Talk show host Glenn Beck offers a list of what conservatives believe. Since most self-identifying conservatives believe many things they would have deemed liberal before the Bush presidency, it's a good time for conservatives to figure out what they believe--or else there won't be a conservatism to conserve any longer. I can't say there's much to disagree with on Beck's list. My personal favorite? "A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around."

I think Mr. Beck's principles are in need of restatement, in that some are not distinguishing as they would not be disputed by the opposition and some beg the question on certain points. Consider...

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

O.K. There would, however, be a question as to the utility or justice of collective provision of goods short of regarding such a provision as an 'inalienable right'.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

I doubt the opposition, on reflection, would dispute this.

A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

Latent within this is a conception of what, among the portfolio of things which might please one, is a legitimate pursuit. Begs the question.

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.

True, with the proviso that opportunities for a 'next-time-around' are decidedly circumscribed.

A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

Bon.

A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.

Two questions the opposition might pose:

1. Is a manifestation of 'compassion' (as opposed to 'social equity' or some such) the point of the program?

2. Does one inexorably lose one's capacity for compassion in the course of performing a civil service job?

A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

My neighbors, in September 2005, were not in New Orleans. Please note, natural disasters tend to damage or extinguish the capacity of localities to benefit from an ethic of common provision operating within their borders. Civil defense bureaux and relief agencies operate supralocally for a reason.

That aside, that one's is an ethical obligation to charity and common provision not being disputed (bar by a selection of libertarians), there are questions on the duration, circumstances, degree of compulsion, and modalities of that provision that are disputed. And there are fewer 'bright lines' in such disputes than Mr. Beck's aphorism would indicate.

A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

The opposition would be loath to admit it, but they do tend to regard mothers and fathers as but cash cows and useful scullery maids and traffic cops for the work of members of the helping professions. The question of 'what is criminal?' will likely be raised.

A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.

The regulations and propaganda promulgated by public authorities are ultimately going to more congruent with some people's metaphysical understandings than with others. You can make institutional adjustments that lessen the acuity of these conflicts (e.g. replacing state schools with voucher-funded private schools), but they remain nonetheless. A difficulty we have in our culture is that those in control of certain of our institutions do not perceive their own sectarianism, and would affirm Mr. Beck's remark without realizing its implications. Others simply refuse to admit that they regard the population as being under their tutelage. BTW, Mr. Beck's statement would be disputed by the most traditional Catholics.

A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

Deft. (Please note, however, that the purveyors of entertainment worship are thickest on the ground in the realm of evangelicalism and Anglican vicars are often meticulous in their adherence to rubrics).

A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

Debt to whom and for what purpose? It is quite one thing to avoid contracting debt to engage in discretionary consumption, but business enterprises take out loans to make investments. Is using equity capital really a categorical imperative? What about public-sector borrowing to maintain aggregate demand during recessions?

A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

A useful statement of principle to the opposition. The question will be raised, however, on the degree to which division of labor and cooperative ventures are permissible and desirable in the education of the young. Is Mr. Beck suggesting that state-run schools should be extinguished, or state-financed education be extinguished, or merely that these are discretionary expenditures people should not expect and count on? What would be the civic and social implications of dismantling common schooling (which antedated , most particularly in the absence of a system of apprenticeships whereby people learn trades, &c.?

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

Bon. Up until about 1967, the opposition generally agreed.

A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

Precision is the use of terminology is useful. The principle he states is most properly termed 'libertarian'. Also, it is difficult to discern his historical lesson from our history. The United States has never had a command economy. The state sector was at its largest during the Second World War, which I would not think would count as a national failure. The most severe 'falls' the country has endured might include the Revolutionary War, partial military occupation during the War of 1812, the Civil War, the financial crises of 1929-33, the post-reconstruction revival of white supremacy (1877-1900), and the breakdown of family relations and the ethic of personal modesty in the period running from 1958-82. Social policy was certainly a factor in this last, but it is hard to see the remainder as a function of 'big government' unless it be your contention that any government is illegitimate.

There's a noticeable lack of any foreign policy in his list.

A Conservative must first and foremost adhere to the definition that a public official is bound to their oath to obey the Constitution. Otherwise the term 'conservative' is meaningless. Conspicuously absent in Beck's article is the word "Constitution".

Common law was not born with the Constitution. There are very many conservative ideas--including States Rights--that precede the Constitution. I think conservatives have to abandon this liberal-tarian view that the Constitution is a pattern for government and not just a document setting the balance between the federal and state governments.

The idea of social contract and community process are very conservative and they all predate the Constitution.

Sea King,

Whether on the left, right, up, or down, the Constitution is a pattern for government already cut. It has codified an exact balance to follow. Did I misread you?

"The Oath":

Just out of curiosity, if a member of Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution which moved that Article I be modified to delegate to Congress the power to do the following:

1. Authorize a federal agency to print and distribute paper money per its discretion;

2. Appropriate a sum of money each year to pay (in installments) a cash pension to persons of advanced age and / or persons adjudicated as disabled;

3. Define 'interstate commerce' to comprehend transactions where goods produced in one state are shipped to another or where services performed in one state for a party domiciled in another;

4. Annul state and local legislation that draws a distinction between the decendants of the slaves manumitted in 1865 and all other persons.

would you urge your Representative to support the amendment? Would you perhaps urge him to move that sections of the proposed amendment be struck 'ere it be prudently passed? What criteria would you employ to assess the desirability of one or another provision?

Conservatives believe in SO many things that I wrote my own State of the Union Adress!

We conservatives will have to wait AT LEAST 4 years to hear a State of the Union speech like this one. It's OUR fault for not jumping in behind Mitt or Fred soon enough with our full weight, so we got the media's choice, John McCain. Sit back and enjoy this address to the union, and imagine it coming from George Allen or maybe if we're lucky, Mitt Romney four years from now.

--Good evening my fellow Americans. I come to you tonight with some innovative ideas that will change our country for the better and will ensure our long term survival as a republic of free people. These ideas may seem revolutionary to many of you, but they would be second nature to our Founding Fathers, people like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. After all, you didn't elect me to take opinion polls, you elected me to lead and defend our country.

Let's start with the war against radical Islam. Islam is not now, and never has been a religion of peace. From day one it has been spread by the sword. Jihad, or holy war, is one of Islam's most important doctrines. Those Muslim countries that wish to live in peace with the rest of the world and NOT support terrorism will be friends of America and business partners. Those who wish to support radical Islam and terrorism will be our enemies until we vanquish you and install democratic reforms in your countries. To achieve this end WE WILL BE RELENTLESS !! We will blockade your oil exports for starters and if that diesn't work invasion will commence. The days of mixed messages emanating from Washington D.C are over! I say again, in the war on radical Islam, you are either with us or you are against us.

That brings us to our current energy problems. America is far too reliant on foreign oil for our energy needs. We all know that the money spent on mideast oil too often ends up in the hands of terrorists. Tomorrow I will issue Executive Orders opening up ANWR in Alaska and oil drilling off the coasts of Florida and California. The known oil deposits alone in these areas will lessen our dependence on foreign oil sources by approximately 50% inside of 8 years. I encourage all entrepreneurs out there to develop more efficient fuel cells and alternative fuels, as well as improvements in wind and solar power technology. This is best done in the private sector. Do NOT expect government handouts or grants for your energy research, you will know that you're successful when private investors are willing to invest in you! All price supports for ethanol will halt immediately, corn is a FAR more efficient food that it is a fuel source.

There is another critical issue that threatens the long term well being of our great republic. Government spending is out of control. Defense spending will remain untouched, but I will ask Congress to cut all other federal spending by 25% this year and an additional 10% next year, with zero budget growth years to follow. The Departments of Education, Commerce, Agriculture, Labor, HUD, Energy, and Health and Human Services are a miserable waste of your hard-earned tax dollars and will be eliminated by Executive Order tomorrow. We DESPERATELY need to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The budget forecasts for these two programs are never honestly dealt with and are a tremendous threat to our county's future. Social Security will be privatized, solvent and thriving when we have private accounts that are out of the reach of politicians' greedy hands. We will have a two year transition period for Medicare reform. We all know that health care can be horribly expensive. By opening up medical care to free market competition and eliminating harmful government mandates, the prices will come down dramatically and the quality of care will increase. The government will immediately dispense with the myriad of regulations on American insurance companies which drive up their prices. Step two of the medical reform package will include serious tort reform. Medicaid will be further restricted to the most needy and limited to American citizens ONLY!

