On this episode of Glenn Beck, with a live studio audience, Glenn does a historical review of the different political philosophies in The United States…

Through various Constitutional questions, and explanations by Judge Andrew Napolitano, they help the audience, and viewers, begin to guage where they fall, in the political spectrum, in United States’ politics.

The entire show is very interesting, educational, and certainly worth watching…

Enjoy!

–

–

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

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