Summary: Conservatives Vs. Libertarians

Thanks to everyone who took the time to read and respond to my two posts concerning Conservatives and Libertarians. The answers ranged from the intellectually stimulating, to the comical and finally ended up somewhere in the clinically insane territory. Paul even got in on the commenting, encouraging me to eat a donut for some reason... Paul?

What I've come to realize is that even though there are countless 'issues' which separate the two ideologies, as defined by those on each side, there are far more similarities between the two, than some within the movements care to recognize.

There has been a large momentum change since the days immediately following the election, wherein libertarians and conservatives are setting aside squabbles over ideologies and uniting behind the ideal of LIMITED government, i.e. the Tea Party movement and the 9/12 march on Washington. Libertarians and Conservatives understand that they share the view of a limited government and that through working together they have the opportunity to elect a leader who can return the power of the political process from the hands of the elite in Washington to the hands of the people in the heartland.

We have to be ready to work together, but not afraid to call out fringe voices within the ideologies, lest diverted from our goal of regaining control in Washington.

As I said in the comments of a previous post; I am more than willing to have a policy debate on some of the issues that separate us into Conservative and Libertarian ideologies, once we've regained control in Washington. Until then, the focus should be singular: Limited Government, period!


Please take the time to comment!

It's About To Get Hairy

Democratically Elected Leader of Honduras

Imagine with me a scenario where a sitting President of the United States attempts in defiance of the Congress, the Supreme Court and Constitutional law to change the Constitution of the United States in order to allow him to be POTUS for life. After being warned by the Congress not to proceed and finding little support for his overtures, he decides to have political sympathizers print ballots which he intends to use during a special election, taking the issue directly to the people. Since the Congress, Supreme Court and the Constitution itself are in opposition to this action, the President orders the military to carry out the election procedures.

Having shown such willingness to toss aside Constitutional mandate, the Congress goes before the Supreme Court presenting evidence and witnesses following the path set out in the Constitution to remove the President from power. The Supreme Court supports the evidence presented by Congress and agrees that it is within the Constitutional authority of the Legislative and Judicial Branches to remove the President from Office. Once the vote is completed and the President has been stripped of power, the Congress orders the military to capture the, now former, President and remove him from the country altogether, as to prevent him from attempting a coup using forces within the country which are still sympathetic to his actions.

Now imagine with me that after a month of being just across the border in Canada, the former President is snuck back into the country and is given asylum within the Canadian embassy. What do you think the reaction of the United States would be if the Canadian government refused the United States demands for the former President to be removed from the embassy and taken outside the borders of the United States?

Former President, Wannabe Dictator, Assclown, Chavez Puppet of Honduras

Well folks, it's happening. Only the names of the players have been changed in the story above. In reality the President in question is the former President of Honduras, an ally of the United States. And the Embassy in question belongs to Brazil.

So here's how the Communist News Network describes what's going on:

Brazil on Sunday rejected an ultimatum from Honduras' de facto government to decide the status of ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya, who has been holed up in the South American country's embassy in Honduras since last week.

As I'm sure you were, I was completely shocked by CNN's sympathies for the man who would attempt to over throw a constitutional republic and replace it with a dictatorship. De Facto is latin and literally means "in practice but not necessarily ordained by law." Hmm, let's see... The Congress challenged the actions, brought the accusation before the Supreme Court who reviewed the charges against the statute, which happens to be Honduras' Constitution and supported the removal of this man from office. Sounds like it was ordained by law to me.

Here are the real life implications of this story:

1. A man who has already proven that he refuses to acknowledge the sovereignty of the law which he was elected to serve and protect (Zelaya) is being given shelter within the borders of the country that removed him from power and evicted him.
   
2. The former President is being given a platform by a sympathetic press to spout all sorts of nonsense about his treatment and "illegal actions" of the Honduran Government.
   
3. Rightly considering the Zelaya's presence a threat to national security, the Honduran government and democratically elected President (Micheletti) have demanded that Zelaya be immediately removed from the embassy and once again taken outside the borders of Honduras.
   
4. Brazil has refused to honor the demands of the Honduran government and continues to allow Zelaya refuge within their embassy.
   
5. In reaction to Brazil's decision, Honduras refuses to continue to recognize the Brazilian embassy as an embassy and has changed it's classification to a 'private office.'
   

This can only end badly. When the sovereign government of one country, in accordance with it's laws, removes a dictator from the office of President and extricates him from the country only to be defied by an 'allied' government which gives the dictator sanctuary within their embassy, things are about to get hairy. Imma go out on a branch here and speculate that the reason for changing the classification of Brazil's embassy to a 'private office' is to allow the Honduran military opportunity to invade the embassy without it being an act of war. However, it doesn't matter what the Honduran government classifies Brazil's embassy as, it matters only how Brazil perceives Honduras' actions. If Honduras is forced to storm the embassy to remove Zelaya, Brazil will no doubt see this as an act of war (as will most of the rest of the idiotic world) and will retaliate in kind.

Luckily, the Constitutional Law Professor in Chief of theses United States not only has a valid understanding of constitutional law, but is siding with the execution of constitutional law in an allied country.

Whew! For a minute there, I thought things were going to get ugly!

Please take the time to comment!