What "conservative" actually means
And have any leaders had the courage to ask
1. Just what is a Conservative and
2. How would a Conservative be defined ?
If "leaders" have defined that "wonderful" catch-all term: one thing is certain: those "leaders" AREN'T Republicans. Republican leaders - like Frist - do not want to be reminded of how
the term "Conservative" is defined. Otherwise, people might wake up and realize that Bush and Frist are Not Conservatives
Here is the definition of a conservative:
A conservative is an individual who believes in the following:
1. Everyone has the right to live, the right to breathe, the right to life. The reason why EVERYONE has the right to life is because Everyone is made in the image of God.
2. Since God gives all humans the right to life, God allows each of us to do what is required to sustain Human Life.
3. Government derive their authority (their right to rule) from the Consent (the permission) of those they govern.
4. Governments cannot "grant" rights, since Governments do not "inherently" possess rights.
Charters of rights - such as the Bill of Rights, the Magna Charta and the Declaration of Independence all recognize that the rights of all individuals come from God - the Judeo-Christian God who is Kind and Benevolent (and not some other god).
5. If Rights come from God, then Governments cannot take those rights away. The Rights that the citizens have are irrevocable.
6. Whether you personally individually believe in a personal God is up to you. However, Conservatives have truthfully noted that those who DO believe in a PERSONAL God to whom they will be Personally Accountable (in the afterlife)- tend to be FAR MORE RESPECTFUL of People and the Rights of the Citizens.
7. Power Corrupts, and great power tends to corrupt to a great extent. When Power corrupts and government officials become too powerful, they usually trample on the rights of the citizens, and on the rights of INNOCENT citizens.
8. (Government officials who become corrupt usually want to presume everyone guilty until they prove their innocence. But the U.S. Constitution affirms that everyone is innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. )
9. Since power tends to corrupt the hearts of men (mankind/all humans), the solution to this is to try to keep the government only as large as is necessary, since otherwise, it tends to grow and become more and more powerful, and begin to encroach [interfere] in the lives of each and every citizen. Conservatives - true conservatives - believe that "that government is Best which governs LEAST"
10. Conservatives affirm that other than the defense of the nation (in case of Actual Physical danger to the nation), the other job of government is "restraint of evil". Broadly speaking, this means that what is morally good is roughly defined - as the Ten Commandments - and what is Evil is broadly defined as that which causes harm to individuals.
******************************************************************************
is Bush truly Conservative...or just using Conservatives ???
******************************************************************************
Supposedly, Conservatives should support Miers ...in order to give her great power over our PERSONAL AND DAILY LIFE...for the NEXT THIRTY YEARS.
WHY ?
The fear - that Republicans have...is that for Bush to withdraw the Nomination of Miers would somehow Weaken Bush.
But - Frankly - does Anyone - Any Conservative - really WANT BUSH to be Politically Strong ?
Most Conservatives WANT to believe that Bush is a conservative.
But let's review the facts about BUSH and the Interests that He represents:
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - to install a government in Iraq which is imposing Islamic Sharia Law ?
(The P.R. statements implied that Iraq would be "democratic". Now, it turns out that what the State Department and Condi Rice means is that "democratic" means ISLAMIC. )
There are many parts of Iraq that now have their own Islamic Sharia Police, that go around and enforce Sharia Law, whether this is the "Official" policy or not.
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - to try to take away the rights of most Americans and to begin to treat Americans - in their own Nation - as though they are Guilty until proven Innocent ?
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - that the President appoints John Bolton to the United Nations, who has stated in his confirmation hearings that he (Bolton) would be in Favor of the Law of the Sea Treaty - when this will give More Power to the United Nations, and take more power FROM the American People ?
(By the Way, Bush has just nominated an Assistant for
Bolton at the U.N., who used to work with Madeleine Albright under Clinton. Bush
nominated "Alejandro Daniel Wolff to serve as deputy to U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, a post that puts him second in command of the more than 100 staff at the U.S. mission to the United Nations.
Wolff is a foreign service officer who has been deputy chief of mission in the U.S. Embassy in Paris for the past four years. Before that, he was an executive assistant to former secretaries of state
Madeleine Albright and Colin
Powell. Source
Here). Was THAT the nomination of a Conservative ?
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - that Bush continues to allow Millions and Millions of Illegal Alliens to destroy American Values, take American Jobs, and push the Wage base even Lower than what it is ?
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - to continue to support the Communist Government of China...by transferring more and more American Jobs and American Factories to CHINA ?
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - to continue to Refuse to help the people who are being MURDERED in DARFUR SUDAN, especially when the Murders continue to be Against Christians ?
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - for the Bush Administration to quietly set up a Stem Cell Bank...and move it to the University of Wisconsin which will also have Embryonic Stem Cells ???
Is is truly Politically Conservative - in the historic sense - to allow the American People to suffer under Continued High Gas Prices which are the result of an OIL MONOPOLY that is PREVENTING oil and gas exploration (and more Refining Capacity)
All of these issues are issues that are likely to come before the Supreme Court. But over and over, Bush appointments reflect a thirst for Greater Power, for More Government Control, and for Less and Less accountability.
This is the SAME Bush who sat back and did absolutely NOTHING for Terri Schiavo, because he would not take a stand that the Law was wrong. For this president, it was better for Terri Schiavo to die.
And Bill Frist seemed to have the same outlook...maybe because his family controls the Largest HMO in the World and Frist can see the money coming in...which is why FRIST supports Embryonic Stem Cell research.
HARRIET MIERS is an Attorney for Mega-Corporations. Those are the very same Corporations that have moved to China and taken American Jobs and the American Economy to China with them.
