---
they must be removed from our government, especially the GOP.
and let's not confuse who they are ... zionist xians and jews who
promote intervention in the middle east that has resulted in the
destruction of our liberties and privacy
On Dec 29, 8:20 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Like Seavey, I acknowledged the "paleolibertarian" movement back in the
> 1990s and forward, I just had a different name for them: The
> "Patriots/Militia/Minutemen/Tax Protest/Wacko Right Conspiratorialist
> Crackpot" crewe. The distinction between folks like me, (and I consider
> myself to be a conservative libertarian, a Registered Republican, and
> Southern By The Grace Of God"); is that there were a number of beliefs,
> platforms and issues that these "Patriots/Militia/Minutemen/Tax
> Protest/Wacko Right Conspiratorialist Crackpot" crewe stood for and
> accepted as gospel, that I totally rejected and considered a deal breaker.
>
> Today, in the New Millennium, there are a number of groups that make up
> the Republican Party. I've written about this before, when trying to make
> a point with Michael "MJ". Some of these groups, Rockwell and especially
> Rothbard and Buchanan were targeting in the late 1980s and early to mid
> 1990s:
>
> From March 19, 2009. I hope that Bruce and PlainOl will take the time to
> read this:
>
> To classify "conservatives" as, "Republicans" is misplaced. There are at
> least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote
> Republican; a coalition if you will; and some of these group's beliefs
> obviously overlap. Just as important, again, I am stereotyping:
>
> The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly
> referred to as the "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family,
> church and community are their most important issues;
>
> The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign,
> encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
>
> The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a
> strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted
> government;
>
> The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and
> I detest that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former
> Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a
> "Federalist" perspective.
>
> I will be the first to admit, that the Republican Party has lost its way.
> In general, (again, I am stereotyping!!) President Bush was not a
> conservative, but some hybrid "moderate", or "egalitarian" with "NeoCon"
> and "social conservative" advisors and viewpoints. With the exception of
> Jimmy Carter, the Bush Administration might very well have been one of the
> worst presidencies in yours and my lifetime, (although the Johnson
> Administration ranks up there too).
>
> Like it or not, if Repulbicans want to be in the majority, all of these
> aforementioned groups must form a coalition, (which we have done
> successfully for the most part of the latter half of the 20th Century).
> Both economic and social conservatives, as well as the Libertarians, and
> NeoCons are stuck with one other, if we want to be in the majority--or at
> least if we do not want a coalition of egalitarians, socialists and
> fatalists in control.
>
> To even protect ourselves from the governmental intrusions of the
> "egalitarian-socialist-liberal" and "fatalist-NeoCon" types on the left,
> Traditionalists and Libertarians must respect each other's bottom line
> values. Economic conservatives must be explicit that the traditional
> values are the goal, even if they stress more that the means should be
> voluntary ones. Social conservatives must recognize a difference between
> recognizing moral ills and the temptation of translating their solution
> into national laws, even if they must insist upon public discussion of the
> ultimate value-goals and their solution by voluntary and local means. If
> both conservative factions do not accommodate their natural allies, the
> other guys will determine what the goals are and use national government
> means to enforce them.
>
> This is the reason that I chose some eight or nine months ago, to once
> again get very active in Republican politics here locally (in the State of
> Florida) in an attempt to take my party back from those who I believe have
> hijacked the leadership of the Republican Party. No question, the
> "fundamentalist religious zealots"; (Again, for lack of a better term) and
> "NeoCons"; and as stated, I despise the term "NeoCon", but everyone seems
> to understand to some degree, who I am referencing have been in control of
> the Republican Party for way too long, causing disarray, and party splits
> on a number of issues, that would take too long to get into, but by
> example, Terri Schiavo, the Patriot Act, The Department of Homeland
> Security, and our lack of a succinct immigration policy and securing of our
> borders are great examples of complex issues where the Republican Party has
> failed, because of those NeoCons and Zealots being in control.
>
> The Republican Party Leadership must return to and once again advocate the
> "Conservative-Libertarian-Constitutionalist" values that were so
> successful, and of which Ronald Reagan championed and advocated back in the
> 1980s. I believe that you are going to see a house cleaning in 2010, on
> both sides of the aisle, and a return to these conservative libertarian
> principles in the next 18-24 months, which still allows for and respects
> those Traditionalist/Social Conservative values and champions fiscal
> responsibility and the principles of the Economic Conservatives.
>
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded
>
> > Blog: ToddSeavey.com
> > Post: USSR then, U.S. today, Ron Paul next week, Rothbard forever (despite
> > those newsletters)
> > Link:
> >http://www.toddseavey.com/2011/12/ussr-then-us-today-ron-paul-next-we...
>
> > --
> > Powered by Blogger
> >http://www.blogger.com/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment