Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.

Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.

Six years later, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled.



This website has been established by the National Center for Public Policy Research to provide news, information and resources on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. Links to external websites are provided for informational purposes only, and no endorsement of their opinions or content by The National Center for Public Policy Research is intended or should be implied.
Law of the Sea Treaty

The Treaty would also give the UN power to regulate what they consider "pollutants" including car emissions in the US. It also would then have the power to seize US wealth from oil and mineral deposits in our oceans. This is just one of several such Treaties that the Obama administration is signing...

Yeah. Allot of discussion on Talk Radio about it lately. Amazing how it gets swept under the rug though by the main stream.

 

[Intense]

To what purpose do we voluntarily Surrender National Sovereignty to Any Outside Entity? We enter agreements where outside forces arbitrarily decide what Their Jurisdiction is, playing us like Pawns, and there is nothing we can do about it without their consent? Dictators around the Would unite, through abusing their Authority, demanding from us, the flavor of the day, superseding Constitutional Protections, and this is alright, because it is Progressive? Well, **** Me. It's like Alexander Hamilton was reincarnated, to finish what he started. We are so lost without the Ruling Elite, guiding every step, like we can't eat , shit , or pee, without their guidance and direction. Great job Assholes.

Jeebus, change the channel, dupe, you're a brainwashed, bought off chump, Mr. Bolton

You are a collaborator, a tool of the Totalitarian Utopia.
Translation: Your words are not even your own. They are pretty worthless to me. Don't let me stop you from your clueless and valueless pursuit of World Domination though.

 

[Intense]

Read the complete Law of the Sea Treaty here.

The Law of the Sea Treaty, formally known as the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS III, was adopted in 1982. Its purpose is to establish a comprehensive set of rules governing the oceans and to replace previous U.N. Conventions on the Law of the Sea, one in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and another in 1960 (UNCLOS II), that were believed to be inadequate.

Negotiated in the 1970s, the treaty was heavily influenced by the "New International Economic Order," a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). That agenda called for "fairer" terms of trade and development financing for the so-called under-developed and developing nations.

Another way the New International Economic Order has been described is "redistributionist."

The Law of the Sea Treaty calls for technology transfers and wealth transfers from developed to undeveloped nations. It also requires parties to the treaty to adopt regulations and laws to control pollution of the marine environment. Such provisions were among the reasons President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."

In additional to the economic provisions, the treaty also establishes specific jurisdictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim, including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.

Some proponents of the treaty believe that the treaty will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.

Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.

Six years later, a vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled.



This website has been established by the National Center for Public Policy Research to provide news, information and resources on the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. Links to external websites are provided for informational purposes only, and no endorsement of their opinions or content by The National Center for Public Policy Research is intended or should be implied.
Law of the Sea Treaty

The Treaty would also give the UN power to regulate what they consider "pollutants" including car emissions in the US. It also would then have the power to seize US wealth from oil and mineral deposits in our oceans. This is just one of several such Treaties that the Obama administration is signing...

The real threat is in the transfer of Sovereignty. The problem lies within the terms of the agreement, the hidden intent to Undermine Constitutional Protections, by surrendering both Jurisdiction, and our ability to even end or walk away from the Treaty, on our own terms, should it prove disadvantageous or hurtful to us. The Left used to be more open about their disdain for the Constitution. Why is it so important to them to circumvent it? It's like they are running out of time, and they are getting desperate. It is a breach of trust. In one sense, Criminal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another component of Classiical Liberalism is that freedom required United States sovereignty, else the federal government would lose authority to protect our unalienable rights/individual liberties.. The Founders' intent was that we would never bow to any king or other authority. It is the principle from which our traditions came that we will not dip our flag in ceremonial processions and that our President will not bow to foreign kings.

Modern day progressivism/liberalism however seems to hold U.S. sovereignty in a kind of contempt--I think many see themselves a citizens of the world first, and residents of the USA second. They have a fascination and appreciation for the more socialist societies and long for us to be more like them. You see them frequently citing the virtues of this country or that country, but almost never applaud the USA as being 'best' in anything other than getting it wrong.

And yes, given the power to do so, I think some, if not many, wouild give away the store. Giving away too much in a "Law of the Sea" treaty is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole notion of Cap & Trade is another huge giveaway should we have an administration/Congress willing to sign onto the international version of that.

 

[Intense]

Another component of Classiical Liberalism is that freedom required United States sovereignty, else the federal government would lose authority to protect our unalienable rights/individual liberties.. The Founders' intent was that we would never bow to any king or other authority. It is the principle from which our traditions came that we will not dip our flag in ceremonial processions and that our President will not bow to foreign kings.

Modern day progressivism/liberalism however seems to hold U.S. sovereignty in a kind of contempt--I think many see themselves a citizens of the world first, and residents of the USA second. They have a fascination and appreciation for the more socialist societies and long for us to be more like them. You see them frequently citing the virtues of this country or that country, but almost never applaud the USA as being 'best' in anything other than getting it wrong.

And yes, given the power to do so, I think some, if not many, wouild give away the store. Giving away too much in a "Law of the Sea" treaty is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole notion of Cap & Trade is another huge giveaway should we have an administration/Congress willing to sign onto the international version of that.

Exactly. It's also a violation of the Oath of Office.

 

[Foxfyre]

Another component of Classiical Liberalism is that freedom required United States sovereignty, else the federal government would lose authority to protect our unalienable rights/individual liberties.. The Founders' intent was that we would never bow to any king or other authority. It is the principle from which our traditions came that we will not dip our flag in ceremonial processions and that our President will not bow to foreign kings.

Modern day progressivism/liberalism however seems to hold U.S. sovereignty in a kind of contempt--I think many see themselves a citizens of the world first, and residents of the USA second. They have a fascination and appreciation for the more socialist societies and long for us to be more like them. You see them frequently citing the virtues of this country or that country, but almost never applaud the USA as being 'best' in anything other than getting it wrong.

And yes, given the power to do so, I think some, if not many, wouild give away the store. Giving away too much in a "Law of the Sea" treaty is just the tip of the iceberg. The whole notion of Cap & Trade is another huge giveaway should we have an administration/Congress willing to sign onto the international version of that.

Exactly. It's also a violation of the Oath of Office.

Years ago there was a movie "With Honors" that featured a scene that has become something of a classic and has formed the foundation for many a formal debate. The Harvard professor asked what was the genius of the Constitution. Joe Pesci's character, Simon Wilder, (a homeless man terminally ill with asbestiosis), a guest of a student, Monty, provided an answer:

The Professor, no fan of the U.S. Constitution, wanted to know if the President was in fact a 'king' who could destroy the world.

Monty : The president can’t bomb without reason.

Professor Pitkannan: He has a reason. He thinks we need more parking spaces. The point is, can he destroy the world?

Monty: Not without Congress

Professor Pitkannan: The President can make a war in 90 days without consulting Congress.

Wilder: The genius of the constitution is that it can always be changed. The genius of the constitution is that it makes no permament rule other than its faith in the wisdom of ordinary people to govern themselves.

Professor Pitkannan: Faith in the wisdom of its people is exactly what makes the constitution incomplete and crude.

Wilder: Crude! No sir. Our founding parents…were white farmers. But they were also great men because they know one thing that all great men should know: That they didn’t know everything. They knew they were gonna make mistakes. They made sure they leave a way to correct them. They didn’t think of themselves as leaders. They wanted a government of citizens, not royalty; a government of listeners, not lecturers; a government that could change, not stand still. A president isn’t an elective King, no matter how many bombs he can drop because the crude constitution doesn’t trust him. He’s the servant of the people. He’s just a bum. The only bliss he’s searching for is freedom and justice.

And those of us who have really dissected and debated that exchange found ourselves struggling with the really profound concepts expressed in it.

 

[Bfgrn]

The situation in Wisconsin is just one example of the divide between left and right.

Scott Walker's policies have generated about as much angst and hate as any governor in the country right now. But the fact is, Wisconsin, like many other states was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. With his and the legislature's efforts, a $3.6 billion defict has been turned into a projected $300,000 surplus this year without a tax increase.

And teachers are still teaching in Wisconsin. Police officers are still patrolling. Life is moving on without any major disruptions. And Wisconsin state workers are still on the job but will have to manage their retirement like almost all other working Americans do. The people of Wisconsin are no longer saddled with the unsustainable burden of providing lifetime benefits for government employees that the huge lion's share of privately employed people do not enjoy. A 9.2% unemployment rate in June 2009 has been brought down to 6.8% in March 2012, well below the national average.

The union had to be busted to accomplish that. But our leftist friends can't stand that it was a Republican who did it. Nor are they willing to acknowledge a single benefit that has resulted from his efforts. They want his head on a platter.

Classical liberals can really appreciate the effort and see its potential in many other applications. But our modern progressives cannot stand seem to abide anything supported by the classical liberals and won't even acknowledge, much less appreciate any benefits that come from 'non-liberal' policies.

You are either uninformed or a lair, which is it Foxfyre?

FULL 50 State Analysis: Scott Walker’s Worst-in-the-Nation Jobs Record… Worse Than Anyone Imagined

Apr 25, 2012

US economy adds millions of jobs, Midwestern states add hundreds of thousands, Wisconsin ranks dead last—both overall and private sector

MADISON – In January, we learned that Scott Walker had the worst jobs record of any governor in America through his first year in office. In February, we learned he had the worst record of any governor in America from February 2011 through February 2012. Now, a comparison of state-by-state data from the Bureau of Labor statistics shows Wisconsin is dead last in job loss over the last 12 months—both in the private sector and overall.

PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS: 50 STATE COMPARISON: LINK TO FULL CHART

Over the course of the last 12 months, the US economy has added 2,099,000 private sector jobs, while at the same time Wisconsin’s economy has lost 6,100.

By comparison, other Midwestern states all gained jobs. Michigan (+65,300), Ohio (+63,100), Illinois (+41,300), Indiana (+39,900) and Minnesota (+39,100). In fact, only two other states in America lost jobs.

TOTAL NON-FARM JOBS: 50 STATE COMPARISON: LINK TO FULL CHART

Over the course of the last 12 months, the US economy has added 1,899,000 overall (non-farm) jobs, which at the same time Wisconsin’s economy has lost 23,900.

By comparison, other Midwestern states all gained jobs. Michigan (+59,600), Ohio (+56,500), Indiana (+36,200), Illinois (+31,700), and Minnesota (+31,500). In fact, Wisconsin was the only state in America to experience a statistically significant job loss.


“As the national economy continues to add hundreds of thousands of jobs monthly, Scott Walker’s job-killing policies – bought and paid for by wealthy out-of-state donors funding his recall defense – have left Wisconsin dead last for job growth in all of America. It’s shameful,” said We Are Wisconsin executive director Kirsten Crowell. “While other Midwestern states consistently add jobs, Wisconsinites turn on their televisions to Orwellian ads that proclaim Scott Walker’s economic policies are working – while the cold hard facts show that Walker has the worst jobs record of any governor in America.”

We Are Wisconsin » FULL 50 State Analysis

 

[Bfgrn]

What do you mean by undue influence? How do you know what my aspirations for America are? I can name half a dozen corporations that have the exact same aspirations for America you claim you do, should I be able to force them, and you, not to be able to aspire to those goals? Do you think you can mount a cohesive argument that actually describes and defends your position without resorting to demagoguery?

Do you need a few examples? The tobacco industry for years had so much undue influence in Washington and State houses, that they were able to market poison without sanction. And show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

A free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention. You are buying into the tug of war between Big Government and Big Business, in too many cases, both Despots, Co-Conspirators just fighting over the Reins. Totalitarianism generally gets the final word there. Having the full force of Police, Court, Prisons, Military, there is really no debate there. How many Businessmen that stood up to Hitler or Stalin were alive a year later, even a day later?

Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way. Major changes in the last 50 years, that's mostly a good thing. I grew up on Long Island, very close to Hooker Chemical and Grumman. They sure got away with allot of shit. Sometimes Human Nature needs a big kick in the ass.

Our goal is to Seek and Establish Justice, and maintain it. When things add up, when things compute, when reason prevails, there is balance, which promotes incentive and growth.

Your post is filled with falsehoods, dogma and lacks any logic or reason.

"We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention"

There is no such thing as a 'free market'...ALL markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The World Trade Organization has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

"Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way"

WHO stopped polluters from polluting Einstein? Did they stop out of the goodness of their hearts?

 

[Bfgrn]

The situation in Wisconsin is just one example of the divide between left and right.

Scott Walker's policies have generated about as much angst and hate as any governor in the country right now. But the fact is, Wisconsin, like many other states was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. With his and the legislature's efforts, a $3.6 billion defict has been turned into a projected $300,000 surplus this year without a tax increase.

And teachers are still teaching in Wisconsin. Police officers are still patrolling. Life is moving on without any major disruptions. And Wisconsin state workers are still on the job but will have to manage their retirement like almost all other working Americans do. The people of Wisconsin are no longer saddled with the unsustainable burden of providing lifetime benefits for government employees that the huge lion's share of privately employed people do not enjoy. A 9.2% unemployment rate in June 2009 has been brought down to 6.8% in March 2012, well below the national average.

The union had to be busted to accomplish that. But our leftist friends can't stand that it was a Republican who did it. Nor are they willing to acknowledge a single benefit that has resulted from his efforts. They want his head on a platter.

Classical liberals can really appreciate the effort and see its potential in many other applications. But our modern progressives cannot stand seem to abide anything supported by the classical liberals and won't even acknowledge, much less appreciate any benefits that come from 'non-liberal' policies.

Total Pubcrappe, dupe. The unions AGREED tp plenty of cuts, but the lying Pub a-hole had to go after collective bargaining- something he never mentioned in the campaign. Off with his HEAD!! LOL

Also loved the slacker from Buffalo who said he was Koch and Walker the Pig was ready to do anything he wanted. You morons are hilarious!

Isn't it ironic that 'less government' conservatives LOVE MORE government when it steps on the working class? The teachers in Wisconsin agreed to ALL of Walker's cuts...ALL. And ALL teachers asked for in return was to keep their RIGHT to collective bargaining.

Walker REFUSED to even talk to the teachers.

Isn't it ironic that 'Constitutional' conservatives LOVE government when it dictates UN-Constitutional abuse that steps on the working class?

Court overturns WI union law
Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:43AM GMT

Wisconsin's recall-facing Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his legislative allies received a stunning rebuke from a federal court on Friday that ruled the state's Act 10 that stripped most state employee unions of the collective bargaining rights and dues-collecting authority was an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Court overturns WI union law

 

[Intense]

Do you need a few examples? The tobacco industry for years had so much undue influence in Washington and State houses, that they were able to market poison without sanction. And show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy. I'll show you a fat cat using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market and to force the public to pay his production costs. That's what all pollution is. It's always a subsidy. It's always a guy trying to cheat the free market.

A free market is the most efficient and democratic way to distribute the goods of the land, and that the best thing that could happen to the environment is if we had true free-market capitalism in this country, because the free market promotes efficiency, and efficiency means the elimination of waste, and pollution of course is waste. The free market also would encourage us to properly value our natural resources, and it's the undervaluation of those resources that causes us to use them wastefully. But in a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community.

But what polluters do is they make themselves rich by making everybody else poor. They raise standards of living for themselves by lowering the quality of life for everybody else, and they do that by evading the discipline of the free market.

Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, said that America would never be destroyed by a foreign power but he warned that our political institutions, our democratic institutions, would be subverted by malefactors of great wealth, who would erode them from within. Dwight Eisenhower, another Republican, in his most famous speech, warned America against domination by the military industrial complex.

Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Republican in our history, said during the height of the Civil War "I have the South in front of me and I have the bankers behind me. And for my country, I fear the bankers more." Franklin Roosevelt said during World War II that the domination of government by corporate power is "the essence of fascism" and Benito Mussolini -- who had an insider's view of that process -- said the same thing. Essentially, he complained that fascism should not be called fascism. It should be called corporatism because it was the merger of state and corporate power. And what we have to understand as Americans is that the domination of business by government is called communism. The domination of government by business is called fascism. And our job is to walk that narrow trail in between, which is free-market capitalism and democracy. And keep big government at bay with our right hand and corporate power at bay with our left.

We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention. You are buying into the tug of war between Big Government and Big Business, in too many cases, both Despots, Co-Conspirators just fighting over the Reins. Totalitarianism generally gets the final word there. Having the full force of Police, Court, Prisons, Military, there is really no debate there. How many Businessmen that stood up to Hitler or Stalin were alive a year later, even a day later?

Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way. Major changes in the last 50 years, that's mostly a good thing. I grew up on Long Island, very close to Hooker Chemical and Grumman. They sure got away with allot of shit. Sometimes Human Nature needs a big kick in the ass.

Our goal is to Seek and Establish Justice, and maintain it. When things add up, when things compute, when reason prevails, there is balance, which promotes incentive and growth.

Your post is filled with falsehoods, dogma and lacks any logic or reason.

"We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention"

There is no such thing as a 'free market'...ALL markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The World Trade Organization has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

"Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way"

WHO stopped polluters from polluting Einstein? Did they stop out of the goodness of their hearts?

It's like you come close, but fall short, but in truth that is expected. Cheap shots are beneath you, Dear. You can do better than that. Try harder. In something is not clear to you, ask for clarification. There is a Free Market. That's not to make a false claim that because there are rules that Govern fair play, the market isn't free. When we establish the rules of play, by the consent of the governed, using reason, rather than abandoning it, adapting the regulations, as circumstance dictates, learning as we grow, we each benefit. Sometimes I wonder if you are here to solve problems, voice your concerns, or just run cover for Totalitarian Idealism. Do you really presume Regimes like China, USSR, or North Korea, have better track records relating to environmental concerns and pollution? Who are you kidding? We are a free society, which is why our laundry gets aired more openly, not covered up. Your One World Government, Centralized control, one size fixes all is a myth. Your end will only silence all witness that your Puppet Masters, are offended by. That leaves your Totalitarian Utopian Police State inner circle to do anything they want whenever the **** they want, on their terms, with the rest of us in the dark.

When I speak of Government Intervention in the Free Market, I do not refer to It's role as an Impartial Referee, which I do support. I refer to the Referee, determining outcome, rather than establishing and maintaining a fair playing field. It is not for the Referee to determine outcome , even before the game is played, or during it. It is not for the Referee to dictate Providence, that is God's realm. The Referee should not be betting on the game, making rulings that even the odds, using his authority to effect outcome, or inserting Ringers in the play of the game. For the record, I am against Subsidies, Entitlements, and Special Privilege, and work to an end where we each have the responsibility, ability, and opportunity to do just that. It's about self respect.

Relating to pollution, be it out of ignorance, selfishness, or just not giving a damn, it occurs in our personal lives, in business, and in Government, maybe more because of the dark side of our Nature. It is because of the light side of Our Nature, that we battle against stupidity. Be fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. How many examples of the Federal Government taking on more Authority, failing to act and do it's job, and obstructing other Entities from doing what it fails to do, claiming Jurisdiction, do you need to see? Give me a break.

 

[Intense]

The situation in Wisconsin is just one example of the divide between left and right.

Scott Walker's policies have generated about as much angst and hate as any governor in the country right now. But the fact is, Wisconsin, like many other states was teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. With his and the legislature's efforts, a $3.6 billion defict has been turned into a projected $300,000 surplus this year without a tax increase.

And teachers are still teaching in Wisconsin. Police officers are still patrolling. Life is moving on without any major disruptions. And Wisconsin state workers are still on the job but will have to manage their retirement like almost all other working Americans do. The people of Wisconsin are no longer saddled with the unsustainable burden of providing lifetime benefits for government employees that the huge lion's share of privately employed people do not enjoy. A 9.2% unemployment rate in June 2009 has been brought down to 6.8% in March 2012, well below the national average.

The union had to be busted to accomplish that. But our leftist friends can't stand that it was a Republican who did it. Nor are they willing to acknowledge a single benefit that has resulted from his efforts. They want his head on a platter.

Classical liberals can really appreciate the effort and see its potential in many other applications. But our modern progressives cannot stand seem to abide anything supported by the classical liberals and won't even acknowledge, much less appreciate any benefits that come from 'non-liberal' policies.

Total Pubcrappe, dupe. The unions AGREED tp plenty of cuts, but the lying Pub a-hole had to go after collective bargaining- something he never mentioned in the campaign. Off with his HEAD!! LOL

Also loved the slacker from Buffalo who said he was Koch and Walker the Pig was ready to do anything he wanted. You morons are hilarious!

Isn't it ironic that 'less government' conservatives LOVE MORE government when it steps on the working class? The teachers in Wisconsin agreed to ALL of Walker's cuts...ALL. And ALL teachers asked for in return was to keep their RIGHT to collective bargaining.

Walker REFUSED to even talk to the teachers.

Isn't it ironic that 'Constitutional' conservatives LOVE government when it dictates UN-Constitutional abuse that steps on the working class?

Court overturns WI union law
Sat Mar 31, 2012 1:43AM GMT

Wisconsin's recall-facing Republican Gov. Scott Walker and his legislative allies received a stunning rebuke from a federal court on Friday that ruled the state's Act 10 that stripped most state employee unions of the collective bargaining rights and dues-collecting authority was an unconstitutional abuse of power.

Court overturns WI union law

One of the biggest threats to National Sovereignty and balanced books, we face today, Government Union Workers, the En-titlist, Privileged Class. The New Middle Class. Same thing happened in the Russian Revolution. Say one thing, do another. You did not balance anything, nor serve Justice. You took for Yourselves, that which belonged to others, you multiplied the misery of others, it being the cost of your new found Luxury. You took, rather than gave. You displaced the Middle Class, you took their place, through false promises and misdirection. The Beast you are a part of, will never have enough control, never have enough money to spend. Thanks for playing Statist Utopia, though, where nothing is rewarded better than incompetence and blind loyalty to the State.

 

[Bfgrn]

We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention. You are buying into the tug of war between Big Government and Big Business, in too many cases, both Despots, Co-Conspirators just fighting over the Reins. Totalitarianism generally gets the final word there. Having the full force of Police, Court, Prisons, Military, there is really no debate there. How many Businessmen that stood up to Hitler or Stalin were alive a year later, even a day later?

Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way. Major changes in the last 50 years, that's mostly a good thing. I grew up on Long Island, very close to Hooker Chemical and Grumman. They sure got away with allot of shit. Sometimes Human Nature needs a big kick in the ass.

Our goal is to Seek and Establish Justice, and maintain it. When things add up, when things compute, when reason prevails, there is balance, which promotes incentive and growth.

Your post is filled with falsehoods, dogma and lacks any logic or reason.

"We don't have a true Free Market here because of Government intervention"

There is no such thing as a 'free market'...ALL markets are constructed. Think of the stock exchange. It has rules. The World Trade Organization has 900 pages of regulations. The bond market has all kinds of regulations and commissions to make sure those regulations carried out. Every market has rules.

"Companies pollute because Government has traditionally turned the other way"

WHO stopped polluters from polluting Einstein? Did they stop out of the goodness of their hearts?

It's like you come close, but fall short, but in truth that is expected. Cheap shots are beneath you, Dear. You can do better than that. Try harder. In something is not clear to you, ask for clarification. There is a Free Market. That's not to make a false claim that because there are rules that Govern fair play, the market isn't free. When we establish the rules of play, by the consent of the governed, using reason, rather than abandoning it, adapting the regulations, as circumstance dictates, learning as we grow, we each benefit. Sometimes I wonder if you are here to solve problems, voice your concerns, or just run cover for Totalitarian Idealism. Do you really presume Regimes like China, USSR, or North Korea, have better track records relating to environmental concerns and pollution? Who are you kidding? We are a free society, which is why our laundry gets aired more openly, not covered up. Your One World Government, Centralized control, one size fixes all is a myth. Your end will only silence all witness that your Puppet Masters, are offended by. That leaves your Totalitarian Utopian Police State inner circle to do anything they want whenever the **** they want, on their terms, with the rest of us in the dark.

When I speak of Government Intervention in the Free Market, I do not refer to It's role as an Impartial Referee, which I do support. I refer to the Referee, determining outcome, rather than establishing and maintaining a fair playing field. It is not for the Referee to determine outcome , even before the game is played, or during it. It is not for the Referee to dictate Providence, that is God's realm. The Referee should not be betting on the game, making rulings that even the odds, using his authority to effect outcome, or inserting Ringers in the play of the game. For the record, I am against Subsidies, Entitlements, and Special Privilege, and work to an end where we each have the responsibility, ability, and opportunity to do just that. It's about self respect.

Relating to pollution, be it out of ignorance, selfishness, or just not giving a damn, it occurs in our personal lives, in business, and in Government, maybe more because of the dark side of our Nature. It is because of the light side of Our Nature, that we battle against stupidity. Be fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. How many examples of the Federal Government taking on more Authority, failing to act and do it's job, and obstructing other Entities from doing what it fails to do, claiming Jurisdiction, do you need to see? Give me a break.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Thanks for a post rife with 'cheap shots', super hyperbole and more proof you are a paranoid and delusional personality.

You somehow manage to twist reality in your mind to eliminate all personal responsibility and create a straw man where EVERY single thing that is wrong in the world is because of government. Either government does too much, or not enough.

Polluters are just wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a flea. And they only pollute because of big bad government. NOT because not having to clean up after themselves increases their bottom line and externalize their costs. Gee, if we could only eliminate mean old government, the world would be a Utopia.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.

Here is a law that should require NO government. It is soundly built on common sense, common decency and common interest...

The law of the commons: The commons includes all the things we own together and none of us owns individually -- the air and waters of the Earth, wildlife, the human gene pool, the accumulated human knowledge that we all inherit at birth, and so on. The commons form the biological platform upon which the entire human enterprise -- and, indeed, all life -- depend.

Ten Tenets: the Law of the Commons of the Natural World

1) The commons shall be passed on to future generations unimpaired.

2) All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination.

3) Government's key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. The trust beneficiary is present and future generations. The trustee has a responsibility to protect the trust property from harm, including harm perpetrated by trust beneficiaries.

4) The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public.

5) Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated, denied, repudiated or given away. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government's sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and to exclude some commoners from their share.

6) The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations.

7) Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose.

8) Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners.

9) The commons are the foundation of the economy. Therefore the market, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons.

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners.

 

[Intense]

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Thanks for a post rife with 'cheap shots', super hyperbole and more proof you are a paranoid and delusional personality.

You somehow manage to twist reality in your mind to eliminate all personal responsibility and create a straw man where EVERY single thing that is wrong in the world is because of government. Either government does too much, or not enough.

Polluters are just wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a flea. And they only pollute because of big bad government. NOT because not having to clean up after themselves increases their bottom line and externalize their costs. Gee, if we could only eliminate mean old government, the world would be a Utopia.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.