The BUSH PRESIDENCY IS RESULTING IN TURNING THE UNITED STATES INTO A THIRD WORLD NATION. EVERY STEP THAT THIS PRESIDENT TAKES... MOVES THIS PLAN FORWARD MORE AND MORE.
TRUE CONSERVATIVES WOULD OPPOSE THE HATE-CRIME LEGISLATION NOW IN THE SENATE, (Since the Legislation is a Trick to harm Conservatives and Internet Media) BUT BUSH IS CONVENIENTLY SILENT...EVEN THOUGH Bush knows that the Bill will be used to harm and oppress Conservatives and Christians in Particular. The same Hate-Crimes Bill has already passed the House THIS YEAR and FRIST is quietly moving it forward. Bush is silent on this because Bush is NOT a Conservative.
TRUE CONSERVATIVES OPPOSE THE BREAKUP of the U.S. but there is an Active Plan to LEGALLY ALTER the BORDERS OF THE USA (By 2008) and have the U.S. brought under United Nations law. This plan is funded by Billionaires and Large Corporations who want the wages of Americans even lower, so that American Wages would compete with the slaves in China. Bush is silent on this because Bush is NOT a Conservative.
Promoting Bigger and Bigger Government is NOT Conservative.
Refusing to stop Stem Cell Research using Embroyos is NOT Conservative.
Appointing John Bolton who supports the Law of the Sea TREATY is NOT Conservative.
Trying to take away the Rights of American Citizens is NOT Conservative.
Trying to Force Everyone to be forced to have MANDATORY Psychological Testing is NOT Conservative.
Refusing to take a stand against Hate Legislation is NOT Conservative.
Promoting Big Oil Monopolies that gouge American Citizens is NOT Conservative.
Standing by and doing nothing while people are persecuted around the world for their faith is NOT Conservative.
Refusing to actually build more Oil Refineries so that Gas Prices will be lower - is NOT Conservative
Trying to take away Freedom of Speech is NOT Conservative.
Supporting CAFTA that takes JOBS From AMERICANS is NOT Conservative.
Supporting FTAA (That takes place in December 05)
that takes JOBS From AMERICANS, and Opens American Border MORE is NOT Conservative.
Refusing to stop CODEX ALIMENTARIUS (implemented through WTO) is NOT Conservative.
Refusing to Close the Southern Border to protect Americans from Millions (of illegals) who come to take their resources away is NOT Conservative.
THE CONCLUSION SEEMS TO BE: BUSH IS NOT A CONSERVATIVE
******************************************************************************
50 Reasons We Aren't Better Off With Bush
# 1
50 Reasons We Aren't Better Off With Bush
# 2
GOP SENDS ANOTHER $52 MILLION TO PLANNED PARENTHOOD
President Bush and Abortion (don't click if afraid of facts)
******************************************************************************
NEWS OR Propaganda: Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Oct 12/05 - AP - Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group
for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.
"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."
Story
Here
BUSH Administration/Federal Government mulls federal troops for bird flu quarantine
Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Oct 14/05 - The Pentagon is looking at the possibility of using federal troops to enforce a quarantine in the event of an outbreak of pandemic bird flu in the United States, a senior official said on Wednesday.
President George W. Bush said last week he would consider using the military to "effect a quarantine" in response to any outbreak of avian influenza, but provided few details.
Bush at the time also suggested he might place National Guard troops, normally commanded by state governors, under federal control as part of the government's response to the "catastrophe" of such a flu pandemic.
Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland
defense, said quarantine law historically has been under the primary jurisdiction of states, not the federal government.
"And my expectation is that any quarantine measures that would be put in place would likely involve a substantial employment of the National Guard, probably under command and control of the governor of an affected state," McHale told a group of reporters.
KEY LEGAL CASES INVOLVING FREE SPEECH and the FIRST AMENDMENT
(TO U.S. Bill of Rights, Rights that ALL American Citizens have)
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
The United States Supreme Court held that citizens have a "guaranteed access" to streets, parks, and other "traditional public forum." The privilege to use the streets and parks for communication of views may be regulated in the best interests of all, but it must not, under the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied. Mere inconvenience to the government will not outweigh free speech interests. The government must use the least restrictive means of achieving legitimate, content neutral objectives.
Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939). The United States Supreme Court did not allow cities to completely forbid leaflet distribution in order to prevent littering. The objective of keeping the streets clean does not outweigh the right to distribute literature in public.
Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965). Public officials may
not be given overly broad discretion to grant or deny permits or licenses for free speech.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Speech may
not be prohibited merely because it offends some listeners.
Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951). The United States Supreme Court did not allow a permit to include any restrictions on a speaker's right of free expression. Permits may not be used as a prior restraint on free speech activities. Inappropriate or illegal activities may only be punished after they have occurred.
Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement, 112 S.Ct. 2395
(1992). A city may not consider the listeners' reaction to a speaker when permitting free speech activities.
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965). Hecklers may
not be allowed to veto a speaker's right of free speech. Police must control a crowd rather than arrest the speaker in order to maintain order. Regulations may be imposed on free speech to control traffic flow.
Gregory v. City of Chicago, 394 U.S. 111 (1969). Peaceful marching, chanting, and singing is protected by the First Amendment.
Grayned v. Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972). Free speech expression may be regulated for noise content in appropriate places such as hospitals or schools
while classes are in session. The general test is to ask whether the expressive activity is basically incompatible with the normal activities of a particular place at a particular time. Unamplified speech is permissible for "street preachers" on public streets.
__________________
IMPORTANT NOTE: Not to be construed as legal advice. This is not intended to be, and does not constitute, the giving of legal advice. It is only a summary of the legal rights of U. S. citizens. It's important that one understand and be aware of decisions by the U. S. Supreme Court.
Bill
of Rights of the United States (PDF)
AMERICAN BORDERS
TO BE DISMANTLED
***********************************************
