A Conservative's View Of Things Political


Introduction Note:

This is a lengthy piece. I do recognize the wisdom of Twitter's 140-character limit. That seems to be the maximum attention span of people these days. However, ideas, concepts, and explanations don't always fit into 140 characters.

Also, in my first reading of the below I found that in writing this I must have been channeling my "inner" William James and maybe James Joyce a "bit". It tends to ramble a bit; but, just stay with it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Before beginning this epistle I want to point out something important. In all the discussions below, when I write about conservatives, progressives, etc., I am referencing the general cases. None of us is purely anything. We all have varying degrees of how we feel about things. Our differing feelings on things do not make us right or wrong, it makes our leanings and maybe even our core beliefs different. So, as you continue, keep this in mind.

If someone believes that there may be some future position that would unify the political positions of conservativrs and progressives and bring everybody together, that person, I feel, is sadly mistaken.

Coming up with such a unifying concept would be like deriving the equations for a 3-body motion problem where the masses of the objects are forever shifting in value.

The 3 bodies in this case are: 1) What one would like the government to do, 2) What the government is actually allowed - by the US Constitution - to do, and 3) a mixture of "How much does this cost?" and "Where is the money coming from?" The varying masses of the bodies represent people's ever so slightly or widely varying opinions on the 3 items mentioned.

Solving such a problem? Forget about it! The best one can hope for is that with greater understanding of differing opinions such will lead to civil discourse.

However, there is one thing that truly gets in the way of "coming together" politically; Click Here to see what I mean. In addition, This Article may shed light on the difficulty as well.

Another point before truly beginning: It is not important whether one agrees with me or not. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - this is still America, after all. What I do care about are facts. Should something below not be factual, I would sincerely like to know. I don't mean if you simply don't agree with it; I mean if something is provably incorrect - send facts, please, not just your feelings.

Should you run across something that you consider outlandish or "That couldn't be right!" type of thing, usually there is an embedded link to back up my assertion/point. Check out the link or other sources before making a final judgement.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary of this article:

The basic differences between political ideologies are the answers to these two questions: "Is it government's responsibility to make all these things happen?" and "Who pays for all of this?" Conservatives and progressives have diametrically opposing answers to those two questions.

Conservatives don't care about anyone's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. They care about a person's truthfulness, operating at the best their ability offers, and their following the law. Not much else truly matters to conservatives.

Progressives advocate secular over religious attitudes, view people as a collective vs. individuals, feel the government is responsible to ensure all social agenda items, and rely upon "rules" that discourage logical discourse on issues of importance.

Our Constitution speaks to equality of our people under the law. It does not identify or recognize "equality of outcome" for anyone. And, this alone, is the most stark difference between conservatives and progressives.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel the individual is best suited to know what is best for their own specific needs and wants, feel that leadership should focus on establishing an environment where each person can rise to their own desires based on each's ability, and feel NOT the need to have a financial "underclass".

The progressives excel at organization; conservatives tend to be individualists. Progressives play the "long game"; conservatives focus on what's happening now - or, the "short game" - to their detriment.

Conservatives, despite evidence to the contrary, continue to emotionally believe that the US Constitution will be adhered to and that the rule of law will prevail. Conservatives, emotionally, would not conceive that their government would actively work against them - despite examples like the IRS Scandal where conservatives were denied basic political rights, as but one example.

Progressives feel that actions by the government, even if not supported by our Constitution, are justified when benefiting what they feel is the "common good".

Conservatives firmly hold that the US Constitution is NOT a "living document" - it is Law and means what it meant when it was written. Justice Scalia (of the Supreme Court) fully supported this notion as well as 1/2 of the Supreme Court's members.

Progressives believe the US Constitution is, in fact, a living document and should be interpreted - without change to the document - based on the mores of the day. The other 1/2 of the Supreme Court supports this notion.

Update note not reflected elsewhere here: Now that Neil Gorsuch has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, the conservatives have a one person majority on the Court.

Conservatives believe in total free speech as long as it is not intended to incite violence or hatred. Progressives believe in free speech as long as it is not intended to incite violence or hatred AND, as long as it doesn't conflict with views progressives hold.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To start, I feel it is important to define some terms: Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian (the philosophy, not the political party), Democrat, and Republican.

