Conservatism Vs. Libertarianism

Screen-shot-2013-02-22-at-10.34.36-AM-e1361548041680

This debate between Ann Coulter, an outspoken conservative, and John Stossel, an outspoken libertarian, is interesting because it’s a proxy for the rift in the Republican party today.

I don’t like Ann Coulter, because it seems she can’t discuss issues without being combative in a way that undermines her credibility, but as someone who lists on his Facebook profile that I’m “conservatively libertarian,” I was intrigued.

I thought these comments from Coulter, in response to questions about why conservatives ought to be concerned with who people marry (gay marriage) and what substances they ingest (drug legalization), were informative:

Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!

What Coulter is arguing is that because we are all forced to pay for each other’s health care, etc., etc., that’s justification for the state to micromanage people’s lifestyles.

I’m sympathetic to that argument, but isn’t that an argument against collectivist policies instead of for nanny statism?

Instead of compounding the problem of big government by reacting to big government policies with more big government policies that restrict our freedom, why not just oppose the original big government policies?

Which is hard to do when the anti-big-government movement is fractured by people like Coulter.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Neiman

    The difference? Easy! Libertarians are moral Libertines, moral anarchists and they reject the Nature’s God upon which this nation was founded. To be consistent, they must reject all laws concerning all moral behavior, including abortion, it is either one thing or another, either all unrestrained, destructive lusts; or, to some degree, “the people” that Libertarians actually hate, must pass some laws restraining the more destructive desires of their fellow citizens in defense of their own families and loved ones.

    Libertarians are what they accuse others of being. They want laws passed or rejected, which forces their immoral/amoral, lusts upon their neighbors, thus denying the latter the freedom not to be exposed or destroyed by those lusts. They say decent people want to force their values on others, while they want to force their absence of values on everyone. That is tyranny, that is destructive of society and anti-Christ.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I don’t think libertarians are necessarily libertines. Rand Paul and Ron Paul, for instance, are both pro-life and against gay marriage.

      The difference is that libertarians want people to choose to be moral. They don’t want the government to force morality on the people.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        I should add that I don’t see anything immoral about homosexuality, but I digress.

        • Neiman

          God says it is immoral and even for you evolutionists, it is contrary to natural design and this immoral and destructive.

      • Neiman

        No, IMO you force your absence of morality of everyone, exposing my family to yours and others licentious lifestyle choices. You do exactly what you falsely accuse Christians of doing, you force your lusts upon your neighbors.

        No, Rand and Ron Paul are NOT pro-life or against Gay-Marriage, they say they are; but, they don’t want to take any action to stop them, just shoot off their mouths and pretend they care.

        • Guest

          I think you would really like they styles of government they have in some Middle East nations.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            He truly has a lot more in common with fundamental Islam in Muslim countries than he does being a Christian in America.

          • Neiman

            You are a fool and illiterate as well.

            Many hundreds of times I have asserted that I do not want a theological based government, nor laws forcing Christian morality on anyone, only those laws as viewed by “the people,” necessary to restrain the worst lusts of man and to keep their immorality from infecting my family and friends. That is the history of the human race, no matter how primitive or advanced, they all pass laws restraining the lowest lust filled impulses of man for the good of society. Yes, often they go to far and yet that does not make the need for such laws any less important to a healthy society.

          • Guest

            Thank you and that is exactly what Muslim fundamentalists and their governments believe as well. Thank you for proving my point.

          • Neiman

            You are obviously an enemy of the Christian faith, wholly ignorant of Islam and illiterate. Further, just saying thank you like a child without producing an argument wherein you prove my values agree with Islam, only proves your lack of intelligence and an inability to communicate as an adult.

          • Guest

            You think our nations laws should be based on religion, are an overall believer of theocracy, and use religion as a tool of hate. You are exactly the same as a Muslim fundamentalists just by a different name. All of your words and responses will continue to show one or a
            combination of the things above.

          • Neiman

            You are completely, absolutely wrong and complete, absolutely closed minded. Congratulations, you are a Liberal.

            Thank God our Founding Fathers shared my beliefs. It served us well until Hugo Black.

            I do believe our Constitution can only work for a moral, religious people.

