www.theconservativevoice.com

Will a real Conservative please stand up?
Monday, August 01, 2005 12:37:20 PM

by Larry Clark

We could do with a few less laws, especially the ones that have been passing lately, but perhaps our lawcrafters ( or crafty law makers as the case might be) might want to pass one requiring truth in political packaging.....but I doubt it. They don't even want us to know what is in our food, water, or the laws they do pass.

In addition they just keep passing laws that polls verify are actually opposed by the vast majority of average citizens:

Did the vast majority of citizens want CAFTA? No But there it is....
Do the vast majority of citizens want open borders and massive ILLEGAL immigration? No. But there's the Government permitting it to continue and the Congress putting forth initiative after initiative to legalize illegal behavior.
Do the vast majority of citizens want Government tax subsidies for transnational corporations to move manufacturing overseas? How does your Congressional representative vote on these issues? Yeah........

The list could go on and on, but yet another poll shows that the vast majority of people do not think Congress represents their interests......and they are correct. A more correct term for many Congressmen and Senators might be 'managers' rather than 'representatives'.

It come down to meaningless labels: These days Conservative is good, Liberal is bad

Conservative is Good, Bush is Conservative, therefore Bush is Good. Simple! The channels have been cleared of all confusion......J.

The Bush league is labeled Conservative because 1). They say they are Conservative 2). Corporate controlled media say they are Conservative 3). Conservative Christians voted as a block for the Bush league.

Perhaps Conservative Christians see Bush as a 'man of God', after all, he has quoted some Scripture in a speech now and then that is familiar to Conservative Christians, he claims he was 'born again', is said to have lapsed into speaking in tongues during a cabinet meeting, espouses a 'culture of life', and argues against Big Government and for lower taxes and Small Business.

Some of the above simply can't be verified, we would just have to take Bush's word for it. However, we can assess his honesty in the context on his statements on Iraq's WMD, the reasons for initiated a war with Saddam's Iraq, and his stated reluctance to commit U.S. troops and U.S. wealth to war.

His other stated positions above can be examined by his actions.

For example, there is his stated support for a 'culture of life'. In code talk we all know that those words indicate support for citizens that oppose legalized abortion. But in plain English the phrase would suggest a person:
That would not support the use of weapons that contained depleted uranium that poisons civilian populations as well as the soldiers that are exposed to them, cause birth defects and cancers. How could one be opposed to abortion but support weapons that cause women to birth untold numbers of severely deformed children, cause childhood leukemia, and whose poisonous effect persists for countless generations?
That would not have deceptive death totals for his war that count a soldier dead on the field but not one that dies in transit to a hospital or one that dies off the battlefield while in treatment for battlefield injuries.
That would not support legislation that allows corporations to pollute the environment and poison citizens without assuming responsibility for their actions. How could one support a 'culture of life' and also support corporate profit over health?
That would not support legislation that hides pollution and restricts the collection of data on corporate pollution.
That would not promote the drugging of children under names like 'New Freedom initiative' to address illnesses that have no physical basis.
That would not restrict elderly people on fixed income from obtaining needed medicines at a lower cost from Canada.

It would seem to me that such a person that promoted the items in the bullets above does not, using plain English, support a 'culture of life' at all.........rather it highlights a person who cynically supports a culture of corporate profits at the expense of the life, health, and wealth of citizens.

Then there is Bush's position against Big Government. In code talk, that use to mean less Government funded economic assistance programs for citizens. In plain English being opposed to Big Government would suggest a person:
That would not support a Nation ID card to monitor citizens while non-citizens openly cross the borders in massive numbers with Government intentionally ignoring law.
That would not appoint people with corporate interests to regulatory agencies to craft administrative regulation to benefit corporate interests at the expense of citizens.
That would not use Government money to produce propaganda that gave the appearance of being a news report or a non-governmental infomercial.
That would not support judges that rule a citizens property can be taken by government and turned over to corporate interests for their development and profit.
That would not require that state governments fund the hospital care and schooling of illegal immigrants to subsidize cheap labor for corporations.
That would not support REALLY BIG transnational treaties with non elected quasi-governing power like the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA.
That would not support the regulation of harmless dietary supplements as required in the 'Codex Alimentarius' (and embedded in CAFTA). Further, would not use massive Government funding under the Highway bill to entice reluctant Congressmen to vote for these trade agreements with supra-national governing bodies.
That would not (as mentioned above) support social programs to screen school children for Government funded costly psychotropic drugs
That would not support legislation that destroyed family farms and small business to advantage large transnational corporations.
That would not support the enactment of legislation that encroached on fundamental civil liberties or created the enormous growth in Federal institutions aimed at policing the American population.
That would not support the centralization of power and decision making at the Federal level or mandate by Federal law spending at the State level of government.

