Freedom And Responsibility Are Inextricably Linked

I got an outstanding message from Mark Alexander at Patriot Post today:

The Rights and Obligations of Liberty

"No country upon earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass." --George Washington

In a recent discussion with a colleague, I lamented the fact that too few American citizens understand their obligation, before all others, to support and defend our Constitution, much less, engender the ability to do so. She responded that, though she considered herself a conservative (mostly because she identifies closely with some conservative principles), understanding our Constitution was not her "passion."

My friend holds degrees from the nation's finest academic institutions and is professional in all her endeavors. However, like most Americans under 50 years of age, she never had a basic civics course and consequently has a difficult time articulating even the most fundamental constitutional principles.

The fact is, as Americans, we not only enjoy the rights affirmed by our Constitution, we have obligations to understand the mechanics of that affirmation in order to sustain it for our generation and those to come.

No matter what our calling, our occupation or our passion, we have a debt and duty as citizens to both learn about and support our Constitution, and we are obliged to do so above and before all other pursuits, for without constitutional Rule of Law, there are no other pursuits.

Of course, because ignorance is institutionalized by most government education systems, including those of "higher learning," and because ignorance is apparently considered virtuous by some social subcultures, there is little probability that a too large portion of Americans will ever comprehend this obligation, much less honor it.

Fortunately, in the words of Samuel Adams, "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."

But, what of those like my well-educated colleague, who is among America's "best and brightest", who are, however, uninformed about their obligations as citizens of the greatest experiment in human history? What of those who, as one consequence of enjoying the highest standard of living on the planet, tend to take our legacy of liberty for granted and have become complacent about its attendant responsibilities?

George Washington noted at the conclusion of the American Revolution, "The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of its attainment, and the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity."

These days, most Americans believe that liberty is their birthright. They enjoy the (relative) personal freedom of our great society but forget the corresponding personal responsibility. For most of us have never had to fight for liberty and, thus, have little concept of its value or any sense of gratitude for its accumulated cost.

In his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story wrote, "Let the American youth never forget, that they possess a noble inheritance, bought by the toils, and sufferings, and blood of their ancestors; and capacity, if wisely improved, and faithfully guarded, of transmitting to their latest posterity all the substantial blessings of life, the peaceful enjoyment of liberty, property, religion, and independence."

Likewise, John Adams noted, "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know..." He added, "Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, [are] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties."

To that end, James Madison wrote, "What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual and surest support?"

James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of George Washington's original Supreme Court justices, put it most concisely: "Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge."

Unfortunately, this wisdom has fallen upon deaf ears. The popular support of the current Democrat hegemony is evidence aplenty of just how uninformed the majority of Americans are regarding their Constitution and the Rule of Law.

That most erudite of contemporary economists, Walter E. Williams, wrote this week in American Idea, "At the heart of the American idea is the deep distrust and suspicion the founders of our nation had for government, distrust and suspicion not shared as much by today's Americans. Some of the founders' distrust is seen in our Constitution's language such as Congress shall not: abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, violate and deny. ... Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances and the several anti-majoritarian provisions such as the Electoral College and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes in the Constitution."

However, writes Williams, "The three branches of our federal government are no longer bound by the Constitution as the framers envisioned and what is worse is American ignorance and acceptance of such rogue behavior. ... The American people, along with our elected representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, care less about what is and what is not permissible under our Constitution. They think Congress has the right to do anything upon which they can secure a majority vote, whether they have the constitutional or moral authority to do so or not."

Williams concludes, "We are losing what's made our country great. Instead of moving toward greater liberty, we're moving toward greater government control of our lives."

Indeed, I was speaking with another colleague recently who is a Slovak national -- he was a "Young Pioneer" raised under Communist tyranny in Czechoslovakia. He has spent five years undergoing the rigors required to become a U.S. citizen (I suggested he should have simply walked across the Mexican border instead), yet he questions his pursuit of citizenship now that the U.S. is rapidly devolving into the sort of tyrannical regime he left behind.

Natural-born Americans have never experienced such a regime, and so we proceed headlong into that authoritarian abyss like so many lemmings following the ignoble piper, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.

Of such pipers, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants."

Regarding the wayward affections for socialism of Obama's minions, Washington wrote, "[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free," wrote Thomas Jefferson, "it expects what never was and never will be."

But, ignorance is bliss -- at least until it runs head-on into reality, and reality is just around the corner.

Samuel Adams assured us that, "No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

It is for this reason that The Patriot launched the Essential Liberty Project on Constitution Day last.

Essential Liberty is the most cost effective means for educating Americans of all ages and all walks of life about the proper context for understanding our Constitution and the liberty it preserves and safeguards.

We have created through Essential Liberty a foundation to accomplish the most important task we have ever undertaken. Our mission is based on the principles outlined in the Legacy of American Liberty and will utilize a whole series of educational tools to accomplish this mission.

I will continue to write concerning the Essential Liberty Project in the next couple of months, as we move to full throttle for 2010.

We must never forget our debt of obligation to those generations of American Patriots who have extended, at great cost in their fortunes and lives, the legacy of liberty to us, and we must remain steadfast and irrevocably committed with our fortunes and lives to extend that legacy to our posterity.

This is an excellent way of framing the philosophical difference between conservatism and liberalism.  Conservatives value freedom, but by definition that freedom requires the acceptance of responsibility.  They are inextricably tied, and cannot be separated.  Liberalism, by contrast, requires no responsibility -- the government will provide everything you need, including the horrible ordeal of having to make decisions -- and thus, it provides no freedom.

We're now seeing this play out in front of our very eyes.  The choice is clear: which would you prefer, freedom and responsibility or carefree serfdom?

There's my two cents.

A Must-Watch: The American Trinity

This is supreme excellence:

This is the core of conservatism. This is what conservatives believe, and why we believe it. Outstanding stuff, Mr. Prager!

There's my two cents.

The Quinessential Question

I referenced a recent Rasmussen poll earlier that showed only 53% of Americans think capitalism is the way to go, but I wanted to dig into that some more because I think it is absolutely critical, and at the root of the problems in America today.

Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA wrote the following about this poll. This is long, but outstanding stuff, so read it all (emphasis mine):

America is a great nation, not by luck or chance or geography, but because of the American spirit... the belief that we can accomplish anything if we work hard. Those who fought to create this new country believed in limited government with unlimited potential for its citizens. Capitalism was the key. By letting free markets work and keeping government out of the way, Americans have the opportunity to grow as much as their drive, determination, and intellect will take them. That is the American way.

As we all know, the American way is under attack. It is under attack not from organizations like Al Qaeda or the Taliban and not from countries like Russia or China. It is under attack from within... from those elements that seek to bring America down through socialist policies. With the combination of liberal bombardment at most of America's universities, a left-wing media, and a federal government led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, we face a challenge like never before. It is socialism vs. capitalism, and socialism is gaining ground...

In a stunning new poll released by Scott Rasmussen, the pollster asked a simple question, "Which is a better system -- capitalism or socialism?" In response, only 53% of American adults said capitalism. Yes, that's a majority, but this is America, right? The number should be much higher.

Twenty percent of the respondents said socialism is better, while 27% were not sure. Not sure? Do these people have no grasp of the countries that have turned to socialism? Check out this classic video by economist Milton Freidman:

What is really scary is to look at poll results below the surface. As Rasmussen tells us in his report, adults under 30 are "essentially divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided." This is truly frightening. For those under 30, it's basically a toss up? Capitalism, socialism... socialism, capitalism... who cares? That is the attitude, and it's one that will drive this country to ruin.

When looking at the poll results from a partisan perspective the differences are clear. As Rasmussen notes, "Republicans -- by an 11-to-1 margin -- favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism."

It seems clear to me that many people simply don't understand what they are asking for. In their zeal to turn away from Republicans for their broken promises of less spending and smaller government, they turned to a group of leaders bent on destroying the foundations of America. Now, we have a president who wants to spend, spend, tax, institute social programs, and tell the world that America is not so special. And we have a Congress that is more than willing to help.

In a well-written piece published in 1999 by the Heritage Foundation, author Balint Vazsonyi does a terrific job explaining the American way and the path to socialism. Vazsonyi describes the "Constitutional compass" which has the following four points: Rule of Law, Individual Rights, Guarantee of Property, and Common Identity.

Here is how it works. Every time somebody proposes a new law, a new statute, or an executive order, you ask whether it passes muster when held against the standard of the Four Points. The answers are easy, because either they do or they don't. If they don't, then they have no place in the United States of America. Without that compass, what would make us American?

Vazsonyi goes on to describe "the other compass," one that is being seen more and more in American society. It is one in which the four points of the Constitutional compass give way to four others: "the pursuit of social justice; instead of individual rights, it promotes group rights; instead of the guarantee of property, it advocates redistribution through entitlements; and in place of our common American identity, it favors what it calls multiculturalism."

The new compass, comprised of social justice, group rights, redistribution, and multiculturalism has a name, and that name is socialism.

Socialism, I believe, is the appropriate, scholarly, utterly unemotional designation of a grand philosophical idea in Western civilization. Ever since Descartes started thinking about thinking, and other French philosophers followed in the 18th century, and then Germans picked it up where the French had left off, socialism has been in the making. For a long time, then, socialism has been with us as "the other grand idea" of Western civilization, and it will remain with us as long as there is an "us."

It deserves to be taken seriously, and it needs to be engaged on philosophical grounds. In every sense of the word, it holds the opposite view of everything this country was built on.

Investors Business Daily also recently put out a poll showing the numbers of Americans who embrace a socialistic agenda. With the government and the media bombarding Americans on the virtue of income redistribution, government-run health care, and on and on, it's now wonder this mindset is starting to sink in.

We have to do a better job of letting America know what the "American way" really is and reveal the true agenda of Obama and his cohorts. As Vazsonyi notes in his report, "Millions of ordinary Americans appear to have accepted, and to be promoting, the socialist agenda. There is every reason to believe that many minds would be changed if they were brought face-to-face with socialism as the doctrine they are following and advocating."

I can't help but be sad and frustrated that the Republicans helped contribute to the state we are in now. People are turning to socialism simply because they wanted "change." Yet, they have no idea what that change really means. The Republicans were in control and had the opportunity to really set forward a conservative agenda that is based on the principle of capitalism. Yet the lure of big government and power stalled the movement. Policies that gave us even more spending and more government were the result.

We are at a crossroads, and we must fight to get America back on track. The American way is not an easy way. No one ever said it was. It's not about what the government can give you. The government can't give a person ANYTHING that it does not first take away from someone else. The American way is about respecting the rights of the individual and promoting an economic and political system that has opportunity for all. Obama may be ashamed of that America, but it's the America I believe in. Don't you?

I certainly do! Eberle encapsulates all of the major points I've been trying to make for months on this blog, and Milton Friedman puts the question into proper perspective very effectively.

Another person who explains this situation like none other is Rush Limbaugh. He recently spoke of this subject in a way that really illustrated what self-interest is and why it is important.

Drop.io

He goes on to put the concept of self-interest into the context of Obama's actions and policies:

Drop.io

No one is better than Limbaugh at defining conservatism, and that's what he does here. Conservatism is all about empowering the individual, in terms of both freedom and responsibility. Liberalism is precisely the opposite, empowering a central government to make all decisions and do all things for everyone.

Conservatism is what made America great, preserves freedom in the world, and stands for concepts like 'liberty and justice for all' and a right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Liberalism stands against all of these things, and is rearing its ugly head right now in ways we haven't seen in a very, very long time, more strongly than ever before.

This, then, is the quintessential question facing Americans right now: which do you choose? Socialism, or capitalism? Individual, or collective? Freedom, or slavery?

Make your choice, or it will be made for you.

There's my two cents.