Tax reform is also vital to our national survival. I'll need your help with Congress on this issue, because it requires Congress to relinquish a tremendous amount of it's power. I would like to implement the FairTax ! This is also known as the Retail Sales Tax. This would replace the Federal Income Tax and withholding system with a simple 22% sales tax on new goods and services. The research shows that this would be revenue neutral to the federal government and we would eliminate the IRS ! This would make our tax code truly voluntary without reducing revenue, eliminate BILLIONS in embeddeed taxes and bring offshore corporate dollars back into the United States economy. This is a winning idea for America's future prosperity. Please call your congressman and together we can make the FairTax happen.

Starting tomorrow I will be on the phone with the governors of all the border states, encouraging them to send their state's guard troops to the border to defend our border against illegals while we build that double wall that we've promised for so long. If they refuse to help we will stop their federal highway money until they help defend America. Defending our southern border isn't only to defend against terrorism or cheap labor ruining our jobs, we want to preserve our unique American culture. Allowing unassimilated Hispanic hordes into America in vast numbers damages our way of life in dozens of different ways. LEGAL immigration is good for America. Illegal immigration is not!

The state of America's government schools is a national disgrace. It's my goal to privatize the current government school system which ill serves so many students today and directly threatens America's future. This cannot be done overnight, but I want to offer school vouchers for all government school children starting next school year. The money will go with the child. Teacher's unions are dead set against this idea and practically own the Democrat Party, so again I will need your help implementing this plan. It is the ONLY way to dramatically increase the quality of education for America's schoolchildren.

For two-hundred and thirty years The United States of America has been a beacon of hope and a bastion of freedom for oppressed people everywhere. These reforms will help us keep that dream alive, so that this great experiment in human freedom will never perish from the earth! Goodbye for now and God bless you all!--

Well we can dream, can't we?

Morgan

Morgan,

If Mitt Romney becomes president someday, will he sign bills paying for abortions as he did here in Massachusetts? Will he champion socialized medicine, as he did here in Massachusetts? Will he do nothing when the Supreme Court finds in the Constitution a right to gay marriage, as he did here in Massachusetts? Many conservatives didn't get behind Mitt Romney for good reason--he isn't one of us.

Dan I started out the primary season as a strong Thompson supporter. When Fred faded BIG TIME I moved to the second choice, Mitt Romney. In case I forget to thank you Huckabee voters for McCain's nomination, THANKS!!

Btw I know this is your blog, but this is crap:

"Will he champion socialized medicine, as he did here in Massachusetts? Will he do nothing when the Supreme Court finds in the Constitution a right to gay marriage, as he did here in Massachusetts? Many conservatives didn't get behind Mitt Romney for good reason--he isn't one of us."

I think you know better.

Morgan

Why is it crap? Not Michael Dukakis, or William Weld, but Mitt Romney is responsible for my taxdollars bankrolling abortion. He signed this legislation paying for abortions with taxdollars. Is there something that you claim is inaccurate or do you wish to continue deluding yourself into thinking that Mitt Romney governed in Massachusetts the way he talked when he ran for president?

Man I hope I never have to hear that State of the Union Speech.

From Ann Coulter's article, "The Elephant in the Room", 1-16-08:

--Liberals claim to be enraged at Romney for being a "flip-flopper." I've looked and looked, and the only issue I can find that Romney has "flipped" on is abortion. When running for office in Massachusetts -- or, for short, "the Soviet Union" -- Romney said that Massachusetts was a pro-choice state and that he would not seek to change laws on abortion.

Romney's first race was against Sen. Teddy Kennedy -- whom he came closer to beating than any Republican ever had. If Romney needed to quote "The Communist Manifesto" to take out that corpulent drunk, all men of good will would owe him a debt of gratitude.

Even when Romney was claiming to support Roe v. Wade, he won the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life -- a group I trust more than the editorial board of The New York Times. Romney's Democratic opponents always won the endorsements of the very same pro-choice groups now attacking him as a "flip-flopper."

After his term as governor, NARAL Pro-Choice America assailed Romney, saying: "(A)s governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice."

Pro-abortion groups like the Republican Majority for Choice -- the evil doppelganger to my own group, Democratic Majority for Life -- are now running videos attacking Romney for "flip-flopping" on abortion.

