Lets Go Back To Square One

[M]

One thing I see lacking in our conversations and posts is the fact we seem to have different definitions of what is Conservative ideology, and Liberal Ideology and Libertarian ideology. We also seem to have differing definitions of what Progressivism, Socialism, and Fascism is. We are lumping to many divergent ideologies together under the blanket of Progressive ideology. Granted some of our morals and charitable beliefs are utilized by the various 'ologies' to promote their agendas, but that is where crystal clear definitions would sort out the abusers and liars.

What we have not done is to clearly and concisely define our beliefs and how they are supposed to be used if we want to stop the charlatans from mis-using them and their intent to promote their selfish agendas. Example; We all know how LBJ used our beliefs about helping people that were needy to survive and then thrive when they pulled themselves out of the troubles they were experiencing. However the Progressive Democrats of that era applied those principles to actually enslave the group they were supposed to be helping by not following through and educating them to compete in the modern workplace. In fact LBJ's Great Society made the people it purported to help totally dependent on continued voting for the progressive Democratic Socialist Party just to insure they would not starve. That's why it is so imperative that we clearly define our definitions of what we mean by our beliefs, and how they are to be properly applied in the real world.

Another example of the duplicitous nature of the Socialist Democrats is exemplified in the "Affordable Care Act" That act purports to be there to insure those below the poverty line and lower the cost of medical coverage. In reality it destroyed the medical coverages and increased those who are uninsured while taking down coverages that people has to a much lower level while increasing the cost to them. See; http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/03/the-federal-govern...  for more complete information. Don't forget that most of us signed on to the Tea Party to oppose Obamacare in the first place back in 2009.

 

So, I ask all of you to clearly and concisely define what you think Conservative means, and how that definition is to be applied in the real world. I also ask you to post your definitions of the other ideologies. Maybe we can come to agreements on what we want through clearer definitions of what we mean when we use those terms like Conservative, Libertarian, Progressive, Liberal, and Socialist ( the last contains both Communist and Fascist as the left and right divisions of socialism).

I see defining our terms and agreeing on their meanings would work to further unite us, and to help us educate the low information voters/citizens to help stop the abuse that is permeated throughout the entire Progressive/NWO movement.

[Hankelvis]

The Dems and Rhinos all use union-built websites. Conservatives create their own content that aligns with our principles instead of conforming lockstep to the union's party line.

Ex: http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/

[M]

Ok Hank,

What's your personal definition of Conservative and Liberal?

[Hankelvis]

I believe what Mark Levin does.
I add free abortions for liberals and union leaders.
No billionaires in politics.

[kevin kiernan]

Hey, If a liberal does not want to give birth to what will probably grow up to be a low life looser who wants free stuff...Then who  are we to get in the way.. Just a thought...I know it sounds horrible because it is a horrible thought...But it did enter my mind..I`m sorry...

[Hankelvis]

My interpretation of the Bible is that we should do all we can but ultimately, it is for God to sort out the demons, not us. You cannot force values and morals on anyone.
Our nation failed her people in education. I blame politicians and a disengaged populace.

[M]

If we forced it, that would end free will. And I think that's what the Progressive Socialist Elitists want to happen.

[Hankelvis]

Mark who?
http://www.marklevinshow.com/2016/03/05/watch-mark-levins-rousing-s...

[M]

I got this from Lady Boots;

I would like to offer two major points to consider, which have helped me to understand the complexities that I beleive have brought American to an environment of political and constitutional jeopardy. It briefly speaks to a complex issue.

Point One. Theory and Method

Targeted Theory-focused-promoted through mis-messaging and corruption of meaning. 

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals has been highly and throughly effective.  His theory of method has been embraced and used to optimum effectiveness in our national politics.  Community organizing is the root and personal level principle.  Our major religions have been infiltrated by beleivers and then work beyond suspicion to promote the 'social messages' through Christian charity programs and fellowship.  Easily the religious tenants get co-opted by social progressives. People who have gained the highest levels of political power in recent decades are deciples and advocates of Alinsky's methods. Our colleges and universities leadership and teachers are ready to cultivate fertile and paying minds though indoctrinating the minds of todays youth and tomorrows leaders.

The two Democratic candidates for the presidency of the United states in our next national election are both Socialists.  Sanders openly embraces the political psychology, Clinton is more clandestine in her revelation of support for socialism. 

Remember, Hilary Clinton’s college thesis positively promoted embracing Alinsky's method and beleifs.  She even interviewed him in her paper sourcing. Recent letters exchanged between them have been discovered.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/19179-published-...

Clinton’s thesis, 'There is Only the Fight'.

https://rakesprogress.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/hillaryclintonthe...

NY Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/weekinreview/23alinsky.html?_r=0

Young conservatives discuss Alinsky’s methods and using them to counter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2DL7qRSXrw 

Point Two. Understanding The ‘isms’.

Wiki defines them well. There are a few, and they define themselves on a sliding scale of political theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Many constitutional conservatives define themselves as CLASSIC LIBERALS.  Yes, at first I did a double take when it was first suggested to me that I should consider defining myself as a ‘liberal’ by any stripe.  

It is, in fact, an original ‘ism’ for Constitutional conservatives to investigate.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.

[1] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property rights, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism.

[2]Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law, utilitarianism, and a belief in progress that respects the two principles of individual liberty and limited government.

In the early 20th century, liberals split on several issues, and particularly in America a distinction grew up between classical liberals and social liberals.

 

Richard A. Epstein wrote a book that is very thought provoking and explanatory, his information lends well to this discussion.  An excerpt from a review of his book, The Classic Liberal Constitution.

 

"In "The Classical Liberal Constitution," Mr. Epstein takes up the political logic of our fundamental law. The Constitution, he says, reflects above all John Locke's insistence on protecting natural rights—rights that we possess simply by virtue of our humanity. Their protection takes concrete form in the Constitution by restricting the federal government to specific, freedom-advancing and property-protecting tasks, such as establishing a procedurally fair justice system, minting money as a stable repository of value, preserving a national trade zone among the states, and, not least, guarding the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Epstein believes that constitutional law lost its way when it began to embrace a Progressive vision, according to which rights are created by a supposedly benevolent state. Starting especially with the New Deal legislation of the 1930s, the federal government has passed laws that redistribute wealth, water-down procedural protections for property, and dictate the relations between employers and employees. The premise of such laws is that government should establish a pattern of social justice." 

 

Decades of ‘social change’, promoted by theory and method, have brought America to this moment in our history, an environment of political and constitutional jeopardy.

The frog in the slowly heated-to-boiling pot, to be simplistically illustrative.

Best Regards,

boots

[charles royer]

Where the f**k was all the vetting in 2007?

Obama taught Alinsky tactics

If you think that labeling Barack Obama “the DECEIVER” is extreme, consider the fact that he taught Alinsky tactics in Chicago, and Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals is dedicated to Lucifer, the “father of lies” (see Clashes between Liberals and Conservatives).
Barack Obama is no stranger to the mastery and use of lies. Alinsky tactics are founded on the use of lies.

http://sytereitz.com/tag/obama-taught-alinsky-tactics/

[Hankelvis]

A dark horse road out..

[M]

Did you refer to this hank?

The Black Horse 

When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, “Come and see!” I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wages, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!” (Revelation 6:5-6)

[Hankelvis]

Yes sir