Thoughts From A Conservative Mom

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

Numerous opinion polls show that after the November elections, the Republican Party will have regained enough seats in the House to take back the majority position and the Speakership. Results for the Senate are less amenable to forecast, but even so, gains up to and including a remote chance for a majority are possible there as well.

It is necessary to remind Republicans of one salient fact about this predicted shift in political strength as a result of the 2010 midterm elections, and it is a fact that can be expressed in just a few words:

You may have a majority, but you do not have a mandate to govern in any way that you choose.

Read more at American Thinker

Memo to Republicans: It’s Big Government, Stupid!

Midterms Not Just Toxic for Democrats

Glenn Beck is driving the Left and the Right crazy. Beck co-opted the Martin Luther King, Jr. “I Have a Dream” celebration and turned it into a near religious revival. This drove Al Sharpton up the wall. His counter event was a non-event. Many on the Right are condemning the efforts of Beck because he’s a Mormon. 

So where are the evangelical pastors and churches doing what Beck is trying to do?  You can’t beat something with nothing. So what’s your plan besides telling people not to get involved in politics and “moralizing” is not the gospel?  Is it possible that there is a moral dimension to the Christian life?  Of course there is, and those who say otherwise are diluting the gospel and putting us in danger. I’ve addressed this issue ad nauseum.  See my book Myths Lies and Half-Truths if you want to know my thoughts on this issue.  Beck is an indictment on evangelicals similar to the way women politicians are an indictment on weak-willed male politicians who helped to get us into this political mess.

Read more at American Vision

Glenn Beck makes history: Washington rally shows power of conservatism in America

Activism or Awareness? A False Choice

The Not-so Mormon Soteriology of Glenn Beck

If it is true, as we are constantly told, that American law will soon redefine marriage to accommodate same-sex partnerships, the proximate cause for this development will not be that public opinion favors it, although it appears to be moving in that direction. It will be that the most influential Americans, particularly those in law and the media, have been coming increasingly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as irrational at best and bigoted at worst. They therefore dismiss expressions of that opposition, even when voiced by a majority in a progressive state, as illegitimate. Judges who believe that same-sex marriage is obviously just and right can easily find ways to read their views into constitutions, to the applause of the like-minded.

The emerging elite consensus in favor of same-sex marriage has an element of self-delusion about it. It denies that same-sex marriage would work a radical change in American law or society, insisting to the contrary that within a few years of its triumph everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about. But its simultaneous insistence that opponents are the moral equivalent of the white supremacists of yesteryear belies these bland assurances. Our tolerance for racism is quite limited: The government, while it generally respects the relevant constitutional limits, is active in the cause of marginalizing racists and eradicating racist beliefs and behaviors. Moreover, social sanctions against racism, both overt and implied, are robust. If our society is truly to regard opposition to same-sex marriage as equivalent to racism, it will have to undergo change both dramatic and extensive. Churches that object, for example, will have to be put in the same cultural position as Bob Jones University was in the days when it banned interracial dating, until they too join the consensus.

If proponents of same-sex marriage thought through these implications, their confidence might evaporate, for it seems highly unlikely that this project will succeed at all, and impossible that it will do so without decades of arduous and divisive social “reform.” That is no reason to shrink from the task, if it is truly a just one. But we should first consider whether the historic and cross-cultural understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman really has so little to be said for it.

Read more at National Review

Top 10 gay marriage false ‘facts’

Unintended Consequences of Capitulating on Social Issues

Legalizing Gay Marriage Directly Impacts Our Schools

An Evangelical Bridge Too Far

Tell Republican leaders to back life, marriage, and liberty

The giveaway regarding presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plans for America was his repeated use of the words “fundamentally transform.”

Some of us instinctively reacted negatively — in fact, with horror — at the thought of fundamentally transforming America.

The “us” are conservatives.

One unbridgeable divide between left and right is how each views alternatives to present-day America. Those on the left imagine an ideal society that has never existed, and therefore seek to “fundamentally transform” America. When liberals imagine an America fundamentally transformed, they envision it becoming a nearly utopian society in which there is no greed, no racism, no sexism, no inequality, no poverty and ultimately no unhappiness.

Conservatives, on the other hand, look around at other societies and history and are certain that if America were fundamentally transformed, it would become just like those other societies. America would become a society of far less liberty, of ethically and morally inferior citizens and of much more unhappiness. And cruelty would increase exponentially around the world.

Read more at Real Clear Politics

Why the left hates conservatives

The World Doesn’t Hate America, the Left Does

The most dangerous president in history

What’s so wrong with Social Democracy?

The United States faces overwhelming fiscal problems. Our current level of government spending and future entitlement obligations are simply unsustainable. However, as concerning as these fiscal matters are, the biggest problem America faces has nothing to do with economics, but rather psychology.

The strength of a nation reflects the character of its citizens. While America was once considered a nation of individuals fiercely independent and self-reliant, her citizens are moving closer to a state of dependence, characterized by irresponsibility and ambivalence. This change has been instigated by the politics of collectivism and the growth of the social welfare state.

F.A. Hayek, the famous Austrian-born economist and political philosopher, warned of the dangers of excessive government.

The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people.

To understand how this alteration occurs, one must first understand the psychological concept known as locus of control. In 1954, American psychologist Julian Rotter introduced the concept that describes how individuals could be divided into two basic groups, which represent two ends of a continuum (Figure 1): internals believe that their locus of control is within themselves, and externals believe that they are under the control of outside forces.

According to Lee Harris, author of The Next American Civil War:

[Internals] believe that they are the masters of their own destiny; they tend to be high-achievers, optimistic about their ability to improve their lot, and to discard bad habits. They believe in willpower and positive thinking. They are determined to control their own lives, for better or worse. [Externals] look on themselves as victims of circumstances, the playthings of fate. If they go to bed drunk, light up a cigarette, and burn their house down, they explain the disaster as another instance of their bad luck, and not their poor judgment, much less their bad habits.

Read more at American Thinker

Why the Left Despises Personal Responsibility

Paul Ryan: 70% of Americans Becoming Dependent on Government

Tax Day or Payday? How the Tax Code Is Expanding Government and Dependency

The Fall of Rome and Modern Parallels

To Reform Government, Reform the Culture

THIS is the kind of frightening ignorance we have to rescue our country from, and the reason why some are arguing that we’ll never get government off our backs until we bring back the culture of personal responsibility.   

If I didn’t know any better, I’d say this was a prank call.  But sadly, it wasn’t.  Wow!  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry!

View on YouTube

Healthcare or a Hummer? Life’s Tough Choices

Voter: Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!

Back on Uncle Sam’s Plantation

Something for nothing? Think again

Walter Williams: Good Intentions

To reform the culture, take back our children’s education from the socialist indoctrinators! 

Can all of America’s political problems be solved by returning to constitutional, limited government? The answer given by many conservatives and libertarians is a resounding yes. Reading the Founding Fathers, the answer would generate a more complex answer.

In the Federalist Papers, the authors dedicate considerable space to history’s failed experiments in self-government. John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

What Adams suggests is the people’s character impacts our government’s character. The early generations of Americans were independent-minded folks. Help for those in need came from the church, the family, or the community. Citizens expected only a few limited functions to be performed by the state.

In 21st century America, we expect the government to provide Social Security retirement and disability, unemployment insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and Pell Grants. Parents expect their children to have a free public education through thirteen years of school.

Two tactics for dealing with this are popular. The first, the rationalistic approach, tries to challenge people with a debate about numbers and the effectiveness of government solutions. The second, the pragmatic approach, avoids taking on any popular program, other than fleeting attempts to reform Social Security. The last administration chose the latter tactic.

The pragmatic approach fails because the areas most in need of the reform are politically difficult to address. The rationalistic approach fails because it doesn’t address the culture. For example, many elderly Americans rely on Medicaid to take care of their long-term-care expenses once their net worth has dropped to nothing. The key problem here, however, is the culture that considers it acceptable for us to allow our parents to go into poverty so the government can step in.

Conservatives talk about the church and the community returning to its proper role of caring for the poor, but this effort is easier said than done. Pastors complain about the poor viewing churches as welfare agencies. Judging by donation reports, churches would be overwhelmed if they had to take on all the people dependent on the government. We cannot effect a permanent reduction in the size and scope of government, or meaningful government reform, unless we change our culture’s demand for the government to provide our every need.

Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly identified how cultural issues impact voting with her politically incorrect declaration: “Seventy percent of unmarried women voted for Obama. And this is because, when you kick your husband out, you’ve got to have Big Brother government to be your provider.”

The statement angered liberals and embarrassed some conservatives, but CNN’s 2008 exit poll does show that 74% of unmarried women with children, and 69% of unmarried women without children, voted for Obama. In fairness, however, 68% of unmarried men with children also voted for Obama. And 56% of unmarried men without children voted for Obama; compare that to the 53% of married men who voted for McCain.

The poll also showed those who attended religious services at least weekly voted for McCain, while those who attended less frequently or not at all voted for Obama. A more religious, more marriage-minded America would have voted quite differently.

In the end, the majority of the world has little in common with the libertarian archetypes of Howard Roark or John Galt. We will either have strong families, strong houses of worship, and strong communities, or we will have strong government to take the place of all three.

This isn’t to say government must or can solve our culture’s problems. However, those on the right who think conservative goals for limited government can be achieved through passing economic legislation are spitting in the wind. We will never have a limited government until we have a culture that allows for one.

To change our culture, we must take a more holistic approach to the issues America faces. Even more than conservative candidates and activists, we have a great need for conservative writers, artists, schoolteachers, Boy Scout and American Heritage Girls troop leaders, ministers, and volunteers in organizations that seek to strengthen marriages.

Read more at Pajamas Media

TEA-Party Hypocrisy: How Much Socialism Is Acceptable?

Religion and Morality: Indispensable Supports

Principium Imprimis – First Principles

In April, 2002, Minnesota parents concerned about curriculum content in a freshman class at Big Lake High School were invited to sit in on the class and see the content for themselves. That is, until principal Darrel Easterly found out. Suddenly, the morning of their scheduled visits, several moms learned that they had been banned from the school due to “privacy laws.” Mary Stultz, one of the moms, was stunned. “I was in total shock and spent the morning talking to a lawyer,” Stultz told writer Laura Adelmann at the time.

Another mom called Big Lake Superintendent Bob Lageson, who assured her it “should never happen again.” Yet, within weeks, the local school board was meeting to discuss adopting a policy requiring parents to make an appointment three days in advance of a visit, and granting to the principal wide discretion to prevent parents from entering the building even then.

After an unprecedented public outcry, the school board softened the three day requirement for parents of students to merely “as much advance notice as possible” – but they passed the new restriction. They even granted to the principal authority to detain unauthorized visitors until law enforcement arrives, citing criminal trespass laws.

Today, the current student handbook (pp.7-8) declares that “Big Lake High School does not allow students to bring guests or visitors to classes,” which includes parents. Even more importantly, the events that unfolded in Big Lake have played out numerous other times as well, throughout the country. And the courts have consistently upheld such decisions.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can halt the erosion of parental rights nation-wide, and restore to parents the right to visit their child and see what is being taught. This will not allow individual parents to shape curriculum for an entire school, but it will allow any parent to remain informed of classroom content, and hopefully to opt their child out of material they find offensive.

Please act to protect the right of concerned parents to monitor their child’s education. Sign the petition and get more information at ParentalRights.org.

Parents of 50 Million U.S. Children Soon to Lose Parental Rights

While the furor over the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has New York Gov. David Paterson offering public land as a peace offering, a more familiar symbol — the cross — is systematically being uprooted around the country.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled August 18 that placing crosses where Utah state troopers died violates the Establishment Clause.

In California’s Mojave National Preserve, the site of a seven-foot, metal-pipe cross first erected 75 years ago by World War I veterans is bare.
 
In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of Frank Buono, an ACLU member, atheist and former National Park Service employee living in Oregon. Mr. Buono said the cross offended him when he returned for visits. Congress authorized a transfer of the property to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The case reached the Supreme Court, which reversed an appellate court’s order and kicked it back to the lower court on April 28. Writing for the court majority (and the vast majority of Americans), Justice Kennedy said: “Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”
 
Ten days later, someone cut down the cross, which had been covered by a plywood box lest Mr. Buono see it and start melting.
 
When another cross appeared a few days later, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s Justice Department ordered the Park Service to remove it.
 
Over in Monterey, California, someone in September 2009 tore down a 40-year-old cross on Del Monte Beach that commemorated the city’s 200th birthday where Spanish explorer Don Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi landed. City officials voted to allow private funders to replace it, but the ACLU objected. After a year of legal threats, the cross will be rebuilt instead at the Diocese of Monterey’s San Carlos Cemetery.
 
“In truth, it is no defeat for Christianity,” the Monterey Herald smirked in a March 2 editorial. “It is a victory for those twin freedoms — freedom of religion and freedom from religion.” Right. Dispatching a historic cross to a cemetery is nobody’s defeat. Someone should tell the ACLU folks before they pop more champagne.
 
The paper did admit that the vandal who cut down the cross won “a minor victory.” What would a major victory look like? A torched church?

Read more at One News Now

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Utah Memorial Crosses Along Highway

Justice Department forbids restoration of stolen Mojave Cross

The Judiciary’s Culturally Sanctioned Allergy to Christianity Flourishes

When one judge overturned the will of more than seven million Californians last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed “findings of fact” (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They’re lies or distortions.

Before we address the top ten false “facts” asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:

“The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.”

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.
 
Second, Prop. 8 doesn’t violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We’re all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.
 
What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker’s first false “fact.”
 
1. “Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group.” (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker’s entire case collapses without it. The “fact” is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.
 
Having certain sexual desires — whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.
 
In other words, there should be no legal class of “gay” or “straight,” just a legal class called “person.” And it doesn’t matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that’s a job for the people, not judges.

Read more at One News Now

The Agenda to Silence Christians

Self-defense is the ultimate “feminine protection.” Of course, gun-control nuts try to argue that the morally superior position is cowering in the corner, sans wallet, trying to dial 911 before you get shot.

The Oregonian reports:

Authorities arrested a would-be robber after he was turned away by a woman with a gun at a Vancouver Izzy’s Pizza restaurant Friday.

Wilbur Haisley, of Seattle, entered the restaurant on Northeast 78th Street shortly before 8 p.m. Friday, according to the Clark County Sheriff’s Office. A caller told authorities he had run up to a woman and demanded money.

But when the victim pulled a 9mm handgun from her waist, Haisley ran the other way. Sheriff’s deputies located him a short time later and arrested him for attempted robbery. Haisley was taken to the Clark County Law Enforcement Center, where he remained Saturday morning.

The victim had a legal concealed handgun license and will not face charges, according to the sheriff’s office.

She wasn’t a “victim”, precisely because she was able to defend herself!  Here’s what REAL victims look like:

Teacher shot and killed at Washington school

There is a little piece making its way around the Internet. It has turned viral mostly because many see so much truth in it.

“If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.  If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.  If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants meat products banned.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.  If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he tries to better his situation.  A liberal wants to know who is going to fix it for him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.  Liberals want those they don’t like to be silenced.

If a conservative is a nonbeliever, he doesn’t go to church.  If a liberal is a nonbeliever he wants any mention of religion silenced, unless, of course, the religion is from another culture.

If a conservative needs health care he shops for it, or looks for a job that will provide it.  A liberal demands that the rest of us provide for it.

A conservative will read this and will forward it, so his friends can have a good laugh.  A liberal will read this and delete it, because he’s offended.”

There is a widely held perception that liberals want governments to control almost everything. Conservatives don’t.