It would seem to me that such a person that would promote the items in the bullets above does not believe in restrictions on Big Government, but rather government in the service of large transnational corporations at the expense of the economic and social welfare of citizens, as well as Big Government that will use power to police its population in support of corporate profits at the expense of civil liberties.

Bush supports lower taxes? His administration argued that a tax cut was needed because Government should not be taking 'our money'. But after the passing of his tax cuts his administration reduced revenue sharing with the states so the reduction in Federal taxes for the middle income taxpayer was in reality shifted to State and local property tax increases. Also, the Federal deficit ballooned and we were all straddled with a debt with an interest load that outweighs the present reductions. The consequence of getting to keep 'our money' has been the division of wealth in this country has increased.......

In reality the tax break benefited a small percentage of very wealthy individuals at the expense of the general population.

What do these things tell you?: Do not all our Congressional representatives have above average incomes? Are not all our Senators millionaires? Don't they do better than the average investor in the stock market? Isn't the Congress a career path for wealth with an excellent salary and excellent health and retirement benefits. Don't many former Congressmen stay past their elected terms to earn generous salaries lobbying their former colleagues? Are these the actions of people who's intent is to serve the country, or the actions of people who's intent is to serve themselves at the expense of the country? If a thief robbed you and you went to the police and they dismissed your complaint as the 'politics of envy' would you not think you had been twice robbed?

In Scriptural language you know the tree by its fruit.
How would I describe the Bush Administration and his most adamant supporters in Congress. They are Corporatists who only support particular social issues to gain the emotional support of segments of the population as window dressing while they advance in their actual goal of profit and control. They view the Constitution and the spirit it embodies as an inconvenience they must publicly profess to support while they go about its deconstruction.

So in plain English I ask what is a Conservative? In the context of the American Republic I suggest that aside from emotional social and religious issues that have been used to distort the meaning of the word, there are some fundamental positions that might be used to identify someone as Conservative:

A person who respects the law and the spirit of the Constitution.
(e.g., guards the borders against economic invasion)

A person who respects that each citizen has specific rights that the Government has no authority to limit.
(e.g., does not support legislation that tries to restrict the spirit of the Bill of Rights.)

A person who believes in the primacy of a democratic Republic as the governing body for its citizens and does not recognize the governing power of any other body above the governing power of the Constitution.
(e.g., does not support trade agreements that supercede our national sovereignty.)

A person who believes the actions of Government should support the common welfare of its citizens and not the power or profit of a segment of the population at the expense of the general welfare.
(e.g., that does not support 'free trade' at the expense of the economic welfare of citizens.)

A person who believes individual civil and property rights have primacy over the rights of legal entities.
(e.g., does not support the right of Government to take an individuals property to promote the profit of others.)

This last item in a clear example of how far this Government and the interpreters of its framing laws have removed themselves from the principles of the Constitution. The Supreme Court argued that a local government could seize property of individual citizens to turn it over for development by business interests because it would increase the tax base of the local governing body. They argued that what was of benefit to government was sufficient.

However, the framers of the Constitution intention was to limit the power of Government to seize property ( and provide fair compensation when they did) to only those instances where such seizure was in the interest of the general welfare of citizens, not the interests of the Government itself of the interests of other groups that may profit from that seizure.

For example, if a person owned property in a valley that needed to be damned and flooded to provide water for the community the Government could invoke eminent domain. The consequences benefited other citizens directly, not the revenues of the Government or the profit of other individuals over the rights of the owners. (And what does one make of language in WTO agreements where community resources as water are defined as commodities that can be owned and controlled by private interests. Where the water of a community can be taken and sold elsewhere even if that means the community has insufficient water for its own needs?)

In the case the court ruled on, there was no such direct benefit to other citizens but only the increase in revenue stream for Government and profit for business interests. So people who had lived in well kept homes for decades had their homes condemned, they did not receive the value of their homes as recorded on the tax roles, were financially punished for legally resisting the grabbing of their property and experienced intimidation.

When was it our Government became our Rulers and not our Servant? When was it that the profit of transnational corporations became the focus of our lawcrafters. When was it that globalism took precedence over the common welfare and the continuance of our Republic. When did we get Bushwhacked?