Of all the Republican candidates for president, Romney and Rudy Giuliani are the only ones who had to be elected in pro-choice districts. Romney governed as a pro-lifer and has been viciously attacked by pro-abortion groups.

By contrast, Giuliani cleverly avoids the heinous "flip-flopper" label by continuing to embrace baby-killing. (Rudy flip-flops only on trivial matters like illegal immigration and his own marital vows.)

And, of course, Romney is a Mormon. Even a loser Mormon like Sen. Harry Reid claims to be pro-life. So having a candidate with a wacky religion isn't all bad.

At worst, Romney will turn out to be a moderate Republican -- a high-IQ, articulate, moral, wildly successful, moderate Republican. Of the top five Republican candidates for president, Romney is the only one who hasn't dumped his first wife (as well as the second, in the case of Giuliani) -- except Huckabee. And unlike Huckabee, Romney doesn't have a son who hanged a dog at summer camp. So there won't be any intern issues and there won't be any Billy Carter issues.--

When NARAL and the idiotically named Republican Majority For Life attack you as "anti choice"...To me that tells the story.

Bruce you'll have to excuse my ignorance where your political views are concerned. What is it about my dream State of the Union speech that gives you the hives?

Morgan

My mistake from the last post.

Correction: "...the idiotically named Republican Majority for Choice..."

The distinction is vital.

Art Deco:

"1. Authorize a federal agency to print and distribute paper money per its discretion;"

No.

"2. Appropriate a sum of money each year to pay (in installments) a cash pension to persons of advanced age and / or persons adjudicated as disabled;"

Heck no save for veterans.

"3. Define 'interstate commerce' to comprehend transactions where goods produced in one state are shipped to another or where services performed in one state for a party domiciled in another;"

No.

"4. Annul state and local legislation that draws a distinction between the decendants of the slaves manumitted in 1865 and all other persons."

Hell no.

"would you urge your Representative to support the amendment?"

HELL NO.

"Would you perhaps urge him to move that sections of the proposed amendment be struck 'ere it be prudently passed?"

Prudence? You mean tidy convenience for the Congress, right? If I actually had any sort of sway, I'd let him know he'd be facing a challenger in the next primary if he proposed any of that nonsense.

"What criteria would you employ to assess the desirability of one or another provision?"

The fact that the Constitution already speaks to these matters in Article I and the fact that we need no further amendments when we can't follow what's there already. That is all you need. All you're doing is trying to set up the argument where I use history or philosophy to push for a certain law. What you're failing to realize is that you're just muddying the waters further with this example. We have a battle for the Constitution, not a battle for ideas.

The ideas in the Constitution are already set. We can justify them through history and philosophy but that is all. And before we do any amendments, we ought first be able to follow what's there.

Maybe I mistake what you're trying to argue?

Morgan,

A little odd that you support Fred Thompson given his desire to swell the federal budget by $56 billion per year. Go to http://www.ntu.org/pdf/ and look for the pdf file P0801Thompson. But what else do you expect from a candidate who says in a tired stump speech, "Read The Conscience of a Conservative by Russell Kirk." Yes, and this coming from a candidate who was singularly instrumental in helping the passage of McCain-Feingold.

You'd support Romney? Because of Romneycare there is a projected $115 million dollar deficit in MA's budget. He'd swell the federal budget by at least $17 billion. Ann Coulter fawned all over Romney for who knows why---because he's rich? You know a man by past performance and we've seen what he'd do already.

There was only one true conservative in that race:

---the one who received Reagan's personal endorsement multiple times;

---the only one to be married to the same woman for over 40 years;

---the only one on that stage to have personally delivered over 4000 babies;

---the only one who understands that you can't have political freedom without economic freedom and thus the reason for a sound monetary policy;

---the only one who had never voted to raise taxes or increase the power of the executive in his 20 year terms as a congressman;

---the only one to propose amending the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship for children of illegals;

---the only one who has refused to partake of the lucrative congressional pension because the common man can't have it too;

---the only one who had never voted for deficit spending;

---the only one to propose giving the President more power to go after terrorists under his Letters of Marque and Reprisal Act;

---the only one who had received more contributions from active and retired military than any other candidate--Republican or Democrat--COMBINED; and,

---the only one who pledged to restore the Republic and the Constitution.

You won't like him because of his anti-Iraq stance. However, he is the closest thing to a conservative. The people want real change and none our current players have it. That candidate did.