I'll start with Democrat and Republican. As we are all aware, they are the two major political parties in the US. The remainder of this article will not deal with them except tangentially. The other 3 are ideologies. Such ideologies reside, to one degree or another, in persons in both major political parties.

Let me dispense with Libertarianism up front. Not because it is not important and meaningful to many people. Rather, because it is too narrow on the use of the military in defense of our Nation. Libertarian ideology, basically, is that government's job is only to protect the people so as to allow them to do whatever they want, short of harming others. In its pure sense, libertarianism is too narrow a concept to be fully viable for "The Republic For Which We Stand". However, it comes closer to what the US Constitution offers than other ideologies.

The news media loves to associate Republicans with being Conservative and Democrats with being Liberal. These are naive associations - meant only to help divide the American people.

I specifically separate Liberal from Progressive. These two are all too often used interchangeably. They are not the same. As for but a simple example, John Kennedy and Harry Truman were both Liberal, Barack Obama is a Progressive - all 3, of course, being Democrats. Can one conceive of a wider gap of approaches than with these three?

Here is an exposition / explanation of progressivism.

And, here is an exposition on conservatism here in the US.

The Democrat party of yesteryear was a Liberal party; now, today, it has been overtaken by the Progressive movement, seemingly following the guidance of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" and Vladimir Lenin's quote ("A lie told often enough becomes the truth.") with every chance it gets.

To illustrate my assertion, Alinsky's 11th "Rule" is: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through and become a positive." Now, consider how often we hear from the progressive-leaning media and from all those who swoon at its feet that Donald Trump is a "racist", and the like. And, this without even a correct use of the words. Soon, those who don't even bother to look up what those words mean, believe they truly do apply to Trump - even though he's never said or done anything related to the meanings of the words. And, before you think I err gravely here, be certain to look up the words' definitions and how they are used against Trump.

A second illustration is from Hillary Clinton when she offered that 1/2 of Trump supporters could be put in "the basket of deplorables". Of course, this one didn't work too well. Why would any candidate insult, essentially, 1/2 of potential voters?

Both of these examples are moves to divide people - not bring people together.

If one takes the time, one will find Alinsky's "rules" being employed/followed by the politically progressive in almost everything they do. For only one example, Alinsky's rule #5 is "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.".

Now, consider what we've heard repeatedly: Trump is racist, being against Obama is racist - everything is about race. Conservatives don't care about race, ethnicity, nor religion. They care about a person's truthfulness, operating at the best their ability offers, and their following the law. Not much else truly matters to conservatives.

The media often likes to offer that today's political opponents are Liberals and Conservatives. This is NOT the case. A more accurate description of opponents is Progressives and Conservatives.

OK. What does this conservative feel is important? (The below list is but a subset to illustrate principles.)

1. Should we have a strong defense of our country and its people? YES!

2. Should everyone have adequate health care? YES!

3. Should every child have a proper education? YES!

4. Should our neighborhoods be safe and secure? YES!

5. Should we be welcoming of immigrants to enrich our lives? YES!

6. Should financial or other assistance be afforded to those less fortunate? YES!

7. Should politicians be more concerned with proper governance than with their continued existence in government? YES!

8. Should our borders be secure? YES!

9. In this day of global terrorism should we be extremely vigilant as to who is allowed into our Nation? YES!

10. Should the US Constitution be considered LAW to which everyone must adhere? YES!

10a. Is anyone above the law? NO!

11. Should our infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, etc.) be well maintained? YES!

12. Should the government be supportive of enhancing employment opportunities for our people? YES!

The above, with a few exceptions perhaps, may sound a lot like what Liberals desire; AND, a lot like what Progressives demand our government provide.

So, why all the dysfunction in government and political vitriol among people? The basic differences between political ideologies are the answers to these two questions: "Is it government's responsibility to make all these things happen?" and "Who pays for all of this?" Conservatives and progressives have diametrically opposing answers to those two questions.

So, to continue, I'll focus on differences between conservatives and progressives. Why? Both major political parties seem to embedded with both. Well, maybe the Democrats are vastly progressive, the Republicans only somewhat. But, progressives live and prosper in both parties.

From all the news we see, hear, and read these days, it will seem unbelievable that the majority of people self-identify as conservative - ahead of both liberals (a.k.a. progressives) and "moderates". But, it is a fact.

Perhaps just as surprising, is that the percentage of voters registered as "Independents" outpace both Democrats and Republicans. Could this be due to so many progressive-leaning politicians being in both major political parties?

From above, items 2, 3, and 6 deal with the subject of "Social Justice"; and, item 5 to some degree as well.

Actually, the US Constitution fully supports only items #1 & #11.

Our Constitution speaks to equality of our people under the law. It does not identify or recognize "equality of outcome" for anyone. And, this alone, is the most stark difference between conservatives and progressives. "Social Justice" preaches "equality of outcome" - or, the mantra of progressives; but not quite.

More on Social Justice later.

I have often read that conservatives label progressive policies as Socialistic. Well, as with everything, definitions are important. "Socialism" may be thought of as a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

So, to characterize progressives as socialists is not quite accurate.

Socialism, as a governmental approach, has NEVER worked in the long run throughout the history of the world. And, there is a fundamental reason for its failure.

Oh, socialism can work in a very small community such as a kibbutz in Israel, for example. And, it can work in smaller countries like Denmark, for example. However, take a look at a larger country, Venezuela. It is a socialistic country having a wealth of resources and it is nearing collapse.

In general, as a community grows in size, someone needs to be "in charge". Once that happens, the one in charge has a little more rights and privileges than the others. The larger a community grows, the more the needed bureaucracy grows.

Or, as George Orwell put it in his book "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." This creates a body of "elites" within the community who live to control the rest and feed off the others' labors.

Considering the above, it is an easy jump to see why progressives heavily favor unfettered immigration - legal or otherwise. The greater number of people who are dependent on the government, the more control the "elites" have - and, the greater rewards to the "elites" personally.

As is easily discerned, the current waves of illegal immigrants and so-called refugees are not contributors, they are takers - to the tune of Billions and Billions of dollars per year of taxpayer monies. Since these people are among the less fortunate among us, they will vote for progressives - if for nothing more than not to loose their "free stuff".

And, it's not just immigrants. Consider, a full 50+% of the American people pay no federal income tax and 1/3 of us are on some form of government subsidy. For whom does one think these people will vote?

Progressivism started in this country many years ago. The first US President who advocated such was Woodrow Wilson. And, just for interest sake, he is the one who originally ordered the US Military to be segregated. Yet another of the "divide and rule" moves by the progressives.

Today, the most obvious example of a politician offering "free stuff" openly is Bernie Sanders. He describes himself as a Democratic Socialist. At least ole Bern is open about his intentions.

And, as well all know, nothing is truly "free". Somebody has to pay.

Conservatives, on the other hand, feel the individual is best suited to know what is best for their own specific needs and wants, feel that leadership should focus on establishing an environment where each person can rise to their own desires based on each's ability, and feel NOT the need to have a financial "underclass".

Progressives operate by a combination of the "Lone Ranger Syndrome", the "Robin Hood Syndrome", and, as mentioned above, the (in)famous quote by Vladimir Lenin, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth.".

In the Lone Ranger stories, there are bad guys in town. The Lone Ranger and Tonto ride in and rid the town of the bad guys. Upon leaving, the town is in no better shape to defend itself than before their arrival. The "Robin Hood Syndrome", of course, is take from the rich and give to the poor - but, without the motivation for good for all, as Robin would have it. Only the progressive "elites" are enriched as a result. The quote from Lenin is self-explaining; or, as today it is called fake news.

By providing stuff for "free", the people are not encouraged to better their own lives so as not to need the "free stuff" in the future. Meanwhile, the monies for all this "free stuff" comes from those who apply their abilities to make their own lives better.

The dependent class, necessary for progressives to remain and prosper, is thus guaranteed to continue and grow.

Back to "Social Justice" for a bit:

Some, if not many of us, remember that Hillary Clinton's Book, "It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us", raised objections among conservatives as to its message. (Never mind the controversy that the book was actually written by uncredited ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.) Now, Barack Obama's famous "If You've Got A Business, You Didn't Build That! Somebody else made that happen." quote is along the same lines.

Both of these sentiments argue that nothing is accomplished without the efforts of others. Basically, this is true. However, the message that came across to most conservatives was that Clinton and Obama were saying that no one's abilities nor hard work should reap greater benefits than those who do not have the ability nor drive to make good things happen.

In point of fact, this is part and parcel of what Social Justice teaches - The "Haves" take from the "Have Nots", and this should be overturned.

Social Justice originated with Roman Catholicism back in 1840. Originally it was a far cry from its connotation today. From 1928, the Catholic Church's catechism defined Social Justice thusly: "Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority."

That offering sounds an awful lot like conservative principles espoused today. And, it not only sounds like that, it is.

The US Constitution and all the laws of our land have been instantiated to guarantee everyone an equal opportunity to achieve success - NOT an equal outcome.

Over time, the progressives have morphed Social Justice from its beginnings into the connotation we see today; that is, the complete economic equality of all members of society - except the progressive "elites", of course.

The end goal of the progressive movement is what is called a new "World Order" to include a one world government with no national borders. The most notable advocation for such is George Soros. He is a leading funder of all things progressive. To learn more about this man - and you should, Click Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here.

Soros and his ilk know that organizing is the key to seeing their goals met. And, Soros pours millions of dollars into organizing. Soros and his ilk know that the very people upon whom they depend do not, can not, or will not do the research necessary to counter arguments posed by progressive politicians or other progressive leaders.

OH! It's not just George Soros. A move toward a "new world order" began in this country quite a while ago. For those of us who are old enough, we all remember Walter Cronkite, CBS news anchor. He was ascribed to be "The most trusted man in America".

Here is a short clip of good ole Walt, along with congratulations from Hillary Clinton, being recognized - no, rewarded - for his advocating a "new world order".

Further, Social Justice & the New World Order is not an issue about which only the United States has to worry. Have you heard of the United Nation's little program that it is espousing called "Agenda 21"? If not, or you want to learn more about it, Click Here.

Let's take a quick look at more of the progressives' use of the Lenin quote, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".

The former president, Barack Obama, is known to be a tad-bit slip-shod with the truth. And, maybe because of this, many in the Republican party accused the former president of lying when he offered "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan." - referring, of course, to Obamacare.

At no point did I, personally, consider this a lie - by the strict definition of a "lie", per se.

As soon as Obamacare included the provision for pre-existing conditions, I felt there was no way that current policies (i.e. plans) could be maintained. So, I, and many others who actually pay attention to what is said, understood that Obama's statement was true - BUT, "your current plan" would no longer exist. So, was it meant to mislead? I believe so; but strictly speaking, it wasn't a lie. And, that's why one should never truly believe what politicians offer us - there's always, it seems, a "catch" somewhere.

NOR blindly believe the progressive-leaning media - or any media, for that matter.

Let's look at a couple of things occupying recent news (early April 2017).

Susan Rice, former National Security Advisor under President Obama, has been accused of leaking/providing information that was made public on the Trump campaign organization.

She has admitted to "Unmasking" names in classified documents. But, just a day or so before MSNBC's Don Lemon, a news anchor, indicated he would not even cover the story - and, would "ignore (such) news at all costs". IGNORE reporting news the American people have a right to know? This is an example of the media bias existing in our Nation to our collective detriment.

And, MSNBC seems to have a history of altering the news to fit their progressive agenda. Click Here and Here for examples.

Now, did Ms. Rice legally commit a crime? That's not clear at this point; and, no conclusions should be drawn until such time she is tried and convicted. That is the Conservative way of passing judgement - wait until the facts, all the facts, are known. To do otherwise is called slander or libel - depending on the medium used.

Would someone have a reasonable cause to disbelieve her? Well, considering she lied to the American people as to the cause of the Benghazi incident (i.e., it was a video), the answer is YES! And, just a few days before she admitted to "unmasking" people, she denied knowing anything about the issue. This does NOT mean she did lie this time; only cause for questioning. Further, Ms. Rice, obviously, is an educated person. I have heard her speak. She seems well versed in proper use of grammar. Therefore, it is expected that she would use correct English in answering important questions.