          • Guest

            They didn’t share your beliefs, they wanted a society that was based on the ideals of John Locke and social contract. All this stuff you say is revisionist history mostly from the great fraud David Barton.

            Close minded is a great word to describe fundamentalists such as yourself.

          • Neiman

            That is false in every respect. It was Jefferson that included in the Northwest Treaty, whereby territories become states,

            Theism was also openly expressed in the legislation as Article Three of the Ordinance stated:

            “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.”

            This measure essentially legislated that religion and morality were indispensable to good government.

            “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

            I include these independent witnesses only to show you how hate filled and biased and closed minded you are. It is no use arguing with a fool (you).

          • Guest

            Actually I had an open mind and have looked up these quotes and have researched David Barton all of his stuff over and over is shown to be taken out of context or is just made up.
            Your quote on Adams really is the best I have ever heard for the libertarian message
            But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

            Read closely he was arguing against the agenda you are trying to push. Here are some links on the lies of David Barton who is the source of most this stuff. Maybe you could have an open mind and read some of it.
            http://crooksandliars.com/leah-nelson/fake-historian-david-barton-wants-fix-
            http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/08/24/david-bartons-make-believe-version-of-american-history/

            You can google around and find several other examples. This guy and his lies have been consistently disproven over and over again by historians and many others.

          • Neiman

            Prove the words about teaching the bible in public schools for morality and good government in the NW Ordinance were lies. Prove the words I quoted from Adams were not spoken or written by him. I am not going to allow you to use me to wage war against Barton or use that distraction to muddy the waters and advance your own lies.

            This is NOT about Barton! This is NOT about Barton. You can keep your hate of him to yourself.

            Talk about revisionist history, you twist the truth to advance your liberal-socialist, anti-Christ agenda.

          • Guest

            Well I gave you the entire writing from which you got the Adams quote from above and the NW Ordinance thing is important because it comes from two books by the fake historian David Barton. Here you can research yourself http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/4/19/214135/275

            You said you were open minded so I’m assuming when you see and research the actual facts you will change your position.

          • Neiman

            I asked for you to prove those words were not in the Northwest Treaty, from where I copied them, not from a Barton book. I asked you to prove that Adams is not responsible for the quote I gave you in his name, the responsibility is yours, I am not wasting time on your Barton hate crusade. Just show me those words I pasted were not accurate quotes, or admit you are lying.

          • Guest

            Your quote was taken from an excerpt that argues against you. With all of your criticism of illiteracy I think you would be able to read yourself. Read the information about the ordinance and you can see how it was taken out of context and you can also see how that article wasn’t even actually used. You keep talking about being open minded and literate why don’t you show that you can be those two things.

          • Neiman

            I offered both quotes elsewhere from the original documents, not from Barton and I refuse to get into your hate Barton game. I proved my points.

            Plus, and you are going to hate this: Congress bought Bibles for schools, they started their sessions with Christian prayers, they included Jesus Name and the Name of Almighty God in their publications and on their monuments and building. There was nary a complaint until that pig Hugo Black created/faked separation our of whole cloth, until then it never existed in practice and certainly not practiced by our Founding Fathers. Their words and actions show forth to prove the truth of the direct quotes I offered. You are simply wrong.

            Do your own work, prove your points, I have no intention of playing your hate David Barton games.

          • Guest

            You are just proving my point more all the bs you just said comes from the works of Barton. Thank you for proving my point.

          • Neiman

            Adams quote:

            In this letter Adams declares point blank that, “Our Constitution was
            made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
            the government of any other.”

            Gentleman,
            While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners
            which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, weshall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence. But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays I have received from Major-General Hull and Brigadier, General Walker your unanimous address from Lexington, animated with a martial spirit, and expressed with a military dignity becoming your character and the memorable plains on which it was adopted.

            In the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor,
            frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence,
            this country will be the most miserable habitation in the World; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality
            and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/115/Message_from_John_Adams_to_the_Officers_of_the_First_Brigade_1.html

            Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and, in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress; but laws founded in justice and humanity, shall from time to time be made for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

            http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-northwest-ordinance-july-13-1787.php

          • Guest

            Dumba$$ read what it says above in the paragraph you took from Adams. If you think it is an important quote it would do a lot to back what Matt Evans said above. And also with article 3 would you like to include that article 3 was never put into practice, never gave legal authority for state religious schools, that much of it was speaking towards natives who were not subject to the constitution, and very importantly that the first amendment to the Constitution had not been passed yet, here is another link for you that puts the text into context. http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/arg5.htm

            Notice when you research the person who keeps coming up with all this NW Ordinance stuff is David Barton.

          • Neiman

            Thanks name caller for demonstrating your low intellect.

            I offered both quotes elsewhere from the original documents, not from Barton and I refuse to get into your hate Barton game.

          • Guest

            I never denied the texts exist. I was simply explaining one of the passages to you that you used and providing the context to the other. So I take it you have no real response to any of the information I have provided to you.

          • JoeMN

            You can google around and find several other examples.

            This would be preferable to using a left wing hate site with blood on it’s hands

            http://washingtonexaminer.com/southern-poverty-law-center-website-triggered-frc-shooting/article/2520748

          • Guest

            You are probably right it is everywhere, I could have used another site or sites for the information. I just wanted to post something other than simply my words and I couldn’t remember everywhere I have read about this in the past.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          There’s a difference between holding a moral view, and respecting the right of others to disagree with that view.

          • Neiman

            If respecting the right of others to oppose one’s moral standards is to remain silent and allow them in expressing their immoral choices to infect your children and society with their lusts, then that silence itself is immoral and it too must be condemned.

            If at some point, as it appears likely, the laws against child molestation change to allow younger and younger aged people to be sexual prey to molesters, will you respect the molesters right to hold those perverse views and remain silent when he molests your daughter? Law or no law, I think or hope you would stop him from imposing his immoral beliefs on your innocent child.

            If I am right that you would oppose such permissive child sex laws and anyone’s right to act on them, but then it is a matter of degree, isn’t it? It will be okay for you to opposes these immoral scum bags, but if I feel another immoral act is dangerous to my child’s spiritual destiny, well that is not on your list and you would cry out, as you do now, against my right to oppose them.

      • sbark

        hmmm…………libertarians want people to choose to be moral
        and so…….they want to help them “be moral” by legalizing drugs and prostitution?
        So Conservative Christians could help them “be moral” by dropping a few of the 10 commandments?
        I think, given the chance, Coulter would clarify her statement by saying because “big govt” makes us pay for all those things, it then becomes our business, I gotta presume she is for reduction in welfare and other entitlements as Rubio or Rand Paul………..

      • Eric Wittliff

        I am confused Rob and its just not with your statement. The Pauls’s have many times articulated many times they want to change Title 7 of civil rights act of 1968 and title 3 of ADA. Theses are the laws the protect equal rights.

        If libertarians what equal rights for all, but don’t want laws that let people sue to enforce it, how do they want it enforced when they have once citizen discriminating?

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Evans/1538949637 Matt Evans

          Free association and property rights mean that you have no right to be treated according to your wishes by a private party.

          To the extent possible, people must be treated equally by government.

          Contrastingly, all people are not equally welcome in my home, and all people are not equally welcome in a business I run. I decide, according to my own criteria, on both counts.

          To allow otherwise is to diminish the rights of property and free association — both of which predate government.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          There’s a difference between thinking discrimination is immoral, and thinking it should be illegal.

          I believe in free association, up to and including bigots who don’t want to hire someone because of their sexual orientation or race. That I disapprove, strenuously, with their motivations doesn’t mean those motivations should be illegal.

        • JoeMN

          I know Rand Paul said he disagrees with provisions in the CRA that affect private citizens.

          The market will sort these things out.

          But the real threat is government discrimination
          Paul also said this should stay

          Also, I believe most Libertarians prefer civil action to right a wrong.

          But why should the CRA empower the government’s EEOC to sue on everybody’s behalf to force businesses to hire more criminals ?

          http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276491630786614.html?mod=opinion_newsreel

    • KJUU

      So I assume you shun adulterers and fornicators, as well as drunkards. Or at least support laws restricting their choices.

      • Neiman

        Shunning and making one’s moral opposition to that conduct are two entirely different matters. Most people today, having no core values, no moral rudder say nothing when confronted with such immoral acts, by their silence giving their approval to such conduct; and, that is like most parents today, destroying their children with permissiveness and a lack of discipline. So, I plead guilty only to voicing my opposition, for their welfare, when appropriate to the moment and situation.

        I believe it was better when we had laws making divorce difficult and when we had strong family and religious support systems to help keep families together for the good of the children and the welfare of a strong society, which is founded upon fear of Nature’s God and strong families. I think such laws do not force moral agreement, but help restrain the destructive impulses of lust filled people, as does a general societal attitude that creates a sense of shame and guilt over such immoral conduct.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Evans/1538949637 Matt Evans

      Neirman, I disagree quite a bit. I am very socially conservative, and am so boring that I don’t even drink. I haven’t ever, actually. My kids are homeschooled, we’re a single income family, and my wife and I go to an evangelical church.

      The reason I am a libertarian is because at this point, and perhaps during all of history, but certainly, in 2013, the government is actively damaging the public virtue. It acts in opposition to justice.

      The republican solution is to somehow claw its way back to the top of government power and re-assert policies that the lost majority think they do not want. This is not going to win the republicans any elections.

      The libertarian solution is to disempower government, so that everybody wins. Godless heathens will not allowed to use the power of government to force inappropriate morals onto people who don’t want them. People with religious ideas will ALSO not be able to use the power of the state to force those ideas on others.

      Remember — the fastest growing religion in the west is Islam. I want a strong separation of church and state because right now, the state is the dominant religion, but in a few more years, Islam may be the dominant religion. I want to make sure that the Muslim majority of 2040 cannot enforce sharia law; that they cannot force me to close my business during prayer times or any other such things.

      As a Christian, I am actually fine with getting the government entirely out of business of fixing peoples souls. Recall that Christianity spread _inspite_ of government hostility. Recall that Jesus and his followers were enemies of the state in their own time.

      Recall that Jesus came to _save_ all of the people who thought that if they just did a good job of following the laws, that they could be right with God.

      We can not depend on the Federal government to make us morally good or virtuous, or to get people back in Churches and focusing on the right things.

      What we _can_ do is disarm the government so that it doesn’t do so much damage to those causes. As long as I can opt out of the immoral things the government does, like its schools, I can carry on. As long as I can speak freely about what my faith teaches, without being prosecuted for “hate speech”, I can carry on.

      We can not re-take the federal government on a platform of righteous social conservatism. The numbers just aren’t there.

      What we can do is build a coalition of people who want the freedom to live their own lives according to their own values — and that so long as those values aren’t pushed down anyone else’s throat — we can all coexist.

      This is why, in my opinion, the libertarians have it right.

      • Flyby_Knight

        Thank you for _finally_ articulating this ability to work together so well.

      • Neiman

        You start with a lot of false assumptions based on gross ignorance of my beliefs and possibly due to illiteracy on your part.

        Saying you are an evangelical or a Christian is fairly meaningless to me; many, many such are at best carnal Christians and a great many are Christians in name only. Had you confessed Christ as your only Savior and absolute Lord above all things in this life, we might have enjoyed a more serious discussion, but just being an evangelical in your own mind and homeschooling your kids does not impress me with your absolute devotion to Christ.

        I do not advocate a theocracy or laws forcing anyone to adhere to Christian morality, only such laws as have been common throughout every society in every time in human history to restrain the worst lust filled impulses of a sinful humanity, for the protection of my family, loved ones, to produce a stable society and those approved by “the people” as meeting their moral standards.

        While I argue these matters as I am concerned about the future of my family, loved ones and society; I have absolutely no hopes of any moral revival in America and other than influencing these laws as citizens, I do not want the Church very much entangled in this world’s affairs, as the latter only and always corrupts people of faith. We Christians are NOT part of this world, our citizenship is in Heaven and this world is already judged by God and will suffer His wrath, I believe quite soon. In fact, I think America is already falling into the pit and its own destruction.

