Bill of Rights, conservative & liberal versions
As someone on HotAir.com protests, this does not fairly present the conservative viewpoint (although in fairness to Reason.tv, it mostly shows the conservative guy sitting idly by as the liberal scratches out most of the 10 Amendments, rather than actively scratching out, e.g. the Second Amendment himself). Well, I'd say it's more of liberals vs. neocons—neocons who have ... inherited much of liberal disdain for rule of the law along with their "compassion".
As I keep saying, the core conservative values are libertarian when you look at it impartially—profound respect for the Constitution and values of our Founding Fathers, including their entirely reasonable suspicion of the government, especially the feds. The only points where traditional conservative may disagree with a typical libertarian is on social issues, and well, even there, I think we both agree that these questions should be answered by states, regardless of what the answer may be.
Well, if you are a neocon, I have as little sympathy for you as I have for liberals. But us conservatives (short of any definite name, let's call ourselves "Cheney conservatives", since Cheney did demonstrate that he believed military should be downsized once the need for it, i.e. the Cold War, was past) and libertarians should stop fighting each other—and work on making the world America safe from liberals and neocons.
A need for … mutual respect
Interestingly, and somewhat amusing, Ron Paul gets named as one of the most bipartisan members of the GOP. I suspect a better description would be non-partisan, or perhaps just crank.
Republicans who bash Ron Paul do so to their own detriment—by alienating those who are new to the Republican party (which one could easily argue that Republican party does sorely need—especially among young people), those who have their firm place in the big tent of freedom and small government.
There is no such thing as "RINO from libertarian party". The only reason we need a libertarian party at all is because the Republican party lost its way: if Republican party didn't get taken over by neo-cons and kept to its principle of small government and free enterprise, libertarian party may have existed but would only have attracted fringe groups—why join a smaller, extremist group (which can be taken over easily by someone whose ideals you do not share), when a large, stable group advocates positions consistent with your belief?
And as far as the one position on which Ron Paul disagrees with mainstream Republicans go, well, a policy of non-intervention (or, given that we don't live in the ideal world, minimal intervention) is the only policy sustainable over long term. Empires never last (where is Rome now?); Republics that do not meddle in others' affair, however, do, as we can see in the fact that Britain survived the "fall" of British empire (although one should admit that there aren't enough data points here ...).
The way I understand it, Ron Paul's position isn't that we shouldn't intervene in others' affairs because we are wimps. It's because we have to conserve our strength for really big things, and it's because a government that constantly needs an external enemy is one that will eventually turn on her own (as you can see in recent abuses of PATRIOT act and so on).
Besides, as for Founding Fathers not being non-interventionists, well, they weren't perfect. When they strayed from the principle of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" (such as when U.S. got into the British-French war with war of 1812) is when they got the nation into needless, bloody war that America almost lost on her own soil.
Regardless of whether one agrees with his advocacy of non-intervention, it is no basis for illogical ridiculing. Ron Paul and real Republicans agree on the fundamentals: freedom and small government. We can work out these ... details later. We can't lose forest for the trees and let statists run rampant while we exhaust ourselves in infighting.
Conservative prodigy smacks Jeb Bush for anti-Reaganism
via HotAir.com:
I wish he asked real questions that could reveal whether the kid's just acting or whether his statements are out of his deep, heartfelt beliefs, rather than just teasing him about being a young person interested in politics.
Just as a dumb actor can talk about "quantum" something or another or "Heisenberg compensators" (supposedly alluding to Heisenberg uncertainty principle), and just as a pretender can mouth off about "time-dependent perturbation theory" or "interference" or "exchange force" or whatever (these are just words—they don't mean anything unless you can connect them to contexts and physical situations that the words are supposed to represent), it's possible for a gifted child actor to act like a TV pundit.
Now, was he just acting or not?
If he wasn't acting ... I wonder if he shouldn't take some premonition from the first part of the quote, "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
If you have never sympathized with a liberal cause, you won't understand liberals, and you wouldn't even be able to imagine how the liberals' arguments could make sense (either at intellectual or emotional level) to anybody at all. And that's such a huge handicap—after all, understanding your enemy is half the battle.
On the other hand, people change over time (which is the whole ... essence of the quote). If you start out as conservative too early, too young—when you couldn't have possibly understood and internalized the core values—then there's a danger that you will grow up to be a liberal, if nothing else, as a rebellion against (what you perceive to be) your own foolish past. I certainly did, in many ways.
