Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
What must conservatives in "the conservative movement" do to win in the future? This is the question with which many on the Right have been grappling since Barack Obama won his reelection.
First and foremost, they must recognize that they are not conservatives. Rather, they are neoconservatives.
The differences between conservatism and neoconservatism are fundamental.
This Christmas season, let the atheists among us recognize that the West remains eternally indebted to Christianity. If there were no Christianity, there would be no natural law, natural rights, human rights, or our traditional moral ideals — for without the theological gestalt supplied by Christianity, these ideals are reduced to arbitrary human inventions.
The issue of so-called same-sex "marriage” will soon come before the Supreme Court. I am no betting man, but if I were, I would gamble every dime to my name that before long, “gay marriage” will be the law of the land. I would further bet that those right-leaning politicians and their allies within the alternative media who have insisted upon preserving the heterosexual character of marriage will succumb to a deafening silence not long after that.
A Christian rethinks the annual media line about a "war" on Christmas.
“The Republican Party is no longer the party of limited government, with limited spending and limited taxes. It is now officially exactly right behind the Democrats — on everything. It is time for conservatives to start looking for a new home. There’s precious little left for us here.”
Thus spoke Brent Bozell, founder of Media Research Center and long-time movement conservative.
Although Bozell deserves two thumbs up for his remarks, it is still worth noting that his epiphany is a little late in the coming: If it was ever really the party of limited government, it has been eons since the GOP ceased being so.
The progressive, I show, can't but hold the Constitution and the Founders in contempt.
Given the recent reelection of President Obama and his fellow partisans, this just might not be a bad time to acquaint ourselves with the writings of 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Socialist rhetoric is in the air, and the air is thick. Rather than be burdened with guilt (and taxes) for our “lack of compassion” for “the disadvantaged,” we would be better served to call to mind Nietzsche’s contention that the socialists (or welfare-statists or “liberals”) among us are motivated first and foremost by their aching need for ever greater power. And that they seek to cloak their selfishness and dishonesty behind a veil of moral objectivity.
I consider — and repudiate — the notion that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for "the lesser of two evils" and amounts to a "compromise of principle."
I note the ways in which Hurricane Sandy dovetails perfectly with our political situation.