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
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Mark of the True Conservative
by Terry Jeffrey
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?


If you want to learn to recognize the mark of a true conservative, read Mark Levin's new book, "Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto."

Levin is the real thing -- a longtime intellectual and activist leader of the conservative movement -- who writes with unmatched authority and clarity about the conservative vision and how it ought to be pursued today by you and your children and anybody else you know who wants to preserve American liberty.

Levin is now best known as the highly and deservedly popular host of a nationally syndicated radio show. But long before he rose to prominence in broadcasting, Levin was an activist who supported Ronald Reagan for president, then served in the Reagan administration, eventually becoming chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese.

Since leaving public office, Levin has led the Landmark Legal Foundation and written two bestsellers: "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" and "Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish."

The latter is the story of how Levin and his family rescued an ailing dog from a shelter, and the deep attachment they formed with the dog during the brief life remaining to it. The former is simply the clearest explanation extant of how the Supreme Court has gone about unconstitutionally rewriting the Constitution itself.

As different as their subject matters are, both these books demonstrated Levin's ability to tell a powerful story in simple, straightforward, compelling language. Like his old boss, Levin is a great communicator.

That skill is manifest again in "Liberty and Tyranny."

Like our Founding Fathers and like other first-rate conservative thinkers, Levin recognizes that America's rise to greatness was not rooted in ideology but in a worldview defined by basic -- and true -- assumptions about the nature of the world and the nature of man.

Fundamentally, Levin explains, conservatives recognize that there is an immutable natural law ordained by God that all men and nations must obey. He also makes clear that while human beings have a God-given right to individual liberty, they are also imperfect by nature and, thus, if given too much power, are likely to abuse the God-given rights of others.

"Some resist the idea of a Natural Law's relationship to Divine Providence, for fear it leads to intolerance or even theocracy," writes Levin. "They have it backwards. If man is 'endowed by (the) Creator with certain inalienable rights,' he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights -- rights that are not conferred on man by man. It is the Divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man's right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'"

Levin deftly isolates why modern liberal class warriors -- those of President Obama's ilk -- must reject this understanding of the world.

"The Statist cannot abide the existence of Natural Law and man's discovery of 'inalienable rights' bestowed on all individuals by 'their Creator,'" writes Levin. "In ideology and practice, the Statist believes rights are not a condition of man's existence but only exist to the extent the Statist ratifies them. Furthermore, rights do not belong to all individuals. They are rationed by the state -- conferred on those whom the Statist believes deserving of them, and denied to those whom the Statist believes undeserving of them."

As on his radio show, so in this book, Levin is unapologetic in his indictment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and successive generations of FDR acolytes -- including LBJ and BHO -- for perpetrating a "counterrevolution" against the limited government prescribed by our Constitution and for creating and expanding a welfare state that breeds dependency in the people and that -- if not soon dismantled -- will bankrupt our nation.

"The significance of the New Deal is not in any one program, but in its sweeping break from our founding principles and constitutional limitations," he says. "Roosevelt himself broke with the two-presidential-term tradition started by George Washington by running for four terms. His legacy includes a federal government that has become a massive, unaccountable conglomerate: It is the nation's largest creditor, debtor, lender, employer, consumer, contractor, grantor, property owner, tenant, insurer, health-care provider and pension guarantor."

This is the truth about what liberals have done over the last 80 years of American history. American freedom cannot survive another 80 years of expanding government and diminishing individual autonomy.

If you want to rediscover true conservatism, read Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny." If you want to help preserve liberty, buy copies for your kids.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Book
It's funny when the trolls say Conservatism is dead, and then a Conservative book makes num. 1 on the best seller list the day it's released.

j-10
Wanna bet that #1 is about as real as Bush's 'booming' economy? Smoke and mirrors and a heavy dose of wingnut book clubs buying the lot at wholesale bargain basement prices and then hawking them for free as a 'bonus' gift for nitwits who sign on to HumanEvents or Townhall.com magazine.

Raelei, bads news for ya


Debut of Mark Levin’s Book ‘Liberty and Tyranny: No. 1 on Amazon
March 24, 2009 — rbs - Quick Daily Insights (Politics and Such)

Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, debuted at number 1 today on Amazon.com.


raelei
and raelie writes

LOOK............I wrote conservatives really, really stink. ha ha ha that'll make them really really mad.


Nitwits
Would that be Nitwits like you Raelei?

raeli
Next she/he? will say the ultimate lib pithy comment: "guess what, WE WON"

How old are ralei, maybe 10?

GET TO KNOW WHAT STUPID IS........
Listen to a Liberal! Here are these buffoons waxing idiotic about a book they haven't read nor, apparently , are capable of reading.

Nitwittery - A liberal's Family Tree.

Trolls not invited...
...to the Tea Parties. For the sensible, to find out what's going on in your state (and Washington, DC), check out this link:

http://www.officialtaxdayteaparty.com/index.html

(Interesting. They've changed the link just in the last few hours. Must be getting a LOT of traffic.)

As for why you trolls are not invited, you are prey. We have decided we are not prey any more. We have no intention of hurting you, but you would not find yourself very comfortable in our presence.

"Servitude is not an option!"

Fools
"Fundamentally, Levin explains, conservatives recognize that there is an immutable natural law ordained by God that all men and nations must obey."

Right.

That's why we have birth control today, and not at any other time in history. Technology with its cars, planes, automobiles and instant communication have turned human nature on its head.

No one in their right mind believes this.

"Whom the gods would destroy...
...they first make mad."

The word "mad" can be taken two ways.