By the way, you need to modify your state of the disunion speech a little.

First, you need to abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing. If we bring the budget down to its appropriate 1998 level, we need neither an income tax or sales tax to eat out the substance of the people.

Second, you need to begin a one year phase out of 50% of the federal workforce.

Third, you need to announce that the savings coming from the cuts to the federal government will be immediately returned to the taxpayer.

I'll vote for you then. I don't care about the Islamo transatlantic Jihadist fundamental radical extremist stuff but you can still say it. I'm not concerned about a few little people. I'm more concerned that we're guarding the border with Iran rather than Mexico.

"The Oath":

The Constitution is a positive law and positive law has as its purpose the application of certain superordinate principles. You objected to particular policies being persued as in violation of constitutional provisions. Is it the substance of the policies that is the irritant, or is it absence of adherence to proper procedure in enacting them (i.e. that the wrong jurisdiction enacted them), or is it both. One could retrospectively legitimate certain aspects of contemporary public policy through constitutional amendment. One could do so even while advocating that Congress use its discretion to phase out the policies in question.

Now consider your remark:

The fact that the Constitution already speaks to these matters in Article I and the fact that we need no further amendments when we can't follow what's there already. That is all you need.

Referring to a constitutional provision may guide us as to what sort of monetary system it is lawful to erect at a given time and place; it does not address the utility or disutility of any given monetary system, or whether the law should be altered to allow a wider range of monetary systems. To say the Constitution should not be altered because Article I embodies certain principles rather begs the question. (And your insistence that altered provisions will be less reliably followed than extant provisions is non sequitur).

All you're doing is trying to set up the argument where I use history or philosophy to push for a certain law. What you're failing to realize is that you're just muddying the waters further with this example. We have a battle for the Constitution, not a battle for ideas.

Current political economy has among its elements central banking, a great deal of commercial activity other than travel that crosses state lines (and 18th century commercial activity was subject to quite a load of state regulation), old age pensions, and laws that limited the freedom of Lester Maddox to threaten blacks who walked in the door of his restaurant with axe handles for his amusement. Do you have a sense in your own mind as to which legal regimes with regard to above incorporate bad policy? Would they be bad policy if persued by state or local authorities?

Morgan, Ann Coulter's understanding of Mitt Romney's record is sadly deficient:

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_06_18/review1.html

Conservative criticism of John McCain and Mike Huckabee was ineffective because so many of them were supporting Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

For those of you who disliked Romney so much, you got EXACTLY what you wanted, JOHN McCAIN! You disliked him SO much that you either voted for the foreign policy KOOK Ron Paul-who speaks of dark, "neocon" cabals-or maybe you voted for the Evangelical liberal Mike Huckabee, who damn near DESTROYED the Arkansas Republican party with his liberal ways.

OR maybe you voted for McCain strictly on the basis that he's a war hero?
For those of you who ensured the election of the imposter John McCain with your immature voting behavior I sure would like to THANK YOU!

Nobody was perfect in this primary. Thompson and Hunter were the best conservatives, but neither got traction. Those of you who refused to get behind Romney GAVE us John McCain.

Morgan

Morgan, I take it from your all caps rants, your refusal to actually engage arguments, and your inability to defend Romney without attacking other candidates, that you are basically conceding this argument? If not, I'd make a counterargument: Conservatives supporting Romney without regard for his actual record undermined the conservative case against McCain and Huckabee.

By the way, somebody who brags about being a jingoist isn't in a good position to be calling other people "foreign policy kooks."

By the way, somebody who brags about being a jingoist isn't in a good position to be calling other people "foreign policy kooks."

I would not rule out irony in the self-designation "JINGOIST".

Some of the folk associated with a certain nexus (the Rockford Institute, the von Mises Institute, and The American Conservative) appear to be of the view that human society is by default harmonious, and suffers violent conflict only due to the stupid or flagitious behavior of those who have somehow acquired 'governmental' power. Their views on foreign affairs appear to be of a piece with that.

Jim, should it surprise me that you missed my point?
BTW I adopted the name JINGOIST after reading "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt" by Edmund Morris. He was dubbed that by an Albany newspaper. The name had the added benefit of driving leftists (you?) to distraction.