In response to a question from Andrea Mitchel as to did she, Ms. Rice, leak classified information, she replied, "I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have!" Colloquially, such a reply is generally understood to mean "No!". HOWEVER, the sentence contains a double negative. Such an answer could be interpreted, assuming proper grammar, to mean she did leak information. One must parse every word coming from professional politicians. They do their utmost NOT to tell an out-and-out lie; but, one must pay close attention to the actual words used. Or - It's not their fault if you didn't understand what they actually meant.

Or, it could be that Ms. Rice was doing a little "inner" channeling of her own - a la Odysseus (from Homer's the "Odyssey") in his confrontation with the Cyclops: "My name is Nobody."

So, how do progressives treat valid investigations into one of their own? They charge that attempts to get at the truth are nothing but acts of racism and sexism - straight out of "Rules for Radicals", this is. Oh, wait! I forgot, this was MSNBC again.

So, if your news comes mainly from the progressive-leaning media, be especially vigilant. And, if it comes mainly from conservative-leaning media, be especially vigilant.

Now, let's take a look at the news relating to the Russians hacking our last presidential election.

At present there is absolutely no evidence, at least made public, that points to the Russians doing any such thing. Various Intel organizations have said there was evidence; but, no evidence has been brought forward thus far. To some, did it look like the Russians (either the Russian government or some individual) did some hacking? Yes. But, as the CIA let it be known, it has software tools that could spoof any government, anywhere, what are we to believe?

But, here is something we CAN believe. During the last presidential election cycle somebody, again the Russians were blamed without any evidence, did hack into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), specifically John Podesta's email files.

Yes, hacking is a crime - a serious crime. However, what seemed very puzzling to me was that both the progressive AND the conservative media gave short-shift to the following:

NOBODY has offered that the information released was false - not the DNC, not Hillary Clnton, and not even Podesta, himself. Apparently, everything leaked was gospel truth.

If one takes the time to read only the issues identified in the above Podesta link (and, there are many more revelations), is it not reasonable to feel that the American people SHOULD have such information prior to selecting a president?

Where the "rubber meets the road":

The progressives excel at organization; conservatives tend to be individualists. Progressives play the "long game"; conservatives focus on what's correct now - or, the "short game" - to their detriment.

And, here is where the progressive movement truly separates itself from the conservative movement.

Conservatives, despite evidence to the contrary, continue to emotionally believe that the US Constitution will be adhered to and that the rule of law will prevail. Conservatives, emotionally, would not conceive that their government would actively work against them - despite examples like the IRS Scandal where conservatives were denied basic political rights, as but one example (Click Here and Here for additional details). Therefore, there would not be a reason for them to form large "voting blocks" to assure, what is to them, an application of common sense and fair play. Logically, they know this to be a false assumption; but, they just can't seem to help themselves.

Even when Obama won the presidency twice, conservatives understood the sophic words of the Rolling Stones, "You can't always get what you want." There were no violent protests, no riots, no refusing to let people speak as seen orchestrated by progressives when Trump won. Or, conservatives adhered to that old Southern axiom of "It's simply not done!"

The average conservative tends to do more research for facts than their counterparts - but, they can't seem to emotionally grasp that what they are uncovering is actually true - not in America, at least.

Take, for example, when Barack Obama was first running for the presidency. He clearly stated that his intention was to fundamentally transform the United States of America. Most people had no idea what he meant. Even a cursory look at Obama's past would have provided a very large clue.

Obama's actual prior experience was one of being a community organizer. That was his true background. The job description for a community organizer is to build community groups from scratch, develop new leadership where none existed and organize the unorganized. It is a values based process where people are brought together to act in the interest of their communities.

There may be many ways to accomplish the goals of a community organizer. But, it appears that Obama chose Saul Alinsky (i.e., "Rules For Radicals") as his role model:

Background information

"Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday." --Letter from L. DAVID ALINSKY, son of Neo-Marxist Saul Alinsky

Obama helped fund 'Alinsky Academy': "The Woods Fund, a nonprofit on which Obama served as paid director from 1999 to December 2002, provided startup funding and later capital to the Midwest Academy.... Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization....  'Midwest describes itself as 'one of the nation's oldest and best-known schools for community organizations, citizen organizations and individuals committed to progressive social change.'... Midwest teaches Alinsky tactics of community organizing."