Mad as in "insane," like the flaming non-normies who currently believe they hold all the cards and keep saying "We won! We won! We won! Now we can tell everyone else what to do--and punish them if they refuse! Hahahahaha!" These are the words of children stuck on stupid because they never learned to grieve losses and move on, no matter how old they are now.

Or mad as in "furious," like the normies and recovering non-normies who recognize the threat to their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and now say, "Whoa! Time out! Enough already! We need to deal with this now! We are not slaves or serfs. We are adults who accept responsibility for our choices and actions. These people need to be removed from power and disciplined." These are the words of adults who have grown up learning to grieve their losses and move on. Their fury shows as cold, hard determination to put things right.

Alas, the children in grown-up bodies will never understand.

Servitude is not an option.

As for you, Mr. Invisible Man...
...(Vampires, of course, have no reflection), "God" is a title of respect for Reality as a whole. You (and everyone else) have exactly one choice in life--made in every instant of your existence.

Will you accept Reality and your place in it, with all the responsibility for the consequences of your more obvious choices and actions?

Or will you deny Reality and your place in it, wishing rather to be someone--anyone--else, anywhere else, doing anything other than the task immediately before you, and refusing all responsibility for the consequences of your more obvious choices and actions?

It really is that simple. This is what Levin means by "an immutable natural law ordained by God that all men and nations must obey."

Birth control, technology, communications, etc. have done nothing to turn human nature on its head, because we all choose acceptance or denial of Reality and our places in it at every single instant.

Don't like them apples? Tough. Just be aware that since you can choose acceptance or denial of Reality at every instant, you can change your choice in either direction at any given moment. You, for instance, don't have to go on being an Invisible Man, denying your own reflection, to say nothing of your own reality as part and parcel of Reality as a whole.

But by the same token, only you are responsible for your choices and actions--whether you want to be or not. You can't give that responsibility away, no matter how hard you try.

Think about it.

Mark...
This book is another example why Mark is known as "The Great One"...

He's a Good Friend, Human Being,Husband,Father, Son & a Great American Patriot...

Godspeed...

Raelei and ranger29
I noticed for a long time how much liberals just can't stand the truth. It scares the hell out of them so they try to viciously attack it. You two just like are Obama are some of the most pathetic things that have ever lived. Notice I call you things. That is because you a subspecies that will soon become extinct.

If We Take God Seriously
Hugh Hewitt put my thoughts so much better than I ever could in his book 'The Embarrassed Believer'.

"If we ever take God seriously in this country--really, really take God seriously--imagine the changes that would follow. None of them would be compelled by law, mind you. That is a bogeyman invented by the enemies of belief: the idea of an absolutist preacher-pastor-president banning beer and banking and barbecues. No, any changes would be compelled not by law but by a serious belief in the necessity of personal obedience to a God who demands what He has always demanded. If that obedience became generalized, the changes would be momentous. Which is why opponents of those changes must fight tooth and nail against the resurrection of belief." page 11

John Adams made it clear: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams also said that "The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution."

The basis of true conservatism is a belief in, and a commitment to,the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Apart from that belief in God, there is no basis for conservatism. Man is either controlled internally based on his relationship with God, or externally by the force of the state. That's why anarchy always leads to dictatorship.

As John Adams said, our constitution, our American way of life, and the courage to defend that way of life depends on a moral people, made moral because of their relationship to, and dependence on, God.

2 Chronicles 7:14

THE IMMUTABLE HOLY LAW OF GOD

By the Immutable Holy Law of God, the law of right and wrong and reason and historical progress in morality and freedom, America is about to learn the terrible lesson that God is not government or politicians high priests. And those who deify government turning it into a false god in violation of Divine Law, who ignore the commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," will be struck down by His mighty hand and blown away like dust from the mountainside.




Raelei phone home!!!
The mothership is waiting to take you back. In 1992 Rush wrote "The Way Things Ought to Be". It SHOT to number one on the NY Times bestseller list DESPITE the best efforts of hundreds of chain store managers to hide it anywhere the public couldn't find it.

This ruse backfired because angry callers made this known and the management of Waldenbooks and Barnes and Noble had to issue orders to display along with ALL the other bestsellers.

It sold over 3.5 MILLION copies in hardcover the first six months and then in paperback more than TWICE that figure.

The second book "See I Told You So" sold even more copies in BOTH formats. Algore's idiot tome "Earth in the Balance" ONLY sold while he was running for office and ended up in bargain bins a week after Inauguration Day 2001 WHERE IT BELONGED.

I have a prized autographed copy of the first book having been with Rush in the studio taping an episode of his TV show on Evil Tuesday (election day 1992). His SHOW (in its time slot) BROOMED everyone else off the air.
Station managers (who have the cojones of a field mouse) were too timid to run it in normal viewing hours in the big liberal meccas so I had to tape it. It got to be too much with the radio show, internet taking off and the newsletter so something HAD to go. Rush decided to drop the regular TV show but it was a HOOT!!

-Ray
NRA Life Member
Soli Deo Gloria!!

Real conservatives voted against McCain
The problem with Levin's theories is that the Republican Party doesn't believe in it either. Republicans haven't tried to anything socially conservative or to cut the government in 15 years. And they nominated John McSocialist to be president.

So what Levin is pushing is a big lie, a bait & switch. Watch what the Republicans say, not what they do. They talk conservative, but govern as liberals.

A Bird In Hand.
Religious ideology or morality has nothing to do with the importance of being an American. The opportunity of getting a high paying job is what counts. That is the reason why millions of Mexicans are crossing the border each year.Liberals supply goodies and conservatives supply ideology and morality. Smart Americans understand that a bird in hand is better than two in the bush. That is why we have a liberal at the helm of the ship of state.