        Libertarian ideology is designed to promote moral anarchy and that moral anarchy will come against your children. We need laws restraining, as best we can, those gross wicked acts that would destroy our family and country. You cannot be a Christian and be silent against the wickedness of men, that is false. We are called to be watchmen, telling men of the penalties of sin and pointing them to Christ. Thank God our Founding Fathers were not Libertarians, the proof of their honoring Almighty God and Jesus would fill many volumes, they were not, like Libertarians, passive in the face of evil. They did pass many laws establishing moral standards and Jefferson strongly encouraged every state to teach the Christian Bible’s moral values in all their public schools, which our Founding Fathers thought essential for good government. They further asserted that our Constitution was designed to rule a moral, religious people and would not work for any other.

        The entirety of your missive was based on prejudice, false information, false assumptions or at best – illiteracy on your part.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Evans/1538949637 Matt Evans

          Did you notice how my response to you was a refutation of a claim you made, and made no assertions about your character or intellect?

          What’s the point of claiming that I am illiterate when it is demonstrably false?

          In any case, libertarians do not promote “moral anarchy”. I’m not even sure what that means. Anarchy is simply an absense of government. Furthermore, whatever evil you think will come against my children is ALREADY HAPPENING, here and now. And currently, it is frequently _supported_ or _enabled_ by the government we have — not restrained by it.

          The key point for people to understand is this: our government is not an effective entity for the support and improvement of public virtue. In fact, it often works against it.

          Additionally, while I disagree with many people, their life choices, and how they conduct themselves, unless those people initiate harm against me, I have no worldly claim against them. There are many things in this world I do not like, and which I think are immoral, and which I would evangelize that people refrain from doing.

          My illiteracy aside, I find no example of Jesus taking such people and locking them up in jail on this Earth. There is a wide chasm between what I do not like and what I think people should be punished for by a worldly government.

          In fact, it was not the lost he became angry with, it was the authorities, both in law and in religious matters, upon which he delivered the most stinging rebuke.

          So I ask: Where in the Bible do you derive the authority to go hurt or imprison someone you disagree with? Which libertines did Jesus throw in jail?

          • Neiman

            You must be illiterate, when you cannot understand the plain words I offer over and over again and you make claims wholly opposite my words. When you ignore what I have clearly said, I have no need to offer you respect as to your ability to read/comprehend.

            Jesus was NOT a government official, He had no earthly power to imprison anyone; nonetheless, he often spoke of people being in prison for many offenses without ever decrying their physical restraint or their need to pay the full measure of the Law. He spoke of our being in submission to the government, obeying lawful authority, unless it conflicted with God’s Word, and even of our rightfully being in prison if we failed such submission.

            I will remind you that God will not rescue a single soul from hell fire, if they have not repented in this life and been born again of His Spirit here and now. So, you are completely wrong, Jesus not speak against lawful authority or just punishment for crimes, most of which break a moral law, God’s Law. Like most practical atheist Christians, you talk of God’s Love and deny His Justice and that He has promised to pour out His wrath against all unrighteousness. It is that wrath and hell that Christians are committed to preach of to rescue as many as souls from that fate possible and to stand for those laws that restrain the most gross sins that, fellow Christians may live in peace.

            When you Libertarians, which is strange by the way, you hold your Libertarian views above Christ. Anyway, when you Libertarians reject all laws restraining men from their gross lusts/sins, you establish a state of moral anarchy, wherein each man is a law unto Himself on questions of public morality, which is anarchy and chaos and no nation can long stand under your Libertarian moral anarchy. While no one can be made to be a Christian, that being antithetical to freewill, we have an obligation as civilized people with core moral values to issue such laws as prevent you from exercising your Libertine lifestyle at the cost of my and my family’s liberty to be free from exposure to your moral degradations.

            I cannot fathom any Christian advocating for moral anarchy and decrying some minimal legislation to restrain the ugly, vile lusts of men being imposed on other at the expense of their liberty.

          • Guest

            His attacks have nothing to do with anything. Neiman lives in a fact and logic free bubble, whenever you upset him he just starts typing personal attacks and things that make no sense.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh hai there Gusty ol’ chum! Even if that were the case then Neiman would simply be following your typical modus operandi. Wazzamatter, kitchen getting too hot when your tactics are used against you?

    • Camburn

      No Neiman: A Libertarian is a Christian who understands that Christ is our Saviour. We uphold man to the highest standards.