Translating Liberalism

Liberals don't always mean what they actually say. In fact, more often than not, their words are entirely misleading for a normal person using typical definitions from the Dictionary. You have to know how to understand how to translate normal English into liberal-ese. For the purpose of translation, I've tried to put together a glossary of words or phrases, their true meanings (dictionary definition used wherever possible), and their meanings when used by liberals. This is just a starting point; feel free to submit new words, and I'll update the list.

compromise
- what it really means: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
- meaning as understood by liberals: everyone agrees with us

bipartisan/bipartisanship
- what it really means: of, consisting of, or supported by members of two parties, especially two major political parties
- meaning as understood by liberals: everyone agrees with us

tax cut
- what it really means: to lower, reduce, diminish, or curtail taxes
- meaning as understood by liberals: when done by a Republican it is a gross injustice and completely unfair to the poor; when done by a Democrat it is intended to take taxes from the rich and productive for the purpose of giving it to the poor and useless (and stupid) so they will vote for us

fair
- what it really means: free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice
- meaning as understood by liberals: whatever we feel like at any particular moment (all judgments of fairness are non-binding)

progressive
- what it really means: someone favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are
- meaning as understood by liberals: a liberal who lacks the courage to be honest about himself

centrist
- meaning as understood by liberals: having political views in the center; a moderate
- what it really means: a liberal who lacks the courage to be honest about himself

conservative
- what it really means: disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change
- meaning as understood by liberals: a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, redneck, stupid, Bible-thumping, gun-toting, backwards, backwoods hick

liberal
- what it really means: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs
- meaning as understood by liberals: saintly and holy (but we can't say it out loud because the eeeeeevil conservatives have made it a bad word)

national security
- what it really means: a collective term for the defense and foreign relations of a country, protection of the interests of a country
- meaning as understood by liberals: a waste of money that would be better spent buying votes and creating dependents

deficit
- what it really means: the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount
- meaning as understood by liberals: an excuse to raise taxes

tax
- what it really means: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
- meaning as understood by liberals: your patriotic duty as an American citizen; the means by which fairness will be enforced

success
- what it really means: the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors
- meaning as understood by liberals: the favorable or prosperous termination of attempts or endeavors, except in reference to American patriotism, American superiority, or the American military, in which context it means failure

failure
- what it really means: an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful or lack of success
- meaning as understood by liberals: an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful or lack of success, except in reference to American patriotism, American superiority, or the American military, in which context it means success; grounds for promotion

lie
- what it really means: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth
- meaning as understood by liberals: the proper way to hide one's liberal preferences; excessive use is grounds for promotion

integrity
- what it really means: adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character
- meaning as understood by liberals: never heard of it

honesty
- what it really means: truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness
- meaning as understood by liberals: a verbal mistake

abortion
- what it really means: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy
- meaning as understood by liberals: the most important sacrament of the liberal orthodox humanist religion, the approval of which is required by anyone wishing to participate in Democrat party politics; a choice with absolutely no associated moral or ethical ramifications

global warming
- what it really means: an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect
- meaning as understood by liberals: the second most important sacrament of the liberal orthodox humanist religion, caused solely by man (trifle me not with evidence)

religion
- what it really means: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
- meaning as understood by liberals: an inconvenient set of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, redneck, stupid rules that inhibit proper...uh...progressivism

ethics
- what it really means: a system of moral principles
- meaning as understood by liberals: we've heard of them, but haven't ever bothered using them

federal revenue
- what it really means: government-appropriated contribution from income generated in the private sector
- meaning as understood by liberals: our play money!

voter
- what it really means: a person who votes
- meaning as understood by liberals: a tool that is useful approximately once every two years; someone who rarely understands what's in their own best interest

crisis
- what it really means: a condition of instability or danger, as in social, economic, political, or international affairs, leading to a decisive change
- meaning as understood by liberals: a tool that is useful approximately once every seventeen seconds, and that can be used to scare voters into compromise

equality
- what it really means: the state or quality of being equal
- meaning as understood by liberals: the state or quality of being equal, except under special circumstances such as race, gender, disability, intelligence, weight, height, background, religion, ability, competence, or desire

Conservativism Explained

I got the following comment from an anonymous reader yesterday:

Why is it that virtually every conservative viewpoint on governmental policy seems like the same position any average jerk would take? In other words, it seems like if you were to pick Policy X and then evaluate Policy X by the standard of "would a jerk support this policy?", 9 times out of 10, the jerk's view of the policy would line up with the conservative view of the policy.

Giving debt relief to poor African countries? Naaaaah, not until they meet our requirements.

The environment? I can drive whatever car I want, use whatever energy I want, and create as much trash as I want, the environment be damned.

Crime? Drug problems are no excuse, throw 'em in prison!

Death penalty? Who cares if virtually every other nation in the world doesn't execute juveniles or the mentally retarded, our country should be able to.

International law? Yeah, it's ok, unless it means I can't do something I want to do.

Diplomacy? Only for a little while, then we bomb the #$%! out of 'em.

Nuclear weapons? We gotta have a bunch of 'em...that'll teach other countries to mess with us.

Welfare? Get those lazy, good-for-nothings off the government payroll.

Lawsuits? Who cares if their kid was killed because some idiot ran a stop sign...cap 'em at $250,000.

Minimum wage? $5.15/hour is plenty.

Now, I know conservatives are pretty smart and can come up with some (disingenuous) other reasons (like gotta protect the free market, government regulation hurts everyone, government is inefficient, some foreign leaders are corrupt) to take the views they do, but the bottom line is, it seems like whenever there is an option to cut someone a break, or give someone something for nothing, or grant a little grace to some stupid decision they made, or listen to/consider an opponents/enemies gripes, etc., the conservative view always seems to oppose those opportunities (at least as far as it comes to policy).

I don't think there are many, but I'd love to hear examples of policy positions of conservatives that fall into the cut someone a break, give something for nothing, give grace mold.

This is a series of good questions, so I wanted to make a full post of it.

First, let's start with the foundation. Based on the comment, I'm guessing the reader is not a conservative. Conservatives believe in smaller government, less government intrusion whenever possible, personal responsibility, and strong defense. Keep that in mind as I answer the questions above, since I'll be coming from that perspective.

First, thanks for the jerk comment. How nice. More on that later.

Aid for African countries...did you even read that post? We're trying to help the people of those poor countries, not the brutal dictators of those countries. Why should we not have requirements? America is the most generous nation in the world, but why should we give money to a dictator who kills or enslaves his own people? Aren't we trying to spread freedom and prosperity around the world? Isn't it better to have our aid money get into the hands of the oppressed people rather than the oppressive leader? Without conditions, there is absolutely no way that will happen (obviously, it's difficult enough to accomplish even with conditions). Every time you get a loan for a car or house, the lending institution does the same thing - in order to get their money, they require certain conditions be met. This isn't being a jerk, it's plain common sense.

Environment...again, the 'proof' that driving cars -- i.e. the use of oil and other fossil fuels -- actually damages the environment is negligible at best. I've posted about that many times, so I suggest you stop listening to wackos like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio (who are not experts at anything, much less advanced science) take some time to look at the facts, evidence, and people who actually know what they're talking about before judging me on what I drive. There's also this little thing I have about freedom and choices that the whole environmental schtick tends to conflict with...

Crime...seriously? Are you seriously advocating the release of criminals based on the excuse that they have a drug problem? What a great idea! So, not only do we release people who have committed crimes, but let's release people who have committed crimes and have a chemical dependency that will most likely cause them to behave in a desperate and/or impaired way that will present an even greater danger to society. Please tell me you're not actually this stupid! The reason we lock up criminals is because they present a danger to society. They have already proven they are not capable of living in civilized society, and they need to be taken out of it before they hurt someone else. You sympathize with the criminal, I sympathize with the public who has to deal with that criminal and his violent actions.

Death penalty...this one is a bit trickier. I think I'll just point out that our system of justice is the fairest one in the world. Does it make mistakes? Sure, people are only human, too, as they say. But, the accused in our country have a chance to defend themselves, confront their accuser, and spend a lot of time in fighting the charges. An execution only occurs after years of fighting and numerous legal battles, but you make it seem like we're a bunch of thugs who simply murder anyone we don't like. Not true. That only happens in dictatorships.

International law...why should we pay attention to international law? We are in America, and the only law that should concern us is our own. Other countries aren't expected to abide by our laws, so why should we be expected to abide by theirs? I don't get your protest on this one. Think about it this way...would it be reasonable for me to expect you to raise your children like I raise mine? No, of course not. That's just stupid.

Diplomacy/bombs...you've got to be kidding me! I'm going to assume you're trotting out the tired mantra about Iraq. Do you have any idea the diplomatic hoops we jumped through before attacking? Congress made a declaration, we went to the U.N., Bush gathered dozens of countries into a coalition, Bush went back to Congress again, we went to the U.N. again, and the entire Security Council agreed. Oh yeah, and there were almost 20 resolutions of condemnation over the course of almost 15 years before that. You don't think that's diplomacy? And, you're forgetting the key thing that differentiates America's war from others in history - we don't keep what we win. We made war on an oppressive, evil regime, took it out, and are now in the process of giving the country back to its own people. Join us in the real world, please.

Nuclear weapons...absolutely! From the dictionary: "military strength or an ability to defend a country or retaliate strongly enough to deter an enemy from attacking" This is very, very simple. The stronger we are (i.e. lots of nukes), the less likely other countries are going to be to attack us in the first place. Who are you more likely to take a swing at: a 5-9, 160-pound scrawny guy, or a 6-8, 260-pound Army Ranger? Exactly.

Welfare...absolutely! There's nothing wrong with welfare or other programs that give money to those in need. But, the point is not to provide a permanent source of revenue so that the person in need becomes reliant on the government for his livelihood. Instead, the point is to help that person get back on his feet so he can rejoin society as a productive American. That's the problem - there are way too many people on welfare who could (and should) be in the work force, contributing the society, and earning a living for themselves and their families. That's the key difference, and it is HUGE! Again, this is a major difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to seek reliance on a big all-powerful government; conservatives tend to seek individual empowerment and responsibility. Nothing shows this philosophical difference like welfare and other entitlement programs.

Lawsuits...I'm not sure where you're getting this one. I've never heard of capping wrongful death lawsuits at $250,000. I'm not a big fan of putting a price tag on a person's life. I do think that trial lawyers and class action lawsuits are more than a little bit over-zealous, though.

Minimum wage...I'm not an economist, so I don't know what it should be compared to inflation and all that, but I don't think the minimum wage is nearly as low as you seem to think. The minimum wage was never intended to be a wage that provided for a person's livelihood and family. It is simply a minimum amount below which people cannot legally be paid. The vast majority of people who earn minimum wage are kids who generally have a home in which to live rent free, very few if any bills, and are simply learning about life in the real world while earning a few bucks. The other part of this that many liberals seem to completely miss is what results from a higher minimum wage: lost jobs and higher costs of products and services. This is already starting to happen as the result of the recent minimum wage increase, and it will only continue. Have you noticed prices at McDonald's have gone up almost a buck per value meal? There you go - minimum wage increase in action.

Your entire diatribe about how conservatives never want to give anyone a break seems to come down to compassion, which means "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering". Here's the thing...these same policies which you think are horrible and evil are actually meant to encourage personal responsibility and productivity, which ultimately alleviate the suffering.

Let's look at welfare as an example. Let's say I lose my job. I find myself in a situation where the only way I can buy food is to use food stamps, and rely on welfare to pay my bills so I don't lose my house. Whew! I'm okay now, but what happens next? Should I stay on food stamps and welfare for the rest of my life because that means I don't have to go out and get a job? No. It means that I stay on food stamps and welfare while I go out and FIND a job. At that point, I rely on my new job, and get off of food stamps and welfare. This is the point of conservatism - help people when they need it, but encourage them to get back on their own feet and succeed themselves.

How about this mortgage crisis? Sure, there are some people who legitimately got hammered by this situation, but not nearly as many as you think. I heard on the radio a couple days ago that 96% of Americans are paying their mortgages on time. That's right, this entire crisis is based on 4% of Americans having difficulties. Many of them are people who were flipping houses or making some other risky investment. That's the definition of sub-prime - they are less than desirable (i.e. more risky) loans. They couldn't afford the loans they were getting, and they got themselves in over their heads at the wrong time. Now, they're dealing with the consequences of their decisions. So should the government bail them out with taxpayer money? No. That would only encourage further bailouts of future mortgage crises, and most likely other industries, too. Look at it this way: if there are no negative consequences for risky behaviors, why should people act responsibly? The logical end to these bailouts is a rash of irresponsible behavior by a lot of people, and we all will suffer real crises in the future.

The reason you seem to think conservatives are jerks is that personal responsibility is difficult. It's a lot harder to get up and go to work every day than it is to sit around all day and cash a welfare check. It's a lot harder to stand on principles of market freedom than to bail out risky investors. It's a lot harder to cut government and get it out of the way than it is to swell the bureaucracy to try to be all things to all people. But, in the long run, individual responsibility will benefit us and the country far more. Just because conservatives encourage choices that aren't easy doesn't mean we are jerks.

If you want some policies that are merciful, how about the freedom that millions of Afghanis and Iraqis now have because of our actions and the sacrifice of our soldiers [and for that matter, how about most of Europe which relied on us to win two wars for them]? How about the fact that it was the Republican-led Congress in the mid-90's that reformed welfare to get millions of people back out into the work force and providing for themselves? How about the fact that conservatives advocate lower taxes, which means you and I get more money out of each paycheck? How about the fact that conservatives are vastly more generous with charitable contributions than liberals? How's that for giving "something for nothing"?

Those are just a couple examples that came immediately to mind, but there are plenty of conservative policies that help people out. Those 'disingenuous' reasons conservatives often cite -- like protecting the free market, government inefficiency, and government regulation -- are not just platitudes. They are real, concrete things that are critical to how conservatives believe America should run. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean they're frivolous.

What's sad is that liberals refuse to acknowledge reality and instead resort to name-calling when they can't win the debate on facts.

There's my two cents.

Conservatism Basics

A trio of writers at Townhall lay out some great examples of the differences between conservatism and liberalism.  Key excerpts are below.

The High Cost of a Free Lunch by Burt Prelutsky
Prelutsky traces most of today's ills back to the Democrat hero, Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Though FDR is widely credited with bringing America out of the Great Depression, his policies were very socialistic and actually helped prolong the recovery while dumping loads of power into the hands of government:

The end result of his 12 years in the White House is a hodge-podge of Washington bureaucracies and an economy that finds the federal government being far and away the single largest employer in the U.S. Couple that with his personal fondness for Joseph Stalin, his filling his administration and the State Department with like-minded idiots, and you have a perfect blueprint for disaster. For as Thomas Jefferson recognized, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

As the result of FDR's policies, we now have millions of Americans (and illegal aliens) who expect the federal government to provide everything for them, including guaranteeing their own home mortgages and health insurance.  Prelutsky questions if these people understand that the government doesn't magically make money, but rather that it takes money from taxpayers like you and me and re-distributes it.  He suggests that "it probably makes no difference to them, for, as some cynic once observed, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, don't expect Paul to object too strenuously."

The federal government spends over $10 billion on 'free' breakfasts and lunches for millions of school children each year.  Prelutsky asks the pointed question:

And what I, as a concerned citizen, would like to know is why they're forcing the parents to be responsible for putting dinner on the table. Okay, I admit I'm joshing. But how long will it be before the leftists demand to know why the feds are shucking their obvious responsibility just because the sun has gone down? And just how long before FDR's heirs in Washington launch their own version of the New Deal called Three Square Meals?

His point is well taken.  Where will the entitlement stop?  Congress has proposed all manner of gifts for almost everything, including retiring, going to school, dropping out of school, food stamps, having babies, not working...  The list is endless.  Republicans are guilty of it to some degree, but the worst offenders by far are the current crop of Democrats.  This is the entitlement generation, and they are quite literally being bought by those who promise them the most benefit despite not being able to pay for it...without taking away YOUR money first.


The Hidden Cost of Good Ideas by David Strom
Strom apparently has a bit of a personal grudge against Daylight Saving Time, but he uses this example to illustrate the negative unintended consequences of too much government meddling in our daily lives.  The premise of DST was to save energy during WWI, but no one actually bothered to do the math and figure out if it actually would accomplish that objective.  If anything, DST causes more problems than it eliminates:

- Daylight savings time likely increases energy use, despite the fact that Americans use somewhat less lighting than without it. It turns out that heating and air conditioning usage goes up
- Billions of dollars were spent by individuals and companies change the DST rules in computer programs when Congress decided to tweak the rules, creating a mini-Y2K problem
- Americans spend, conservatively, about $1.7 billion in time wasted changing their clocks and watches to reflect the springing forward and falling back each year
- DST causes deaths, as more pedestrians are hit in the fall after the return to standard time, and more car accidents happen due to tired drivers in the spring

While Strom argues that DST should be eliminated, he also makes the broader point that "[t]he law of unintended consequences makes it unlikely that the good anticipated will come about, and ensure that all sorts of bad things not anticipated will come to pass. The world is imperfect, as are we. But with few exceptions it is better to let people muddle about in relative freedom than to try to socially engineer them into some preconceived and probably impossible better world."

You can apply this to any number of liberal notions of progress, but a good rule of thumb is that more government intervention is always bad.  Just think about it: when you think of the government running anything, don't you automatically assume it will take longer and cost more than if private organizations did that same thing?  Our government has a way of bankrupting or red-lining every monetary program it's touched, from Social Security to the overall budget of the largest economy in the history of the world.  Do we really want to give them more control?   Take, for instance, the topic I blogged about a couple months ago, where a new law is being considered in California that would require state control of homeowners' thermostats.  Seriously??  Why in the world would we want to let some nameless, faceless bureaucracy that can't even effectively manage a DMV line control the temperature in our own homes?  The government is way, way, way too big, and we need to start actively trimming it back.


Why I am a Conservative by John Hawkins
This is a great piece that illustrates the mindset of conservatism.  I think that most people prefer to live as a conservative, even if they don't believe they are one in a political sense.  Hawkins lists a number of the reasons that prompted him to adopt conservatism rather than liberalism - see if you agree with any of these statements:

* I don't think some politician in Washington who has never held a job outside of politics in his entire life, has a better handle on what to do with my money than I do.
* I don't resent wealthy people. To the contrary, I want to become one of them one day.
* Government policies should be based on whether they work or not and whether they are constitutional, not on whether they make the people advocating them feel "nice" or "mean."
* I am a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of the world. As such, my loyalty will always belong to this country and its people, not to any other nation, group of nations, or any sort of world governing body.
* I believe women and men are different, should be treated differently, and are not interchangeable. There are jobs women tend to be better at than men and vice-versa. There are ways a man behaves that women shouldn't behave in and vice-versa.
* It isn't the job of the federal government to make us successful; it's the job of the federal government to create an environment that allows us to make ourselves successful.
* The market and private industry almost always do a better job of allocating resources than the federal government could ever hope to do.
* Morals do matter. "If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." If that ever happens, it would be a tragedy not just for us and our children, but for the whole world.
* Our tax rate is too high as it is and if it's not producing enough revenue for Washington, D.C. then they should start trying to live within their means instead of asking us to pony up more money.
* I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
* There is a meaningful difference between tolerating behavior and deeming it to be acceptable or good.
* If we lose our freedom in this country, it won't be because of a foreign invader; it'll be because our own government took it away from us a bit at a time with one law after another designed to "help" us.

There are many more in the article.  I would imagine that you probably agree with most of them, don't you?  Now, for those of you who think of yourselves as liberal (whether you're a Rep or a Dem), your agreement shows that you may actually be a lot less liberal than you think.  These statements come back to the fundamental philosophical question of who knows better and should have the power: the state or the individual?  Conservatism says the individual can best use his or her resources, manage his or her family, and find financial success; liberalism says the state should do those things.  Conservatism says the journey is as important as the endpoint; liberalism says the end justifies the means.  Conservatism says life, freedom, and responsibility should take precedent over stifling regulations and trifling legal wrangling; liberalism does not.

These philosophies color every aspect of our lives.  I think that if most people stop and think about it, they'll agree that conservatism is the way they prefer to live, even if they don't want to admit it.  Those who don't are probably the same people who FDR ensnared with his entitlement mentality.  Someone needs to free them from their self-imposed, self-limiting bondage to entitlement, and conservatives can do that.

There's my two cents.

Reagan's Visionary Leadership

Newt Gingrich writes about the 25th anniversary of two of Ronald Reagan's landmark speeches, and the effects they had on the world. This is a great bit of history, and worth a review. Excerpt:

In 1980, the United States was losing the Cold War. Under President Jimmy Carter, the American economy had become a disaster -- featuring 13% inflation, 22% interest rates, gasoline lines and shortages, and the beginning of the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Our national security situation was verging on the catastrophic. The anti-military left had cut the Defense budget. The Soviet Union was subsidizing massive appeasement marches in Western Europe (secret documents released after the fall of East Germany confirm that Soviet front-groups were behind the demonstrations). Soviet forces were on the offense in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada, Nicaragua and El Salvador.

The most public humiliation was the illegal seizure of the American Embassy in Iran in 1979. Iranian militants held American diplomats as hostages in total violation of international law for 444 days. In the face of this assault on America and American citizens, Carter's policy was one of weakness and appeasement. The result was a national sense of humiliation and impotence.

Before Reagan took office, the national establishment favored a policy of "reasonableness" -- that is, they accepted the existence of the Soviet Union as a given and believed it had to be accommodated. In contrast to the "realpolitik" of the national establishment, Ronald Reagan outlined a simple, clear alternative. When asked by a reporter of his vision of the Cold War, Reagan said simply, "We win, they lose."

On March 8, 1983, Reagan offered his most forceful moral claim for this new strategy of victory in the Cold War. In a speech calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire," he defined the illegitimacy of the Soviet dictatorship. It was a speech that Natan Sharansky, then a prisoner in the Soviet Gulag, said galvanized the hopes of the prisoners and raised their morale while demoralizing the Soviet guards and undermining the authority of the Soviet system.

Two weeks later, on March 23, President Reagan outlined in a second speech the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that was designed to begin a science-and-technology race that the Soviets could not win.

America's elites were shocked by these two speeches. They ridiculed and attacked them. The State Department professionals and the foreign policy elites opposed Reagan. They were all horrified that an American President could be so bold and provocative. They would be almost as unhappy four years later when President Reagan went to Berlin and demanded, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

Less than nine years after Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" and "SDI" speeches, the Soviet Union disappeared. The scale of this strategic victory and the role of President Reagan in defeating the Soviet Union are ignored by most of academic America and much of the news media. The 25th anniversary of these two speeches is a good time to set the record straight. They were wrong, and Reagan was right.

I wanted to share some audio clips of those two speeches with you. The first speech was Reagan's Address to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida on March 8, 1983. It has since been called the 'Evil Empire' speech because that's what he named the Soviet Union there. Take a listen to some of the best parts:

Clip 1: America as a torch of freedom.
Clip 2: The source of American greatness and the threat of modern day secularism.
Clip 3: The need for peace through strength.
Clip 4: Reagan calls those who demand the supremacy of the state over the individual as the focus of evil in modern world.

The second speech was Reagan's Address to the Nation on National Security from the White House Oval Office on March 23, 1983. He outlined a specific plan to launch an arms race against the Soviet Union that they could not win, based on the idea of peace through strength.

Clip 1: A strong military is the surest means to peace.
Clip 2: The U.S. does not start fights, peace can only maintained through strength.

Truly, this was some bold stuff! You know what strikes me most about it, though? If you listen to all of these, these words can be applied equally well to 2008 as to 1983! Seriously, look at some of these statements:

"I want you to know that this administration is motivated by a political philosophy that sees the greatness of America in you, her people, and in your families, churches, neighborhoods, communities -- the institutions that foster and nourish values like concern for others and respect for the rule of law under God. Now, I don't have to tell you that this puts us in opposition to, or at least out of step with, a prevailing attitude of many who have turned to a modern-day secularism, discarding the tried and time-tested values upon which our very civilization is based. No matter how well intentioned, their value system is radically different from that of most Americans. And while they proclaim that they're freeing us from superstitions of the past, they've taken upon themselves the job of superintending us by government rule and regulation. Sometimes their voices are louder than ours, but they are not yet a majority."

How often to we struggle against politicians who ignore the rule of law (illegal immigration, ethical deficiencies, corruption) and basic values (life and freedom)? How often do we fight against over-bearing regulations that throttle our economy and freedom (global warming)?

At the same time, however, they must be made to understand we will never compromise our principles and standards. We will never give away our freedom. We will never abandon our belief in God. And we will never stop searching for a genuine peace. But we can assure none of these things America stands for through the so-called nuclear freeze solutions proposed by some. The truth is that a freeze now would be a very dangerous fraud, for that is merely the illusion of peace. The reality is that we must find peace through strength.

Remember what I blogged about recently with Obama pledging to de-nuke the world by leading America to non-nuke status first? Reagan knew this was poor policy decades ago!

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness -- pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

Boy, if this doesn't sound a heckuva lot like the Sharia-governed Islamic states in today's world, I don't know what does! Of course, the one obvious difference is that while the Soviet Union sought to eliminate God altogether, radical Islam seeks to honor Allah by killing or converting everyone else in the world. It may be a different form of totalitarianism, but it's still totalitarianism bent on domination.

Since the dawn of the atomic age, we've sought to reduce the risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking genuine arms control. "Deterrence" means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won't attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.