Astute readers are already lining up defenses based on hypocrisy. Be careful, the exceptions are not as exceptional as they may appear.

Liberals, for example, don’t believe the government should ban abortions and gay marriage, and conservatives call for restrictions. It appears hypocritical on its face, but is it?

Liberals frame these issues in terms of “choice” and “consent,” but continue to demand governmental intervention to validate their choice. In fact, liberals wish to use the governmental purse and the authority of governmental courts to push these issues on everyone irrespective of the stated wishes of the majority expressed through the ballot box.

Read more at the WCF Courier

Big Brother out of control

New Threats To Freedom

Judicial Watch reports:

In its fervent crusade to befriend Muslims, the White House will host special workshops this week to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources.

While this may sound surreal, it’s reality in the Obama Administration, which has embarked on a never-ending mission to befriend the enemy. Previous efforts include secret meetings between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and extremist Arab and Muslim groups to discuss national security matters and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.

As contemptible as those moves may seem, the latest effort is even more outrageous. Various government agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Education and Health will participate in the White House seminars which were exposed by an independent nonprofit dedicated to monitoring the nation’s security.

The goal is to provide the leaders of groups associated with the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda (Muslim Brotherhood) with tips on cutting through “red tape” when seeking U.S. government access or money. In all 20 national Muslim groups with ties to the global Islamist organization that preaches Jihad are scheduled to participate. Their mission is to obtain cash and other resources from Uncle Sam.

While the U.S. government has kept the event quiet, it was announced in a newsletter by a Saudi-funded group (Islamic Society of North America or ISNA) that was a co-conspirator in a federal terrorist funding case a few years ago. Featured in a Judicial Watch special report on Muslim charities that finance terrorism, ISNA is firmly committed to spreading the radical form of Islam, which is the driving force behind Jihad.

Now the Obama Administration is helping ISNA and its radical Islamic counterparts access American taxpayer resources as well as top government officials.

Obama sends taxpayer money to terrorists

Obama Funding Hamas

American Taxpayer, Financial Jihadist

The Islamic Infiltration: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets

US Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Pro-Palestinian Ad Campaign in Israel

View on YouTube

You don’t win elections by watching Glenn Beck. You’ve got to do the hard work – walk precincts, talk with neighbors and lick envelopes. Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle tell you what it will it take to deliver a Republican majority in Congress on Election Day. The midterm elections, Obama and the Tea Party Movement on this edition of Trifecta.

Listen on YouTube

From the Right Scoop:

An excellent monologue from Mark Levin talking about how we must be active in politics in order to take back our country. He says we can’t just sit on the sidelines and expect to win the biggest elections of our lifetimes, in 2010 and 2012, and we can’t leave these great Tea Party candidates hanging out to dry. We must be politically active to restore our country to the principles on which it was founded.

You know, personally, I felt like Levin was playing off of the big rally this weekend, even though he never mentioned it directly. He has always been critical of Beck who tends to take a somewhat ‘hands off’ approach to politics and I think there is something to be said for that. But in this monologue I think Levin was saying ok, this rally thing was good, but we must turn this into a political movement or else we lose.

Now to just differentiate for a second, Beck believes that if you live up to a high standard by turning back to God and letting Him guide you, then you will pick candidates who reflect the Godly principles of how you live. I think he’s right and I don’t think Levin would disagree at all. But Levin looks at the practical side as well and emphasizes that you must do the hard work of getting candidates elected in order to affect change. I think he’s right as well. In fact I think they are both right and that both philosophies need each other to get maximum effectiveness of political change.

But let me add that I don’t believe that Beck would just have you change your lives for nothing. I think he too believes you must be politically active as well, or else we lose. The main difference in the two of them really is nothing more than emphasis. Beck is emphasizing the ‘God side’ while Levin is emphasizing the ‘activist side’.

But try not to look at this as Beck vs Levin and visa versa. They both have the same goal in the end of seeing this country turned back to God and the founding principles on which this great nation was established.

Activism or Awareness? A False Choice

Join the fight to take back our nation!