Art wrote:
"I would not rule out irony in the self-designation "JINGOIST".
Some of the folk associated with a certain nexus (the Rockford Institute, the von Mises Institute, and The American Conservative) appear to be of the view that human society is by default harmonious, and suffers violent conflict only due to the stupid or flagitious.."

Sorry to disappoint you Art. I'm not associated with any of these groups. I'm just a taxpaying small businessman who's APPALLED by the Populism and stupidity that seems to have grabbed the reins of the Republican Party. If Bob Barr's foreign policy were more responsible than BHO's, he'd get my vote.

Morgan

Fair enough on your handle, Morgan. As for your "point," no, I haven't missed it, but your continued refusal/inability to respond to specific criticisms of Romney with actual arguments has convinced me that further discussion with you is probably pointless. But I suppose that makes me a "leftist."

Morgan,

Given the choice between Romney and McCain, I'd actually take McCain because he's got a better prolife and fiscal record than Romney. But that's not saying a whole lot.

And we can hash this out now. Why is Ron Paul's foreign policy kooky? Is that your only objection?

That was an interesting and well-written article Jim. Thanks for the reading suggestion.

You're correct in assuming that I really don't care to discuss specifics where Romney is concerned because it's over and it seems a bit silly since we got the second worse of the bunch representing our party. Ron Paul was the worst.

The smartest guy I know, my brother, also got his MBA from Harvard and worked directly for Mitt at Bain in Dallas, TX. He told me without hesitation that Mitt was the single most impressive leader and intellect he has EVER dealt with. That means something coming from my kid brother. This party screwed up big time.

The Oath wrote:
"And we can hash this out now. Why is Ron Paul's foreign policy kooky? Is that your only objection?"

Mr. O I've seen the enemy we face up close and personal. People with Ron Paul's foreign policy views don't deserve to be taken seriously. IMO they have a childish lack of understanding of the danger our country faces. When I heard Ron Paul speak about the war on Islamic Fascism I wasn't sure if I was listening to Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich! Personally I don't care that he's a fellow veteran, so was George McGovern!

Now if you also subscribe to Paul's dark "neocon cabal" conspiracy garbage...well what else can I say? Wasn't that embarrassing to you that WE had a candidate in our debate sounding like Dennis Kucinich?

If you read my fantasy State of the Union address you might see that I share MANY of Paul's domestic views, but foreign policy is FAR too important to be left to children and fools.

Sorry to disappoint you Art. I'm not associated with any of these groups.

I did not suggest that you were. The opinion in question was directed at Mr. Antle, who takes exception to Dr. Paul's votaries being designated 'kooks'.

Glenn Beck is a gesticulating fool. Why should anyone care what he has to say?

His list of conservative principles was just a rehash of the same bana-l moral pap "conservatives" have been repeating for years. Yawn,

Well Eric exactly what part of Glenn's list do you take issue with? I like Glenn's list and agree with his sentiments.

Glenn Beck is a gesticulating fool. Why should anyone care what he has to say?

You might pose the question to the folk who are tuning in his radio program and bypassing yours.

Barack Hussien Obama is not the right guy for the job. He has no credentials and is a baby senator, not qualified to run America. His ideas and plans sound good and everything, but are unattainable and are just lies, his plan to just get in. He is living in an imaginary world and needs to wake up to the world around him. Don’t believe him. Barack Hussie nObama = 6 6 6 . No matter what he says he is a muslim. His father and stepfather are muslims and in the eyes of all muslims that makes him one. He is unpatriotic, from his stupid excuses to why he doesn’t wear a flag pendent to his crazy, black, racist, damning America preacher and mentor. He is the charming, charismatic, mesmorizing, speaker that the devil is. He wants to talk and negotiate with America’s enemies, to pull troops out, to let them reorganize and stregthen, and then eventually side with them. Obama’s real name is Mabus. Nostradamus talks of Obama, the third antichrist of middle eastern background, ‘The Black One’. He is the devil. He will be the next President of the United States. America is blinded by Obama’s image and is persuded by the media’s portrayal. The media positivly portrays Obama, but is always negative against McCain. Its sick. McCain’s views are the truth and the correct way to handle things in this time of war. Which is a neccassary war. McCain is realistic on the way to deal with America’s enemies. McCain’s experience in the Senate and as an Air Force Officer/Pilot and POW gives him exceptional qualifications to run a country that is being attacked, on a Biblical scale. McCain knows how to get this country under control; the economy, fuel prices, illegal immigration. America is clearly divided into two, McCain Americans and Obama Americans. The Obama Americans want change but don’t want to make the sacrifices to do so. They want low gas prices but down want to drill causing harm to the environment. They want a border security but don’t want a wall that may disrupt natural mirgation of wildlife. They want lower taxes and don’t want to support a war they think they know so much about and don’t see a wider picture of our purpose and responsibility as Americans to respond to their attacks and their inhumanity to their people in their own region. America needs to be strong to be able to defend it’s enemies. We need to stand together as one country and unite on our way of thinking or we aren’t going to stand. The muslims are set in their plans to destroy the west and Israel and for Islam to be the world religion. They burn Bibles and flags, dancing and chanting ‘Death To America’ daily. They get upset and cry when a Quran is treated the same way and want an apology for it. They get upset and cry when someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed when I see cartoons of Jesus helping Santa and boxing Satan on South Park and can laugh about it, but yet they want an apology. We want our apology. They aren’t going to stop. The way they think is backwards. They are ignorant in their views and only see their own way. We have to check them. They are the enemies of Israel and that makes them the enemies of God. This is a holy war that must be fought in the name of God. Obama is just going to cause more problems and just weaken our nation. He is a muslim. The muslims around the world support him and praise his name. Obama’s views are completly unrealistic and are just lies to brainwash the American people to follow and believe in him. ‘Change We Can Believe In’, he is the anti-christ. Just lies to get the vote. He is the devil and will be America’s next President. In 2012, around election time, 3.5 years into his rule we will see his true self and intentions. He will declare himself a world leader to be worshipped and embraced as a god. 2012 is the Chinese year of the Dragon, in which divine and other worldly events occur on year. Dec 21 2012 the earth completes a precession on its axis which will cause shift of poles and magnetic fields. Also the day when the sun rises and aligns with the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and passes into the 13th zodiac which is a man wrestling a snake, symbolizing a time of struggle with evil. The Mayans predicted a beginning of a new cycle of change. The four horsemen are riding now. The natural disasters, climate change, world hunger, oil crisis, and a holy war. These are the end times and Obama is the devil.

Morgan, a few critiques

"Mr. O I've seen the enemy we face up close and personal. People with Ron Paul's foreign policy views don't deserve to be taken seriously. "

So? Without touting my own credentials, more active and retired military donations flowed to Ron Paul than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat combined. So I suppose your saying these members of the military don't deserve to be taken seriously? His campaign even had Blackwater operatives active in Iraq supporting him--I talked to them personally.

"People with Ron Paul's foreign policy views don't deserve to be taken seriously. IMO they have a childish lack of understanding of the danger our country faces. When I heard Ron Paul speak about the war on Islamic Fascism I wasn't sure if I was listening to Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich!"

C'mon now. That's how you dismiss him? And is this a war against Al Quaeda or Islam as a whole? Islam has been extreme for over a thousand years. Why now? Two bit thugs learn how to fly a few planes and you're scared? Since Russia seems to be in the business I suppose you think we ought to invade them too?

"Now if you also subscribe to Paul's dark "neocon cabal" conspiracy garbage...well what else can I say? Wasn't that embarrassing to you that WE had a candidate in our debate sounding like Dennis Kucinich?"

Neoconservative is no more a conspiracy than the left. It exists. What else to say? As far as embarrasing, I think Mitt was a little embarrassed that he had to "consult with lawyers" before deciding to going to war. We don't need a CEO to run the country. All we need is for one person to, in the words of dearest Nancy Reagan, "Just say no." So I'm not embarrassed but you should be. A field of candidates and ONLY one suggests smaller government? Only one has any sort of enthusiasm?

"If you read my fantasy State of the Union address you might see that I share MANY of Paul's domestic views, but foreign policy is FAR too important to be left to children and fools."

I knew you secretly shared his domestic side with relish. It's a conservative's dream. That you can't adopt his "no entanglement with foreign alliances" policy is shared by Republicans writ large. Sooner or later I think the Party will find that the king has no clothes.

However, I think you mistake Ron Paul. He's not suggesting that we waive the white flag like French School girls in uniforms. It's actually the opposite. He's all for going after Al Quaeda but not spending needless money in Iraq. It's our foreign bridge to nowhere.