This is a perfect definition of deterrence. What some today don't realize is that true peace is only available through benevolent strength, which is what America offers. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and although we may influence and suggest, we do not conquer nor force other countries to bend to our will unless they attack us first (and even then, we're very slow to military action!). The terrorists themselves have echoed Reagan's theory - remember all the talk from bin Laden about the people following the 'strong horse'? That happened after Clinton pulled troops out of Somalia after a handful of casualties. Bin Laden proclaimed that event proved he was the 'strong horse', which prompted a new series of attacks that culminated in 9/11.

Reagan knew it, our enemies know it...so why does the Left not get it? This is why they cannot be allowed to run the country - they refuse to acknowledge this simple reality. Their willful ignorance is extremely dangerous to all of us. Great stuff from the Gipper, and just as applicable today as it was then.

That's what happens when you base your philosophy on truths that don't change over time. As I've said before, those truths are reflected in conservatism.

There's my two cents.

The Misnomer Of Conservatism

Bruce Walker writes a brilliant analysis piece called "The Misnomer of Conservatism" that really explains a lot about both conservatives and the Left.  It begins like this:

As we "conservatives" thrash about trying to find who is a real conservative, we should also seek to find what we mean by conservative.  Conservatism, supposedly, is like a stool with three legs:  Fiscal, Social, and National Security.  Those three concerns are what identify those of us on the "Right."  Yet those of us who call ourselves conservatives see the silliness of that definition.  If there were no national security threat, would those "National Security" conservatives cease to be conservative?  No, of course not.  If the national debt and entitlements were not obscenely vast, would those "Fiscal" conservatives cease to be conservative?  Again, no.  If Roe v. Wade were overruled and Americans began returning to churches and synagogues, would "Social" conservatives whither away?  The very question seems absurd.

Why, then, do we have so many problems identifying what conservatism is in American politics?  There is an easy, though not simple, answer to that question:  What we have come to call "conservative" or the Right is a group of principles whose definitional names have been invented by those who hate those principles.

Walker goes on to talk about the origin of many of the terms we use nowadays to classify ourselves (right, left, liberal, progressive, etc.), and most of them have their roots in murderous movements like the French Revolution or thugs like Karl Marx.  Why does that matter?

Orwell presciently told us that language is the key to politics.  He also warned us that the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words so that we could not cogently grasp the enemy or his weapons.  So we conservatives call ourselves "conservative" without any real notion of what that is supposed to mean.  We consider ourselves on the Right in some notional ideological spectrum, without really knowing what this spectrum is supposed to represent.

I don't know about you, but in this day and age where everything is being redefined in the light of political correctness, a shiver went down my spine when I read 'the intention of those who seek power was to drain meaning from words' so we couldn't recognize our enemies.  Does that sound as familiar to you as it does to me?  It should - it's happening all around us on a daily basis!  Walker then talks about Jefferson and Goldwater, two major political figures in history who are placed squarely on the 'right' despite not necessarily standing for everything we traditionally think of as being on the 'right'.  But, these men were confident enough to define themselves rather than let others define them.

What those of us who believe in the importance of liberty in human affairs, the vital goodness of America, the necessity of personal honesty in any healthy society, and the necessity of a Blessed Creator to any noble concept of life is to define ourselves and also to define our enemies.  We who have been called "conservative" (because we somehow have not accepted the Marxian idea of progress) are ultimately just people who believe in truth.  Many "conservatives" came to conservatism (whatever that is) because the Left is so permeated with lies and self-delusion (Exhibit A:  Global Warming.)

That's the key point: truth versus subjectivity.  My father has pointed out to me more than once a phenomenon he's noticed frequently throughout his lifetime - liberalism always eventually comes into contradiction with itself (for example, see some of my previous blogs about environmentalism here and here).  This is because it is not based on any certain set of absolute principles (i.e. TRUTH).  When there is no truth, a subjective feeling can be influenced in any direction, making any argument sound reasonable.  But, reasonableness can be applied to both sides of any argument, thus creating a paradox of who is more right in any given situation.  When right and wrong become subjective, how do you determine who is what?  Even a dash of truth, however, eliminates this paradox.  Anyway, moving on...

Walker finishes with one of the most sound descriptions of liberalism that I can recall reading in quite some time:

How do we define our enemies?  Some of us might like to call them "socialists," but that is using a vacuous Marxist term to describe a very real attitude. They do not really believe in anything, except power.  Why is Hillary running for president?  She wants power -- it is her turn.  Why did Democrats lust to regain Congress in 2006?  Power is the answer (have they even tried to do anything but harass President Bush?)

When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing.   The bondage of lies is just as great as any other bondage.  Our enemies seek to manacle us and allow, without always knowing it, themselves to be manacled as well.  So we could call them power addicts, but perhaps the purest term to describe them is as bondsmen in the party of pathological lies.

This is a perfect summary of the liberal Left today.  They have become so enraged at the fact that they fell out of power in the 1990's that they can't even recognize truth when it hammers them in the face (i.e. Iraq).  They care about nothing other than regaining power, and will stop at nothing to achieve it, even if it means putting America at risk (i.e. the current FISA debacle).  Rush Limbaugh often draws the illustration that liberals look at political power as their birthright and that they deserve it; as such, when they lose elections (because we idiot peons voted wrong), they don't take it gracefully - they fight it, creating conspiracies that don't exist and bending/breaking rules without thought (i.e. Al Gore in 2000).

Did you catch what Walker said at the end there?  'When the craving for power transcends every other human longing, then the importance of truth and honor shrinks to nothing.'  If you've ever wondered how it is that these people can sleep at night despite lying, slandering, cheating, and destroying everyone and everything around them, or if you've ever asked yourself why there seem to be few -- if any -- moral or ethical standards on the Left, this is your answer.

There's my two cents.

What is Conservatism?

This was actually going to be my first blog, but the shamnesty bill reared its ugly head and trumped the initial plan. But, now that that debacle has passed for the time being, we can get back to this topic. So, what is conservatism?

A 'conservative' is not the same as a 'Republican', just as a 'liberal' is not the same as a 'Democrat', although there is enough overlap that a substantial stereotype exists. There are plenty of examples of people who cross over the line. President Bush is a perfect example - he is the leader of the Republican party and tough on terrorism, but he is also quite liberal on government spending and illegal immigration. Similarly, a number of Democrats were elected in 2006 that were quite conservative in many areas. Rudy Guliani is a liberal on social issues (i.e. pro-abortion) but conservative on national security (i.e. war on terror). So where is that elusive dividing line?