      • Neiman

        You can call yourselves Chrysler Cordoba’s, it won’t make it so. Just to say that and not oppose sin as God opposes sin, not to speak out publicly against it as Jesus, John the Baptist, all the Apostles, a myriad of martyrs and a host of Christians have and do as part of the great commission, is only words and meaningless. It does not good to say you oppose certain gross sins and not seek to change our laws to try and inhibit others, the most extreme among us, from publicly engaging in such sins, which can harm our families and society.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Exactly, Old Pal.

          Just like you call yourself a “Christian”, when you’re really not.

          • Neiman

            A. I am not your pal, so you start with a lie, because you have Satan in you and are a liar from beginning to end.

            B. You have admitted you are no Christian, so you have no basis at all for even discussing Christianity, as you are an enemy of Christ.

            C. As usual, you are wrong, I do not just say I am a Christian, I am a Christian because I am born again of His Spirit and already have eternal life, something you do not have and hell being your everlasting destiny.

            D. Now, crawl back with your cloven hoofs into your lair in hell, you and your father Satan are one, you are of the same spirit.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            No, Old Pal. You’re no Christian.

          • Neiman

            A. I am not your pal, you are a damned LIAR.

            B. You are an admitted non-Christian, so on what basis do you have the qualifications/credentials to judge whether one is or is not a Christian.

            C. Using only the Bible, as it is the only book on the subject, what exactly is required to be saved and why don’t I qualify?

            [The jailer] “brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house”(Acts 16:30-31)

            1.) Hear the “good news” (i.e. the gospel) of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:14)

            2.) Believe (Hebrews 11:6; Acts 8:37; Mark 16:16; John 8:24)

            3.) Repent of our sins (Luke 13:3,5; Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30; Mark 10:15)

            4.) Confess faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 8:36-37; Romans 10:9)

            5.) Be baptized (in water) for the forgiveness of sins (Acts
            2:37-41; 1Peter 3:21; John 3:3-5; Acts 22:16; Romans 6:3-8; Colossians 2:12; Galatians 3:26-27; Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:34-39; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 4:5)

            by God’s Word the Holy Bible we MUST Be BORN AGAIN to Receive Eternal Life with God

            The Bible is perfectly clear that we must be Born Again to see the Kingdom of God and avoid the Fires of Hell for Eternity.

            in the Bible To Have Eternal
            Life Jesus said in John 3:3 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be BORN AGAIN, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

            Jesus again repeated it to
            Nicodemus

            John 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be BORN
            AGAIN.

            “If you confess with your mouth, Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” — Romans 10:9

            “To all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God.” — John 1:12

            He asked, “‘What must I do to be saved?’ They replied, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved.’” — Acts 16:30,31

          • Mike Adamson

            Matthew 22:37-40

          • Neiman

            Verse 36 reads: “36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

            This has nothing to do with Salvation, it is a desired spiritual fruit after one is saved, but has nothing to do with salvation.

  • Guest

    Social conservatives who make up a large portion of republicans are not small government people. Therefore they make up an awkward coalition that can’t separate because neither could get a majority of votes on their own.

    • Guest

      Social conservative and libertarian coalition is what I was referring to.

      • borborygmi

        Social Conservatives are a millstone around the necks of Libertarians. THey are in as much opposition as Democrats to Libertarians. Libertarians and Democrats will probably agree more on Int’l Policy then Libertarians and Social Conservatives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Evans/1538949637 Matt Evans

      I think we (social conservatives) need to make the argument that a large government _hurts_ social conservatism, and instead of using a powerful government to create laws that “enforce good morals”, we need to have a small government that protects everyone’s freedoms — especially our freedoms to run our businesses, churches, and families the way we see fit, free of meddling by others.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        instead of using a powerful government to create laws that “enforce good morals”, we need to have a small government that protects everyone’s freedoms

        Well said, and that’s why I’m so frustrated with the Catholic Church for doing things like backing the Medicaid expansion.

        • Yogibare

          Perhaps one of the most ill-conceived positions of the Christian Churches–nearly all of them–is their mistaken position on the role of “government charity” (SOCIAL PROGRAMS). The Church took the position that the government programs were and are compassionate, and the Church is nothing if they are not compassionate; hence the Church must endorse government charity and social programs.

          In the final analysis these government social programs have decimated the Church and it’s role in the American social and family system. The people who once looked to the Church and other Charitable organizations now go to “The great Father in Washington D.C.” We have become like Europe; however many citizens have not yet succumbed to the authority of the STATE.

          • Neiman

            My support will hurt your cause, but I do agree with you.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    So because she pays taxes she can tell people who to marry, but can’t bother help fat people not to drink a ton of soda in one sitting?

    Do you have any idea how much diabetes and fat people raise health care costs?

    • Onslaught1066

      How many sittings should a fat person drink a ton of soda in, young dope smoker?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        With you, it’s always the trees, never the forest.

        • Onslaught1066

          Non Sequitur, as expected.

    • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

      That’s why everyone should be responsible for their own health care and not expect others to pay for it.

      • Guest

        Do you have health insurance?

        • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

          Yes, I do; I’ve paid for my own insurance for over 16 years; how about you?

          • Guest

            Would you like your insurance rates to be higher or lower?

          • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

            Thanks to Obamacare, they can’t be more than 3 times what it costs 20 year old stoned slackers.

            But, you’re on the dole so it’s no problem.

          • Guest

            We are not talking about any of that unhealthy people cause your insurance rates to go up, do you like that?

          • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

            I just talked about how much of a slacker you are; when are you going to pay up?

          • borborygmi

            Kevin The Artful Dodger Flanagan. Simple question would you rather pay lower or higher insurance rates. If people don’t have insurance end up in the hospital you pay for it and you always have.

          • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

            What makes you think they will pay anything?

          • Guest

            Would you like your health insurance rates to be higher or lower?

          • http://nofreelunch.areavoices.com/ Kevin Flanagan

            It’s a moot point, 0bamacare prevents insurance companies from managing risk.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You haven’t paid for mine, but you’re costs are higher because of people like Rob. What do you have to say about that?

          • Guest

            Would you rather pay higher rates or lower rates?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Everyone does pay for their own, and fat people who have diabetes raise my health insurance costs…..so…..you know, I accept that as part of life. I don’t call them slackers, like you do.

        That being said, I also don’t have a problem if my government tries to help reduce these poor people, like Rob, who have weight issues.

  • http://Sayanythingblog.com The Whistler

    “Instead of compounding the problem of big government by reacting to big
    government policies with more big government policies that restrict our
    freedom, why not just oppose the original big government policies?”

    Because that wouldn’t work. We’d get the worst of both worlds.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      So we give up on fighting big government?

  • jamermorrow

    So the Conservative argument is that we have too much government so we should have more government? No wonder government continues to grow.

  • jamermorrow

    Mises correctly made the argument that government regulations lead to more government regulations until everything is controlled. Even Conservatives fall into this trap.

    • Thresherman

      Unfortunately it is attitudes like your that liberals love to point out as being typically conservative. A statement like you just made will be seized upon by them and extolled to show that conservatives oppose all regulations, even food safety, building regs and a host of other good and sound forms of regulation. We need to be clear and consistent that we oppose EXCESSIVE and PUNITIVE regulations. Everyone wants safe food and good houses and offices, but we need to make it known that we support that but draw the line at the other and that it is that other that Democrats are always agitating for.

      • JoeMN

        Our side is currently having it’s backside handed to it precisely because they balk at challenging the left.

        Even as evidence of failure after failure pile up.

        Note to Republicans:

        Military spending is no more economic stimulus than Pelosi’s unemployment extensions

        How many businesses, how many great ideas were never launched because of regulation written with only the interests of current players in mind ?

        This is opportunity that was lost before it ever hit the starting gate.

        Politicians are too busy calling the lawyers to push new drafts of regs with their imprint to care about this.

        People say “do something” and they oblige.

        Who cares if someone wants to drink unpasteurized milk ?

        After all, nobody blames the government when some of their “inspected” meat makes people sick.

        Did you know the bridge in Minneapolis collapsed due to GOVERNMENT blunder ? The media would never report that.

        Why do people believe government will cure disease just by throwing billions of your dollars here or there ?
        How many cures are we getting yet for our funding of embryonic stem cells ?

