. You see, the social conservatives want to involve themselves in medical decisions and want to proselytize their beliefs at every turn.

Given this kind of choice, I find it difficult to vote for a Republican. And my vote for George W. Bush was one such mistake. He was WORSE than a Democrat because we got social issues addressed, but got the education department doubled in size to boot. I'll not make that mistake again.

The Republicans need to get back to basics. Less government, less spending, lower taxes. Maximize liberty for all. The "conservative social issues" should be addressed through persuasion, not through government.

The GOP's Disregard for the Constitution
"What conservatives need are not new principles. What’s needed are new policies that embody the old principles."

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!

You just need to follow the damn Constitution - FOR ONCE! Why is that simple concept so HARD for your clueless party to understand? There is nothing Constitutional about supporting Socialism, Corporate Welfare, Illegal Immigration, the Federal Reserve system, Income taxes, Social Security taxes, endless war, endless nation-building, endless Empire, American troops in foreign countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, Japan, Germany, Kosovo. There is nothing Constitutional about giving away American money to 3rd world nations. There is nothing Constitutional about the UN or NATO. There is nothing Constitutional about supporting STATE pork projects. The Federal government was never meant to be a Santa Claus the States can run to for help, and we wonder why the bastards are so corrupt now. GET A CLUE; it's NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. When some of you learn to think outside the GOP box, the talk-radio Neocon box, you might just discover the profound wisdom ofthe Founding Fathers. ANother thing: Conservative talk radio tells you time and time again in justification for endless war in Iraq that if we pull out the troops, they'll take the fight to the homeland. WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL! That is a lame excuse for the GOP refusing to follow the US Constitution. They say this and leave the border wide open; there's only one word for such a party: HYPOCRITES and certainly NOT CONSERVATIVES. Like their counterparts, the Democrats, they're not even PATRIOTIC for that mater because they care not one iota about American Sovereignty by keeping our border porous. They are a party of common criminals that have usurped our Constitution just like the DEMS.

aniko continued
Aniko, no one is saying that the Church should decide whether abortion is moral or not, so that is what we call a 'straw man argument,' an argument with no opponent. It is not the Church which has decided that abortion is not moral [although all orthodox Christian churches agree], but the Constitution and the laws of all states prior to 1973 which decided. Don't like it? Then amend the Constitution, and good luck trying.

I am sorry that you or a member of your family have obviously been hurt by the horrible decision to end a human life.

Aniko
Aniko wrote: "since I disagree with the Christian Right’s religious based view on “life”. Life is a blade of grass, a virus, a bacteria, a mushroom, etc. Human life, when it begins, and how it ends is based, at least partly, on individual “choices”. DNA in of itself, doesn’t define a “human life”."

Back to Biology 101, Aniko the slow witted. When a human egg and sperm connect, it is not a piece of granite, nor is does it have the DNA of an aardvark or chrysanthemum. It is alive, therefore a life, and it is human, as opposed to any animal or flower. The only intelligent argument you could advance, if you were able, would be to say that a developing human baby in utero, was not a human PERSON, as defined by the Constitution. That's what the Court did in the Dred Scott decision, that obviously Mr.Scott was a human being, but that he did not meet the criteria of 'person' of that day and age.

Aniko adds: "Jesus clearly subscribed to the separation "of church and state", in His declarations to give Caesar what is Caesar's and that His Kingdom is of not of this Earth.
No, I personally don't endorse any church to make decisions over anyone's life choices. That is why the Founding Fathers did not endorse a "state church”, or a particular religion. It is not the church who should decide whether abortion is “moral” or not."

So Aniko you are basically saying that our Lord Jesus subscribed to the private letter formula of Thomas Jefferson in 1803? How odd. If for the sake of argument He agreed to such a separation, what He meant was to leave the Big things to God, and the little stuff to caesar/administrators of all ages. The Big stuff includes the gift of co-Creating in bringing about human life, and Jesus said, Let the children come to me, and he did not say 'unless they have attained such and such birth weight.'



It's relatively simply
Obama and the Dems/Progressives/Social Fascists are diametrically opposed to everything all three wings of the conservative movement stand for, so the unifying theme is a no-brainer. Or we could just self-destruct while claiming a lack of absolute common ground.

And, oh, Colin Powell does not pass muster with ANY of the the three wings. This man is a Dem/Progressive and puts race before the national security interests of America.

B...S
Republicans don't need to unite. Republicans need to stand for something different from what these reprobate minded Democrats and Liberals stand for. Republicans need to say what they mean, and mean what they say. People like John McCain, Powell, and the rest of the "Cross The Aisle Folks" should do the honorable thing just like Specter did, and quit BS-ing the millions of people who did not vote for the "ONE". The Republicans need to find their souls, just like Miss California did, and until they do, they will be African Americans, I mean minorities.

Aniko
Conservatives are not against welfare.

We are against lifelong and second and third generation recipients of welfare.

As a matter of fact your Obamanation just repealed the Clinton Bill which forced timetables on welfare recipients. That is what we are against.

Pouring money down a welfare drain will never fill it up. We believe you need to train people to become self-sufficient so they leave the welfare rolls and start working and then they become tax payers.

What a concept. Huh?

stilla
I agree.
You've certainly got a point there. I've noticed I tend to check people out more closely if the MSM is bad mouthing a Republican I hadn't been paying attention too, only to discover they're somebody I would vote for.

Conservatives need to unite.
Conservatives for far to long have been sitting on the sidelines silent, thinking that Americans love their country and will make the right choice for what's best for the country.

But unfortunately we have a new breed that hates Capitalism and the America we all know and love, and they lust for power.

We've been foolish thinking that no one could sneak in, in the dead of night and usurp power in our country. Not in America.

Well, not only have they usurped control, but this country is on the brink of losing it's identity and it's place in the world.

We don't need new ideas, because Conservative values are just as relevant today as they were two hundred years ago. They are absolute truths and timeless. Maybe we could dress them up a bit to make them look fresh for the young but they will never grow old. Again they are timeless.

All Conservatives need to get involved NOW and stop standing on the sidelines letting someone else do the work and hoping for the best. HOPING FOR THE BEST IS LIBERAL NONSENSE THINKING.
And we need to clear our ranks of RINO'S.

YOU CANNOT HAVE A CONSERVATIVE PARTY WITH CONSERVATIVE VALUES WATERED DOWN BY LIBERALS.

Either you are a Conservative or you are a Liberal. You cannot be both. We can't have people limping along on two opinions.

Maybe the majority of people don't want Conservative values anymore, and if that's the case, well then we've lost our country and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. But you can't have it both ways. It's one way or the other.

And sitting around trying to figure out what to change to attract Liberals doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Either we are Conservative or we are not.

to aniko on abortion
Your justification for the government allowing the life of an unborn child to be taken by force without its consent hangs on your statement "An unborn does not meet the definition of 'person'."

I asked for THE definition of a person, and instead you give us the above 200 word non-definition.

I'll ask again: what is THE definition of a person?

Here's mine: "a person is a living, contiguous group of cells originating from the unique combination of genes from a sperm and an egg."

Nice, definite beginning and end. I challenge you to come up with a better definition that doesn't have fuzzy, subjective lines that are different for each individual.

Accidentally flagged an Aniko post
Anito - my apologies - I was trying to copy your 3pm post and accidentally clicked the "flag as offensive" icon. In case it disappears, here is a copy in full:

Aniko
Location: NJ
Reply # 34
Date: May 14, 2009 - 3:00 PM EST The articel is about fusion
of political power among the Republicans. Since I noticed that the most divisive issue in the Republican party is abortion, I addressed that issue, since I disagree with the Christian Right’s religious based view on “life”. Life is a blade of grass, a virus, a bacteria, a mushroom, etc. Human life, when it begins, and how it ends is based, at least partly, on individual “choices”. DNA in of itself, doesn’t define a “human life”. A mother , and hopefully a willing father (underline WILLING, since no one can force a father to be one), will determine the humanity of the “human-life” from the time it is born, until it can live on its own. One human being, or a group of human beings to manipulate human government to force one individual female to bear a “human” life-form to its humanity, is anathema to what our Republic stood and should stand for. If all social conservatives could come to an agreement on that, we could re-invigorate the Republican Party, and alongside the other two legs of the Reagan Republican “three legged stool”, could continue in the prosperity and FREEDOM our republic stood for, from its inception.

Aniko, first, my post about church
charity vs government charity had nothing to do with abortion.

Yes, the church can and must differentiate. The Bible is full of commands to help the needy, but also says "if any would not work, then neither should he eat" and that young widows should remarry rather than depend on church charity for the rest of her life.

The needy should NOT forever depend on the charity of churches - rather the church would help the needy get back on their feet to support themselves. THAT is something government routinely fails to do. The exception would be the elderly who can no longer support themselves and have depleted their retirement savings - the church can and should support them until natural death.

Our founders wanted to make sure there was no state-sanctioned religion to avoid middle-age style theocratic power.

Since we have many different kinds of churches, if a needy person doesn't like the conditions of the help they're getting from one church, they are free to go ask for help from a different church.

If a church takes a person's life, freedom or property against that person's will, the state should punish the members involved, deterring them and others from committing that crime.

I'm arguing FOR separation of church and state - the state has usurped the church's mandate to be charitable, and it should stop.

Chris
Is the church able to differentiate between "lazy" and "needy"? Or a person who is "needy" should forever depend on the charity of different "churches"? Wouldn't the church eventually get a theocratic power as it was known in the dark ages, that was oppressive, and at times murderous, if the church dogmas were not followed to the letter? You give the "church" too much credence. Jesus clearly subscribed to the separation "of church and state", in His declarations to give Caesar what is Caesar's and that His Kingdom is of not of this Earth.
No, I personally don't endorse any church to make decisions over anyone's life choices. That is why the Founding Fathers did not endorse a "state church”, or a particular religion. It is not the church who should decide whether abortion is “moral” or not. The people through their representatives can exercise their will how far the government could and should interfere with individual choices. Roe v wade was timely by 1973. I don’t know how many of you experienced the tragedies illegal abortions wreaked on individual females. The rich parents had choices for their daughters’ errors, while poor females either died in back alleys at the hands of butchers, or lived a life of regret with a child whom they never had the chance to love and raise.
Once again, I plead for the sake of the republican party, to leave the issue of abortion alone. There is a time and place for everything.

Easy Sell...............
Look at all the "Good" liberalism has done to the states that embrace high taxation, spending, and generally eschew family values.....

Case closed.....

The articel is about fusion
of political power among the Republicans. Since I noticed that the most divisive issue in the Republican party is abortion, I addressed that issue, since I disagree with the Christian Right’s religious based view on “life”. Life is a blade of grass, a virus, a bacteria, a mushroom, etc. Human life, when it begins, and how it ends is based, at least partly, on individual “choices”. DNA in of itself, doesn’t define a “human life”. A mother , and hopefully a willing father (underline WILLING, since no one can force a father to be one), will determine the humanity of the “human-life” from the time it is born, until it can live on its own. One human being, or a group of human beings to manipulate human government to force one individual female to bear a “human” life-form to its humanity, is anathema to what our Republic stood and should stand for. If all social conservatives could come to an agreement on that, we could re-invigorate the Republican Party, and alongside the other two legs of the Reagan Republican “three legged stool”, could continue in the prosperity and FREEDOM our republic stood for, from its inception.

JMartin, I agree with you 98%...
But I have to differ with you that "a minimal level of government support" is appropriate. I certainly agree that if there is to be government "charity", it should be at the local and absolutely not from the federal level. It's unconstitutional for the federal government to fund charities.

I agree with you on private charity - but I take it a step further - the church is mandated by the Bible to care for the needy, rebuke the lazy, and to discriminate between the two.

The church is perfectly situated to distinguish between the two. Government has every incentive to treat the lazy as needy in order to buy votes.

Even if one church gets it wrong (treats a truly needy person as lazy), that person can ask for help at a different church.

The critical thing to remember here is that giving material help to a lazy person contributes to the destruction of their soul just as much as failing to give material help to the needy destroys their body.

Government "charity" has destroyed the souls of millions of people in this country - removed the incentive to be the best they can be.

Then there's the issue of the government confiscating the property of one citizen by force in order to give it to another - behavior that would be considered criminal theft on the part of any other entity.


So this conservative is entirely opposed to government "charity".

Watch Whom The Left Reviles
Then support that person. We see that they fear Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Miss California, Mitt Romney (There's another "documentary" about polygamy soon to be aired.) Newt Gingrich, Ann Coulter. I'll be tuned in to see who appears on their "Must Be Cut Off at the Knees" list. If a Republican doesn't make that list, maybe I won't trust him or her.

When I was in high school, back in the '60's, the males used to gossip over the weekend, and on Monday morning, they posted a list of girls who wouldn't "put out."(sorry to be crass.) The first week, I was dubbed "Miss Frigidaire." In our provincial lakeside village, word got around fast, and soon, the mothers were challenging their daughters every Monday night, with, "Why isn't your name on that list?" Ha Ha! So it's a badge of honor to be on the Democrats' Public Enemy # 1 list!

YES, KEN BLACKWELL
I hear you loud and clear and totally agree with every word. Please speak up more often to those who want our conservatives values to be maintained in this country, but are afraid to take a position. We must stand united.

The points you make are the same reasons that the Tea Parties developed so quickly and will continue. My husband and I attended the one in our city and we met a young man who had brought his 15 year old daughter. During a conservation with this young man he told us his daughter was studying Reagan economics in her civics class. To hear this was very reassuring.
There is a movement in this country to return to our basic values and I believe it will grow.

If anything positive is achieved with the Obama Administration, it will be that it has awaken many Americans to how easily our liberties and country can be taken from us.


Aniko writes "An unborn does not meet
the definition of 'person'."

Could you please give us THE definition of a person?

Ken, you've hit another home run!
We have been silent to long. Great message and it needs to be taken everywhere. For those of you who are dicouraged I have only one thing to say - DO NOT GIVE UP!!

Get involved with your church; get your church to step into the fray. Get involved in local politics. Change is local first - presicnt by presinct, state district by state district. Start talking to your neighbors; Attend meetings and rallies. Join a conservative organization - 9/12, AFF; Give money to legal foundations that are fighting for the constitution and Christian rights. When ACORN shows up somewhere WE need to be there opposing them.

In short, join . .the . . fight! If we do not join the fight we have already lost. Get in the fight, fight on principal, fight with your Christian values! DO NOT QUIT!!

If you need motivation, listen to the "messiahs" speech at AZ University.

PS Aniko
By saying that the state has no compelling interest the first 5 1/2 months of pregnancy, you are admitting there should be no 3rd trimester/partial birth abortions--at least you're on the road to recovery.

In 1966, my brother was born after 24 weeks of gestation, 2lbs 13 oz. The docs gave him a 1% chance of survival. Now he is about 242 lbs 13 oz, with a wife and 2 sons.

You say conservatives believe in no welfare. That is a lie. Conservatives usually believe in at least a minimal level of government support, better from the local than national level, for women and children, and for cutting all the wasteful high salaries for Wash DC administrators.

Conservatives are also for cutting taxes, so that folks will have enough to give to charities which indeed will help the poor. The differenc is, conservatives actually do give to the poor as opposed to the tightwad (il-)liberals. On this note, I was heartened to see that the Obamas had given 8% of their income to charity, as opposed to my skinflint fellow Catholics, Biden and Kerry, the one percenters.

Aniko, Insighting Truth
Aniko the illiterate said: "No one coerces or enforces abortion in America!!!" [First of all, mature people generally agree that one exclamation point is enough, if that.] I did not say that anyone coerced or enforced abortion, in America or elsewhere. What i did say is that the secularists had illegitimately cooerced the laws of the 50 states in 1973, and illegitimately 'found' [=inserted/invented] a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade.

Insighting Truth wrote: "If government is allowed...
...to define marriage, the word will mean whatever politicians want it to mean. Is that what conservatives really want?" Government is not defining marriage. Judaeo-Christian culture, plus Roman law plus Anglo Saxon law which add up to make Western Atlantic civilization, define marriage as between one man and one woman. Gays are trying to re-define. To the extent that some politicians are underscoring the traditional definition, they are doing so in a defensive mode, a sort of 'just war' of words, you might say.

Chris
"allow one person to use force to kill another person. Given that, what is the point of having a government at all?"
No, Chris. I want the government to stay out of it. An unborn does not meet the definition of “person”. I don’t want to kill YOUR child, nor your wife (assuming you are a male) to abort YOUR “child-to-be”.
Lolo1, you are a vulgar Lulu. Don't bother addressing me. If you don't understand my point, it is your "reading comprehension" at fault, not my ability to clearly state my point, so why insult me? Find yourself someone of your caliber to insult with back and forth.

Insighting Truth

"If you allow government...
...to decide when life begins, you empower government to decide when life should end."

Well said! I don't think the left understands even remotely the implications of that.

Aniko
"For the sake of America, conservatives should choose very carefully what to fight for and against!"


That is about the only thing you said that isn't pure malarkey. As to abortion...it is the left that wants it unfettered and without compromise. It is the left stealing my tax dollars to promote and pay for it. It is the left that got abortion issued with judicial fiat, no debate, no nothing. so it is the left and all pro choice advocates that are forcing their opinions on to everyone.

If government is allowed...
...to define marriage, the word will mean whatever politicians want it to mean. Is that what conservatives really want?

Aniko, you want government to
allow one person to use force to kill another person. Given that, what is the point of having a government at all?

JMartin
No one coerces or enforces abortion in America!!! You and many "conservatives" who on the one hand advocate "individual liberty", wants to FORCE bearing an accidental pregnancy to have an individual to be born! Roe v Wade is something that is in favor of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, by Individual meaning a human being that is already alive and “breeding”! Anything inside a woman's body, including an embryo that cannot exist as an INIVIDUAL for approximately 5 and a half months, is not the responsibility of the government to force a “living entity” (human embryo) to feed and excrete off and into her INDIVIDUAL body!
Furthermore, you social conservatives are against all forms of welfare, including that for a single mother! Contradictory values and understanding of rights of the INDIVIDUAL?
You bet!
“Gay marriage” (I’ll never understand what is gay about homosexuality) is an issue that can be defeated by conservative principles, without injecting religious dogma into it, and maintaining the individual’s rights and responsibilities. The rights and responsibilities of the individual if it does not infringe on the rights of the group we call society, should be law. Unlike the rights of the “unborn”, the rights of a sexual depravity for the sole purpose of self-gratification, cannot be imposed on the society at large. Marriage has a purpose: replenishing the human elements, human beings. Sexual activity and preference is NOT the reason for marriage! Homosexuals can have any union they want, but no functioning human society should equate it with the definition of marriage. Marriage is not just a word to be loosely used for depraved behavior.
For the sake of America, conservatives should choose very carefully what to fight for and against!

A Case for Political Fusion
This was an excellent article that hits the nail on the head in every aspect.
We need to stand together before it is too late.

If you allow government...
...to decide when life begins, you empower government to decide when life should end.

David, my problem with most talk radio
hosts - particularly Rush, Sean and Neal Boortz - is that they supported McCain in the general after (rightfully) opposing him in the primaries.

The only problem I have with their competition is when hosts refuse to support good policy such as the FairTax because it might increase the book sales of their rival.

McCain was simply unacceptable, they should have withdrawn support for him. By February 2008 there was no possibility of having a good president this term. They should have abandoned McCain and focused on congressional races instead.

Had they done so, the GOP leadership would be scrambling all over themselves to support good conservative candidates, and get the message out of why limited government is the best policy - to convince "moderates" to vote for good policies instead of changing our policies to appease their fickle sensibilities.


Rush & Sean claim to be conservatives first and Republicans second, but the evidence from last year says otherwise.

Irreconcilable
dangfitz says "Social conservatives who seek to use the coercive mechanisms of government to enforce their social vision cannot be reconciled with those who believe in limited government."


I agree with this, with a few caveats.

I'm an evangelical. Mike Huckabee initially appealed to me - especially with his support for home-schoolers and the FairTax. But the more I listened to him, the more uncomfortable I became, because he wants to use the power of government to protect people from themselves. I'm now at the point that if he were the GOP candidate for President, I would vote for a 3rd party candidate.


I would exclude abortion from this irreconcilability, though. Believers in limited government (BILGes) generally agree that the proper role of government is to protect the life, freedom and property of its citizen from being taken by force or fraud.

There is ample reason to consider an unborn child to be due the protection of the government in its primary role, which would require that most abortions be illegal.

On this issue, BILGes and social conservatives should find common ground.

On other issues involving the government forcing people to take care of themselves, I'm firmly with the limited government camp, not the social conservative camp - even though I choose to live as a social conservative.

How about fusing talk radio?
Ken, I love Glenn Beck. I love Shawn Hannity. Why do they avoid each other like the plague? Why does Mark Levin call the others except his friends Shawn and Rush 'backbenchers'? Why did Rush refer to Bill O'Reilly as 'Ted Baxter'? Why do they ALL say 'you only hear that on this show' when I just got through hearing it on another show two hours earlier? I know they are all rivals in a way, but sadly they all clearly put that rivalry ahead of advancing the cause of conservatism. I think 1 + 1 could be much more than 2 if they'd support each other. I'd love for example Shawn appearing with Glenn on his comedy tour, or Glenn appearing with Shawn at a Freedom Concert. Ken, maybe you can help since you might be closer to these guys.

For Conservatism to succeed...
...conservtives must realize that government is not the solution. Until that happens, I see little hope.

Support State right's lawsuits
This one is about guns rights which I don't care for, but I do support State's rights.
http://gunowners.org/op0641.htm. These need to be encouraged.

Also Obama and the Federal government aren't the axis of evil. They are crack dealers. Getting people addicted to a lifestyle no one can afford. The goal is to get individuals addicted so the fear of taking it away forces them to vote for the (D). Creating dependents (addicts) whether they be government workers (their ponzi scheme payment structure forces them to be unhappy for their whole lives) or the elderly, or the poor or big business is always the goal. TARP I was about getting the states addicted to Federal money to control them.

Crack dealers have used the same boring tactic throughout history. Either take the crack (money) and become like us or we will destroy you.

Self-destruction
Baseball, you are 100% correct. But I'm afraid that we will have to suffer a long period of liberal destruction before people realize that a diet of pure socialism is toxic to Americas health.

The majority (at this time) are like children. They want all the candy and they're getting it. We just have to wait on them to get a giant belly ache. In the meantime we cannot allow the Colin Powells of the world to define our politics. It is time to purge his ilk from our midst.

RIGHT-ON...KEN...
Ken you are so right-on...as others have stated; "The Axis of Evil" (Obama-Reid-Pelosi) upon this great country of ours is the nightmare we all dread and share. Today vs. Ben Franklin's: "We must, indeed, hang together, or most assuredly this country shall perish."

RNC Chairman

Each article that I read that is written by Mr. Blackwell reinforces the fact that the RNC has the wrong Chairman.But then again I'm a fellow Buckeye.Vietnam Vet.

Republicans follow the money.....
In Texas, real conservatives are watching our Senators and Representatives, as they shed conservative principles (if they ever had any)in their race to get as much of the money from the feds as possible. They are now much worse than RINOS. Our state legislature is, if anything, worse. For our present leaders, it is all about the money and how fast they can "convert" in order to get it. It all sickens me. Very soon, the Democrats, thanks to Straus, will take over the Lege with the aid of the RINOs.