Rush Limbaugh -- love him or hate him -- is one of the biggest names in conservatism today. He almost single-handedly established what is now called the 'new media', which includes talk radio, Fox, and various other alternative forms of media like the blogosphere. He is widely considered an expert in conservatism; in fact, when the Republican party (led by conservatives like Newt Gingrich) swept into Congressional leadership in 1994 via the 'Contract With America', they asked Rush to come and speak to the freshman class of lawmakers on the subject.

So, it is with great confidence that I'm going to paraphrase one of Rush's recent monologues (from March 21st, 2007) regarding the main differences between the conservative and liberal mindset.

He first establishes that these are just generalizations, and that some givens are valid for all people: we all want economic prosperity, opportunity, and the chance at the American dream; we want to be left alone, not hassled by the government in the pursuit of that dream. The real question is how to provide that.

Rush suggests that liberals do not believe that a majority of people have the ability to realize the American dream on their own, and that they have a general contempt for 'average' Americans and 'average' human beings. The essence of liberalism is assuming that people are helpless and hopeless. That way, government can step in and provide 'assistance' to incompetent people, which actually creates a self-fulfilling prophecy - by disarming the competitive nature and entrepreneurial spirit, liberalism also disarms the American dream itself by drawing focus to the government and the benefits it provides rather than the individual. Conservatives, on the other hand, have faith in the individual and believe that rugged individualism is what defines excellence, and that its pursuit is what made America the greatest country on the planet. Conservatism believes that people can better themselves, and strives to educate, inspire, and motivate people to do just that. Conservatives want a great country full of people who can raise families and support them, and to inspire them because that's how they are. Conservatives are fundamentally optimistic but still realistic, believing they can triumph over the inevitable obstacles of life. Liberals think those obstacles are insurmountable for the individual, and thus need the government to help them get by.

So, Limbaugh asks, why are some people not conservative and some are? His answer is that you could look at specific issues like abortion or gay marriage (which, again, are stereotypical enough to give you a good idea of where someone stands), or any other big issue. But, in a general sense, he maintains that anyone who is in favor of the growth of government and the idea that people need an infinite amount of help because they can't do things on their own is not a conservative. This is true for both Democrats and Republicans.

The problem, Limbaugh, says, is that liberals -- in pursuit of their agenda -- use government to train their youth from grade school on up through college. They get youth into nonprofit organizations and Ivy league schools for the express purpose of going into government and continuing the perpetual bureaucracy until they can take over. Conservatives, however, look at government as something that should be invisible most of the time, and the basic philosophy targets individuals (i.e. small businesses, normal Americans) and seeks to empower them instead. Conservatives want limited government, and Limbaugh points out that using government to limit government is a difficult challenge for conservatives.

I would also add that a key difference is that of double standards. Conservatism tends to hold everyone to a single set of rules, while liberalism seems content to have one set of rules for the people making the rules, and another set of rules for everyone else. We'll get into more of this in the future.

As I said in one of my first blogs - a conservative would strive to teach a man how to fish so the man could then sustain himself; a liberal would rather give the man a fish so the man keeps coming back to him for help. It's a very different mindset, and one that is at play in essentially everything in the world of politics. As we continue to look at other issues, my goal is to illustrate the contrasts through simple examples in daily life.

For now, hopefully that gives you at least a starting point for understanding the fundamental differences.

There's my two cents.

Where Am I Coming From?

I'm a conservative. I'm not ashamed to say that I think that conservative principles are the reason this country has become the greatest society ever to grace the face of the Earth. I'll explain this more over time, and I hope you'll come to agree with me. For now, let's start with defining conservatism a bit.

Conservatism is a philosophy or frame of mind that believes in the free marketplace, not only in goods and services, but also in ideas. It believes that the role of government should be smaller and less intrusive in daily life, and that taxes should be as low as possible. It strives to enable the common man to elevate himself and grow rather than stagnate. It strives to ignore stigmas like race, heritage, and gender. It believes that individual freedoms unleash the potential of humans' innate God-given creativity and drive to succeed, build, and progress forward. In short, a conservative believes it's far better to teach a man how to fish and thus enable him to provide for himself and his family rather than to give him a fish and make him dependent.

All future messages will be coming from this point of view, so keep that in mind as you read. I respect other opinions, though - civilized dissent is part of what makes America great. Whether you agree with me or not, my goal is that you will be more informed of current events and issues when you're done reading than you were when you started. Even better, my hope is that you will agree with me and act accordingly. I know that won't always happen, and that's okay.

With that being said, you should know that I haven't always been interested in politics. In fact, I'm about as anti-politics as you can get. However, I also realize that there are a load of problems around us, and the vehicle through which many of these problems can be fixed is (unfortunately) politics via informed people. The more I started paying attention to that fact, the more I felt the need to jump in.

In my humble opinion, the main problem is this: I think there's a huge disconnect between the elites in this country (the mainstream media, the very rich, the socially powerful, and many of those currently in positions of power) and 'normal people' like you and me. The last few years have seen a departure in much of the mainstream media from unbiased reporting to agenda-driven slant. Fortunately, there's also been a much better dissemination of accurate information about what's going on through the so-called 'new media', but I think that a lot of people still don't get the full story - it takes a pretty significant effort to dig through the mainstream media to get the real deal. I try to keep up with things on a fairly regular basis out of my own interest, so I thought it might be helpful if I pass along what I learn to other 'normal people' like me.

Am I going to try to persuade you to my viewpoint? I might. But, I truly think that most Americans already believe many of the same things I do, so I'm going to try to keep this blog to an information-sharing purpose rather than just another political rant. I plan to show you the facts (the ones not reported in the mainstream media) and raise some questions, and I believe that if I do that effectively, you'll come to the same conclusions I do, and act accordingly. I may offer some blatant suggestions here and there, but you can -- obviously -- take them or leave them. You won't hurt my feelings either way. :)

I'll do my best to reference my sources as much as possible, but I don't know how long I'll be able to archive attachments - we'll see how it goes!

Thus begins a new adventure for me, and hopefully a useful service to you.

There's my two cents.