Land of Liberalism

The problem occurs when policies dictate our life. Example, government saying we are forcing you to have insurance. That is the problem with liberal government, the nanny state. The government taking over your life because you don't know what is best for you! Bwaney Fwank knows how to run your life better then you do. Nancy Pelosi should tell you how to behave. Al Gore can tell you what kind of car you should drive. Jon Holdren deciding when you should die. Van Jones deciding where you should work. Kenneth Feinberg deciding how much money you should make. Look, I don't care if someone is gay; it doesn't make them a bad person. I don't care if someone smokes pot. Doesn't mean I want two gay men having sex in the park in front of my kids or a drug dealer on my street. Why do you think the left has ignored all of the criminal activity that ACORN has been involved with. Because it's all about power and control. Just remember, those people marching in Washington were marching for your liberty. They are the people taking personal responsibility for their lives. That's what a conservative does.

Your positions are transitional. I've been there. Do you have any children? I only ask because once you're in the process or have been through raising them, position or causes for which you are "pro" will likely change. I agree, to the extent that it doesn't matter to me if a person is gay, or of a different religion, or different race. But at the point where one begins to believe their own personal wisdom should supercede the wisdom of the laws of the land, that is a problem.

Regarding marriage, the unholy alliance of government licensing what used to be a religious matter between a man, woman, their church and their God, is now a creature of government a privilege granted by government that the courts are finding trouble reconciling with the 14th amendment.

Similarly regarding Roe v Wade, when the courts or government begin to create rights out of whole cloth, it owns them and it can force those rights -- which are actually mere privileges handed down by government -- upon the whole of society. That is the antithesis of what conservatism is; the antithesis of what our constitutional republic stands for.

That pis* me off! You don't "want or need" liberty? Get the heck out of dodge,then. You remind me of the idiots against the war who say they didn't ask for people to defend them so they can bash whomever is at the helm. And you all completely miss the point.

Do you like being able to have freedom of speech, beliefs and the knowledge that you won't be persecuted for your choices? How did it come to be? Because other people gave things up for us to have those liberties.

I'd say you are liberal in the worst sense of the word. Self-absorbed, and feeling oh so superior to those of us who have stood for the republic. As a matter of fact, I contributed to protecting your liberties.

I myself cannot separate cultural from political. To me, it's hypocritical. You are or you aren't. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal...yeah, I know a bunch of 'em. And they are full of hate for the policies and cultures that make it possible for them to be who they are, do what they do. Blah, blah, blah.

And, you're welcome. Even if you didn't want or need it, or ask for it.

This isn't even my blog/post but in reading your comment I think a little defense of the author is warranted. Who are you referring to when you say it's "people like you" or that "you all mis the point"? are you including those of us leaving comments? I'm not defending the socially liberal part of this young republicans beliefs and I for one am not a republican, just a conservative. A person is not necessarily born and bred as a pure conservative so it takes time and experience to reach the right conclusions about it. Ya can't beat people over the head with conservatism, that's what liberals do with marxism.

You know I have to disagree slightly with you. The 9/12 march was a complete and total mess, it had no coherent message. Taxes, spending, birthers, racists, deathers, gun rights.

I watched the event and I still don't know what the heck they were talking about.

Yeah quick background, I spent over a decade with Right to Life and have given dozens of speeches aganist abortion. But my feeling on the issue is entirely political. I also do not have any children, but I raised my brother and sisters and wish that no one would get an abortion.

I believe our government must work for us, not we should work for them. And so I believe firmly that mandates and undue government regulation is a bad thing always. Including on certain issues like abortion and gay rights. The government has no right to infuse religious beliefs on the masses of society.

Thanks for stopping by.

I'm pretty sure I want and need liberty. As for military scrafice, my family is all too aware of the cost of war. And I don't hate our military if that is what you are getting at.

I'm sure you are a nice person, but the point I was trying to get to in the piece is that we must move away for sterotyping each other and how we choose to live our lives is more culturally important than specific policy positions are.

When you say I watched the event, which branch of Obamamedia showed it to you? The message is very simple. TEA! Taxed Enough Already! Sure, some of us are upset about losing more and more of our personal freedoms and liberty every day. Some of us are upset that Obama is taking over the private sector much in the same way that Castro, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler did. Some of us are upset about being accused of racism by racist that actually practice hate, for criticising horrible policy and administration. Deathers? Obviously you haven't reade HR3200
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pd f here it is! Read and them comment, I already read it. Gun rights.....Well one of the most important rights Americans rtain is the Second Amendment, with out it all the rest aren't worth the paper (parchment actually) they are written on. The message is clear, stop listening to the propaganda in thebackground. You'll be fine in the end. Age has a lot to do with how conservative you are. I've always said that you become a conservative when you are the one paying the bill.

...being pro-choice (some would say that means pro-abortion), pro-gay marriage and pro-legalizing a currently illegal substance these are social issues, they have been politicized to be sure but they are social issues non-the-less. Your first instinct was correct, you are a liberal. You imply you have discovered yourself to be a conservative but only back this up by saying you aren't comfortable around stoned tattoed people with piercings.

You may want to re-examine things.

Well I respect the trials of raising siblings. That isn't the same as raising your own child however. As for the right to life work great! However that is neither a political issue nor a religious issue. It is a moral issue.

The greatest document of our nations history was the Declaration of Independence. It is a document of morality, much as the Magna Carta and of course the ten commandments from which it and our constitution were inspired.The founders placed life atop the list of rights endowed to us by our creator. Abortion, I agree is not a federal issue, nor is it a right endowed to us by our creator. It's an amoral right created by the courts which flies in the face of our nation's founding documents. It's a 9th and 10th Amendment to the fed constitution State's rights issue.

The only prohibition on government regarding religion, is that the government can not create a national state run church, it can not force someone to attend a church. It doesn't mean they can't act based on religious or moral grounds. The words "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion", means literally make no laws with respect to creating a state religion, such as they had in England.

Nor prohibit free exercise of religious beliefs. Obviously, if people in government hold specific religious or moral beliefs, they can't be prohibited from using those beliefs as the foundation by which they execute the duties of their office.

Public officials have the same right to conduct themselves according to their religious beliefs when working for us as does an atheist to act according to that belief system. We, the voting people, get to decide who is doing the best job for the nation as a whole every 2; 4; and 6 years.

You made a lot of good points. Ok, but here I have yet another problem, with the whole TEA protest. Taxed Enough Already. To me the problem is we aren't taxing enough because were spending so much money, that we are just acquiring debt. There may be a good case for cutting government, although a recession seems to do that anyway (on the state and local level) but what scares the bejebbers out of me is the fact that as of yet, Obama is doing just what Bush did. Spend more, create more government and run for the door when the bill comes to them.

You know it's perfectly possible I'm a liberal and just don't know it. I know for sure, I'm deeply uncomfortable around certain liberal people and that personally in my life, I'm more conservative than most of my Republican friends.

I'm just a person who has never smoked cigarettes or pot, would never ever get a tatoo, and still believes sex should be about love. So either I'm a conservative or Julia Roberts in a really bad movie.

I'm a huge anti-Islam person and the things you are saying are scaring the crap out me. Religion should have nothing to do with our politics.

According to those beliefs, it's ok for a bunch of people to throw rocks at a rape victim because it's the local politicos belief. I know you don't believe in that, but the critiea fits.

Seperation of church (religion) and state (government) needs to be addressed in this country. Everybody has the right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's else right. Ergo, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-marijuna (with strong regulations).

I think I am in agreement with the 'spirit' of the post.
Personal responsibility is rule # 1.

If the founders had intended that there be a prohibition on religious display in public or public office the founding documents would not have been silent on the issue. A person ought not be forced to hide their religious beliefs to be acceptable to atheists before assuming public office.