AS LIBERALISM TAKES OVER

.....Their attacks on conventional culture will become less covert and more open and bold ...

....For instance the Gay culture can claim the moral high ground and accuse anyone who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman as an intolerant, bigotted homophobe who is out of touch with modern times ...ala Ms CA ...

.....It took many years of incrementalism to bring us to this point but now that we are here ...the attacks on a Christian culture will be fast, furious and vicious .....COLOSSUS

Hate crimes legislation that has
passed the House is going to destroy the fabric of America completely before Conservatives have an opportunity to win seats in Congress.

The Democrats refused to define "sexual orientation." That term covers everything from homosexuality to pedophelia to necrophelia to bestiality to rapists and "peeping Toms" and sadists and exhibitionists and who knows what else. God only knows how many crimes and diseases will be unleashed on the nation as a result of unbridling of such passions; and those who attempt to protect themselves or their family members against perpetrators of such violations of their consciences and possibly their persons stand to be charged with federal felony charges. God save us!!!

No other way to put it
It grieves me to say this about elected officials of the U.S., but in terms of our freedom and liberty, the triumvirate of Obama-Reid-Pelosi are a political "axis of evil". There is no other way to put it.

Their world view is in alignment with that of thug dictators. They confiscate the wealth of achievers. They willingly support the silent holocaust of the unborn. They play politics with national security issues. They seek to silence all dissent. They enact policies that erode our individual freedoms. And they continually misrepresent themselves through obfuscation and outright lies.

These people need to be voted out of office before they totally destroy the fabric of the America the founding fathers had in mind.




dangfitz
dangfitz writes:

"Social conservatives who seek to use the coercive mechanisms of government to enforce their social vision..."

By this, i presume you mean pro-lifers and pro traditional marriagers for example?

But the only ones who are trying to coerce and enforce are the leftists, who have cooerced the nation and usurped the laws of 50 states since 1973 Roe v. Wade. Before that, no-abortion was in the peaceful possession of the land.

Same with same sex marriage. It has been the status quo of the history of the human race, western civilization and this nation that marriage is between one woman and one man. It is the usurpers who are doing the coercive enforcing.

But i agree with you on empire; it is called the department of defence, not offense. Back to G. Washington.

Irreconcilable
Social conservatives who seek to use the coercive mechanisms of government to enforce their social vision cannot be reconciled with those who believe in limited government. Likewise, a military empire also is repugnant to those who believe in the limited government approach of defending America, not enforcing policy by force of arms worldwide.

I would argue for a divorce & re-alignment. There are many in the 'liberal' camp who would re-align themselves to a party that actually believed in limited, Constitutional government, one without an unhealthy interest in our bedrooms, our neighbors' resources, our wallets, and our children.

amicable divorce
Arturick,

Wish i could write something more hopeful, but i'm not a science fiction writer. The cultural gap between the so-called red and blue states is more profound than in 1850. This time i do not even sense any desire to remain 'married,' as back then. only question is how to reconfigure 2 countries, 1 of which is basicly the left coast and NY-NE, with perhaps IL in the middle. like the old West and East Pakistan, before the latter became Bangladesh.

The War Has Moved Beyond The Ballot
We are no longer living in an America that would appreciate the man we could all unite behind.

Unless something drastic occurs that brings the schools and media under conservative control, the conservative is doomed to irrelevance for a good long time. If someone can think of a way to do that outside of secession or rebellion, let me know.

SecularISM, SecularISTS the
problem. Blackwell writes about the liberals' secular philosophy, but we all have a secular aspect to us, the worldly, in this time and place. It is only when you add the -ISM and IST at the end word and you have the problem. Secularists demand the extermination of the religious from public life. Like Hitler and Stalin. Like the ACLU.

John Winthrop a lawyer
not a reverend.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.