Any Conservatism
that does not have as its first principle that there is a God and He rules over the affairs of men...is a sham, and something less than true conservatism.

And any view of the conflict between Liberalism and Conservatism that does not take this contrast into account...is missing the point.

Chuck
Then there truly can be no atheist conservatives?


There you go Melvin ...
dialectic materialism. Man is nothing more than a mouth, an a**hole, and genitalia. A problem in an unconcerned cosmos. A void who's natural needs are an illusion that can be alternately better defined by other voids in their number. The best solution for the problem of man is primarily the termination of any units that aren't beneficial to the state.
The Lord Obama is not a liberal. He is an ego-centric marxist idealogue, who as it is with all rodents of his ilk is dependant on the baseness of the populace for his success.
I think that includes you Melvin. You're probably a city guy?

So let me get this straight...
I love listening to Mark Levin however, when he was an advisor to Ronald Reagan, did he advise the President on appointing
Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court?

If so, should I question his judgement on matters of the Supreme Court?

I mean-I'm just asking.

Happy Now?

RW
"Then there truly can be no atheist conservatives?"

_______________________

Correct.

They are not Conservatives. They are Pragmatists.

Sort of like church-going moralists look like Christians.


Siegfried Repub leaders might not be...
conservative.

But after two months can anyone honestly say that there is no differance between the two parties?

I had to hold my nose to vote for McCain-but I sure wish he was president.

Like some others I started to feel that if we are going to go down this road lets just get it over with. But Obama and the Dems are gleefully driving us over the cliff. They could care less about the common man, they know they have the safety net they love to talk about. My kids aren't so lucky, they need a free America.

Funny that the man who hates American because of slavery that was abolished 160 years, has no ties to it's history and is dumber than a rock is the one who is leading a whole country into serfdom.

Chuck
"Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy."- Ayn Rand

The deeper threat
"can anyone honestly say that there is no differance between the two parties?"

It's irrelevant. I'm not voting for the lesser of two evils. Conservatives have been doing that ever since President Reagan retired, and the Republican Party has gone further and further left with each election.

As far as the parties not being different, John McCain was offered the DEMOCRATIC VP slot by John Kerrey. McCain has always supported the cap & trade legislation which supposedly is such a massive tax and threat to our freedom. McCain was also the primary co-sponsor of the amnesty bill, and the only Republican to vote against both of Bush's tax cuts.

"the one who is leading a whole country into serfdom."

I don't believe any of that about Obama. He's just an average Democrat. Dems and the country were much more liberal in the 60's and 70's, and we survived. It's the standard scare rhetoric that the Republican leadership throws around to get our votes and money while still governing as liberals. Instead of talking about Republican policies, they demonize the Democrat of the month as being an inhuman monster (for supporting the same things those RINO leaders want). Does anyone believe that Hillary or John Edwards would be any less liberal than Obama if they were elected president?

The only threat I see is that the Republican Party has become totally useless. It is both ineffective and a wing of the Democratic Party. It was far far better for me to vote a third party conservative, defeating McCain, then to let he and the RINOs complete their take over of the Republican Party. By defeating McCain, we still have at least a tiny chance of someday having a conservative Republican party again, one competent enough to govern.

Another point
That conservatives need to expand on is that of defining what, exactly, is a right?

Many, many people today believe that if a person has a need, then it is the right of such person to have that need fulfilled.

NEEDS ARE NOT RIGHTS. This is where the confusion comes from and what has rationalized a “right” to health care, housing, jobs, etc., etc.

Rights are only those things that you come into the world possessing.

An example is found in the practice of female genital mutilation aka female circumcision. This is a cultural norm in some countries, but we instinctively know it is wrong. Why? Because every female born has a right to experience sexual pleasure. She has that right because her creator created her body to experience that pleasure. It is a gift bestowed upon females by God. No one else provided that gift.

Those who would take away the right of a female to experience sexual pleasure are taking something that does not belong to them. They are robing the female of something that is hers exclusively, and was given to her by her creator.

On the other hand, to say that housing or health care are rights is inconsistent with this view because these things MUST be paid for by someone. So, if the individual in need does not pay for his own housing, health care etc., then it must be paid by others IF IT IS TRULY A RIGHT.

By seeing any need as a right, we are committing ourselves to providing the needs of everyone, unilaterally.

No government should force society to provide for others needs by calling them rights.

"Chuck" your misconceptions
Under your logic the Rev. Al Sharpton, Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Taliban, the leftist Worldwide Council of Churches, etc. are all great conservatives.

The vast majority of theists in the world rabidly oppose the principles of individual rights and limited government that were the philosophical basis for America's Founding. Those principles have far more in common with the philosophies of Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Baron de Montesquieu than they do the Bible. It's no coincidence there is no reference to god anywhere in the Constitution.

I agree with much of what Levin champions. The problem is that he attempts to base it on the dangerous metaphysical basis of faith rather than reason, opening himself up to the charge that reason is on the side of the left. Big mistake.

"Natural rights" can be derived by a proper assessment of the nature of reality as well as the nature of human beings, without bringing in a fictitious supernatural aspect. That's why they're not called "supernatural rights."

Difference Between Liberals and Conserva
The main difference between Liberals and Conservatives is that Conservatives make their decisions based on "learned experience". The Liberals make their decisions based on "a theory of utopia".

I prefer to use learned experience to determine if a decision will work or not. And the liberals are giving us lots of learned experience in their stupid ideas.

Maobama's governing strategy?


The more citizens I make dependent on the federal government, the less resistance the citizens will have to my consolidating power.

Time for the

Second American Revolution.

Constitution
Tacitus X

Look at the last line of the Constitution, it mentions the Lord.


I bought my copy of the book yesterday. It is a shame Obamabots cannot sit and read for more than a few seconds. It would be good for them to balance their education and read Mark's book.

get the book!
If you want to be informed or to re-inform your knowledge of the Constitution, this is a great book to educate yourself by. Its for all citizens,regardless of belief, Party, etc.

Tacitus,

you write, but what you write is unAmerican.

This country was founded on the principle that all men are CREATED equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.

In other words, the greatness of America has been her dependence on Divine benevolence.

So, you go ahead and spew whatever turns your crank. But, intelligent readers will know you are not even in the ballpark when it comes to truth and reality.

sig-Lesser of two evils is right
But you miss one some big points

McCain would not have doubled our national debt in three weeks.

McCain would not have sent Millions of dollars to Hamas and the PLO (wonder how many people are going to die over that)

McCain wouldn't have the brown shirts aka ACRON on standby to go out and harass private citizens.

ect..
People are fed up with the Republicans for being Democrat lite, however we at least have a chance to turn around the Republican party. The only democrats left in this country are either commies or fools.

American Way.
Bible thumpers with empty wallets are not welcome into the bedrooms of pretty women. Neither are they welcome into the gallery of great Americans. But religious radicals can be reformed by finding a job. That is the American way.

Raeli
Where are you, Raeli?

The sanest, most reasonable voice on this page
and you leave us alone with all the
Republican nutters and haters. How could you!

Tacitus is wrong
There has never been a natural rights doctrine that has been able to stand without reliance on a creator. The Greek stoics and Cicero understood this.The reason this is so is that without the final arbiter of a creator and the common consensus of this finality,natural law descends into positivism.By the way, metaphysics isn't a Christian idea or methodology, it was started by the pagan Aristotle.Without the Christian adoption of metaphysics it would have been very difficult for the Christian Roman empire to make a full adoption of roman law and when the Western Empire fell this stabilizing influence would not have been able to assuage the fury of the barbarians and there would have been no Western culture as we know it. No Enlightenment and no John Locke.Read his tact on The Reasonableness of Christianity Ithink you will find it enlightening.

chucjk
"It's a shame Obamabots cannot sit and read
for more than a few seconds"

It's true...We Obamabots need to learn how to
read...hopefully as well as George Bush reads.

Then we need to learn what books to read - like
Ann Coulter and Mark Levin and Mark Steyn.

Then we can be patriots just like you are.

Constitution
"... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

US Constitution, Article VI

45caliber
Another difference in conservatives and liberals...conservatives 'think'. Liberals 'feel'.

SUPREME COURT
NEWS FLASH!
AMENDMENT FOUR to the U.S. CONSTITUTION! THIS WILL BRING BARRY SOETORO AKA BARACK HUSSEIN
OBAMA, Jr. BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT! Please pass this on to the members and ALL of the news media! Complete Story:

http://www.cusc.org/editorial/3563.htm

Semper Fidelis,

Jason Leverette
USMC (RET)

Behold!
Behold the banality and egotism that is modern liberalism in the incarnation that is Vampire's Reflection.

He believes that, due to a small change in mankind's circumstances, mankind itself has been altered into some new, unprecedented, and utterly unconnected to the inferior generations of the past.

In much the same way my 8yo believes that the knock-knock jokes he tells me, which were old when my husband told those same jokes to my mother-in-law (reading them from the same copy of the same book), are new and fresh and never thought of before.

Left-liberalism = permanent immaturity.

To Siegfried
So? We know that. The deal is, do we conservatives take the Republican party and make it into a conservative party? Or do we break from the Republican party, and form our own. I for one, am sticking with the Republican party because the Republicans where I live are conservative. But the Republicans only get one more election out of me. If the leadership of this party keeps selling itself as Democrat lite, I'm outa here. Regards.

eddie too wrong
You assume too much. First, you are not quoting the Constitution, but the Declaration, which is not the law of the land. Second, even the Declaration does not refer to "Jesus Christ," "Bible," etc. Instead, it uses the abstract Deist concept of "Creator," or "Nature's God," i.e, NATURE, and makes no reference to any "SUPERnatural god." Many of the most important Founders (e.g., Jefferson, the Declaration's author) were Deists, and had rejected Christianity. That's why they usually employed Deistic references such as "Providence," etc.

"Divine benevolence" is what Buddhists claim to be guided by. America's founding principles were based on human institutions guaranteeing individual rights arrived at through a process of reason.

What Do These Values Really Mean?
Natural Law, Inalienable rights, Liberty. These terms are passed around without definition as if their meaning is self-evident. These are words conservative rally behind, but never talk about what they mean and how to apply them.

The inalienable rights by God as defined are:
"Divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man's right to 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'"

What is the source? Did God say this? How do you know it is from God? Maybe we just evolved to think this way. In reality it is just a man-made belief (which I agree with) that we attribute to God becasue we need a higher power to validate it..

Is Natural Law only for all American citizens or all human beings throughout the world? Based on this defintion, isn't gay marriage a right of 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness?'" By denying gay marriage aren't conservatives just "rationing rights via the state"?

What is liberty exactly? Is it just the American Bill of rights? or is it subjective to different cultures and needs? Is American liberty right for everyone?

Does anybody think about what this really means or do you just like to claim them as conservative values casue they sound good?







Chuck or Chucjk
I agree with the vast majority of Levin's points. I believe they can be justified by reason, and are only weakened by faith in supernatural, which can be invoked to justify anything.

FYI, everyone else out there, the "LORD" reference in the last line of the Constitution appears in the phrase "in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven"! Chuck might as well accuse a Brit who exclaims "by Jove!" of belief in the Roman gods. Made me laugh, though.

I just don't vote for liberals
I just don't vote for liberals, whatever party they are in. So last election I voted Constitution Party at the Federal and state level. There are a lot of problems with the Republican party, but if they run a conservative instead of a RINO, I'll consider voting for them. I don't think that's very likely, like for president.



Hi Greg
Greg says "There has never been a natural rights doctrine that has been able to stand without reliance on a creator." To the contrary, attempting to base "natural" rights on the supernatural is, by definition, contradictory.

The obvious problem with relying on a supernatural entity as the "final arbiter" is the unfortnuate fact that no such entity conveniently appears to rule on what he thinks about this, that, or the other thing. All we have are flawed individuals pushing their own agendas, all claiming that God supports their interests. Some "final arbiter"!

Your revelation re "the pagan" Aristotle is odd, given that my post cites Aristotle by name. Like Levin, much of what Locke wrote was profoundly true, I just object to the extent they attempt to substitute their own supernatural beliefs for a valid epistemology. It's simply invalid as a matter of logic. Unlike much of Locke's writing, his forays into theology were misconceived.

Rand is wrong
Philosophy stripped of its study of logic is theology, whether Christian or Olympian-Parmenidean.

fabius cunctator routed
Fabius Cunctator says "The order in the universe cannot be explained other than by the existence of God." Wrong. Since we have no evidence of a disorderly universe, there is no reason to think that an orderly universe is somehow less natural than an orderly universe or requires supernatual intervention.

Second, unless you hold a disorderly universe would disprove the existence of God, your argument collapses, since whether the universe is orderly or disorderly would tell us nothing about whether God exists.

If you bravely assert that a disorderly universe would disprove the existence of God, then God cannot be omnipotent since his existence would be dependent on apre-existing orderly universe.

Game, set, and match to Ayn Rand!

Natural law
"we have are flawed individuals pushing their own agendas, all claiming that God supports their interests"

That's why saying "natural law" adds no value. No two people will agree on what natural law is, so "natural law" is just another name for "my opinions".

Entertaining
This blog thread has demonstrated so thoroughly the disconnect between the 'Right' (Classic Conservatism) and the 'Far Right' (Christian Conservatism) within the Republican Party- because neither of you have another party option, do you? Unlike Liberals/Progressives, who can go Dem or Green ... or even, gasp! Libertarian, for those focused solely on civil rights. Here's the thing: the last 8 years, whether you like it or not, revealed the very worst of both ideologies, and that both are often at political odds even though, for years, were thought to make compatible political bedfellows. Your leaders certainly exploited it. To add insult to your injury, the Clinton years demonstrated, albeit imperfectly by anyone's definition, that Progressive/Liberals/Dems offer a working non-ideological pragmatism bereft of the gear-grinding dogma of the Far Right.

Ultimately, I hope you all get your stuff together, as I personally believe, strongly, that we need at least two viable parties to keep us centered. (no ideological pun intended). If I were truly partisan I would urge you to continue listening to the likes of Limbaugh and Coulter and Beck and Malkin. Stay in the wilderness with them, by all means. I am, however, honestly rooting for you. Pay attention to Frum. To Buckley. To Will et al. I don't always agree with them, god knows, but they are the few sane voices in what has become an increasingly insane Republican party. Thing is, you may think you need your far right base, but you will never ever win again nationally without the moderates and the centrists. Good luck.

Siegfried
Conservative and Republican are not interchangeable terms. Regrettably, the Republican Party has forgotten who they are and what they stand for.

To Phoenix Lady ...
What's your definition of a 'Troll'? Merely a differing opinion or POV? I myself have no tolerance for rude or disrespectful posts by anyone, regardless of their affiliations or ideologies. What are your thoughts?

TACITUS: ORDER AND CHAOS

As there is no order to chance if the universe were the work of chance it would be chaotic like its principle. As the universe is orderly chaotic chance can't be its cause.

P.S. Ayn Rand believed that the human body was informed by a spiritual soul. If man the microcosm is ensouled than why not the macrocosmic whole?

stedes
The fact that you have to ask is, to me, very troubling. I find the concept very easy to understand. I'll give the lay-person's answer:
John Locke surmised that we are born in a "state of nature", in other words we are born into the world as a soul that has not been 'mortgaged' in any way, and owes neither allegiance, nor fealty to any person or government. As we are not compelled by God to follow His edicts, instead relying on our freedom choice, neither can people nor governments remove our basic liberty without consent of the individuals that they would govern. This is the basic tenant of our constitution. If you doubt the natural truth of this, ask yourself whether or not you would submit, without question, the will of an all powerful earthly entity (read: government) or question the right of that entity to forcibly remove you from your own personal property (or vice versa), or draft you into an organization, or task you against your will. Your answer would, in all likely be "No F---in' Way!!"
That's what Locke was talking about. From where does this sense of individuality, this sense of not willing to be coerced, of being an individual sovereign being, come from? Was it not present in our very nature at birth?
Who then has the right to remove it, or suppress it?
Who?


RW
Understand, of course, that atheists are certainly welcome into the ranks of Conservativism. But they have no means of defending their principles beyond expediency.

And their expediency is simply as viable as the Liberals' expediency and neither more nor less true.

____________________________

"Do not forbid him, for he who is not against you is for you" - Jesus

Levin is a blithering idiot who has
spent too much time in Rush Limbaugh's medicine cabinet.

In his last book, Men in Black (which was about as well-researched as the comic book), he managed to do what the Federalists and Anti-Federalist both feared: assign every one of our enumerated rights to the government.

Levin is proof that religious conservatism inevitably leads to mental retardation.

Insanity redux
The most insane thing I can see in the Republican party today is dancing to the tune of a more and more marxist liberalism, most likely to sway and placate the MSM, who is never going to do them any favors. The sad fact is that they are tied to the money the same way their opposition is, but only they are held as culpable when the fertilizer hits the fan. Admit it Republican Party; you stepped into the trap up to your proverbial knees. And now you're asking the same people to redirect your path.
Why go to the crap table and then use your competitor's dice?

I don't know about Levin's book but
James Burham's book:

Suicide of the West: An Essay on the Meaning and Destiny of Liberalism

Doesn't explain any plainer what the underlying spiritual issue are at work in Liberalism.

It's insights are unnervingly on target.

RW
Expediency or Pragmatism - same thing, really.

Depends....
Chuck: "Understand, of course, that atheists are certainly welcome into the ranks of Conservativism. But they have no means of defending their principles beyond expediency."

Depends on what kind of conservatism you are referring to -- the rationalist, Lockean version or the brain-dead religious one.

Spit-Up Diet Coke Alert!!!
TJ: "Levin is a great communicator."

That is, if screaming into a microphone is how you define "greatness."

Of course, when you are comparing him to anyone more articulate than Chance the Gardener, Levin is a serious disappointment.

RW
It's what Jesus meant when he said that "the birds of the air come and make their nests in its branches" in Luke 13:19

Beast person
John Locke doesn't seem to be doing too well against Karl Marx, these days.

Dearest Fabius Cunctator
'Think before writing.' Really? That's your argument? I might suggest the same to you.

Nevertheless, you're right! I am exactly the 'kind of mind' that elected this admin. After the last admin that was, uhm...so successful. I could be wrong, but you might find it interesting to know that I am part of a 'base' that stands for many things. I'd be happy to expand more upon that, if you'd like, but within the context of this specific blog thread I stand as an observer of conflicting 'conservative' dogma. I note the diversity of opinion that is paralyzing your party. I empathize, believe me; getting Dems to organize/succeed on a national level as successfully as the Republican party, particularly after Rove's questionably ethical tactics, is a feat I never believed I'd realize in my lifetime. Dean, Emanuel, and Obama's campaign, as history must now note, proved us sympathetic skeptics wrong. Republicans now find themselves in the very 'wilderness' we Progressives are depressingly familiar with. And don't think for a second we're O sheep. Jeez. Take a quick peek at DKos's blog and you'll see we're not nearly the party-line sheep you all were. Are? Here's the thing: your party has allowed the grossly disproportionate influence of the Christian Right and the Neocon ideology that exploited them to result in enormous detriment to your party. Most of you are not either. I know this. My brother's ex-military and a Republican. I come from an activist Republican family. My mother's dearly loved parents were personal friends of the Reagans, and my mother and I agree that they must be turning over in their graves over what the Republican party has become. Or to whom they've become beholden in their quest for votes.

Point being, the reality-based voices in your party must at some point overtake the ideologues, or you will remain in your own self-imposed wilderness. Again, best of luck.

tacitusX
"I believe they can be justified by reason"

LOL "I believe", huh?

Progressives and plutocrates Neo Torie E
In England the Stuart kings claimed to rule by Divine Right. According to the Stuarts (and Martin Luther) power and authority has been granted by God, and, as such, a sovereign is solely responsible to God alone and not to any human tribunal. The progressive politicians, especially those in the current Administration and Congress, now claim this same privilege by Darwinian right. I believe our professional progressive politicians and bureaucrats deem themselves to be the avatars of Plato's enlightened philosopher kings and Nietzsch'e Ubermenschen ( supermen), so Beyond Good and Evil. When Louis XIV was asked about his autocracy and profligacy at Versailles with a question, "What about the state?" He replied " Etate c'est moi, I am the state!" It appears that our bureaucrats,politicians and Fed officials have this same hubris, arrogance and sense of entitlement.
Its seems as if liberals have become neo-Tories, willing to subjugate Americans to the foreign governments and banking aristocrats.

Nature
'John Locke surmised that we are born in a "state of nature" '

Then we meet other people and the whole libertarian fantasy breaks down.

Government is the price paid for not living in anarchy.

BEASTY BOY
Beasty writes:

TJ: "Levin is a great communicator."

That is, if screaming into a microphone is how you define "greatness."

ApolloSpeaks:

What you call "screaming" is in reality righteous indignation at the enemy's of freedom.

Fabius Cunctator:pre-sophomore
Your response utterly fails because we have no alternative BUT to use the universe as our reference point. Since the universe is all existence, any other "reference point" is, by definition, non-existent. This would apply to the concept of "causation" as well, i.e, without existence, there is no "cause."

Your question "What is the origin of the universe?" demonstrates the concepts of existence or causation are beyond your present intellectual grasp. You should read some introductory books on philosophy, logic, and epistemology.

Not surprisingly, you're wrong re Rand's position on God. Rand readily declared her atheism. Like most who pontificate about Rand, you apparently only "know" what others have fed you, otherwise you couldn't possibly have made so many fundamental errors regarding her work.

The rest of your response is gibberish.

Chuck Upchucks
Chuck upchucked: "John Locke doesn't seem to be doing too well against Karl Marx, these days."

He doesn't seem to be doing all that well in right-wing slobberadio, either.

Apollo's Creed?
Apollo: "What you call "screaming" is in reality righteous indignation at the enemy's of freedom."

If he weren't an enemy of freedom himself, he would have standing to scream. The only diff between religious crackpots and the socialist crowd is in which inalienable rights they want to curtail.

Beastie Boy
Clearly you are filled with rage and hate for the Christian religion.

I wonder do you despise any other "retarded" or "mind dead" religions or just Christians?

The truth is Christians do more good charitably than any other religion in the world. Other religions hate and kill yet you worry over the good will of the Christian religion??

BTW, By hating you are actively fulfilling prophecy, thus re-confirming faith in the good book to Christians.

So I guess Christians should give you thanks!






Oh, Fabius.
I'll have to google your interesting moniker. No doubt there's a good story behind it.

Let's review your points:

1) No, no advice. Just sharing my observations. And, in your case, my replies as pertains to your queries. That's allowed here, right? I am indeed, however, a former Republican. Voted for Reagan, and Bush 41. So yes, let's just say I have a legitimate perspective from both sides. There are many like me, don't you know.

2) One person's 'blather' is another person's dialogue.

3) "Obama...came from an unstable family and social background."

Excuse me? Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that Republicans possess some kind of moral societal & familial high ground?

Egads. It occurred to me all along I was perhaps conversing with a kool-aid drinker, given your tell-tale evasive yet confrontational posture and all, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt; maybe you were an actual thinker just having a bad day.

My bad.

Beast
Excuse me for assuming you could make the intellectual connection.

I will not err so again.

Good day.

The tyranny
Levin refers to is obviously the demand for Americans to subject themselves under the tyranny of far right Christian religious dogma and be forced to live under the laws dictated by religious fanatics.

The freedom Levin wants is similar than the freedom of people of Iran. Same politics, same logic, same hate-based propaganda, different religion.

levin is another example of conservative newspeak where living under religious tyranny is called "freedom".

I think you left something out
If you had listened to Rush's show today you would have heard the real reason Levin wrote the book. It wasn't because we were so lost in the woods like Rush described us. It was a deal Levin made with his publisher. If you want us to publish the book you want to write about your dog, you first must write Liberty and Tyranny. It seems Sprite was first on Levin's mind. Liberty and Tyranny never would seen the light of day had it not been for Levin's dog. So in writing the book, who can we say Levin put first. Conservatives or his dog. Rush is the one who let the cat of out the bag. After Rush takes his foot out of his mouth. I wonder if Levin is going to replace it with his.

Leo
" No man was more sensitive than Zweig to the destructive effects upon individual liberty of the demands of large or strident collectivities. He would have viewed with horror the cacophony of monomanias—sexual, racial, social, egalitarian—that marks the intellectual life of our societies, each monomaniac demanding legislative restriction on the freedom of others in the name of a supposed greater, collective good. His work was a prolonged (though muted and polite) protest at the balkanization of our minds and sympathies."

Theodore Dalrymple in "A Neglected Genius" City Journal, Winter 2004

______________

Oh yes, it's the Christians who are attempting to curtail your freedoms.


Fabius Cunctator & RichD
I'm no great fan of Rand. However, she was a conservative (Just see how many fans she has on TownHall.), and she was a militant atheist.

Carter, Clinton, Obama
Why is it that these men just don't get it?

Answer: They are, to a person, self-absorbed, self-centered, obsessive-compulsive narcissists.

Clinton especially. Boy Clinton.

Obama? It's all about his Resume and journey into self.

Carter? He joins up with the radical left with his none-too-subtle anti-Zionist whatever. His vanity knows no bounds.

And, just now, we find Evan Bayh actually supporting our Prez. How can this be? Don't these people know that the country is just waiting for another Newt to rise up--in 2010?

sjpatejak
"...and she was an militant atheist".
_____________________________

Then she was a Libertarian, and not a Conservative. A mere political pragmatic unable to give cause for her political view over a Collectivist's with a better vocabulary.

Chuck Upchucks
Chuck: "Excuse me for assuming you could make the intellectual connection."

It has to be there, first.

Leo TX
Just wondering - when was the last time you heard of a "Christian dogma tyranny" beheading their wife in the USA?

Me thinks you are attacking the wrong religion.


Shouldn't we despise retarded religions?
Jo: "Beastie Boy
Clearly you are filled with rage and hate for the Christian religion.

I wonder do you despise any other "retarded" or "mind dead" religions or just Christians?"

I don't mind "retarded" religions, provided that the retards keep to themselves. When they try to force their views on me, I take a dim view of it, and feel free to lambaste them for their unbridled stupidity.

Judaism isn't a problem, except to the extent that Jews insist that we fight their wars for them.

Christianity is mind-boggling in its nekkid stupidity.

Differing weights and measures....
Jack D: "They are, to a person, self-absorbed, self-centered, obsessive-compulsive narcissists."

And Drugs Limburger, Mark "the Great Biblical Transport" Levin, and Sean "Doughboy" Hannity aren't? What about DeLay? Bo(eh)ner? Condo? ShEEEEEEEsh!

It comes with celeBRATy -- a sense of entitlement.

BAC throws illegitimate kid off cliff?
Jo: " Leo TX
Just wondering - when was the last time you heard of a "Christian dogma tyranny" beheading their wife in the USA?"

From what I understand, they're more into throwing their children off cliffs, bridges, and other high places. See http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com .

Christian screwiness is just different, not better.

Reality check, Jo
Jo: "Other religions hate and kill yet you worry over the good will of the Christian religion??"

Christians have done quite enough damage, thank you very much.

Liberalism.
I continue to find this a confusing term the way Americans use it. Liberalism is really a 19th century European political school of thought, in essence a more moderate form of libertarianism. It advocates small government, laissez-faire capitalism and atheist/secular values w.r.t. moral issues (abortion, homosexuality). In most countries with liberal political parties - which the US does not have - those are found at the right side of the political spectrum, sometimes in the middle. European style liberalism supports the Republican economic values (at least the values that the Republicans should have in theory)and the Democratic social values.

Beastie Boy
Congratulations on your convincing demonstration of a mental disorder.

I won't even bother suggesting that you go empty your diapers somewhere else.

I do suggest you seek professional help.


Rudolf
Ameriocan Liberals are largely of the atheost/secualr school of thought in politics and in cultural matters but they are hardly advocates of laisse-faire capialism, small government libertarianism.

About the only thing they share with Libertarians is their antipathy towards morality as the buttress of the political/social order.

Not so Fabius anymore!
Fabius pouts: "I did not see any logical sequence of thought from you that reached any conclusions." Ask a wiser friend to explain it to you. Pick someone with lots of patience!

"State what you believe about something important, and we will see if you are worthy to expound on subjects on Town Hall."
Now you're channelling the Wizard of Oz? Please.

More: "where is your logical proof that God does not exist?" Elementary logic: the burden of proof is on the proponent of the positive assertion. One cannot "prove" a negative. You've removed all doubt you're in way over your head here.

tacitius X
"Elementary logic: the burden of proof is on the proponent of the positive assertion. One cannot "prove" a negative. You've removed all doubt you're in way over your head here.'

Excuse me for butting in but you are fundamentally incorrect. A burden of proof is necessary only when a participant MAKES a positive assertion.

The question of God's existence is a valid question for which there are only two possible answers: yes or no. Since your post implied the non-existence of a Creator, it was well within Fabius's realm of logic to ask you to establish your premise.



tacitusX
Similarly, since you agree that one cannot "prove" a negative, a logical person might conclude that that situation may have some bearing on the reality behind the question and may be rightly considered evidence for the affirmative.


One last, Chuck
Chuck says:"A burden of proof is necessary only when a participant MAKES a positive assertion. Since your post implied the non-existence of a Creator, it was well within Fabius's realm of logic to ask you to establish your premise."

Poorly expressed, but let me help you out. The positive assertion here is that God exists. The negative assertion is that God doesn't exist, or more precisely that theists have failed to carry their burden of proof so their proposition fails as a matter of logic. That's what "positive" and "negative" mean in this context.

tacitusX says:
"One last"

Not going to stick around and defend that nonsense, I see.

For Kelly, what is a troll...
...Around TH, trolls are generally considered to be people who not only disagree mightily with the generally conservative philosophy of the columnists and those posters who attempt to carry on a fairly civil or rational conversation. Examples are Raelei, Beastie Boy, Ranger 29, and Hal Donahue. Trolls generally waste their time doing their best to offend the rest of us. Oftentimes, they succeed, and you will see conservative regulars returning fire.

Trolls such as the ones I've mentioned, particularly the ones intent on rubbing our noses in the fact that their Messiah won with obvious glee, act like flaming non-normies--children who have refused to grow up, just as I've described them in my post of 2:23 a.m.

They failed to learn how to grieve their losses when they really were children, and now they are attempting to get even with the grown-ups. It doesn't work. For one thing, we're not the people who caused their hurts in the first place. For another, lashing out only makes them look like 4 year olds in a towering snit. That's why the more adult posters here laugh at them, which, of course, just makes them madder.

If you really want to read my take on reality, read my post of 2:38 a.m to Vampire's Reflection.

While we probably disagree on many things, I haven't noticed that you've been behaving badly, so I wouldn't include you in the definition of trolls. If I were you, however, I would read the commentary by the other adults without comment until you see where they are coming from. It's clear they don't agree with each other, but they will usually listen and respond in a civil manner.

Hope I've answered your question.

Poles and Trolls
So many poles, so little time.

Speaking of 'Bankrupting our Nation'....
It is ironic to see Terrence Jeffrey claiming that BHO is "perpetrating counterrevolution against limited government....that breeds dependency in the people and will bankrupt our nation."

In truth, BHO inherited a 'bankrupt nation’ or a bankrupt financial system at any rate, from his Republican predecessor and has managed so far, in just two months, to stop the hemorrhaging.

It is 'limited government', in the form of laissez-faire financial system deregulation, that got us into this mess. If Jeffrey or anyone else here really believes that these problems would have corrected themselves without 'government intervention', he needs to have his head examined.

As for breeding dependency in the people, religion has a lot more to answer for in that regard than any form of government including outright Communism.

GENE FROM CA IS PATHETIC!
Gene,
How long are you flaming liberals going to blame Bush for all ills? Is it Bush's fault that Chris Dodd and Pricess Frank protected Freddy and Fannie for two decades while the imaginary housing bubble grew; and banks were forced by Cisneros and Cuomo to ratchet up the lending to include more and more of those who would never pay the money back.
Was Barney Frank too busy entertaining male hookers in his house to keep his mind on his job? Was Chris Dodd too busy getting sweetheart morgage deals and campaign money from Freddy and Fanny to pay attention?
WHO DROPPED THE BALL, GENE?
And one more thing: When are you and b. hussein going to stop blaming everyone else? In his seventh year in office maybe?
Whatever happened to 'The Buck Stops Here' sign on the oval office desk. Is obama too much of a pantywaist to accept any responsibility for anything, or is he just too insignificant to make an impact on his own?
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.