Do you know of a single politician with deeply held and publicly stated religious beliefs that ever suggested the 10 commandments or sharia law be codified? Atheists on the other hand use the courts to oppress the religious freedoms of the vast majority of good God fearing people. I would trust my life, liberty and property to to the legislative intent of a politician with deeply held religious convictions more readily than I would trust an atheis with no such religious conviction.

Your fears are irrational. Not once in 233 years has any politician suggested that a woman be stoned to death, that a hand be cut off of a thief, or that man, woman or child be tortured and beheaded for refusal to accept God. Atheists, however have forced us to accept a woman's right to murder a baby right up to the last day before "natural" birth occurs. Atheists are attempting to force what is an un natural union throughout nature in the issue of gay "marriage". Marriage is a religious concept, it was not created by government.

Your arguments are specious and bigoted. The things you say you're for get forced on the greater portion of society not by people of religious belief, rather by those with none. You believe they are harmless but you ignore the empirical psychological research and scientific analysis which betray the harmful affects they have on the society at large. I was wrong about you, I don't think you're a liberal democrat, I think you're an anarchist.

Young Republican, I'm guessing that you suffer from two handicaps: (1) government school "education" and (2) wetness behind the ears.

There's a trade-off between the rule of law and the rule of men. Conservatives believe in and are willing to fight for the former.

There's a trade-off between liberty (not license) and personal responsibility on the one hand an tyranny and (unconstitutionally) big government on the other. Conservatives believe in and are willing to fight for the former.

There's much more. But to keep it pithy, a true conservative is opposed to almost-all legalized abortion, but also opposed to any federal government proscription on marriage, ragardles of the parties.

Thanks for visiting. And for some much needed support.

Wow. I have never been called an anarchist. Wow. I'm friends with some, but they mean it as a joke. Maybe the word you're looking for is hmmm... liberation? Anywho, last time I checked it wasn't atheists who decided Roe v. Wade and the current court is made up of 6 Catholics, 2 Jews, and 1 Protestant. 6 flippin' Catholics on the bench and Roe still stands. To be sure it's an emtional issue, but try not to get too angry. Logic and fairness must rule the day no matter what side your on. Nothing but the best.

You are right, I was taught in the public school system. The sad thing is I was taught in all the advance English classes and the grammar around here is horrible, most of it coming from me.

Interesting points. I shall be thinking.

The anarchist rejects social norms, values or standards as the basis laws which restrain or otherwise use coercive measures to limit the free exercise of their behavior. Anarchists do not believe people via government have any business limiting their behavior based on morality. They do not see the consequences to society if they personally choose to smoke pot, or inject illegal drugs, or drink excessively. Yet tens of thousands of people are victimized by the unintended consequences of someones "personal behavior" every single day.

Atheists, do not believe there is a God from which they need fear retribution. As a result it takes an atheistic view of the world to find a right to murder unborn yet very much alive babies while they are helpless and in the womb.
There is a difference between stating that you are or were raised Catholic or Jewish or whatever, and acting accordingly. Many an atheist was born Catholic or a Jew or whatevr. The fact is, like the anarchist, they reject the notion of laws that attempt to maintain moral behavioral standards within society for the preservation of that society; especially if those ideals were handed down by the God of Moses or any other non earthly god. History has proven that human behavioral nature, left unchecked, leads to moral decay. As surely as the laws of thermal dynamics lead inexorably to the decay of matter. Laws based on moral and yes I mean religious values, are a preventive step for the preservation of civil society.

A conservative doesn't use government to force behavior on others, but they do recognize the need to prevent others from forcing amoral and often self destructive behaviors -- those outside the social norms, values and standards of the society at large -- upon the whole of society. Maybe you're a very left libertarian?

The anarchist rejects social norms, values or standards as the basis laws which restrain or otherwise use coercive measures to limit the free exercise of their behavior. Anarchists do not believe people via government have any business limiting their behavior based on morality. They do not see the consequences to society if they personally choose to smoke pot, or inject illegal drugs, or drink excessively. Yet tens of thousands of people are victimized by the unintended consequences of someones "personal behavior" every single day.

Atheists, do not believe there is a God from which they need fear retribution. As a result it takes an atheistic view of the world to find a right to murder unborn yet very much alive babies while they are helpless and in the womb.
There is a difference between stating that you are or were raised Catholic or Jewish or whatever, and acting accordingly. Many an atheist was born Catholic or a Jew or whatevr. The fact is, like the anarchist, they reject the notion of laws that attempt to maintain moral behavioral standards within society for the preservation of that society; especially if those ideals were handed down by the God of Moses or any other non earthly god. History has proven that human behavioral nature, left unchecked, leads to moral decay. As surely as the laws of thermal dynamics lead inexorably to the decay of matter. Laws based on moral and yes I mean religious values, are a preventive step for the preservation of civil society.

A conservative recognizes the need to prevent others from forcing amoral and often self destructive behaviors -- those outside the social norms, values and standards of the society at large -- upon the whole of society. Maybe you're a very left libertarian?

It's because we all have something to say and so many places to go 2 and say it. Grammer gets short shrift. Combine that with a little dislexia and being far sighted and things really get messy.

sorry about the double comment, the first comment wasn't posting I had it on my notepad so re posted it. Guess TH was just really slow today. Two minutes of dead air time is an eternity.

You're the 3rd poser I've dealt with today. Leftist seminar bloggers. Your agenda is obvious, posing as a "young republican" tryin to find your soul. My assessment of who and what you are has been dead on from the beginning. Git home to your obama boy.

"A conservative recognizes the need to prevent others from forcing amoral and often self destructive behaviors -- those outside the social norms, values and standards of the society at large -- upon the whole of society."

I'm trying to understand where you are going with this....
Prohibition comes to mind...if a conservative believes it displeases his God to drink alcohol, or dance, then you must act to ban it from American society?

Definitely not going there with it. I'd say the entire world displeases God, left, right, center, gay, straight, married, unmarried, republican democrat, atheist, anarchist... I'm guided in my life by the Word of God, I will never achieve perfection, I don't try to, I'm not the judge of the world but I am discerning when it comes to absolute truths. That being said, right is right and wrong is wrong, the constitution for the united States of America is what it says and we are as we do. I will carry that attitude into all my endeavors. As for Christopher, the young poserepublican; he could not find a better mentor than you coop, he needs all the help you can give him.

Hey Aftershock...I don't thinkany of us will qualify as achieving perfection in our time on earth...
and I'm sure in the next go-round, God will rethink the whole free will idea!

I am much the same way in that i am liberal AND conservative... in the words of Tom Delay re. his recent "performance" on Dancin' w/ the Stars... "Vote conservative, party like a democrat." what does that mean??? externally be conservative, but in your private life live a life a debauchery??? i dunno...

Aftershock... "That is the problem with liberal government, the nanny state. The government taking over your life because you don't know what is best for you!"... "But at the point where one begins to believe their own personal wisdom should supercede the wisdom of the laws of the land, that is a problem."

Seems you are advocating that we should not question the wisdom of govt., or should not have faith in our own wisdom, which i believe is granted by God (Proverbs). should we blindly follow and accept all laws? Afterall, govt. makes the laws of the land... but those ppl. in govt. are simply a group of individuals who at one point questioned the wisdom of the laws of the land and therefore ran for public office... i'm confused in that you say you do not want govt. controlling your life, but yet you do not feel it is your place to exercise your wisdom in questioning that government, as you are actively doing here? very confusing....

I'm anti government when it comes to the courts creating rights. The federal courts should never create new rights, nor should any court state or fed. The only rights discussed in the fed constitution are God given or natural rights that are protected not created by government. For example the marriage relationship is a religious concept. It was not created by government, it was created ostensibly by God. But once government got involved by "licensing" marriage, it transformed a previously held natural or God given right into a government granted privilege. Conflict with the constitution is inevitable as the courts try and reconcile a recognized religious right with the 14th amendment to accommodate gay marriage. Regarding homosexual marriage, no such right exists in religion, law or nature. Yet the courts are being abused to create such a right and force it upon all states under the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th ammendment. That's fascist, that circumvents states rights as well as The wisdom and will of the vast majority of the people.

So far as illegal drug use goes, well that's a societal issue also expressed as the will of the people in our laws. The majority of the people believe legalized use of such drugs is deleterious to society at large and so through our elected representatives the people placed prohibitions on the import, interstate transport sale and possession of those drugs other than for medical purposes. I'm not necessarily against medical use of marijuana for terminally ill patients, but we all know that in the state of CA. that's not what's going on. If what's legal or not changes, due to the will of the people expressed through a majority vote and passage into law, so be it. But that's not the current paradigm. The laws on the books are for the most part the wisdom of the people codified, and that will is established by social norms; the values and standards we govern ourselves by.

I don't think God will rethink free will, it separates the wheat from the chaff. Thank God we aren't the judge of the heart.

Aftershock: "The only rights discussed in the fed constitution are God given or natural rights that are protected not created by government."

Consider African Americans, Native Americans and women. WHat does your statement mean about those groups? If it was'nt for the amendments (again, ppl. challenging that wisdom)they still would not have rights.

I have a problem with the concept of God given rights. I can't think of any mention about rights in the Bible either. However it does talk an awful lot about responsibility, for yourself and others! I think rights can only exist relative to a ppl. w/out rights. And what are rights unless there is another to take them from you? You are either free, or not free. A slave is still a slave, whether the chain is 3 feet or 3 miles... only difference is it takes one longer to realize it than the other... Of course this can open a whole other debate about what freedom is (Eric Fromm).

"Consider African Americans, Native Americans and women. WHat does your statement mean about those groups? If it was'nt for the amendments"

The rights African Americans, Native Americans and women have they have always had. Whether they went unrecognized or not has ZERO to do with people challenging the wisdom of the government, because we -- the people -- were and are the government. We challenge our own wisdom. Amendments did not create new rights. Natural rights are not created by government, they can only be recognized or ignored by government. God given rights are those which proceed naturally from the laws of God. Law enhances liberty, it protects rights and property. If you have a problem with God given rights that's your prerogative, I could care less.

Here are a few steps you can take to remedy self inflicted idiocy: First you just have to read the the Magna Carta; then the writings of John Locke; don't bypass the Declaration of Independence; and you really must read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. Then you'll want to read Thomas Jefferson "Notes on the State of Virginia". At that point you'll be able to speak somewhat intelligently on the matters you object to. Until then you'll remain an idiot.

I'm a poser!?! You caught me, I was posing when I went as George W. Bush in Halloween 2000. My posing started at the young age of 12. I posed when I work my butt off for Republicans in 2000, 2002, 2004 (Bush/Cheney), 2006 (when I spent every single day posing for Devos, Republican candidate for governor), and posing in 2008 (for GOP rep. McCotter and my local state GOP). I am posing for Rick Snyder's 2010 Republican Campaign, currently. Dude, my politics might be messed up and crazy but I am still a Republican.

You make your arguement very well, about the need for government regulation into people's personal lives. I simply disagree but I also understand where you are coming from.

As for being an atheist, sorry to let you down, but I'm a George Bush Sr. Christian meaning I believed in God from day 1 and haven't doubt his existence once. I also don't push my religious views on people.

Yeah, I guess I vote on social issues on like a liberal but live my life like Phyllis Schafley. I need help in more ways than one.

