Connect with us

Conservatism

President Trump: ‘Our rights do not come from government. They come from God.’

Published

on

President Trump Our rights do not come from government They come from God

Of all the things President Trump could have said before the United Nations yesterday, one sentence made me more proud to have him representing us than anything else he has ever said. It was arguably his most profound pronouncement on the world stage, and even if a speechwriter typed it out for him, the fact that he said it is praiseworthy.

“The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government. They come from God.”

One of the basic tenets of Constitutional conservatism is a belief in natural rights, which elevates divinity and places the Constitution in its proper place as a protection from and reminder to those in governmental power. Our unalienable rights predate the United States. The formation of our nation has been a catalyst for freedom across the world, and while we have had many missteps along the way, we have also corrected many of them as best we can.

We do this because, as the President noted, our founding principles embraced a higher power than man. God gives rights to man. Government is charged with protecting these rights under penalty of retribution from the people. The Constitution is the framework within which government is properly restrained on behalf of the people.

This was a bold, defining moment for the President as he declared to the world what many, even those in our own country, seem to have forgotten. As long as the light of freedom continues to shine, our time on earth may be allowed to continue.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

0

Conservatism

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal, Part I

Published

on

By

Stop praising the authoritarian-left as champions of liberty with the term liberal Part I

The NBA strife over Hong Kong has laid bare the left’s socialist national agenda and their hatred of liberty.

It’s never more gratifying than when prominent leftists prove several assertions about themselves all at once. Such was the case recently when left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr asserted a false complexity when defending authoritarianism over the cause of liberty.

As reported in the Daily Wire, the prominent NBA coach made the following comments defending the authoritarianism of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics’:

When asked about whether he’s ever been asked about China’s record of human rights abuses before, Kerr responded: “It has not come up in terms of people asking about it, people discussing it.”

As is usually the case with leftists, he deflected the deliberate oppression and mass murder of the socialist-left side of the rational political spectrum model in the guise of the Communist Party of China (CPC) with the red herring of the actions of criminals in the states. He then asserted:

“We can play this game all we want and go all over the map. There’s this issue and that issue. The world is a complex place and there’s more gray than black and white,” Kerr concluded. “I realize that what’s popular these days is making it black and white. You’re either good or you’re evil. It’s convenient to do things that way, but not realistic.”

In actuality, those words of deflection are only meant to confuse the issue and hide that the socialist-left favours control over liberty, authoritarianism over freedom.

Most complex systems are based on elegant formulations.

While the world is a complex place, most of it’s workings can be explained by relatively simple but elegant formulations such as Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. While there are vast differences between the physical and political sciences given that the latter deal with very complex and changing phenomena and the actions of people in large populations. Both have certain basic precepts that can be used to generally model the political spectrum. In the case of modelling the political spectrum, it’s imagined complexity can be broken down into several basic assertions that correctly explain the situation.

The key difference between the development of the formulations in the field of engineering and those of politics is that there are no groups [perhaps aside from ‘flat-earthers’] that argue over the parameters of Maxwell’s equations or the laws of motion of Newtonian mechanics. No one really has a reason to argue over the law of gravity in non-relativistic sphere.

Unfortunately, this is not the case when trying to model the political spectrum, primarily because the groups that make up the various factions have a vested interest in obscuring the true situation.

The right prefers liberty, the left prefers control.

In general terms there are just two sides of politics – left and right. Despite attempts by the left to muddy the waters and confuse the situation, that is the generic formulation. These two terms were born out of the historical events surrounding the French revolution, but have gained different meanings along the way. Howbeit this was the source of the terms, it is incorrect to use the context in which they were coined. As is the case with analyzing most complex systems, it’s best to start with first principles. In the case of any political spectrum model we begin with a statement that sets forth the primary difference between left and right, as engineer and author, Robert A. Heinlein so eloquently termed it:

“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire”. Robert A. Heinlein

Stating it in as basic terms as possible the right favors liberty over control while the left favors control over liberty. In other words, the right favors minimal government and maximum liberty, while the left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The left will of course object to this kind of generalization simply because it casts them in a bad light as authoritarians at heart. One only needs to look at their socialist national agenda to confirm this assertion, in that they prioritize control over the cause of liberty.

The right favors individualism, the left favors collectivism.

We can also consider the two sides in terms of the two basic political philosophies of individualism and collectivism. This also affirms the precepts of rational political spectrum model.

The Oxford English dictionary defines individualism:

1The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.
‘a culture that celebrates individualism and wealth’

Synonyms: independence, self-direction, self-reliance, freethinking, free thought, originality

2A social theory favouring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
‘encouragement has been given to individualism, free enterprise, and the pursuit of profit’

The Oxford English dictionary defines collectivism:

1The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
‘the Church has criticized the great emphasis placed on individualism rather than collectivism’

Synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism

1.1The ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state, as a political principle or system.
‘the Russian Revolution decided to alter the course of modernity towards collectivism’

Please note that these principles are of giving a group priority over individuals. The problem is that since groups or collectives happen to be arbitrary constructs, the rights imbued to them are also arbitrary, or non-existent. It logically follows that only individuals can have rights.

Individual rights, liberals and liberty.

Consider how the Oxford English dictionary defines liberal:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
‘liberal citizenship laws’
1.2(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.

Origin
Middle English via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

[Emphasis added]

While the definition refers to ‘moderate political and social reform’, it clearly shows that true liberals favour individual liberty, free trade, placing them on the pro-liberty side of the rational political spectrum model.

This in essence ties everything together, clearly placing liberals in the camp of favouring individual rights and freedoms. While also demonstrating that liberty and liberalism are tied together, having the root word from Latin: liberalis.

Thus, we have set out the basic parameters of the rational political spectrum model:

  • The right favors minimal government and maximum liberty.
  • The left favors maximum government and minimal liberty.

The actions and policy agendas of the left confirm these general assertions, despite the false protestations of complexity by that side of the political spectrum as exemplified by the words of Left-wing Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr.

In part II we will examine in greater detail why it’s important to properly identify and cut through the confusion propagated by the authoritarian left. As well as distinguish their precepts with those of the pro-liberty right.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

NeverTrump’s Achilles Heel

Published

on

Trump says peace talks with Taliban are now dead

A common refrain among NeverTrump Republicans is that Donald Trump is unfit for office by both temperament and ideology, the former being foremost in their vociferous opposition to his presidency.  On the latter point I don’t entirely disagree:  Trump was—and is—not particularly conservative, although his instincts lean in that direction, as does his governance.  Put another way, for a guy who spent most of his life as a New York Democrat, he’s been far more effective at advancing a conservative agenda than George W. Bush ever was—and with the historic number of judges confirmed by Mitch McConnell, Trump’s legacy will live on long after he leaves office.

As to NeverTrump’s supposedly principled opposition to the President’s character—well, that’s another matter.  I don’t doubt that there are a few among their number who have been consistent in that regard, but when it comes to the leadership of that movement it becomes obvious that their arguments have less to do with actual conservatism and more to do with lamenting their diminished status within a Trumpified GOP.  How else to explain the likes of Tom Nichols voicing his support for whomever the Democrats nominate in 2020, no matter how radical or socialist?  Or Bill Kristol embracing his own “inner socialist,” and declaring that he would rather be ruled by an unelected deep state than a duly-elected Donald Trump?  These are not conservative positions, any way you look at them—and they make you realize just how content Conservatism, Inc. was with the relentless leftward drift of the country and the culture, so long as they got to keep their cozy little gigs arguing over the details.