T.O. wrote:
"However, I think you mistake Ron Paul. He's not suggesting that we waive the white flag like French School girls in uniforms. It's actually the opposite. He's all for going after Al Quaeda but not spending needless money in Iraq. It's our foreign bridge to nowhere."

No, I don't "mistake" him in the least. It sounds like he wrote the Democrat platform on foreign policy. It's every bit as dangerous as it is childish. Did I mention WACKED OUT? You libertarians are a Utopian movement who do NOT understand the real world. Too bad, if Bob Barr were realistic in this regard he's have my vote in a NY minute. Ron Paul is still a kook.

Morgan, I'm not a libertarian. Even McCain has put a timetable for withdrawal at 2013, presumably to be an issue for the 2012 elections.

You still haven't stated why it's "WHACKED" or why Paul is a kook. I freely admit mistakes and lack of knowledge where appropriate but so far, you've given me nothing that I could infer as "kooky", see?

Oath,

On Balance

We could probably differ about "exact balance". Some of the founders feared the power given to the judiciary, but were encouraged there being only 9 members of the judiciary branch. Some feared that the elastic clause gave Congress too much power.

Regardless, the Constitution it is reasonably well defined balance.

Not a Manifesto

I've heard of the whole "Constitutionally-limited government" thing from liberal-tarians before. I've also read the Constitution. There's really not much there if read bare bones. Since I doubt that the Cons was written against the evils of a 34-year-old President or 29-year-old Senators or a house adjourning for four days without telling the opposite house--or Maryland having more than six delegate--I really find it hard to read the it as the manifesto that is sometimes presented.

It's a very pragmatic document that lays some ground rules as to how the Congress will work. Section 1 states without qualification that the legislative power is reserved to the legislative branch's two houses. Section 2 gives us some ground rules for the House--specifically impeachment. Section 3 is about the Senate--and impeachment. Section 4 is simple logistics and suggests the first Monday in December as the first meeting--unless changed by law. Section 6 gives the privileges and restrictions of the office. Except for Section I, this is not rally-the-troops stuff.

When it actually starts laying out the powers and restrictions, it says that the House originates all revenue bills. It's pretty open ended to how much revenue or for what reasons, it just restricts direct taxation as a means (which was amended). It also says they cannot appropriate it from the treasury outside of passing a bill.

Absent from the list of powers in Section 7 is the idea that Congress has only these powers. And for good reason, the last clause says that Congress can "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" for doing anything the federal government does.

So much of this article speaks about an unspecified generation of laws. They just can't be ex post facto, or suspend the right of habeus corpus, or tax one region or state at a higher rate. The language supports more the idea that they have the express and unequivocal power to govern all tribunals under the SCOTUS, and to borrow money, than that they are limited only to that.

Article I would allow the endless borrowing and taxing to put up endless post roads and post offices as long as they crossed their Ts and dotted their Is. The people wouldn't. The Congress could even rationalize various expenditures in this "Wizard's Apprentice" approach to postal service.

If conservatives need to be have an allegiance to Article I, then is the legislature-elected Senate on that platform? Do we stand for "all other persons" being counted as 3/5 a person? If we agree with only those provisions that have not been amended and the amendments?

The idea that we prize the provisions of the law and its proper amendments only points to valuing the social contract and the explicit community process of amendment--which is where democracy rears it's ugly head and messes up the neat lines of the governing doctrines. There's a good chance that a lot of the provisions will remain because they were good one from the start and have agreed with the will of the People. But for better or worse, we have disagreed with others, and they are no longer valid.

But I think there is a basic principle of Conservatism unstated here, nearly atomic. Conservatives do not believe that because thought X historically precedes thought Y, thought X is invalidated. It is just a process of refinement that some things improve over time, though.

The thing is, that I can be a conservative and have a difficulty with any provision of Article I as "the step too far", but I have to respect the process and the rule of law. Those values are more traditional, cultural, and yes, religious, most of it preceding this social compact by ages.

I'm not, though. I'm actually a quasi-socialist communitarian. I'm a bit like the creators of South Park. (As they say, sure, they hate Republicans, but they "f-ing hate Democrats".) Except, I don't hate either, but I recognize that outside the moribund blue-blood conservatism I cannot abide the academic elitism of the left. For all their Zinn-ian noise about the silent voice of "the people" they are four square for counterfeiting that voice.

What he said.