Six Principles of Conservatism....

The Six (overlooked) Principles of Conservatism:

By R.J. Godlewski

© February 12, 2012, All Rights Reserved

“The government should not force us to choose between violating our consciences or violating the law. And yet, the federal government has just dealt a heavy blow to the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith.”

The Most Reverend Allen H. Vigneron, Archbishop of Detroit, February 6, 2012

************

The sovereignty of our fundamental rights is under egregious attack from the political Left as they try to subvert the United States, our Constitution, and the natural laws bestowed upon us by our God. The only way that we can emerge victorious within this war, is to return America back to its founding principles. Principles of Conservatism that shepherd the thoughts and actions of all citizens of this great nation of ours. Only if we accept, as our solemn duty, the restoration of these six basic Conservative principles, will America recover from the damage thrust upon her by the secular Progressives and their invention of omnipotent government.

• *  America is on loan from our future citizens. Our existence, even as citizens, is temporal. Our actions must always account for the future, for the generations yet to come have loaned us our nation and we owe them a great deal of gratitude for the honor and privilege. We must handle our finances ourselves without leaving them the obligation to pay for our excesses. We must ensure our security so that they may live lives surrounded by safety. We must shore our Constitution so that they may understand their own duty towards future generations; 
  *  Discipline. Discipline is the vehicle of excellence, the engine of human endeavors, and the very soul of the individual person. It safeguards the future. Without discipline, we destroy our lives through chaos, spend beyond our means, and fail to achieve the basic elements of survival. Instead of trying to accomplish all that we desire, we must concentrate on desiring all that we can accomplish. Discipline is not ensuring that all people can achieve the same goal; it represents ensuring that all people possess the opportunity to better themselves continuously; 
  *  Endorse Individuality, not Individualism. Inasmuch as discipline requires focusing one’s life on obtainable goals, individuality does not endorse doing whatever one wants. The concept of free will implies that we are free to live subject to the consequences of our actions. Individualism, in contrast, absolves humans from all concerns and therefore represents a reckless and sinister manifestation of liberty. Individuals acknowledge the gravity of their choices, contemplate the future effects of these choices, and shepherd their actions as if these choices preserve the power to damn the individual. Such individuals understand that they are personally responsible for the greater society they affect;
  *  Governments serve, God rules. Governments represent the consensual servants of human individuals. They listen to these individuals, reach consensus declarations based upon the needs and wants of these individuals, and, most of all, effectively and efficiently secure the survival of these individuals. Governments do not grant or remove natural rights, nor do they empower the born above the conceived. The rights of government and the elected subjugate to even the most impoverished individual conceived;
  *  Religion matters. Institutionalized religious faith both empowers and limits the human individual. Without a doctrine of faith, individuals succumb to the temptations of Individualism and seek to harm neighbors and visitors. Ordered religious faith prevents the individual from seeking undue profits at the expense of others while preventing the government from absolving the individual of the duty to contribute back to society. Religious faith permits the individual to offer freely with conscience;
  *  Human life represents the pantheon of Creation. The gravest duty of both individuals and institutions is to protect the dignity of human life from his or her conception on to their natural death. Chief amongst these protections is to ensure that the basic facet of society, the family, consisting of one man married to one woman, reigns free of government oversight. Governments must not interfere with the education, healthcare, and self-defense obligations of either the family or the individuals they rear.

PASS THIS DOCUMENT AROUND AND PRAY FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE
May your heart be pure, may your heart be accurate, and may your heart be strong.
R.J. Godlewski

Is there something you seriously disagree with in these SIX PRINCIPLES OF CONSERVATISM?  Let us know...and tell us why.   Is there something by which we can act to ensure these six principles are heeded?  (I swiped this from Debbie at Right Truth.........couldn't resist having this at GeeeZ.  Thanks, Deb.)

z

Sunday Faith Post....one of my longtime favorites.......

God is sitting in heaven when a scientist prays to Him, "God, we don't need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing. In other words, we can now do what you did in the "beginning."!

"Oh, is that so? Tell me..." replies God.

"Well," says the scientist, "We can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man."

God answered; "Well, that's interesting...show Me."

So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.

"No, no, no.........". interrupted God; "Get your own dirt"   

***

"Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."  Revelation 4:11

Have a beautiful Sunday..........give prayer a chance, just a short whisper if you're not used to it.....thank God for all you have.....it helps....

Z

SO sad about Whitney Houston's passing

Maybe she'll be able to really REST NOW............God be with her family and friends.  I've performed "The Greatest Love of All" a few times and I feel a kind of affinity with Whitney for having done that............Seems like she wasn't a very happy girl most of her life.  What a terrible shame.
z

New Medicare Program....what do you think!?

You're a sick senior citizen and the government says there is no nursing home available for you. So what do you do? Our plan gives anyone 65 years or older a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot four Politicians. (* for the record, Z is not really advocating for shooting ANYONE :-) Of course, this means you will be sent to prison where you will get three meals a day, a roof over your head, central heating, air conditioning and all the health care you need! Need new teeth? No problem. Need glasses? That’s great. Need a new hip, knees, kidney, lungs or heart? They're all covered. As an added bonus, your kids can come and visit you as often as they do now..(at no cost to you). And who will be paying for all of this? It’s the same government that just told you that you they cannot afford for you to go into a home.   Plus, and because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income taxes anymore. Is this a great country or what? It's right, isn't it............what the.........?!! z

Ann gets it right again

This is REALLY worth the read.... 

PLUTOCRAT DEMS ATTACK ROMNEY AS "RICHIE RICH"  by Ann Coulter

02/08/2012

Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth -- because, unfortunately, it isn't true -- the NFM (Non-Fox Media) seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR -- who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both men went on to create lots of jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money -- leading Kerry's children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their "step-money." In what can only be described as sheer luck, Kerry's first wife was also an heiress.

