This morning, I heard a Fox News correspondent on morning radio talk about how the Supreme Courts decision was a win for Conservatives and President Trump. My first question was, "what kind of conservative?" Of course I already knew, it was the Neocons.
So, the average "conservative" in my opinion uses the term without really understanding its meaning. To them it means something that really exists in their own minds than it does on paper and since there is no adherence to a platform of rule of laws or the constitution, they are in essence supporting a form of lawlessness (like Progressives) in the name of freedom wrapped in the flag and a pledge and a prayer to almighty for His blessings while agitating their brothers and spreading false information which is clearly un-Biblical not to mention unethical.
So, today as I understood the correspondent, these conservatives won for taking a marginal position on immorality, abortion, were okay with the Supreme court making law and allowing such rulings to apply nationwide?
Also, State supreme courts can create orders and mandates that apparently all must follow when entering into a judicial building? I guess the Neocons are okay with that too? I thought only the legislature can make law?
So in just these few instances alone, we need to ask what conservatism is, and what they are actually "conserving' when they have more similar tendencies to align with progressives than Constitutionalists? If it isn't constitutional, why should they or us be in support of it when it allows the government to act outside of its proper role? Do you suppose there are so many "conservative" people even today that don't recognize that they are part of the problem? They sure have no problem blaming us for all of there problems.
In the most simple terms, to me what you own is clearly yours, if you possess it, you own it, the entire thing, not just the insides or outsides of whatever it is and not because some government agency said you could own it. Homes are the same way, in your residence, the walls or fences define its borders like a nation is defined by its borders.
In these instances above, I need to ask you, which entity is more the enemy of the people and of liberty if the government gets to not only define what is yours but if they get to define not only the borders of your home but the nation without any adherence to their oath, the laws or the Constitution?
The difference is that Neocons are more the enemy, not only because they are Marxists but because they adhere to Marxist Principles more than they do their oath, the party platform or the constitution and are constantly giving away or continuing to tax what was clearly already yours.
I have been told that I need to quit bickering with fellow conservatives. To this I say, If they are Marxists, what do I have in common with them as a Constitutionalist? The issue with the question of course is that the person that asked the question didn't know the difference between a Marxist and a Constitutionalist and therein is the problem.
Some ask me what I propose as a solution and to them I say aggressive education and lots of dialogue, even debate because even those that followed totalitarian rule did not always know they were part of that cabal.
The hope is that by us convicting them with what we know, they will realize the difference and then make a conscious choice to join the side that defends liberty and borders and boundaries against encroachment and adheres to contracts and compacts and platforms for which they identify. Ironically many of these Neocons are attorneys. Can you imagine going into court and having the attorney and the magistrate debating on what the law is on a Thursday? Law is. It existed before Courts, man or countries. Why is it that man acts like it gets to create it whenever it pleases?
If these Neocons choose not to learn and practice those Americanist principles, their support for Marxism is intentional and removes any doubt and they may fall under the category of the enemy of liberty.
Comments