Is The Term "Conservative" A Trap?

Is The Term "Conservative" A Trap?

by Michael Peroutka

Are You a Conservative? Do you consider yourself a liberal? If you find yourself using either of these terms when discussing your political worldview, you may have fallen into a trap.

Let me explain.

When the President or any elected or appointed official takes his oath of office, he invokes the wrath of God against him if he acts unfaithfully to that oath. This is a serious thing and so a specific standard is pronounced and declared. The oath taken declares an allegiance to … the Constitution of the United States – and where I live – to the Constitution of the State of Maryland.

The oath does not say “I hereby solemnly promise to be conservative.” It does not say “I hereby swear that I will follow what are presently considered to be conservative principles.”

As you know, these things called “conservative principles” can vary not only from person to person but from time to time. That’s the trap.

The acceptability of the use of torture is a good example. While just a few years ago, most folks considering themselves to be conservative recoiled in horror from the idea that Americans would even consider using such a terror tactic on a human being.

But now, conservative commentators like Charles Krauthammer and Sean Hannity and many others have defended this vile practice that only a generation ago the entire world rightly denounced at the Nuremburg trials.

What happened? Well… the definition of conservative changed, didn’t it? The standard has changed, hasn’t it? That’s what happens with a wishy-washy word like “conservative.” It really has come to mean nothing. In fact, it almost goes without saying that political positions thought to be ultra liberal 30 years ago – or maybe 30 minutes ago — are now seen as the accepted conservative position. (At least for the moment.)

So what’s the alternative?

Well, we seem to need a fixed standard, don’t we? One that isn’t slick or squishy – one we can depend on.

Happily, it does exist and it’s called the Constitution. It was intended to be a fixed standard and ought to be seen and taught that way. The provisions and principles in the United States Constitution and the Maryland Constitution are not so complicated that they have to be left to “experts.” If they were studied and understood by us all, we could do a much better job of holding our elected representatives accountable to their oaths of office. Incredibly, the Maryland Constitution is not taught to young attorneys in either of the two Maryland law schools, and many of our legislators have never read it. I think that’s a problem.

As an older attorney who has seen the slide away from American and Constitutional principles, I am hoping and praying for a return to constitutional understanding and fidelity.

Ingratitude: The Destroyer of Nations

Ingratitude: The Destroyer of Nations

by Jerry Bowyer

Civic gratitude is not only a virtue, but a nation's most necessary virtue. History bears that out. Rome was the greatest empire in ancient history, therefore its fall was the greatest fall the world had ever seen. Why did Rome fall? Some people say it was because of its high taxes. Others say it was weakened by its embrace of Christian compassion. It could have been bad luck. But the most common answer is Rome fell because of decadence.......

Decadence gets closer to the truth than anything else, but it's a particular kind of decadence that we're talking about.

In the first century, Saint Paul wrote a letter to the church in Rome and he nailed it better than any commentator before or since. He said that Rome ceased to believe in monotheism; 'neither were they thankful'. Paul observed that at the root of Rome's decadence was ingratitude. You see, Roman citizens at one point in their history had had more than any other citizens in the world. They had a strong tradition of property rights, low taxes, and a voice in their politics. All of this was guaranteed by a republican form of government which placed an extremely high premium on the rule of law. During the glorious days of the Roman Republic, law was over the king and not the king over the law.

That all changed with the coming of the Caesars who promised greater wealth, greater privileges, and eventually bread (welfare) and circuses (violent entertainment). There is only one thing the Romans needed to give up in order to gains these benefits: their republican form of government. That sort of appeal only works against a particular kind of people -- ungrateful people. This is what the Romans were in that generation, and this is what Saint Paul saw. (Note to those who have not studied history: just re-rent Star Wars: Attack of the Clones and you'll get the general flavor of these events.)

The appeal of the despot is always the same: give up what you have now and I will create Heaven on Earth. Implicit in this bargain is this premise: 'You have nothing to lose'. It is only a people who have become severed from the virtue of political gratitude who believe they have nothing to lose. In short, gratefulness is the chief bulwark against the demagogue. The story of the 20th Century, which is the bloodiest century in world history, is largely the story of what happens to the world when gratitude fades and people are wooed into giving up the hard-won liberty of centuries in exchange for racial glory (the Nazis), or economic security (the Communists).

Our ancestors knew this and offered something to inoculate us against it: Thanksgiving Day. Let's honor them and their gift to us.

All the news they didn't see fit to print!

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington                                       

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Click on Links to read More.....

U.S. generals now take action to watch Obama

Retired Army, Air Force leaders say 'government continues down path of destroying America'

By F. Michael Maloof

After one of them called for the “forced resignations” of President Obama and congressional leaders in response to multiple grievances, including the alleged political purge of hundreds of senior military officers, two retired U.S. generals are creating a citizens’ commission to scrutinize Obama administration actions on national security and economic issues.

“America’s Provisional Leadership Council” will look at major concerns, as outlined by Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely and Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, in an eight-point paper titled “The Americans Project.”

Vallely told WND he sees The Americans Project as a “citizens’ commission” of prominent Americans to provide advice to legislative and executive branches of government.

America’s leaders, he said, will be “held to high standards of performance to solve the nation’s problems of governing. We will scrutinize and provide guidance to federally elected officials on behalf of the citizens.”

The Americans Project, Vallely added, is a “movement, not a new party necessarily. We want candidates to run as Americans first before being a Democrat, Republican or Independent.” Vallely, who today is chairman of the organization Stand Up America, served as the deputy commanding general of Pacific Command.

######

So here are 10 questions the left keep asking

With some answers you might need before you do.......

######

Secret diplomacy worked in Iran An apology for the President

By David Ignatious

Count the Iran nuclear deal as a rare win for President Obama’s secretive, cerebral style of governing. His careful, closeted approach has produced many setbacks over the past five years, but it was at the heart of last weekend’s breakthrough deal with Tehran. [A break through deal it was not, it was outright appeasement]

######

Why College Is So Expensive
By Michael Busler and Wendy Bidwell

It is at this time of year that high school seniors across the country begin applying to college. Students are searching for the college that best fits their needs, hoping that they can get accepted to the school of their choice. As they go through this process, what is most shocking to them is the cost.

Regardless of the negative views questioning whether college is a worthwhile investment, the reality is that investments in human capital (like education) tend to have the highest returns in terms of monetary gains, job opportunities, upward mobility and overall job satisfaction. For those who could attend college but decide not to, the decision to enter the work force will probably have negative effects on them, well into the future.

######

Kerry on Iran Deal: Blame Bush

by Joel B. Pollak

Secretary of State John Kerry, defending the Geneva agreement on Iran's nuclear program, told ABC News' This Week  that despite the deal's flaws, it was, at least, better than what the Bush administration had done:

In 2003, Iran made an offer to the Bush administration, that they would, in fact, do major things with respect to their program. They had 164 centrifuges. Nobody took--nothing has happened. Therefore here we are in 2013, they have 19,000 centrifuges, and they're closer to a weapon. You cannot sit there and pretend that you're just going to get the thing you want while they continue to move towards the program that they've been chasing.

So, to the extent that the new Iran deal is bad, it is Bush's fault, according to Secretary Kerry.

† † † † † † † † † † †

Kerry on Iran Deal: Blame Bush

Kerry on Iran Deal: Blame Bush

by Joel B. Pollak

Secretary of State John Kerry, defending the Geneva agreement on Iran's nuclear program, told ABC News' This Week  that despite the deal's flaws, it was, at least, better than what the Bush administration had done:

In 2003, Iran made an offer to the Bush administration, that they would, in fact, do major things with respect to their program. They had 164 centrifuges. Nobody took--nothing has happened. Therefore here we are in 2013, they have 19,000 centrifuges, and they're closer to a weapon. You cannot sit there and pretend that you're just going to get the thing you want while they continue to move towards the program that they've been chasing.

So, to the extent that the new Iran deal is bad, it is Bush's fault, according to Secretary Kerry.

Here are some facts Kerry conveniently leaves out. First, Iran slowed its nuclear program temporarily after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. That was the context of Iran's "offer." Second, It has almost always responded to the threat of military action, and almost never abided by international agreements. Third, the Bush administration did not just "sit there." It succeeded in pushing UN Security Council resolutions that banned all nuclear enrichment by Iran. That set the stage for the increased international sanctions on Iran, for which the Obama administration takes credit but which it has tried to slow down ever since taking office.

 If anyone has just "sat there," it has been the Obama administration, which watched as France took the lead in pushing for a slightly tougher deal that would do a little more to protect Western interests and American allies.

In addition to blaming Bush, what Kerry is effectively saying is that there was nothing else the U.S. could have done--that it had been outfoxed by Iran, and had no other option. He is describing the agreement not as a victory but admitting that it is effectively a kind of surrender. In a backhanded way, he is correct.