Hillary, Obama and the Cult of Alinsky: "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.... Many leftists view Hillary as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to do and say whatever it takes to gain power.

      "Obama is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He became an instant churchgoer."

(By Richard Poe, 11-27-07)

So, it was no surprise to anyone who bothered to look that Obama would try and transform the USA into not only a subscriber of the "new world order" but to lead the Nation down the road to socialism - whether the people's representatives wished that to happen or not.

What do I mean by THAT? Consider Obama's statement of intent to violate his oath of office to uphold the Constitution: "Where Congress won't act, I will."

OK. But, what exactly is the oath of office the president takes? It is: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Again, OK. But, what are the actual duties of the president as to creating laws without Congress? NONE! Here is a synopsis of presidential duties in this regard:

Carrying out legislation: As the head of the executive branch of the federal government, the President is responsible for ensuring that all the nation’s laws are “faithfully executed.” In other words, the President carries out the legislation enacted by Congress but cannot initiate legislation himself.

Seems pretty clear. As to making laws, the president has ZERO authority. Only Congress may make laws. However, that fact and the oath he took never seemed to bother ole Barack.

AND, the American people, day by day, became less enthused by progressive values. From the time Obama first took office until the election of Donald Trump, Democrats lost over 1,000 seats of political power.

But, even with this obvious shift in ideological desires by the American people, the rage against Trump continues. (The progressives should take the Rolling Stones' advice to heart.)

Take for example the progressive-leaning Ninth Circuit Court, a Hawaiian Court, and a Maryland judge who issued "blocks" to Trump's intended temporary travel restrictions issued to enhance our collective safety. These rulings are in direct opposition to US law clearly stating the president has the absolute authority to issue such restrictions. (Click Here, Here, and Here for details.)

All of these rulings failed to cite the actual US Law that grants a president the authority to issue travel restrictions; but, they all cited discrimination against Muslims - which no travel ban even mentioned a religion of any kind.

A scarier aspect of progressives' intent for our country is this. They, generally, seem to feel that Europe's embracement of progressive principles, socialism, and openness to migrants (their word for what we call refugees), is what the US should look like in the future.

Really? Europe is beset with financial troubles due to their socialistic pursuits and is suffering from their migrants' actions.

Take a look at the top-level results from a Google search on European migrants:

This seems to be the reaction of European governments to the ever-increasing influx of Islamic radicals:

And, just for those who may have young daughters, THIS ONE's for you.

Well, those kinds of things won't happen here, say the progressives. Again, really? Check this out! To those who believe this type of thing will not grow in seriousness here in the good ole US of A, 'Eliza Doolittle' has a message for you: "Just you wait, 'enry 'iggins, just you wait. You'll be sorry but your tears 'll be too late." And, for these poor girls and women, it already is too late.

Now, back to the short list of what conservatives view as important (offered above).

Conservatives firmly hold that the US Constitution is NOT a "living document" - it is Law and means what it meant when it was written. Justice Scalia (of the Supreme Court) fully supported this notion. His quote: "The Constitution is not a living organism," he said. "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

The basic logic of this view on the Constitution is based on common sense. Were the Constitution a "living document", interpretable based on the changing mores of the day, chaos would reign. Today, a judge could rule one way - something you support, while tomorrow another judge could rule on that same issue in a way you don't like. CHAOS!

Of course, if the American people want the Constitution changed, all that is necessary is spelled out in Article V of that same document.

But wait! Isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the US Constitution? Yes, but . . .

The Supreme Court's rulings do not imply they are correct constitutionally. That's why their rulings are called "Opinions". One Supreme Court's opinion may be overturned by a later Supreme Court's opinion. That alone should point out a need for a strict view of the meaning of the Constitution, not rulings that may appeal to what we or someone else wants now.

Perhaps an example may help here.

One of the most controversial parts of the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The wording is rather cumbersome, to say the least. That's why opinions on it vary from "The Right To Bear Arms" to "Guns are only for people belonging to a militia".

First, the 2nd Amendment does not convey "The Right To Bear Arms". It says that the government may not "infringe" on a person's right to bear arms. There is a subtle but important difference. Second, today there is no such thing as a "militia", unless you consider the National Guard as such.

