Tucker was on to something and I think he exposed the 'rot' and infiltration into what is called the Conservative Republican brand. This is one reason why I am not a 'Conservative'. I really don't like the term 'conservative' anyway. It has been so misused by so many people who aren't really conservative at all. Besides, what is being 'conserved' anyway?
The Arkansas governor is just another faction of 'conservative' that believe in 'limited government'. This governor reminds me of the old 'Moderate' republicans, who claimed they were 'fiscal' conservatives. The word doesn't bode well at all. Pretending to be a 'conservative' actually describes many people now. There's already too many Trojan Horses in Republican Party.
I prefer a better term. The word - "Naturalistic" is so much better than being 'conservative' because it is derived from the word 'Nature'. Anything contrary to Nature is unnatural. It is clear that natural gender defines male and female. 'Gender identification' and transgenders is unnatural and contrary to Nature. Natural marriage defines the joining of a man and woman in lifelong monogamy. Natural parents, Natural children, and a Natural family describes something based on Nature and is biologically related. I believe a Natural government is one that is based on Natural Law and its subsequent common law. Our Rights is recognized by government as coming from our Creator in heaven and enumerated in the US Constitution.
The original 'conservatives' tried to conserve a former way of life, which this present generation has no idea of what that was. Being 'Naturalistic' describes everything based on Nature and excludes all the conservative flavors and pretenders like RHINOs like this Arkansas governor, Liz Cheney, and others.
Besides, what is being 'conserved' anyway?
Our culture, our values, our pocketbooks.
I still use “conservative” a lot. I would say “right winger” but it sounds goofy. I hate the republican establishment too much at this point to ever call myself republican Liz Cheney should eat glass.
Listen to this moron. Lunatic parents and psycho doctors are mutilating children. Multilating them! And he doesnt want to get involved? He should be horse whipped.
Absolutely right. Each of those three areas you mentioned are twisted, mitigated, and misrepresented. Asking kids today, what is American 'culture' and you'll get a myriad of answers. There is no single answer any more. The plight of the Colorado baker exemplifies this for his religious beliefs. One hundred years ago, no one would have dreamed the Colorado baker would have a legal issue over alleged 'LGBTQ bias' because this was a predominantly Christian European society. Christian law is based on Natural Law, which can be readily shown. This LGBTQ ideology was always contrary to the Christian laws of the United States and Western Society. Why did it change? It's something to think about, but tit's a topic for another time.
Since 1965, from the notorious Immigration and Naturalization Act, the flood doors were literally opened to immigrants from all over the world. As a result, every religion is now in the balance. There's so many competing factions, it has made a shamble of our Western laws. There is no simple fix to this. Even the judges realize this. Look at your State's statutes regarding civil rights. It's a complete laundry list of faiths regarding religious rights. The one that exemplifies the absolute mess the best is Satanism, which is contrary to Christianity and is antipodal to it. Satanism is contrary to Natural Law as well. This is really the crux of the problem concerning the Colorado baker though. Does a sodomist have rights over Christian religious rights? If that person does, that means that ideology has rights over Natural Law as well. According to commerce and the public accommodations section of Federal and State Law, that person does have rights. In my humble opinion, I believe the baker met that requirement, but I also believe the judge in the case ruled against the baker for political reasons. The ruling was in error. No one should be forced to 'act' dynamically on anything if it is against their conscience. In other words, 'no action' (quiescence) should not be a crime.
The other two areas you mentioned act as cover to hide personal ideology that is not 'conservative' at all. The RHINOs and others hide behind the 'conservative' brand and mislead many people in believing they are 'conservative' and therefore support other areas like pre-1965 American culture and values.
This is why the brand 'Conservative' is a dead man walking term. Just like the former 'Paleo-Conservative' term disappeared from the airwaves and news print immediately after 9-11, in which 'Neo-Conservatives' (Neo-Cons) became the clear victors, the brand 'Conservative' is experiencing the same fate. This is why I will refer to myself as a 'Naturalist' and 'Naturalistic'. It cannot change because it is based on the immutable Laws of Nature.
Yes!
(post is archived)