Posted by: reddiva | February 4, 2010

Conservative – Politically and Socially

For several months, I have been closing following the US Senate race in Kentucky.   I don’t live in Kentucky; therefore the natural question comes, “What business is it of mine?”  Honestly I recognize that it is none of my business.  Keep in mind, however, that what affects one of our United States affects all of our United States by extension.

There is a widely recognized movement across America which is empowering voters everywhere to seek more conservative candidates to carry the message of the common people to our State and Federal governments.  We have been trying to tell the current administration and lawmakers in Washington that we are highly opposed to the spend and tax initiatives they are pushing through both houses of Congress.

They haven’t listened to a word we have said regardless of how loudly we say it.  In 2009 we decided that actions speak louder than words, so the voters elected two conservative Republican Governors, Chris Christie in New Jersey and Bob McDonnell in Virginia.  We came very close to sending a third message when Doug Hoffman came close to pulling off a miracle by winning the special election in NY-23.

Our message of dissatisfaction continued on January 19 in Massachusetts when Scott Brown was elected to fill what has been called “Ted Kennedy’s seat” following his death.  Scott Brown refers to this as “the people’s seat” and that phrase obviously resonated with Massachusetts voters.  Conservatives outside the state of Massachusetts will have to admit that Senator-Elect Brown is not as conservative as many of us would have liked, but in a head-to-head comparison on the issues in question, he seems like an ultra-conservative next to his opponent in that race, Democrat Martha Coakley.

When I began looking for conservative candidates to support with my writing, I found one that literally stuck out like a sore thumb.  He is so conservative that I felt I must have read something incorrectly.  I continued to watch this candidate and found that I had been right in my first assumption of him.  He is truly conservative from his stance on abortion to his stance on illegal immigration to his support for our military.  Here was a conservative candidate I could vote for – if only he lived in my state.

Many of today’s so-called conservatives use the Libertarian principles of socially liberal individual freedoms to hide in the Republican Party.  They all talk about wanting to rebuild the party as though the phrase that should come next is, “to make the party more user-friendly.”  To them, that “user-friendly” quality forgets that in America the majority want nothing to do with their socially liberal causes.  They use the mantra “states’ rights” to inform the public that issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, legalizing drugs, etc belong to the states and should be decided by the states.  They hope that because of their “if it feels good, do it” attitude, citizens who believe that they could secure enough votes in each state to accomplish these same liberal goals will join with them to secure their elections to offices on the local, state and federal ballots.

There is only one definition of conservative acceptable:  conservative politically and conservative socially.  There is no gray area.  It is up to those of us who are truly conservative to see to it that this doesn’t happen.

As I sat with hundreds of people who believe the same things I do on Sunday night in Lexington, Kentucky, listening to an inspiring speech by Dr. Alan Keyes, I saw myself as I had never done before.  I have compromised my integrity by voting for the lesser of two evils too many times.  I determined that I would not make that mistake again.  If I have to choose to vote for a candidate who agrees with me on only 80% of the issues, I am cheating my convictions on the other 20%.

Each of us must make the decision to hold our public officials accountable to us.  That means that they will hear from the socially liberal voices as well as the conservative voices.  Our conservative voices must be the loudest voices they hear.

Dr. Keyes wrote an outstanding article for his blog site on February 3 that explains the 14th Amendment rights given to the citizens much better than I.

According to the principles of the US Constitution, people institute government (at any level) in order to secure the unalienable rights given to each person by the Creator, God. It is therefore not legitimate (lawful) for government at any level to use its delegated powers to destroy the security of those rights. The term “limited government” refers in the first instance to this just limit on the use of government power. It makes no sense for politicians to proclaim themselves to be staunch advocates of limited government, but then espouse a position that rejects the premise of limited government when it comes to perhaps the most vital and dangerous power of government, the power to decide who should be put to death. Yet this is exactly what Palin, Rand Paul and other “pro-choice for states” politicians are doing.

Contrary to Palin’s statement of support for Paul, it isn’t enough to send people to Washington who will shake things up. Obama is “shaking things up.” Like Obama’s cry for change, this is a phrase that begs the most important question. Will the result of the shake-up restore liberty or continue its destruction? Will it restore the moral premises of limited, constitutional government or cast them aside? Will it bring government at all levels back under the control of the sovereign people of the United States, or continue the overthrow of their sovereignty?

Advocates of states’ rights need to remember that state governments have no rights that are not derived from the God-endowed individuals in whom all unalienable rights originally reside. Those rights reflect the obligations that arise from the determinations of God (His laws) that make human existence possible. The key to the pro-life position is the understanding that individuals cannot disregard the law of God that authorizes a right without destroying their claim to it. Since government derives its right to act (just power) from the delegation of such individuals, the state can have no right to act that supersedes the individual obligation from which the right arises. Therefore, if individual mothers cannot have the right to decide to murder their innocent children, state legislatures cannot have it either.

Palin’s endorsement of Rand Paul confirms that, though personally pro-life she is pro-choice on respect for the unalienable right to life as a matter of constitutional law and public policy. By promoting the demonstrably false notion that state governments can legitimately decide to permit the murder of innocent life, politicians like Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and John McCain also reject the idea that no government can legitimately depart from respect for God-ordain justice (right), which represents the limit in principle on government power at every level. Since this is the basis in principle for the concept of constitutionally limited government, such politicians are not constitutionalists either.

If you will listen to both Bill Johnson’s and Dr. Keyes’ speeches in Lexington you might be surprised at how closely you are in agreement with them.  The speeches are posted in 10 parts of approximately 8 – 10 minutes each.  I suggest you find out for yourself why I support Bill Johnson even from this distance by listening to his speech which begins at the 2:15 mark of Part 4.   Dr. Keyes’ remarks begin following Mr. Johnson’s.



  1. I was so glad to meet you and so proud to be with you at the rally, Marie.

    • What a wonderful time getting to meet you, the other Johnsonites and of course, Bill Johnson himself. He’s a real winner, and I’m so pleased to be able to promote his candidacy.

      Lunch was good too… thanks to you and Wendy!

      And touch me – I’ve been to see where Man O’ War is buried!

      I look forward to standing proudly with all of you as Bill takes the oath of office and is sworn in as your new US Senator!


  2. The Bill Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign received the following poll results. Shamrock Polling conducted the statewide poll for an undisclosed client. Questions regarding the poll can be directed to Persistence Consulting ( The Johnson for U.S. Senate campaign did not pay for or participate in this poll. The results are consistent with internal polling done by the campaign.

    We asked 1,257 likely republican voters the following questions:

    “Who are you planning on voting for US Senate in the republican primary on May 18th?”

    Trey Grayson 27%
    Bill Johnson 23%
    Rand Paul 21%
    Undecided 29%

    We then asked are you strongly, moderately, or leaning towards your candidate?

    Rand Paul 7% 27% 66%
    Bill Johnson 72% 21% 7%
    Trey Grayson 52% 14% 34%

    Margin of Error 4.5%

    • That’s very telling, Dr. David. Thank you for adding it to this post.

      I especially appreciate the fact that of those who are strongly in favor of their candidate, a whopping 72% strongly support Bill Johnson while a piddly 7% strongly support Rand Paul. With 66% undecided about him, I think that questions not only his stance on the issues but also his standing – or non-standing – in the Republican Party.

  3. EXCELLENT post here! It was so inspiring to read, and made me think about my vote in 2008. Hopefully this year we’ll all have better choices!

    • Yes, Adam. Let’s all hope for better choices this year!

      Thank you for your comment.



%d bloggers like this: