PDA

View Full Version : Let's Go RINO Hunting: Part I



patriot45
06-19-2008, 10:59 AM
This is a pretty fair analysis!

RINO (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/PeterJWirs/2008/06/19/lets_go_rino_hunting_part_i)





There is no question that many office holders on the right side of the aisle are masquerading as Republicans and not deserving of reelection under the GOP banner. The question, however, is how you hunt the RINO without being devoured by the tiger crouched in the grass behind your back!

Conservatives properly argue that Republicanism generally speaking, parallels the essential conservative principles of limited government, predicated upon respect for individualism and life generally. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an American definition of conservative no way mirrors the same term in British or other national politics. An American conservative is not a Tory. Moreover, the idea of conservatism within American politics has historically evolved. Todayís conservatives are not akin to Benjamin Chew, John C. Calhoun, or even James Eastland. Instead, the modern conservative is, pure and simple, a Jeffersonian. As Barry Goldwater properly observed, conservatives are always at war with autocrats.

Translated into contemporary issues, conservatives believe in limited Federal government and stronger state and local government, because as Jeffersonians we believe the power springs from the people (read individuals) upward, not the body politic (read society) downward. From this fountainhead spring all other conservative beliefs and opinions. It is fed by the groundwater that freedom is inherent. We are, as penned by Jefferson, "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." Quoting again, Barry Goldwater, conservatism "is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they donít hurt anyone else in the process." We suspect, indeed history instructs us that freedom contracts when government expands. As in physics, government and freedom cannot share the same space.

For example, we believe that earmarks, traditionally labeled "pork," are repugnant, not only because such is wasteful, but that the Federal government isnít even in the business of wealth redistribution. Even if we acknowledge, as we do, that the wealthy should aid the poor, such laudable goals have not, is not, and can never be accomplished by taking from the middle-class taxpayer and giving to the multinational corporate conglomerates. We suspect, indeed we know that earmarks are merely a politically correct name for helping out campaign contributors.


More at the link.

Molon Labe
06-19-2008, 11:14 AM
good article. Good to see someone questioning the conventional wisdom.
I posted this yesteday and it mirrors your article.


http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_02/review.html

patriot45
06-19-2008, 12:16 PM
good article. Good to see someone questioning the conventional wisdom.
I posted this yesteday and it mirrors your article.


http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_06_02/review.html

That was a good read.
I am a proponent of the fair tax, one of the few ways to take some power away from the tax and spends.

Molon Labe
06-19-2008, 12:29 PM
I'm not sold on the fair tax. Too many questions about it. And do you know how difficlut it is to hide from a real tax like that. The income tax at least has the benefit of deductions. From what I've read if it's a choice between a tax rate through the income tax or a national fair tax....I'll take the income as it stands now.

My goal as a constituent is to limit taxes and make government smaller...lessen the tax burden on the public.
It may seem difficult, but it's the healthiest option. We just have to have hold our government responsible for sensible policy.

There is no way the founders wanted me to pay out nearly 1/3 of what I make to the federal government.

Here is some more insight on the questions.

http://mises.org/story/1814

http://mises.org/story/1975