Finding Conservatives Among Us

Liberalism destroys everything it touches

Apostle Claver of is telling the truth about Liberalism—it destroys everything it touches. The philosophy of Liberalism is wrong for both individuals and families because Liberalism/ Leftists/Progressives/ Intellectuals value ideas over people. It values the concept of “openness” when history, and our own experience, has taught us that exposing our children to everything is not in their long term best interest. Liberalism says, “Yes!” when we know good parenting means telling our children, “No.” Liberalism says, “OK” to misspelling, incorrect grammar, or incorrect math problems because Liberals value “a good self image” over a correct answer. Liberalism has made it practically illegal to teach the values of good citizenship because  the non existent Constitutional separation of church and state has made it impossible to teach our children there is:  a value system, a concept of right and wrong, or a way that fosters self-respect through ability and achievement that is superior to self-esteem without merit—no matter how good one may feel about himself.

Schools show the decline

Look at our schools and see what Liberalism has done. When federal funding in our schools is focused around remedial classes, an honest and trustworthy teacher must contemplate that by improving her students attitude toward the joy and satisfaction of real learning, she actually risks working herself out of a job, or the district out of real financial support. The presence of large sums of money for remedial classes actually ensures remedial students. See what Liberalism has done to your children and families. Our schools are free to expose our children to everything perverse in the world, but try to teach honesty, integrity, and character and the threat of lawsuit makes the better teacher a target of derision and vitriol. Our local schools have become a den of thieves rather than a campus of honor and safety. Our children have to put on the tough facade of the smartaleck rather than the smile of happiness that accompanies successful learning because discipline is so haphazard.

School Board Elections

In May, we will be electing new members of our local school board. Think about what’s best for our children for the long-term and ponder within your heart if Liberalism could really be the source of our problems, not the solution. It takes just as long to teach a child correctly as it does to teach a child poorly, it’s just harder to demand the best from each student. Liberalism is easy because “everything” is acceptable. Conservatism takes effort just as parenting takes effort, but the end product is such a joy to us in our old age.

We must revive what we know to be the better choice for the long term benefit for individuals, families, and communities. Liberalism champions the idea over the individual, encouraging each of us to become slaves to our vices by paying us all the way to our own destruction. Liberals have literally bankrupted the entire nation by paying us all the way to our own destruction, the destruction of our families, and the destruction of our communities. We have no more money to pay. We can no longer say, “We’ll just kick the can down the road” and make future generations pay for our Liberal/ Progressive foolishness. We face a $14,000,000,000,000 national debt, as well as State debt, and local debt. Paying people as they self-destruct is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Listen to the words of Apostle Claver as he explains that we only must support what is good for the individual and the family in order to stop what is destroying us as individuals, families, and communities. We know what those things are: honesty, character, integrity because these are the basic requirements to live independent lives.

Note: This article cites British Historian and Philosopher Paul Johnson’s article: The Heartless Lovers of Humankind, originally published in the Wall Street Journal. I encourage everyone to read this article and spread it among friends and families.


  1. Claus D. Wagner says:

    FairTax is the solution

    • The Fair Tax would be the solution to a number of problems, but that itself may be holding it back. People are afraid to change too much too fast. I think it’s time will come though.

      Guess we just need to find more conservatives!

  2. Doug Indeap says:

    You say: “Liberalism has made it practically illegal to teach the values of good citizenship because the non existent Constitutional separation of church and state has made it impossible to teach our children there is: a value system, a concept of right and wrong, or a way that fosters self-respect through ability and achievement that is superior to self-esteem without merit—no matter how good one may feel about himself.”

    This statement is profoundly mistaken in at least three respects. First, “liberalism” does not stand in the way of teaching the values of good citizenship. It just doesn’t.

    Second, the constitutional principle of separation of church and state is not a “liberal” concept. By treating this as a modern-day liberal-conservative political issue, you reveal more about yourself than anything else–i.e., you have those leftie-rightie glasses on pretty tight.

