I can not say this with any real certainty, but I truly believe, since many conservatives have voted Republican for so many years, it may seem inconceivable to vote anything but Republican.

Throughout the course of our short history, political parties have come and gone. I, for one, don’t believe in political parties, and neither did George Washington. In 1791, Thomas Jefferson formed The Democratic-Republican Party, in response to Hamilton’s formation of The Federalist Party, a year earlier; and hence, the beginning of “true” political division in our nation.

That being said, The Republican Party, over the years, did represent our founding principals, as the party of Thomas Jefferson; however, over the years, both parties have increasingly become more and more nationalized, while the sovereignty of the individual states seem to be getting less and less. Fiscal responsibility is another thing that seemed to have become a thing of the past, in Washington D.C, over the last decade or so. And now, most recently, our free-market system seems to be really under assault by a heavy-handed, far-left Democrat majority in Congress.

The establishment will also have you believe, and with good reason, that a third-party can not succeed in our system of politics. OK, well, what if someone had told that to Abraham Lincoln, and he believed it? He would not have become our first Republican President.

I truly believe, the only establishment that true conservative Americans should be interested in, is the establishment of a prudent, limited, and fiscally responsible government, as directed by our founders, and through our Constitution. For conservatives across the country, it is exciting to see Doug Hoffman so close to a victory in NY, under The Conservative Party. He appears to be advocating “true” conservative values; and from what I understand, The Republican Party is allowing him to caucus with them as well. Speaking of third parties, I recall Joe Lieberman winning his Senate seat back, running as an Independent, which is further evidence that we do not necessarily have to concede to the two “established” parties.

In this turbulent time, in our nation, and with so much on the line, we must remain open-minded to candidates who truly are interested in restoring our government back to a much more constitutionally respecting place in our nation; and from there, I do believe, as with Hoffman, the right people will get behind them, and help them get to where they are going.

We should not hold animosity to anyone who believes in the established system of the two parties; it is human nature to feel secure with a system that has lasted so many years; however, if things are meant to be, they will be, if not, they will be replaced. We need to embrace all true conservatives, because many people have so many great ideas that can help our nation get it’s footing back to where it needs to be.

If Doug Hoffman wins a seat to Congress, I do believe other conservative candidates will follow suit; and hopefully, The Republican Party will embrace them as well. Perhaps this movement will be a clear message to future Republican candidates, while many of us believe in building consensus, we are not always happy with their compromises.—There is clearly a difference…

Mark

I believe, a very fundamental truth in respects to conservatism, in The United States, is a firm belief in the wisdom of our founders, and our founding documents… The Constitution was written to be the law of the land, and all subsequent laws were to likely have it’s foundation based on The Constitution. Also, through our founder’s great wisdom, they set forth a fair process for which amendments to The Constitution can be made, through the consensus of several states. As a conservative who believes in our Constitution, and founding principals, I do believe that each and every law that is being considered by Congress, “must” have a constitutional mandate to even proceed forward in the legislative process.

I don’t consider myself a hyper-partisan, in regards to party politics, but increasingly, I am having less and less tolerance for these so-called progressives who seem to completely disregard, even have a disdain for our Constitution, and founding principals. I have heard Barack Obama himself talk about the incompleteness of our constitution… Really? So is the inference that our founders were not competent enough to consider the necessary factors? Or, subconsciously, would you like to toss the Constitution to the wind, and create laws as you and other progressives see fit? If that is the progressive thought process, then in my mind, that is a true subversion of our Constitution, and of the very system of governance that our founders set in motion.

I have said this many times, but it is worth repeating… If all of Congress were forced to create laws that are in line with The Constitution, as opposed to a bunch of renegade laws, I think we could get back to some uniformity and well-needed continuity in this nation. It is not hard to imagine, if all of Congress, in both parties, were forced to follow the same rule book, increasingly, the gap between both major parties would begin to narrow.

Mark

These are truly extraordinary times, politically, in our nation…

Certainly, for many years, The Republican Party was thought to be the more conservative of the two major parties, however, over the last ten years, the conservatism in The Republican Party seems to be slipping away more, with each passing year.

Not many events prior to the failing of our financial markets, the subsequent bailouts, the recession, the election of Barack Obama, and the continued far-left agendas being considered in Washington D.C., have I seen such a collective effort for true conservatives to lay their foot down and say, enough! I must admit, I am now one of those conservatives who feel we are in a sink or swim moment in our nation, and no longer have much time to watch our great nation be compromised further into the abyss.

That being said, over the last few years, I have listened to former Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, articulate some great political, and economic arguments; as well as the great books, and videos he and his wife continue to churn out. In my opinion, Newt Gingrich, politically and socially, appears to be truly conservative…

Which leads to this interesting congressional race in New York State between Doug Hoffman (Independent) and Dede Scozzafava (Republican)… Admittedly, I have not really followed either candidate, nor do I know much about the policies either candidate espouses; however, the big news seems to be that such names as Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum and Steve Forbes are backing Doug Hoffman, as they feel he is the more conservative candidate out of the two. As a Conservative Independent myself, I am all for their support of Doug Hoffman, and completely understand their rationale for backing him as well. That being said, I have now heard two interviews where Newt Gingrich articulated the Tenth Amendment argument,…

With the free market, we consumers have the power to financially boycott a particular company if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services; therefore, wouldn’t it stand to reason, if the federal government is so insistent on taking over our free market system of commerce, then shouldn’t we, the consumers, have the power to financially boycott the federal government as well, if we are not satisfied with their prices and/or services?

We, as citizens of The United States, now have two very large powers that we often take for granted: One is the ability to vote for the candidates that we feel best represents our interests, and the other is the power to purchase, or not purchase from a particular merchant if we are not happy with their prices or services. If we, collectively, bond together, we can actually force prices to go down, if we decided not to purchase from a particular merchant.

Now, if the government (hypothetically) were to takeover the business of health care in this country, and is taking our money, via income tax, what recourse do we have if we are not satisfied with the services that are being provided?

In the free market, you have discretionary spending, and through income tax, sadly, you would be considered breaking the law, if you decided that you don’t want to participate in a federally mandated program, and refuse to pay taxes.

Of course, everyone can draw their own conclusions, but as for me, I’d rather retain my rights to continue or end a service, at any given time.

In a nation such as ours, we are very blessed, and should be careful “not” to take our freedoms for granted; they can be here today and gone tomorrow.

Mark

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.”…

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work—work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.”

Every four to eight years, we end up with a President that is in favor of either Team Democrat or Team Republican, when in fact, we need them to be an objective leader that represents both teams, while utilizing the same set of rules, for both teams. The United States Constitution addresses the powers of The Congress, and the powers of The President, however, there is nothing in The Constitution that explains how Republican elected officials are to objectively represent a Democrat constituency of voters, and vice-versa for Democrat elected officials; therefore, these same principals should apply to all elected officials, including Senators and Representatives; and all with strict term limits, as with the President.

With Supreme Court Justices, there is an expectation for them to objectively interpret the law; and  law-enforcement is expected to objectively enforce the law; therefore, wouldn’t it only make sense that the law-makers begin to objectively create laws? And laws that benefit the entire team, instead of one team or the other? If we had elected officials, in Congress, acting as objective legislators, and utilizing The Constitution as their foundation for creating laws, then I would believe, the need for political parties would diminish greatly. And, after all, aren’t we suppose to be The “United” States of America?