More than that, however, NeverTrump seems to have a real problem with the truth—quite ironic, considering that one of their main criticisms of Donald Trump is what they see as his serial dishonesty.  Take this tweet from Mona Charen, for example:

In case Ms. Charen needs a reminder, Bill Barr is investigating the origins of the Russia collusion hoax—an episode in which the former Secretary of State illegally ran a private email server in order to thwart federal records laws so that she could escape scrutiny for her activities with the Clinton Foundation.  It’s also beyond question that Clinton compromised national security with her actions, exposing state secrets to bad actors—including the Russians and the Chinese.  Now it has become apparent that the FBI, under the leadership of James Comey, may have coordinated with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to give Clinton a pass.  This represents an astonishing amount of corruption at the highest levels of the federal government, which is a direct threat to the rule of law.

Yet Ms. Charen seems uninterested in finding out the truth—probably because it would vindicate President Trump’s assertion that a deep state has been working to undermine his administration from the start.  This is indefensible from anything resembling a conservative point of view.  The only explanation is that Charen doesn’t care, because the truth conflicts with her political preferences.

I ran into the same issue personally with National Review’s Jay Nordlinger.  I’ve read him for years, and have always respected his writing and his dedication to conservative principle.  And even though I largely disagreed with his views on Trump, I always believed him to be arguing in good faith.  Last week, he posted this on Twitter:

To which I replied that George H.W. Bush did much the same to the Kurds in northern Iraq during the first Gulf War, after publicly admonishing them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.  The Kurds did just that, assuming they would have the military support of the United States.  Bush didn’t give that support—and American troops stood by while Saddam engaged in a wholesale slaughter.

Nordlinger, disappointingly, reacted by blocking me.

Understand that I wasn’t defending Trump’s decision to withdraw troops in Syria—I merely pointed out that one of his own personal heroes had made a similar decision, believing it to be in the best interests of the United States at the time.  That, in retrospect, it turned out to be a huge mistake that didn’t stabilize the Middle East and directly led to the rise of al Qaeda doesn’t seem to matter.  History has been subverted to politics.  Truth is now secondary.

This, more than anything, is the greatest weakness of NeverTrump.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

What President Trump hasn’t done

Published

on

What President Trump hasnt done

An op-ed I posted a few hours ago has drawn more people to reach out to me to see if I’m turning against President Trump, yet. One particularly well known “Never Trumper” direct messaged me on Twitter to congratulate me for seeing through the President’s lies. He was shocked to find out my call for the President to sanction Turkey didn’t mean I was turning against him. I still intend to support the President’s reelection efforts and will be voting for him in 2020.

There’s a big difference between criticism and opposition. In today’s ultra-tribal political atmosphere, too many people deal with absolutes. If they oppose a candidate or a party on a single issue, they suddenly oppose that candidate or party on all issues. It’s rather strange seeing former “conservatives” who are now embracing Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren while still pretending to be pro-life, defenders of capitalism, protectors of religious freedoms, 2nd Amendment proponents, and believers in limited government.

But it’s not just the “Never Trumpers” who are the problem. Some of the President’s most devoted fans have willfully molded their conservative worldviews around his. They’re latching onto his “bring the troops home” mantra regarding Syria, though the troops aren’t actually coming home. They’re preparing to be “common sense gun control” advocates in case the President signs universal background checks or red flag incentives into law. They do these things without considering if President Obama did either of these things, they’d be all over Twitter calling him treacherous and anti-freedom.

My perspectives on President Trump are simple and honest. When he does well, I praise him. When he does poorly, I criticize him. My praise has greatly outweighed my criticisms, but invariably any time I criticize his actions I’m attacked by overzealous members of his base and approached by “Never Trumpers” looking to add me to their ranks.

Friday evening, I posted a thread that demonstrates why I won’t be a “Never Trumper” any time soon. It’s worth reading to understand why I can criticize the President while knowing I generally support him and approve of most of his policies.

I can call for President Trump to sanction Turkey and still be fully supportive of his presidency and reelection efforts. Criticism on one issue is not opposition as a whole… at least it shouldn’t be. Patriotism must be driven by honest assertion of our beliefs.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending