The best magazine
It is quite one thing for those friends of mine to suggest that they voted for the Marxist currently occupying the White House way back in 2008 with the sincere hope of real change coming to Washington D.
C.
; this colossal error in judgment can be forgiven and chalked up to ignorance frankly.
To place our grandchildren's future in certain peril by casting a vote for this man and his administration a second time would be incomprehensible, and yes, damning for our progeny.
The assertion I make above concerning the president and Marxism will be controversial to say the least; nevertheless, at the conclusion of this rant, it will be quite clear to the average reader that in fact, that claim is sadly true.
Throughout man's history we have seen all different extremes in government and societal structure all over the world.
Dictatorial despots, genocidal maniacs, and otherwise tyrannical heads of state are preserved and indeed documented throughout a myriad of history books available to those who take an interest in the truth.
I would submit to the budding young and blissfully unaware communists littering our college campuses from coast to coast that he or she really should take the time to study Karl Marx and Thomas Hobbes before extolling their praises.
But, I digress.
The task I have taken on in this particular opus is the sufficiently thorough critique and comparison (contrast may be the more appropriate term here) of conservatism to liberalism.
I could likely have subtitled the piece, The Merits of Conservatism Versus the Snares of Liberalism, but I am trying not to take a smug tone here.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am in fact a recovered liberal.
I can't help imagining a detectable snicker at the implication of having been cured of some hideous disease, but in a very real sense I think that is the essence of what liberalism is.
In terms of accurate definitions, a conservative is someone who is resistant to major changes in most of our daily business, and proponents of small, sensible and non-intrusive government; whereas a liberal tends to be much more open to indeed radical changes in societal structure which invariably result in oppression and destitution.
This cannot be more clearly evident than when one contrasts any random scene of the Occupy (insert your locale here) movements occurring nationwide, with any number of Tea Party rallies.
The distinctions also become clear in contrasting the views of two of history's most influential thinkers: Rousseau and Burke.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, the liberal left likes to cite Jean-Jacques Rousseau in their "what-ever is good for the collective" approach to philosophy and society, while Sir Edmund Burke is considered the father of modern conservative thought that champions the rights of the individual and the merits of a free-market economic structure.
The liberal left believes in government programs (funded by taxpayers) and saving the planet, while the conservative right believe in personal responsibility, charitable giving and the Lord.
The liberal left refuses to call a terrorist as such, for fear of hurting his or her feelings or our relations with the said terrorist's home country.
The conservative knows that to take this attitude is to do so at the detriment of our national security.
The new (and, may I add false) religion of environmentalism is not seriously embraced by a single conservative that I know.
The same liberals who will tell you that your very breath is polluting our atmosphere and that "water doesn't really cure dehydration," also like to preach the non-existent concept of "collective salvation.
" Perhaps someone should call out our current president on his intent to deliver the aforementioned utopia.
Maybe that same someone could also point out that the very definition of utopia is "an imaginary and remote place," according to Merriam-Webster online.
The liberal left tout their "compassionate intent" in crafting legislation and policy that affect us all as citizens of this country, and in so many areas of our lives.
Lifetime bureaucrats appointed by government (as opposed to being elected to that particular post by the people), and funded by John and Jill Q.
Taxpayer will dictate and carry out public policy that will inevitably choke out younger generations of Americans.
Despite the endless examples throughout history that clearly illustrate the cataclysmic failures of big government, there are a great many who tragically still cling to this fundamentally flawed and distinctly liberal point of view.
The conservative right believe in the wisdom of our founding fathers and intentionally limited government.
The conservative believes in the supreme sovereignty of the individual; your freedom and liberty, as well as mine.
Brother, if you aren't breaking the law or harming your neighbor in some way, then what you do is your business, and your business alone.
Further, conservatives believe that all men are in fact created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The liberal believes that everyone deserves a trophy, simply by virtue of showing up.
The conservative knows that rewarding those who perform fosters a strong work ethic and superior productivity.
The conservative believes that the essential job of the government is to protect private property rights, while the ultra-liberal do not believe in private property rights.
The conservative believes that when everything is given, everything is too lightly esteemed.
The liberal believes in taking from one and giving to one who hasn't earned it; in other words, participation trophies for everyone.
Conservative policy encourages industry, innovation, creativity, low taxes and robust economic growth.
By extension, those same policies invariably result in massive job growth.
It was in fact the policies of the greatest president certainly of my lifetime that resulted in the longest sustained period of profound economic growth the world has ever seen.