So, as the wording isn't exactly clear in today's understanding of English grammar, etc., how does one know what was actually meant by the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution? One has to research the answer from the writings of these people.

A good place to start would be with James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution. Here's a quote from him: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243 - 244)

Want another quote? Try this: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

There are many more such quotes to be found Here.

Oh, you want a learned opinion closer to our own time period? Well, there's always this: Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Consider this:

Since members of the Supreme Court, over time, constitute a mixture of progressives and conservatives - sometimes more progressives than conservatives; sometimes the opposite, these justices seem to vote mainly based on ideology rather than on a strict interpretation.

Such potential for varying interpretations of the US Constitution is a total anathema to conservatives. Varying interpretations can lead to the chaos mentioned above. Consistency, even if one doesn't agree, is better than chaos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, consider a very simple example. Let's say you see an equation I wrote: 10 + 10 = 100. Well, immediately, you could interpret that I either didn't know what I was talking about, or that I had made a typo (i.e., used a "+" sign when it should have been a "x" sign). If you never asked me about the issue, you would never know what happened. However, had you asked, I would have told you that the equation was in "Binary". In binary math the equation is correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

So, why don't these Supreme Court Justices do proper diligence on their deliberations? It doesn't fit the ideological narratives which with they agree. It is not difficult to determine what the Founding Fathers meant by almost every word written in the Constitution. To discern same, one need only research the Federalist Papers - most answers lie there. Of course, there are other supporting documents. But, doing so would leave but one interpretation of our Constitution. Not helpful if a specific ideology preservation is one's goal vs. facts - unless that ideology matches the document.

One need only look at the current progressives' obstruction of Neal Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. He is a strict constitutionalist. Their resistance to his confirmation goes beyond the current spate of progressives trying to thwart Trump at every single turn.

Prior to Gorsuch's confirmation the Supreme Court is evenly divided between conservative and progressive ideologies. His joining the "bench" would throw the balance on the Court to the conservative side. Progressives would stand little chance of advancing their cause should this happen.

Why? Well, this brings me back to the list of things conservatives feel are important.

Consider that all things on the list dealing with social agendas (e.g., health care, education, welfare, etc.) are not identified in the Constitution as being the purview of the federal government to offer, sponsor, or mandate.

Don't believe me? Check out the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. This section of the Constitution spells out, in definitive form, exactly the ONLY powers and authority of our Congress. Per Article 10, any power/authority not on that list is reserved to the States or to the "People".

These many things listed above that both conservatives and liberal/progressives agree are good things may be considered items of "benevolence" for the American people.

Again, looking to James Madison, his comment on things such as these was: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Take the Affodable Care Act (a.k.a Obamacare) and even Social Security. Neither of these items is supported by the Constitution. This does not imply that they are bad programs or not good for America - merely, that the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to issue either. (For a further explanation Click Here and Here.

Oh, I know, the Supreme Court has "opinioned" in favor of both. Again, that doesn't mean the Supreme Court was correct. Should the American People truly desire such programs, the Constitution should be amended to support such.

As the Constitution is pretty much a static document and the Founding Fathers' intents are easily discerned, how can items in the Constitution be so misconstrued?

The answer is in ideological differences in interpretations, of course. What do I mean by that? There are two clauses in the Constitution which have been used extensively to justify almost anything. They are the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.

First, let's look at the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). It simply states: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” That is it in total. However, it has been used to justify all kinds of things having nothing to do with the words of the clause. Click Here and Click Here for examples.

My article on the Affordable health Care Act goes into detail as how the Commerce Clause combined with other clauses led to the convoluted opinion by the Supreme Court on this "law".

Next, let's look at the General Welfare Clause. It is part of one of the items of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

This clause has also been used far beyond its original intent. I wrote an article in response to a comment made by Bill O'Reilly (FOX news) where he offered that the General Welfare clause was supportive of the federal government being responsible for education and health. My article refutes his statement, and by inference, any other misuse of this specific clause.

Further, you can Click Here for examples of "abuse" of this clause.

In discussing the above with progressives I know personally, they have argued that strict interpretations of the Constitution have been violated (my word - not theirs) almost since the founding of our Nation. My retort? "But, mommy, all the other kids do it." is not a reasonable nor viable justification.

Changing topics, conservatives, true conservatives, abhor hypocrisy. Let me explain with but two examples.

Take the issues of illegal immigration and the so called refugees. The Obama administration made every move feasible, it seems, to advance the influx into our Nation of both. In the case of the illegal immigrants, these people came here, well, illegally. This is not a difficult concept to understand. They, each and every one, committed a crime in being here. (Of course, small children committed no crime, they had no choice.)

And, there are dangers to us all, including to these illegal immigrants, in their entry into our Country - Click Here and Here, Here, and Here.

And, I hate to even bring up the concept of Sanctuary Cities / States. These non-federal governments are openly violating federal law. Is this not also aiding and abetting crime - not to mention endangering their citizens?

As to the refugees, especially those being brought here from terrorist-prone countries, can not prove their intentions as to our safety. In fact, many have centered in areas that have become no-go zones in our own Country.

Conservatives are up in arms about both sets of peoples entry. Progressives decry the conservatives' resistance. The conservative position is not humane, it's not compassionate offer the progressives.

Well, please tell me which progressives have opened their homes, their neighborhoods to any of these people. The answer, of course, is NONE! Both the illegal immigrants and the refugees, in the vast majority, are not contributors - they are takers - and they offer safety risks to us all. This is not even to mention the BILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer monies being used to provide both sets of these people with a wide range of benefits.

It seems that, across the board, progressives want someone else to carry the burden of their humane and compassionate intents - never themselves. This is hypocrisy!

The second example has to do with what is called "Equal Pay for Equal Work". Progressives like to use the argument that women, generally, are paid less than men. Well, in any case where equal pay for equal work is NOT in place, this is NOT legal. Progressives seem to forget that fact - take a look at the Equal Pay Act. Just because its the law doesn't mean that everybody follows it. Do I have an example?

Actually, I do - two examples (among many).

First, the "darling" of the progressives is Elizabeth Warren. It has been uncovered that she pays her female staffers about $20,000 less than her male staffers. A bit hypocritical, I feel.

And, second is not just a single politican. It is Google, the premier search engine of the Internet. Google is well know to have very strong progressive leanings. One would think Google, as a major corporation, would at least operate with equal pay for equal work. Apparently, this is not the case. Hypocrisy at the corporate level, this is.

In all this discussion let's not overlook the political demographics of our major cities. The top 10 "POOREST" are run by progressives; the to 10 MOST VIOLENT cities are run by progressives, and, take a look at who runs the top 50 cities in America - progressives in the vast majority. Now, on your own, check out the poverty/crime rates for each. The answers to your research should provide a clue as to the core issue.

And, there is more.

Conservatives are totally against two of the progressives' favorites: Political Correctness (PC) and Common Core.

PC seeks to ridicule (see again Alinsky's rule #5) all those who have opinions different than their own. It has now morphed to include college students needing "safe spaces" whenever a different view of things is presented. This is but another tool used to divide people. Being polite and respectful is one thing; but, PC is stupidity on steroids making our young people afraid to be faced with facts they neither like nor understand.

And speaking of young people, our children are being subjected to Common Core - and educational standard. It offers faulty approaches to math, a distortion of history, and a propagandist approach to the role of government officials. To learn more about this insidious standard, Click Here.

Moving up the age scale a bit, our colleges are almost entirely staffed by progressive professors. Click Here for an example of what is being taught. Further, admissions to our colleges are becoming focused more on a student's political ideology than on scholarship.

A truly scary prospect for our Nation's future.

In conclusion (finally), can we please go back to being just Conservatives and Liberals?

You know, where rational discourse can proceed, where communistic principles are not the aim of anyone, where the less fortunate among us are not used, and abused, solely for the power and financial enhancement of a select set of "elites", where what is best for America is our focus and NOT the division of our people so as to ensure the "progressive elites" prosper, and where a politician's only seeming purpose is NOT just to get re-elected.

For a closing statement, it seems the warnings/admonitions of Paul Harvey from back in 1965 seem to be ripped straight from the news headlines of today.

Scary, this is.