Thursday, February 26, 2009

A Clarification on What I Believe

The more that I contemplate my ideology and the effects of my beliefs about politics, the more that I cannot allow the description "conservative" to be used for me. "Conservatism" is the ideology of staying with the same old, same old. Barry Obama and his government model is what DEFINES conservative. Grow the government, raise taxes, increase the reach of federal programs, that is the epitome of conservatism. Same old, same old.

But, we are stuck with the words and their perverted meanings.

I am an individualist. I could not care less what you do, UNLESS it infringes on my rights to do as I please. At one time, my ideology was called "liberalism." Now, the liberal is the person that screeches for more and more government control. By this definition, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro, Chavez, Mussolini, and their philosophical brethren are liberals. So, I cannot be called a liberal.

I am an individualist. That is what I am and that is what I shall always be. I always refer to my guys and gals are "normal" people. We are the ones that offer every single thing to this world and ask only that we receive just compensation for that which we produce. We do not want anything from you EXCEPT for your payment for the services we deliver. We shall accept nothing less than what is owed to us for our accomplishments. We do not desire to be paid anything that we did not EARN.

Elizabeth Alexander is NOT one of my people.

This is where I part ways with what is considered a "conservative" of today. Supposedly, today's conservatives are the ones that desire limited government. What is limited government? It is the utter refusal of allowing the government to step in where it is unwanted or unneeded. Conservatives have moved away from that ideology and have started to ask the government to legislate things that they desire (or don't desire) for themselves. This is NOT limited government. Asking for legislation on ANYTHING is NOT limited government.

We have broken the term down into parts as well. This is asinine. A "social" conservative and a "fiscal" conservative? Please, this is just dumb. If you consider yourself a "social" conservative, what does that mean? Well, of course it means that you want the government to OUTLAW abortion. Asking the government to INCREASE legislation is NOT conservative, folks.

Granted, abortion is WRONG. Don't do it, but do you need the government to tell you to not kill babies? How does abortion affect me? Well, it affects me when a woman gets pregnant and she receives government subsidy FROM me, against my will, to kill the baby.

Guess what, if the woman gets pregnant and HAS the baby and they receive money FROM me, against my will, it affects me, too.

What else? I am not homosexual, so guess what? I won't get involved with another man. Know what else? I do not need a law to tell me NOT to do that. Pretty simple. How does gay marriage affect me? Well, it affects me if two dudes get married and they receive government subsidy FROM me, against my will, to live their lifestyle.

Guess what, if a different sex couple gets married and receives government subsidy FROM me, against my will, it affects me, too.

Do you see where this is going?

The limited government model is the ONLY one that guarantees FREEDOM, people. You CANNOT legislate those "social" conservative things without BIGGER government. The two ideas do not work together.

What is "fiscal" conservatism? It is supposedly the government NOT wasting money on stupid things. Let's be serious for a second. Can you come up with one single solitary thing that the government DOESN'T waste money on? When any government contractor supplies anything to the government, they know that they can charge a premium price and still figure in further up-charges throughout the process. Has there ever been a government job to come in under time and under budget?

See: Architecture, Of, By, and For Dumbasses.

Now, the solutions. Face it, Democrats are morons. Their party can NEVER be saved and cannot deliver a single good thing unless you are a deadbeat and desire total government control of your life. Theirs is the party of asinine ideology that has never worked at ANY time in the past and shall never work at ANY time in the future. They are completely and utterly devoid of any intelligence or original thought at all. However, there are a minuscule few that can be helped and brought into the intelligent fold with the right philosophical approach.

The third parties are fringe and shall never have enough of a following to help. There are most definitely a bunch of folks in those parties that need to be on our side.

That leaves the Republican Party as the ONLY party that can make a difference. You know, like they did for the twelve years they controlled Congress and everyone was rich as all get out.

How do we take back DC? By using the limited government model. This means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

HERE, read what limited government MEANS.

''The taxing power of Government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate Government purposes,'' Mr. Reagan said. ''It must not be used to regulate the economy or bring about social change. We've tried that and surely we must be able to see it doesn't work.'' This declaration brought a loud burst of applause.

Get it? And the outcome? The longest peacetime expansion of our economy in HISTORY.

Please take the time to comment.


ChristinaJade said...

awesome post, my friend.

check this out. i love this guy.

Paul Mitchell said...

Oh, I could almost be a Paul-bot, but the isolationism is what killed it for me. I am a strong military kinda guy and Ron Paul is not. But, the entire time he has been in the House, he has only voted for two spending bills. That is my kind of fiscal restraint.

ChristinaJade said...

yep, the military thing (or lack thereof) holds me back from diving in head first with him. but his economic ideas are incredible. and just exactly what we need right now.

and even though i wouldn't have voted for him for POTUS, i just love that guy. :)

then again, i still love Perot. dangit. there, i said it.

Steve B said...

Yeah, what YOU said.

Anonymous said...

What happened to Perot? I voted for him way back when. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about everything that is happening now.

Paul Mitchell said...

Perot backed Mitt in this last election. He also has a new website.

ChristinaJade said...

I voted for him back then, too.

I have this thing about the charts. LOVE the charts.

Paul Mitchell said...

I just linked you some chart pr0n, Christina Jade. Have a great Sunday.

Tami said...

Awesome way of putting it, my twitter friend! Thanks for sharing. :-)