Ronald Wilson Reagan, a strong conservative (and reformed democrat) who indeed transformed this struggling country into "the shining city on the hill" through his policies, is regrettably no longer with us; although, in the hearts of true conservatives, the spirit of Reagan lives on today.
Conservatives believe in a strong and capable military force.
Liberals ceaselessly complain about the ever-expanding "military industrial complex," and "outrageous defense spending," when in truth, this administration is doing all it can to gut our national capabilities.
Once again, allow me to indulge and cite the brilliance of our 40th president in his firm belief in "peace through strength.
" While it is true that Reagan spent the money to build our military into the most capable, feared, and most importantly (in my humble opinion), respected worldwide, he never committed our troops to endless and/or unnecessary conflict; further, he did not spend, or advocate the spending of trillions of taxpayer dollars carrying out wars that were arguably, not in our best interest as a nation.
In complete contrast to Reagan's defense policies are those of the liberals.
Under Clinton, the massive cuts to our military began.
The liberal will boast of the "surpluses of the Clinton administration," at the expense of our national defense.
Coupled with the tax policies of the Reagan administration that benefited successive administrations economically, the money cut from our defense budget did indeed result in significant budget surpluses.
The conservative would rightly argue, "At what expense?" For the liberal to suggest that today the enemies of this country and the rest of the West do not plainly see a weakened superpower ripe for plunder, severely compromised by political corruption and political correctness to dangerous extremes is to ignore anything that even remotely resembles sound logic or rational thought.
In closing, the preceding tangent was intended to very clearly paint a picture of what it is for one to profess to be a conservative, versus what it means to be liberal in today's society.
In addition, it should be painfully obvious to anyone with even meager capacity that the majority of conservatives tend to be people of faith; further, the ultra-liberals have turned from God, seemingly embracing a society based on hyper-environmentalism and secular fundamentalism.
The ultra-liberal faction that exists in this country is completely comfortable in placing the "health of the planet" over the needs of man.
The conservative finds this philosophy absolutely abhorrent and wholly irresponsible.
The conservative person of faith understands that the notion that we as people, are capable (short of nuclear blast) of destroying this planet is absolute blind arrogance.
We know that the Lord does not intend for our lives to be some sort of hellish existence.
Conservative peoples of faith also know that he blessed us with an obscene abundance of resources that we, as his creation, were intended to take dominion of.
In summation, my brothers and sisters from other mothers all across this blessed nation need to clearly understand the stark differences between these two primary schools of political thought.
It is absolutely essential for the preservation of man's freedom that one is able to distinguish conservatism from liberalism in order to more fully understand the very dangerous game that is being played in our nation's capital.
The ultra-liberal (as well as those soft-hearted democrats) have absolutely been duped into believing that Obamacare is actually about health care.
The conservatives know that this is perhaps the most disingenuous claim of the current administration and its blind supporters.
In reality, this monstrosity that was passed by a derelict congress and signed into law by a statist administration is all about governmental control of virtually every aspect of our lives.
When the arguments that have been proposed on this issue are objectively assessed, frankly there can be no other logical conclusion of outcome.
It is time to understand what one truly believes in, and associate with like-minded folks.
I have personally seen the triumph of a galvanized citizenry in action in my own home town when rallied around just cause.
In terms of policing our elected officials, I must say that it was quite inspiring to see my fellow patriots and freedom loving Americans come together to spank tyranny and eradicate it.
When the citizens of Chillicothe, Ohio became aware of the imposition of the infamous "red-light cameras" installed at various intersections in town, they mobilized.
To make a somewhat lengthy story short, concerned community activists organized and openly protested the move by the city administration and forced a referendum on the ballot.
The overwhelming majority of citizens who voted unanimously and very heartily voiced their opposition to this added intrusion of government and had the cameras removed.
This seemingly small, but very symbolic victory is indicative of what an informed and involved citizenry is capable of.
I will conclude this rather lengthy diatribe by issuing the following challenge: regardless of one's current beliefs and convictions (whether liberal or conservative); consider those beliefs.
Take the time to either affirm one's position through wisdom and knowledge, or change those positions.
We are clearly standing at the fork in the road.
The time is rapidly approaching when we will all be forced to commit to one of two very clear directions.
There will be no "riding the fence.
" We will either rally around strong conservative principles and begin to turn this thing around, or we will find ourselves subject to ill-advised liberal and collective policies that clearly lead to a form of statist hell on earth.
It is my humble opinion that to promote the former is to preserve freedom and opportunity for our grandchildren, while to allow the latter is to condemn our future generations.
Source: ...