    Third, the principle is hardly “non existent.” The U.S. Supreme Court has long since resolved this point. In any event, the phrase “separation of church and state” is but a metaphor to describe the principle reflected by the Constitution (1) establishing a secular government on the power of the people (not a deity), (2) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (3) and, indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in the First Amendment where the point is to confirm that each person enjoys religious liberty and that the government is not to take steps to establish religion and another provision precluding any religious test for public office. That the phrase does not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, only to those who may have once labored under the misimpression it was there and, upon learning they were mistaken, reckon they’ve discovered a smoking gun solving a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphor commonly used to describe one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

    James Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

    The First Amendment embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

    Wake Forest University recently published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. (PDF)

    • Doug,

      So are you supporting the results that I bemoan? It’s the current state of affairs that concerns me.

      Sadly it seems, you really help me make my case as I am pointing out the results of a secular government with the inability to decide right and wrong doing charity work. It is the State’s inability to solve the spiritual issues that accompany social problems that has led to the taxpayer actually funding the destruction of the very people the State claims to help.

      I sincerely appreciate your comment and hope that you continue to think about this topic and hopefully begin to consider the cost in human terms. A community that cannot educate its children in good citizenship, honor, integrity, and truth is doomed as an appreciating, prosperous, free, civil society. Ideas should serve people, not the other way around.

      • Doug Indeap says:

        Teaching children right from wrong and other values has been a central task and struggle for every generation. And one can read humorous or apocolyptic commentary about the upcoming generation from nearly any century for which we have human literature. That is not to diminish the issues we currently face, but rather to note our situation is hardly unprecedented in this respect.

        How you imagine something I said helps you make a case that a secular government is unable to decide right from wrong, I do not know. I said nothing of that subject and instead addressed misconceptions about the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.

        But to now address that point, unlike you, I do not equate morality or values with religion, nor do I see any reason a secular government cannot operate effectively in the realm of morality and values. Whether our secular government currently is doing a good job of that may well be debated, but I do not see it to be inherently unable to do so.

        • Doug,

          I am glad that you agree that good, positive results should be required of our taxpayer funded good intentions. Now, if we could come to agreement on what constitutes good, positive results, then I would so appreciate a new voice as we work together to return sanity to our community.

          Contrary to your assumption, I do not equate morality or values with religion. My end goal is a prosperous, appreciating, free civil society – as identified as the foundation of classical republicanism. The fact that some ideas and results are better than others is being lost in a culture devoted to relativism and anathema to anything that hints at a hierarchy of righteousness or levels of goodness. I however, like the Founding Fathers, believe that a community that makes it clear that it supports the tenets of The 10 Commandments, as well as loving your neighbor as you love yourself, does itself a great service at no cost to religious freedom or conscience. A garbled message allows evil, bad deeds, and unsavory activity to flourish. A clear message calls us to unity which is the best interest of a free civil society.

          The true nature of man – might makes right – is allowed to flourish in the current cultural environment of excessive democracy. Look at Wisconsin to see brute force vs republicanism. [Note: I am not referring to the Republican Party, but rather the philosophy that respects the will of the people via the ballot box, the debate according to the merit of ideas, and ultimately accepting the results in a civilized manner.] Consider the ramifications of a President that makes clear he supports the side of violence as we discuss the values and merit of my original post calling for a return to common sense.

          As to past generations, one only has to read the Federalist Papers which were first published as letters to the editor in various papers to see that the great majority of citizens were far more educated and literate than our current public school results. Early citizens were engaged in current events such that when compared to the current man on the street interview should be viewed as a direct threat to the liberty of those of us who value the intent and honor of good citizenship.

          I really believe that you can remove your own Lefty-Righty eyeglasses so that you can join me in my defense of common sense. We both know we get what we pay for or accept. Join me and demand the best ideas, the best work, the best values be our aim and goal because it’s best for our community for the long run. This was the purpose of my original post because I want to Find Conservatives Within Us.

Speak Your Mind


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.