What is the difference between a Constitutionalist and a Libertarian?

I know it's been a LONG time since I last wrote an entry, but with Yahoo closing their blogs down, I'll be here a lot more frequently. Besides, there are things which bother me, and sometimes writing about them helps me to understand them a little better. Such is the topic I've chosen for today.

I describe myself as a Constitutional Conservative, but some of my friends describe me as a libertarian. There are areas where Constitutionalists converge with libertarians, and areas where we diverge...and sometimes, the convergences arrive from very different starting points.

A little history is in order. The Libertarian Party was formed in 1971 from a strange mix of anti-Vietnam War and pro-drug legalization elements. The economic liberty and governmental minimalism elements of the party came later. In the context of the early 1970's, Libertarians were oddly left wing, as opposed to the right-of-center aspects they now display. Constitutionalism as we know it now, was not truly present in the early seventies. Eventually, the Libertarian Party began to attract anti-tax elements, as well as followers of the Austrian school of economics, and the Libertarian Party/movement as we know it came to be. Thus the slow development of Constitutional Conservatism.

I know people who seem to think that if a person is a Conservative, therefore, he MUST be opposed to equal rights for all Americans, he MUST be anti-drug, pro-religion to the point of shoving it down peoples' throats, a moralist, culturally blue-nosed, and essentially a Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson disciple. Boy are THOSE idiots wrong!

Social "conservatives" aren't Conservative in the least. They're an aberrant form of moralist hypocrites who like to tell other people how to live (think Laura Ingraham) while doing the opposite in their own lives. I mention Laura Ingraham because she's typical of the moralists: She advocates intact families, but has adopted two trophy kids while remaining unmarried herself; says women should dress modestly, while showing her own body off regularly (look at the hemlines on the skirts she wears in her publicity photos...nice legs, but hey! Where's the modesty, Laura?); she bloviates about the "elites" and "regular people," while she attended an Ivy League school as an undergraduate, and an elite law school after...as well, she regularly cavorts with Republican higher-ups, has been a White House staffer and a clerk to a Supreme Court justice. Yep, she's just plain folks...and Barack Obama is a Reaganite. Ingraham is a typical media creature who says what she thinks her audience wants to hear, but isn't of her audience. (I WILL have a post dealing with media Conservatives a little later down the road)

So what the hell IS a Constitutional Conservative? The short answer is that a ConCon believes the Constitution means what it says, provides a means to modify it IF THE PEOPLE SO DEMAND IT, and places restraints which are proper on both federal and state governments. Some have called us "Tenthers," as a subtle slam toward people who want birth and other personal records on Barry Hussein Soetoro to be released, but we're far more than just people who want to see the Tenth Amendment to be followed.

The Constitution is the framework of our government. I realize you probably already knew that, but plenty of people have forgotten that. It does not guarantee "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," despite what Schmuckie Schumer or your local town know-it-all might proclaim...that comes from the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution doesn't give you your rights...those come with being born. The Constitution GUARANTEES your rights by placing restraint on the powers of the federal government. YES, it IS a "charter of 'negative rights'," as our Dipshit-in-Cheat has called it, because it says what government cannot do to you and doesn't say what it can do "for" you. Apparently, the "smartest man in the room" is unaware that the revered founder of his party, Thomas Jefferson (although now you'd think it was Karl Marx or V.I. Lenin), said "A government powerful enough to give you all you need is powerful enough to take all you have," or else he doesn't give a shit. Bluntly, if government "gives" you something, it took it first from someone else, and then, like a favor from a Mafia don, you owe the government...and they WILL collect, just as the Mob does ("...THAT'S the 'Chicago Way'!").

"All right, Conn! What the hell are the differences you were talking about?" I'm glad you haven't forgotten, because I'm getting there. Libertarians want to be left alone, ConCons want the government to be back within its Constitutional limits...that's the main difference. The others come from direction at which we look at the Constitution.

Constitutional Conservatives believe that the federal government should operate within the limits imposed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. These amendments read as follows:

Ninth Article of Amendment- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Tenth Article of Amendment- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Folks, those are the reserved powers and enumerated powers amendments. From there stems Constitutional Conservatism. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

(In my opinion, Article the First should be ratified ASAP...and note, that since two articles weren't ratified, we only have ten amendments in the Bill of Rights today)

Constitutional Conservatives believe that since the Constitution has been raped for the past century by the federal government, we need to restore the Constitution to what it was (perhaps we should be called "Restorationists"? Might be a thought...), and restore the proper balance between the states and the federal government. Although some well known libertarians, such as Andrew Napolitano, espouse this idea, the majority of libertarians just say "get the government off my back," which is a condition to be desired, and NOT a foundation for an ideology.

I'll go deeper into this topic in my next posting.

Still Here

Nothing much to say today, but I'll have something tomorrow.

I'm Still Here...so deal with it!

I looked at the date of my last post here, and it's been a while.

Yes, I've been blogging, but over on Yahell...just not anything really worth reading, though.

Well, the libtards and white guilt crowd had their tantrum and managed to get the illegal from Indonesia into the White House. Just another example of how liberals seem to view the Constitution as being little more than toilet paper. Hey, who cares if Zerobama's a citizen or not? He's apparently black, and to criticize him is racist...so root for "hope and change," or we'll silence you, you evil right-wing creep!

Don'tcha just love liberals?

"Free speech for me, but not for thee." After all, can't criticize the Messiah...that'd be like insulting Moon-ham-head to a mooselimb!

Well, guess what, buoys and gulls? This is going to be a blog that de-constructs and tells the blunt truth about the Kenyan Kritter, the Indonesian Imposter...the fraudulent usurper who has defamed the Constitution and now occupies the White House. So libs, he may be your president, but since you're all frauds anyway, you deserve a fraud as a president...but the rest of us, the REAL Americans, will resist his un-constitutonal regime until liberty and the rule of law are restored!

I'll have more to write later...as for now, I have work to do.

What I Believe (part I)

I've been giving a lot of thought to what exactly makes me a "conservative" or more accurately a Constitutionalist. Over the next several posts I'll be explaining where I stand on various issues and I hope that might aid in making clear where I'm coming from.

Some folks will say that labels are meaningless, or that by claiming a single position that might offend someone else by making that person seem "wrong." Well, some folks ARE wrong. Two plus two is indeed four, and similarly, some political and social positions are equally wrong. Now if you don't like being wrong, that's not my fault, nor is it my problem.

I don't happen to believe that the war against Islam is a left-right issue, but there are people who are making it such. This is wrong. The Muslims would kill atheist socialists as quickly as they would free market Christians or Jews. This is an issue of right against wrong as opposed to right against left. A fight for survival, which is what this battle is, shouldn't be politicized, but those on the left in this country (as well as opportunistic nominal rightists) have done so. This is just plain wrong. Differing on how to fight the war, or how to NOT have the intelligence failures that became apparent after OIF began are legitimate areas of discussion. One could even ask how do we withdraw if the Maliki government fails to adequately fight the Islamists that are killing Iraqi civilians. What's wrong and should be condemned is some of the treason being spewed by those on the left. If one cannot show some loyalty to one's own country, then leave. It's not hard to do, and people have left for political reasons in the past. My suspicion is that the people spewing treason here (Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Jesse Jackson, Madea Benjamin and the rest) won't leave because they know that in most countries treason is still prosecuted and punished...so they're not just seditious, they're also gutless.

I don't believe, however, that support for the War is a defining character of being a Constitutionalist. Adherance to principals of limited government and personal liberty are characters of that, however.

Our constitution was written to provide for maximum liberty with minimum interference by government. The size of the country, as well as it's heterogeneity, was recognized by granting specific powers to the states and local governments, and not vesting all power in the federal government. Those powers have been usurped by Washington over the past 70 and more years, and in my opinion, it is time for the American people to take that power back from DC!

My next rant will be about gun control. In my opinion, gun control is hitting your target....

It's been said by some commentators (myself included, although I haven't blogged on it) that when Hillary Clinton began to feel threatened by Barack Hussein "Osama" Obama she'd begin doing some serious opposition research. Well, she has and what they've found is a bombshell.

It seems that the new Democrap superstar is a veteran of a madrassah.

For those of you who've been living in a bunker since 9/11/01 a madrassah is a Muslim theological school, where the curriculum teaches "kill infidels," "kill infidels" and "lie about killing infidels."

Obama was born a Muslim, and although he claims he is now a Christian, he certainly has to be aware of two charming little Muslim customs, seeing as he attended a Muslim school. The first is that apostasy from Islam is a death penalty offense under shari'a. The second is taqqiya, the practice of Muslims to lie to infidels in order to further Islam or just because infidels (that's Christians, Jews and all other non-Muslims for those of you in Rio Linda) aren't deemed worthy of ever being told the truth.

Insight has a (http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm) full story dealing with this development. Check it out. You might find it as interesting as I did.

Hat tip: Insight magazine's website.

Well, it seems that they're at it again.

As is my custom on days when I'm not in a classroom, nor when checking the stock, I listen to talk radio. Doesn't matter which show, just so long as the content is intelligent. This morning I was listening to Laura Ingraham (intelligent and hot...great combination) and she mentioned that Representative Dennis Kucinich (Communist-Ohio) wants to pass legislation to reinstitute the "fairness doctrine" in American broadcasting.

Lovely.

Why is it what when liberals/leftists can't convince people of the validity of their positions they have to silence those who oppose them? I'll answer my own question by saying it's because they know their positions are both invalid and indefensible. Fairness, to them, means that they get a hearing and that's the end of that.

In the marketplace of ideas liberalism has failed. The Air America radio "network" (what was it? All of three stations in New York, Los Angeles and San Fransicko?) is a prime example. Between the stultifyingly un-funny Al Franken and the homicidally obsessed Randi Rhodes, there was no substance to their programming. Oh, they may have given leftist/freak-monger Jerry Springer a show, but dime museum ten-in-ones don't translate well to radio...and how much political content can you get out of brothers and sisters marrying? Air America was a product no one wanted to buy and it died a quick death.

An argument can be made that a free society needs all viewpoints to be heard, and that's a good point except that all viewpoints are NOT heard.

The three broadcast networks skew heavily leftward in more than just news reporting. Look at some of the situation comedies that have been aired in recent years. Will and Grace? Yes, let's hack on heterosexuality and make homosexuality appear normal. Law and Order? (Yes, I know it's not a sitcom) This series has taken advocacy positions on non-crime issues ranging from gun control to spousal abuse. While I don't favor spousal abuse, I do believe the laws need to apply equally to men and women...I don't accept Hollywood's attitude that men are beasts and women are always victims. Where's the fairness doctrine on that score? Where's a series showing a man being threatened by a crazed female? Nowhere. It's not PC, therefor, it won't be filmed.

Okay, I digressed.

Conservatism has had to develop an intellectual arsenal in order to compete with the prevailing liberal power structure in Washington. As a result, Conservatives have become quite skilled at deconstructing and analyzing liberal policy proposals, and Conservative entertainers (what few there are) have found plenty of liberals to skewer and make sport of.

And the liberals don't like it.

They don't enjoy having their flaws pointed out. They don't like being the butt of the joke. It just isn't right!!! WE'RE supposed to be making fun of THEM!!! That's the whine coming from the left and guess what? WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE!!! We've been painted as humorless stick in the muds for years, and now that you're the ones who are shown as being hidebound and a bit dim (c'mon...Ted Kennedy isn't precisely a genius, and Joe Biden is as bright as a two watt lightbulb), you can't stand it.

Thus, to stop all the unfair picking on them the Democrats want to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine would silence Conservative talk radio, silence Conservative blog sites, and be used to take cable channels that allow Conservative voices on them down the path of bland liberal sameness. In other words, we'd be back in those halcyon days of the 1970s, just without the fashion sense.

Frankly, I doubt it would silence Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. Those two have somewhere in the neighborhood of 40,000,000 listeners between them, but smaller audience shows, such as Dennis Prager or Laura Ingraham would end up going the way of the Smilodon. To balance out powerhouses such as Limbaugh, we'd probably end up with someone like Franken or *gad* Alan Colmes on a national basis. Colmes' idiocy is bad enough on Fox News, but the thought of that moron having a national show that would actually have listeners (his current radio show is not exactly a ratings winner, as I am led to believe) makes me want to puke. I have no problem with thinking liberals, fellas like Juan Williams, but the reflexive idiots like Colmes or the drug-addled Communists like Franken are a bit much.

Let's hope that Kucinich's plan falls by the wayside...if for no other reason than to keep radio interesting.

(hat tip to Laura Ingraham)

For slightly more than a year I've been posting my thoughts on my Yahoo 360 page blog. While I don't have a problem with using that format, I'm probably going to be moving my thoughts, ramblings and occasional rant to this site. Many of the blogs I've read here are quite thought provoking, and while I don't anticipate my ever being in that category, I'd certainly appreciate some feedback periodically.

For those of you who don't know me, here's a little background: I'm a 43 year-old man who currently works as a substitute teacher, as well as a rancher. I served in the US Air Force, and also worked as a cowboy before going into education. I have taught my own classes (high school history and geography, mostly, as well as middle school German), and I DO have strong opinions about the failures of America's public education system.

Politically I'm right of center. I've called myself conservative, but there are times when that's not a fully accurate description. I'm not a libertarian inasmuch as I don't accept the complete "live and let live" philosophy...mostly because there are those in this world who don't want us to live, so I wouldn't want to let them live.

I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion. What that means is that I'm opposed to abortion, but I also know it's not my decision to make and I'd hope the woman choosing would choose life. I believe that gun control is hitting your target, and I don't want some wuss politician or over-reaching judge to tell me that I have to stand back and take it when some sleazeball decides to invade my house, jack my car, or mug me on the street. I'd far rather give said sleazeball a .45 caliber lesson about respecting someone else's personal space than lose what I've worked for or possibly my life. I believe in capital punishment: Public hanging for rape, murder, child molestation and congressional malfeasance or judicial stupidity.

I believe that an armed society is a polite society.

I prefer horses over cars, trucks over cars and cars over walking or Segues.

I eat beef and believe that "vegetarian" is synonymous for "lousy hunter" and "sicko." Ronald Reagan ate meat, Hitler was a vegetarian. Draw your own conclusions.

I believe an enemy is to be killed, not negotiated with, and some enemies have to be fought to the death. I believe Vietnam veterans were screwed over by factions in Congress who were either too stupid or outright treasonous enough to not understand or not care what kind of evil would be inflicted on South Vietnam, and that many of those same individuals are trying to effect the conduct of the War Against Islam.

I would go back to the Air Force if needed or wanted.

I am a proud heterosexual who has no problem with those who are homosexual, I just ask they conduct themselves with maturity and dignity, not like a stereotype.

I can't stand rap, hip-hop, or whatever it's called this week. I believe rock went downhill when "grunge" and "alternative" became the rage in the early 1990s.

I think MTV should go back to showing all videos all the time and quit running The Real World and other garbage like that, and that MTV2 should maybe show some videos other than "gangsta rap." TV Land needs to find some programming other than The Andy Griffith Show.

I prefer Texas style barbecue over any other variety.

I believe NASCAR is for inbreds. If I want to watch people making left turns at high speed, there's a corner here in town where I can do that all day long until I'm sick of it. If I want to watch cars go zipping by, weaving around like idiots, I'll prop up a lawn chair overlooking the Interstate. And someone please explain to me when working a steering wheel made someone an "athlete"? If NASCAR drivers are athletes, then does that make me a marathoner because of the 1000 mile trips I drive in one day to see friends and family?

Okay, I know I pissed some of you off. Let the fireworks begin.