Here is a law that should require NO government. It is soundly built on common sense, common decency and common interest...

The law of the commons: The commons includes all the things we own together and none of us owns individually -- the air and waters of the Earth, wildlife, the human gene pool, the accumulated human knowledge that we all inherit at birth, and so on. The commons form the biological platform upon which the entire human enterprise -- and, indeed, all life -- depend.

Ten Tenets: the Law of the Commons of the Natural World

1) The commons shall be passed on to future generations unimpaired.

2) All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination.

3) Government's key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. The trust beneficiary is present and future generations. The trustee has a responsibility to protect the trust property from harm, including harm perpetrated by trust beneficiaries.

4) The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public.

5) Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated, denied, repudiated or given away. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government's sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and to exclude some commoners from their share.

6) The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations.

7) Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose.

8) Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners.

9) The commons are the foundation of the economy. Therefore the market, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons.

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Our body is a Temple , The Earth is a Temple. Tread lightly, you reap what you sow. Try to give more than you take.

Thanks for a post rife with 'cheap shots', super hyperbole and more proof you are a paranoid and delusional personality.

You earned every shot. Paranoid and delusional? Funny, coming from you. I live and let live. You live to dictate, control, and tax. Good one though.

2) All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination.

By God's Decree, or Arbitrary Government control. Who's Taxing who here? Who controls access according to whim, or sets policy by the flavor of the day?

3) Government's key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. The trust beneficiary is present and future generations. The trustee has a responsibility to protect the trust property from harm, including harm perpetrated by trust beneficiaries.

The Government's Key Responsibility is to Establish and Serve Justice First in All Things, within the scope of it's means and ability, even putting that service above it's own Selfish interest. Get that yet. The construct is not above it's purpose for being. The Government is charged with protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Government itself is not exempt from that charge, it is not without fault, neither are it's business partners, you know, those it collaborates with to feed off of us like parasites. I'm not anti Government. I am anti Tyranny. Clean up your act. Take control of you addictions, they are running your life and ruining the quality of ours.

4) The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public.

They belong to more than us. They will remain long after we are gone. What is your point here?

5) Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated, denied, repudiated or given away. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government's sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and to exclude some commoners from their share.

You are not entitled to what you have not earned, by holding others in Servitude. Value for Value. We are granted use of resource, it's providence, what we make of it. Still, there is a right way and a wrong way. There is that which establishes Justice, and that which spits in it's face, and makes a mockery of it. Funny, as the President is pushing for a Treaty, which we will be bound to, that we cannot get out of, which will transfer our Sovereignty to the Jurisdiction of an International Court, who can arbitrarily Dictate, and even overrule Congress or the Supreme Court, that you would state such a claim.

6) The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations.

How's that going for you Sparky? Here is an idea, maybe we can establish a $100 Tax on you, only you, every time you turn on your BBQ this year. Government manipulating Energy recourse, playing favorites, screwing others, yeah, we need more government control, seeing how you are managing things so well. Lets invest all of your retirement in wind mills, Don Quixote.

7) Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose.

We don't need no stinking badges! We don't need cause, or reason, we can just take, like in New London. There are no limits on Eminent Domain, the Court said so. So if we notice something enticing, hey, we are the Government, we can just take. **** Original Intent, Purpose, Cause, what's right. We confiscate the Property, or force the sale, reevaluate the Property Taxes, and make a killing on the new Zoning Taxes and fee's. Way Cool. **** Enumerated Powers, or Consent.

8) Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners.

Yep, for all those that can still afford to play. The rest, we just Take what they have, and push them out to make way for the next round. It's good to be King. Who's arguing about Infrastructure anyway? Are you just trying to manipulate and side track the conversation? You think I am against Infrastructure? Necessary Change? I am not. There is Consent, there is Due Process.

9) The commons are the foundation of the economy. Therefore the market, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons.

And? The Commoners are not on the Menu.Leave them be. You might want to inform the Federal Government, forcing us to bank roll all of the bail outs so your pension funds remain sound. Why are we, the have not's, ensuring your securities again?

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners.

You come off like a State Employee, insulated by all of the common folk who will lose everything at your expense, before you lose a dime. Just saying.
Is this your material, or did you forget the link? Sounds like old school State Doctrine. You Shall, what's missing are the "You Must's", that old Hamilton Empire State, Oligarchy Crap, the Elite's used to keep the Common's in line. 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

 

[Bfgrn]

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Thanks for a post rife with 'cheap shots', super hyperbole and more proof you are a paranoid and delusional personality.

You somehow manage to twist reality in your mind to eliminate all personal responsibility and create a straw man where EVERY single thing that is wrong in the world is because of government. Either government does too much, or not enough.

Polluters are just wonderful people who wouldn't hurt a flea. And they only pollute because of big bad government. NOT because not having to clean up after themselves increases their bottom line and externalize their costs. Gee, if we could only eliminate mean old government, the world would be a Utopia.

The rule is the commons are owned by all of us. They're not owned by the governor or the legislator or the coal companies and the utility. Everybody has a right to use them. Nobody has a right to abuse them. Nobody has a right to use them in a way that will diminish or injure their use and enjoyment by others.

Here is a law that should require NO government. It is soundly built on common sense, common decency and common interest...