Loving the debate between you guys.

a republican that is. I am a conservative and GWB -- honest as I believe he is as a man -- was deceptive as a politician. The time for republican, democrat and perhaps for a time even liberal and conservative is at an end. We need to regain an understanding of what being an historical American is. Or what we have here will be doomed.

my religious beliefs on you or anyone else, you are mistaken. There is a big difference between being guided by and/or expressing them opposed to forcing others to live them. That is not what this debate was about. It was about social norms and absolute truths, like fire and ice, air and water, laws of nature and of natures God, the laws of physics. Rights stem from those things, they're not destroyed by them. If a right does not stem from those things then it is a mere privilege created by the governments of men.

After reading the post I must say you don't sound really conservative politically so much as Libertarian.To a degree.
And living your life like Phyliss Shafley? Please, the woman dresses dreadfully according to my wife, so try a different store.

And I will hith hike onn what Dr Pete said and Aftershock alluded to.
Time will bring you further to the conservative side in many of what you seem to now feel are simply "the right way" in your world view.I say that as a recovering DixieCrat.

In the mean time, the concept of a mixed bag of Liberal and Conservative doesn't really fly. They are in large part oil and water. It may look like they're mixed on the surface, until they get stirred up. At that point looking deeper shows how disparately they really are when placed in action.

Thanks for visiting, and don't beat up on poor Schafley, she and I may disagree on every single topic but she looks like my Grandma.

You sure know how too stir the silt up....

Christopher, I think you misunderstand me. I am not for government regulating in to anyones private life, in fact that is what proponents of abortion, gay marriage, and virtually any liberal cause de jure have been doing for the past three+ decades.

As an example of what I mean: If people who self identify as Gay want to become a couple with one another, that's up to them I do not care, even if it offends my sense of moral behavior. However, when those same people want to make a public spectacle of that behavior, and do so in a way to tear down a time enduring institution called marriage which is a creation of religion and of nature; And, in so doing force the rest of society to accept their manufactured right to marriage, then I have a problem with it. Not because they want to have a ceremony and call it marriage, but because they want to use the government whether legislatively or through the courts to force the majority of society to recognize that right and to recognize their marriages.

I'll go a step further, government has no business creating a right to marriage for heterosexual couples. There are other government sanctioned relationships affording the same rights and privileges as marriage to those who enter into the; therefor the institution of marriage should have remained within the sole domain of religion where it once was.

Government sanctioned -- licensed --marriages (justice of the peace type ceremonies) should not be called marriage but referred to as domestic partnerships. One should have a choice as to whether they want their relationship to be between man, woman and God, or between domestic partners and government.

I think we basically agree on gay marriage. And you seem to be kinda for it, due to the fact that marriage is a governmental license.

By taking out the religous component of marraige, it should be allowed to all parties who want to enter into it according to the 14th Amendment.

Religous marriage is important to our culture but it is truly seperate from what marriage is today.

The word marriage is a religious institution. I want it to stay that way. Here's what I said "government sanctioned -- licensed -- marriages (justice of the peace type ceremonies) should not be called marriage but referred to as domestic partnerships. One should have a choice as to whether they want their relationship to be between man, woman and God, or between domestic partners and government".

My use of the word marriage in conjunction with a government sanctioned ceremony/contract was only to make clear that we were talking about what currently exists. I do not support "gay" marriage as there is no religious support for such an act. I do however believe that the government can offer a legal -- not religious -- equivalent which has come to be known as domestic partnerships. That covers both gay and straight NON religious pairings of individuals. If one wants to be married - religious institution - then it's a religious pairing of man and woman. All else, gay or straight, that is not a matter of religion is a domestic partnership. No more, no less.

While I support gay marriage, I think that your points are well said and well thought out.

Support the right thing, domestic partnership - it's gender and religion neutral and it keeps government out of religion. Just remember, once government gets into the business of forcing Gay access to a religious ceremony i.e. marriage, it will be violating the concept of separation of Church from State which some embrace so stridently.