Poll: 67% of Catholics approve of the job Obama’s doing
Even Catholics who consider themselves “conservative” politically are more likely to approve than disapprove of Obama’s job performance [49/40]…
In fact, 53% of Catholics voted for Obama for president in November, almost identical to the 52.9% of the popular vote Obama won in the 2008 election. Catholics’ 67% approval of Obama in his first 100 days is slightly higher than his overall 63% average approval rating for the same period. Thus, relative to the population, Catholics have become a bit more supportive of Obama as president than they were in the election.
Well, what else do you expect from social conservatives? Every single RINO that needs to be cast out of the party are social conservatives that would enlarge the government so the others would live as they wish.
For that matter, I think the religious right (although this is mostly protestants and evangelicals, who are, well, more puritanical than Catholics) harmed the conservative cause more than helped. Conservative social policies can never win, except in the blaze of a revolution (which, despite the advice of a Founding Father about what the tree of liberty needs, I think should be avoided when possible). Conservative fiscal policies always win. The religious right trades the latter for former.
I don't mean to bash them unjustly. After all, it was a youth pastor who told me what the Republicans stand for, i.e. small government and private enterprise, without all the distortion I get from the liberals in the media and school (the so-called "teachers"), and I owe him a great deal for that. But in this time when the Republican party needs a revival, we need to straighten out our priorities. Conservative fiscal and economic policies first (for those who support these are the true Republicans who will never defect even in times of trouble), and, if we have some political capital to burn, maybe then a penny or two into the well of conservative social policies.
Right-Wing College Group Riles Students on Campuses Nationwide
Officials at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which identifies and tracks hate groups in the U.S., told FOXNews.com that the YWC is not currently on its list, but some of the group's views are "suspect," including the notion that Western civilization is somehow superior.
What's so suspect about the notion that "Western" civilizations are superior? Would you call me suspect for calling the sky blue? Or for calling water wet? Or for calling mountain high?
Western civilization is, if by "Western civilization" you simply mean the civilization of United States (and not, for example, Nazi Germany), superior to any civilization that ever existed or could ever possibly exist 'til angels govern. "Western civilization" is the only civilization ever to recognize the nobility of individual liberty and the collective good promoted by individual self-ownership. All other civilizations somehow consider cowardly "sacrifice" of individuals for kings, the aristocrats, the poor, or "social betters" rational, something that a thinking being not under influence of psychoactive drugs might do.
It's rather preposterous that these Western government officials would consider persecuting a group for thinking that the Western civilizations are the best thing in the world. I mean, since when was it a crime to be patriotic and love one's country and system of government?
On the other hand, I do think YWC is overreaching a bit—the conservatives' hopes are in the emphasis on freedom, because, as someone said (I forget who), "freedom is the biggest tent" in the Republican party. Freedom (specifically, individual freedom and self-ownership) is what brings everyone (well, maybe everyone but social conservatives with statist ideals who would never be accepted in the leftist circles) to the party. We may disagree on a lot of things (I for one think we should encourage lawful immigration into United States and think immigrants (documented or not) who take difficult, low-paying jobs that too many Americans won't take are the backbone of our economy, but I know this isn't a widely shared view among conservatives), but because the cause for freedom is greater than any other cause, we can rally under one banner.
Any "youth movement", if there should be any (I hate "youth movements" because of their historical connection to fascism and totalitarianism), should concentrate on that. Not peripheral issues that will only serve to drive other kindred spirits who love freedom away.
More Miss California: I oppose bailouts and welfare
More evidence that she is truly one of us. Too bad that beautiful women are never seriously taken in politics (one of the "criticisms" about Gov. Palin was that she won a local beauty pageant when she was young).
On a related note, for gay rights supporters: If you really stand for equal rights and not for just sticking it to social conservatives (which I am a bit of one, although I would like to claim that I justify everything I believe according to libertarian principles), don't use the word "gay marriage". Use words like "union" (as in "civil union" or "government recognition of gay union") or "domestic partnership". You will find that your support will be so overwhelmingly positive that even the most devoted fundamentalist (Christian or Muslim; I don't know what Jews would say) will have hard time opposing you.
People are opposed to changing a familiar word (i.e. "marriage") to fit the whim of some activists. They are not opposed to gay people finding a permanent partner and settling down. God knows the fleeting nature of gay relationship (which was the mainstream gay relationship as long as it existed) was the most devastating aspect of it—and why HIV was more common among sexually active gays than straight people.
You will find that very few oppose some kind of legal recognition of committed gay relationship that doesn't try to hijack the existing recognition of committed straight relationship. Few will oppose you when you stop trying to deceive them by trying to tell them that a gay relationship is exactly identical to a straight relationship. It may be just as precious (I'm not gay, so I wouldn't know; or for that matter, I've never been married so I wouldn't know how precious marriage might be), but it sure is different.