The law of the commons: The commons includes all the things we own together and none of us owns individually -- the air and waters of the Earth, wildlife, the human gene pool, the accumulated human knowledge that we all inherit at birth, and so on. The commons form the biological platform upon which the entire human enterprise -- and, indeed, all life -- depend.

Ten Tenets: the Law of the Commons of the Natural World

1) The commons shall be passed on to future generations unimpaired.

2) All commoners have equal access to the commons and use by commoners will be allocated without discrimination.

3) Government's key responsibility is to serve as a trustee of the commons. The trust beneficiary is present and future generations. The trustee has a responsibility to protect the trust property from harm, including harm perpetrated by trust beneficiaries.

4) The commons do not belong to the state but belong to commoners, the public.

5) Some commons are the common heritage of all humans and other living beings. Common heritage establishes the right of commoners to those places and goods in perpetuity. This right may not be alienated, denied, repudiated or given away. The Common Heritage law is a limit on one government's sovereignty to claim economic jurisdiction and to exclude some commoners from their share.

6) The precautionary principle is the most useful tool for protecting the commons for this and future generations.

7) Eminent domain is the legal process for moving private property into the commons and shall be used exclusively for that purpose.

8) Infrastructure necessary for humans and other beings to be fully biological and social creatures will reside within the domain of the commons. The positive benefits (externalities) of the commons shall accrue to all commoners.

9) The commons are the foundation of the economy. Therefore the market, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons.

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners.

"We didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children."
Lakota Sioux Proverb

Our body is a Temple , The Earth is a Temple. Tread lightly, you reap what you sow. Try to give more than you take.


You earned every shot. Paranoid and delusional? Funny, coming from you. I live and let live. You live to dictate, control, and tax. Good one though.


By God's Decree, or Arbitrary Government control. Who's Taxing who here? Who controls access according to whim, or sets policy by the flavor of the day?


The Government's Key Responsibility is to Establish and Serve Justice First in All Things, within the scope of it's means and ability, even putting that service above it's own Selfish interest. Get that yet. The construct is not above it's purpose for being. The Government is charged with protecting us from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Government itself is not exempt from that charge, it is not without fault, neither are it's business partners, you know, those it collaborates with to feed off of us like parasites. I'm not anti Government. I am anti Tyranny. Clean up your act. Take control of you addictions, they are running your life and ruining the quality of ours.


They belong to more than us. They will remain long after we are gone. What is your point here?


You are not entitled to what you have not earned, by holding others in Servitude. Value for Value. We are granted use of resource, it's providence, what we make of it. Still, there is a right way and a wrong way. There is that which establishes Justice, and that which spits in it's face, and makes a mockery of it. Funny, as the President is pushing for a Treaty, which we will be bound to, that we cannot get out of, which will transfer our Sovereignty to the Jurisdiction of an International Court, who can arbitrarily Dictate, and even overrule Congress or the Supreme Court, that you would state such a claim.


How's that going for you Sparky? Here is an idea, maybe we can establish a $100 Tax on you, only you, every time you turn on your BBQ this year. Government manipulating Energy recourse, playing favorites, screwing others, yeah, we need more government control, seeing how you are managing things so well. Lets invest all of your retirement in wind mills, Don Quixote.


We don't need no stinking badges! We don't need cause, or reason, we can just take, like in New London. There are no limits on Eminent Domain, the Court said so. So if we notice something enticing, hey, we are the Government, we can just take. **** Original Intent, Purpose, Cause, what's right. We confiscate the Property, or force the sale, reevaluate the Property Taxes, and make a killing on the new Zoning Taxes and fee's. Way Cool. **** Enumerated Powers, or Consent.


Yep, for all those that can still afford to play. The rest, we just Take what they have, and push them out to make way for the next round. It's good to be King. Who's arguing about Infrastructure anyway? Are you just trying to manipulate and side track the conversation? You think I am against Infrastructure? Necessary Change? I am not. There is Consent, there is Due Process.

9) The commons are the foundation of the economy. Therefore the market, commerce and private property shall not externalize damage or costs onto the commons.

And? The Commoners are not on the Menu.Leave them be. You might want to inform the Federal Government, forcing us to bank roll all of the bail outs so your pension funds remain sound. Why are we, the have not's, ensuring your securities again?

10) Damage to or loss of the commons shall be compensated to all commoners.

You come off like a State Employee, insulated by all of the common folk who will lose everything at your expense, before you lose a dime. Just saying.
Is this your material, or did you forget the link? Sounds like old school State Doctrine. You Shall, what's missing are the "You Must's", that old Hamilton Empire State, Oligarchy Crap, the Elite's used to keep the Common's in line. 2+2=5 for as long as we say it does.

Open your eyes and ponder this question. When you go to your mailbox every day, turn on your television or go out in public, WHO is most likely to try to find a way to take everything you earned by swindle or schemes? Is it the government, OR, is it the private sector?

Can you be honest for a change and talk like a normal human being and make the pontificating, hyperbole and chanting subside??

If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?

 

[paulitician]

There are very few Classic Liberals left. Today's Democratic Party is dominated by Socialists/Progressives. They're very comfortable championing total Government control of Citizens' lives. The term 'Classic Liberal' should be retired. They would now have to be called Libertarians or real Conservatives. And there are very few differences between Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. They both want the Government to control Citizens' lives. That's why i always laugh when i see Socialists/Progressives and Neocons arguing. What are they really arguing about? They're both Big Government Globalists in the end. Anyway, great post. Thanks Intense.

 

[Intense]

Open your eyes and ponder this question. When you go to your mailbox every day, turn on your television or go out in public, WHO is most likely to try to find a way to take everything you earned by swindle or schemes? Is it the government, OR, is it the private sector?

Can you be honest for a change and talk like a normal human being and make the pontificating, hyperbole and chanting subside??

If God created trees, shouldn't liberals be the ones calling CONSERVE-atives tree huggers?

Why did the Founders, outside of Alexander Hamilton, subscribe to Limited Government, Enumerated Powers? Because the Nature of Man is corrupt at it's worst, Ideal at it's best. Take the plank out of your own eye.

There are those that do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, there are those that do it, because they have not had the opportunity to do otherwise yet. In the end it is about who or what you serve, regardless of where or whether you receive compensation, or a paycheck from. If it is in you to do right, it is about you, not what you belong to.

Scam Artist's and Schemer's are everywhere, it's your choice what you open your life up to, and what you don't. There is no distinction between Government and Private Sector.

I am being totally honest with you. Allow me to bear witness from my unique perspective, as I do you, from yours. I am not attempting to censor you, or limit what you say.

For the Record, from my Perspective, I am both Classic Liberal and Conservative. I see no contradiction, nor any competing values. My favorite President was James Madison, I support the views of Locke, Jefferson, Thoreau, to name a few. I'm big on Liberty, while accepting the natural consequences that go with free choice. Always seek clarity of purpose, and remember one's place. I think where you lose it, where Government does tend to stray, is, Method, the end does not justify the means. Using power arbitrarily, for the sake of it, is an abuse. Action needs to be better tailored to remedy without causing collateral damage. Everything we do, has an effect, badge or no badge. Again, do you do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, or do you do what suits you, just because there is no one to stop you. This too, is a matter of conscience and obligation, above prescribed procedure.

 

[Foxfyre]

Walker technically does have the greatest job loss percentage at this time, but even that is a tiny percentage of job loss that occurred during his predecessor's term. And almost 18,000 of the 'lost jobs' during Walker's administration have been government jobs and most of the private sector jobs lost (6100) have been due to cutbacks in government spending. Take those out of the equation, and the improvement is quite remarkable. Of course Democrats see that as a tragedy. Classical Liberals see that as a triumph.

 

[Intense]

There are very few Classic Liberals left. Today's Democratic Party is dominated by Socialists/Progressives. They're very comfortable championing total Government control of Citizens' lives. The term 'Classic Liberal' should be retired. They would now have to be called Libertarians or real Conservatives. And there are very few differences between Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. They both want the Government to control Citizens' lives. That's why i always laugh when i see Socialists/Progressives and Neocons arguing. What are they really arguing about? They're both Big Government Globalists in the end. Anyway, great post. Thanks Intense.

Agreed. Some want to replace Conscience First with a Permission Slip from Big Brother. Just from a Prophesy stand point, it is a warning. I prefer choosing a Representative to represent my Values in Government, rather than a Keeper. I am No One's Property, nor do I wish to have that kind of power over Anyone else.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

There are very few Classic Liberals left. Today's Democratic Party is dominated by Socialists/Progressives. They're very comfortable championing total Government control of Citizens' lives. The term 'Classic Liberal' should be retired. They would now have to be called Libertarians or real Conservatives. And there are very few differences between Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. They both want the Government to control Citizens' lives. That's why i always laugh when i see Socialists/Progressives and Neocons arguing. What are they really arguing about? They're both Big Government Globalists in the end. Anyway, great post. Thanks Intense.

10's across the board!

Even the judge from the Ukraine said, "dah! we took over the Democrat Party, but this is a man who is sincere and makes sense, I'm happy to give him a 10"

 

[Foxfyre]

There are very few Classic Liberals left. Today's Democratic Party is dominated by Socialists/Progressives. They're very comfortable championing total Government control of Citizens' lives. The term 'Classic Liberal' should be retired. They would now have to be called Libertarians or real Conservatives. And there are very few differences between Socialists/Progressives and Neocons. They both want the Government to control Citizens' lives. That's why i always laugh when i see Socialists/Progressives and Neocons arguing. What are they really arguing about? They're both Big Government Globalists in the end. Anyway, great post. Thanks Intense.

Agreed. Some want to replace Conscience First with a Permission Slip from Big Brother. Just from a Prophesy stand point, it is a warning. I prefer choosing a Representative to represent my Values in Government, rather than a Keeper. I am No One's Property, nor do I wish to have that kind of power over Anyone else.

I dsagree that there are very few classical liberals left though. I think the whole phenomenon of the Tea Party, 9/12ers, and similar groups is a great revival of the spirit of self governance that the Founders intended. And in state after state, they are making a difference. Who would have ever though Dick Lugar would lose his four-decades long seat in Indiana? That was purely through the effort of the Tea Party vote and it was by a fairly wide margin to boot.

I do agree that the few groups on the right who lobby the federal government to force whatever social policy on all the people are no better than progressives/liberals in that regard and they are the antithesis of the basis of classical liberalism. The Tea Partiers, et al, however do not do that. They may not have the term in their head, but they have the principles in their hearts. They are fiercely lobbying and working to restore classical liberalism in the national psyche and in the government.

What will sink that ship is the federal government moving more and more people into components of the nanny state. Free stuff is so addictive that some of the most hard care classical liberals can be entangled. And with roughly half the population already caught up in the syndrome, we are at the tipping point now. Which I believe make the 2012 election the most critical of my lifetime. Another four years of Obama and I believe more than half the people will be on some kind of government dole. And then it is all over but the post mortems.