I've been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry's tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can't find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry's having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife's tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits -- as The New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his carnival sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors. (In the Democrats' moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they're perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

As I recall, Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the "best partners I have in the White House."

Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers' money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they're out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?

It's never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it's way too late to talk about them.

With Corzine, we'll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He's innocent until proved guilty -- Convicted! -- What? You're still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we're all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot just four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren't. This is the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some of the multimillionaire Democrats are:

-- Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the second-richest senator after Kerry, inherited his money.

-- Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the sixth-richest senator, married her money.

-- Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was a bogus dot-com multimillionaire, cashing out before the stock crashed.

-- Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don't have it.

It's not an accident that Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, which they have boatloads of, but strongly support taxes on income, something they typically do not have.

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less. (end of story)


Sadly, however, it's not the end of the story and the truth goes ignored by so many.

z

ShePAC...........who knew?

 Have you heard yet of ShePAC, a group of Republican women getting their own SUPER PAC together?   They're hoping to raise $25 million this year which, by Obama fundraising spending, is a drop in the bucket, but WHO DO YOU THINK WOMEN THE AVERAGE REPUBLICAN WILL VOTE FOR between:

Gingrich
Paul
Romney
Santorum  
?  and why?
z

Global Warming and common sense

Scientists Blast ‘Incontrovertible’ Global Warming Claims
An editorial signed by 16 prominent scientists in the Wall Street Journal takes sharp issue with calls for drastic action against global warming, asserting that the threat is far from “incontrovertible” as alarmists claim.
“A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming,’” the article states.
“Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”
The scientists point to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society in September due to the organization’s position that the evidence for global warming is “incontrovertible” and the threat requires “mitigating actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The 16 scientists — including Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton — say in the Journal piece: “In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the ‘pollutant’ carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever.
“The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.”
The “most inconvenient” fact cited by the scientists is the lack of global warming over the past 10 years.
Also, in the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began issuing projections, warming has consistently been less than predicted.
This suggests that “computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2,” the Op-Ed article states.
Why then does the call for action against global warming persist? The scientists say: Follow the money. (Z: and Al Gore and his money)
“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow,” they declare.
“Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”
They conclude: “Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world's economy.
“Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.”(Z's biggest reason for posting on this subject fairly often)

Other scientists who signed the editorial include aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Michael Kelly, professor of technology at the University of Cambridge; and Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University.
P.S.: Temperatures in some areas in Europe on Thursday sank to minus 26.5 F. Parts of the Black Sea froze near the Romanian coastline and rare snow fell on Croatian islands in the Adriatic Sea.

Z:  Think they're all NUTS?

z

Super Bowl Commercial......

"Half time in America"........Well, I posted the video last night but it's already been shut down.......copyright, dontchaknow.    HERE is the take I had on the Clint Eastwood ad where he talks about our great country and how we're at 'half time' in this country.......which would all be great except for the fact that it's a Chrysler ad and, since they took bailouts, it's hardly a great example of our greatness, is it.
HERE is the transcript our buddy "Always on Watch" found in lieu of my disappeared video.

And how'd you like Madonna's halftime show?  (What's with clinging to the microphones as if they're working!?  That was amusing :-)  I guess the singer who shot the stadium 'the finger' is a well known celebrity, M.I.A. (who I have never heard of before)......shows how much I know about the newer singers...I had written here, before learning who she was,  that I thought it was a Madonna dancer looking for her 15 minutes of fame.  M.I.A. is getting big exposure this morning.  This is how people become even more famous in America...be lewd and be admired. 

z

Sunday Faith Blog; Atheist Holiday

this isn't true, but it's cute :-)        A  FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY      In  Florida, an atheist created a case against Easter and Passover Holy days.  He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians and Jews and observances of their holy days.  The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized days.     The case was brought before a judge.  After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, "Case dismissed!"      The lawyer immediately stood and objecting to the ruling saying, "Your honor, How can you possibly dismiss this case?  The Christians have Christmas, Easter and others.   The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays..."     The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, "But you do. Your client, counselor, is woefully ignorant."     The lawyer said," Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."     The judge said, "The calendar says April 1st is April Fool's Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.'  Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that, if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned..." You gotta love a Judge that knows his scripture!         I don't mean this as a slam to atheists;  they have their beliefs and that's fine!...I thought the story was clever..... "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."  John 6:47  Please read THIS STORY on Yahoo's headline page........it seemed to fit here....changed lives are the best proof of faith that most of us know, but even these smaller events seem powerful somehow... Have a really good Sunday, everyone. z

Fast and REALLY Furious

Do you think that, as Eric Holder is blatantly inferring, that Fast and Furious' investigation is "politically desired" by the Right?   Brian Terry's family has questions about the death of their son;  is that politics?   It's so troubling that Holder would cry 'politics' when this is so obviously a case that needs investigation.......I thank commenter and friend Impertinent for this video:  it's worth watching:

Which are the 'political gotcha' moments Holder alludes to? Does he mean this case is not worthy of investigation?  Most Attorneys General, and other heads of departments, take full responsibility for anything under them.....it's sad that Mr. Holder doesn't take that responsibility..  Please watch till the end of Holder's comments...You'll see him stammer around, clumsily trying to get his point across that her constituents are asking questions of her because she's talked about the problem in her district and, as ever, the liberal Holder doesn't want too much information out, apparently.!  Then he actually asks Congresswoman Buerkle if asking him questions is something she wants to be known by...,,and then he goes into what a great guy he's been because he has the department working on civil rights issues!  But, he does add "I'm not perfect"........  He thinks her questioning him is "beneath a member of Congress"...check it out.  You'll be surprised. (actually, you'll be dumbfounded at his hubris).
z