        And how they can take something for free, and make it cost over 900 million

        http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/world_trade_money_suck_Xu6NOSv8Ff6EE2TMbyONjP

        You cant make big government more efficient. It’s just impossible.

        All you can do is shrink government as small as possible, so it inflicts the least damage.

  • Jerry

    Ann Coulter rocks. She exposed that audience as a bunch of clueless kids. And they were too obtuse to realize they had just been owned.

    • jamermorrow

      How were they owned? She loves big government and falls into the trap that any government regulation distorts the market and creates a need for more regulations. Conservatives have proven time and time again that when in charge government grows like a cancer.

      • Jerry

        Like health care? Oh yeah, that was the other guys.

  • GoodBerean

    Forget, please, “conservatism.” It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and thus irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L.Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    ”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

    “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

    PS — “Politics” will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.

    John Lofton, Recovering Republican

    JohnLofton.com

    Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com

    Active Facebook Wall

    [email protected]

  • JoeMN

    Based on what she just said, I would NOT consider Coulter an economic Conservative by any means.

    She is big government, Cris Christie style LIBERAL Republican.

    The young gal on drug legalization had a great point that she let go early. Why do people assume that if drugs were legalized everybody would suddenly become pot heads ?

    In reality, those who want to, already are now.

    As far as marriage, I say why is government in the marriage business in the first place when it’s policies are clearly to promote single parenthood/abortion ?

    And I think all Republican insiders are failing to read the right’s general distaste for foreign meddling.

    That said, what frustrates me most about libertarians lately is their apparent lack of interest in what is now bringing the country to it’s knees…..the economy.

  • Jimmypop

    her whole point is this; the issues you talk about are silly when you have far more heavy items to address. and instead of running from the GOP, join it and support it where you have common ground until the REAL issues are GONE.

    and i think shes right.

    • Matt

      You’re right – that her point is about priorities. I will say, however, she completely dodged the question by making it about priorities because she can’t defend the ‘conservative’ position on either of those issues. There is no rational defense to continue the drug war or oppose gay marriage, so she simply told libertarians to focus on other issues, instead of attempting to awkwardly defend indefensible stances that the Republican Party takes on these issues.

  • igx

    Gay “marriage” is different because they don’t procreate. Government needs policy to increase the procreation of taxPAYors to feed LBJs “Great Society.”

    Marriage is firstly about children and the other stuff is secondary.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      So the married sterile gals, what, aren’t married?

      • igx

        No. But Firstly and primarily it’s about taking care of the by product of sexual relations.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          So what about the opposite sexed married guy who, well, is armed with empty chambers, ya know, no, as you described it “by products”. Does government need policies to increase his procreation?

  • Yogibare

    Maybe, just maybe, Ann Coulter is saying that government has no business mandating what people should do, nor does government have the authority to supply and manage all these social programs which we all must pay for Maybe our government hould be limited to the specific confines of the U.S. Constitution: print our money, protect our borders, oversee interstate commerce, and that is pretty much the sum of it.
    Limited to just those few things, maybe our federal government could do a passable job of what they are responsible for.

  • Jeremiah Glosenger

    The problem with Libertarian thinking is the false claim that many/ most of the actions they want to be legalized have no effect on other people and therefore are none of those other people’s business. It is completely false; there are numerous indirect and some direct effects that are real and substantial. I’m more sympathetic to the argument of some of the issues in a truly free country, but not in the one we have now. On the steps of the US Supreme Court, I debated with a gentleman who was against the “health insurance mandate.” I asked him if he would support it if there was an “opt out” for Libertarian minded people who would then need to “opt out” of EMTALA (an unfunded obligation on doctors/ hospitals to provide care without compensation from anybody). He would not accept giving up the “entitlement” in order to have his “freedom.” Too many are trying to have it both ways. It is the political schizophrenia of the electorate these days. They don’t want the pesky government telling them to wear a helmet when they ride a motorcycle, but they expect that government to force doctors to repair their face when they wreck their bike. FYI: They don’t like it when you point that out, but I don’t know how else to help them understand.

  • http://enigma-cypher.blogspot.com/ Enigma_Cypher

    I consider myself to be pretty right-wing. If I had to apply a label to myself it would be “Constitutional Conservative”. I personally believe that it should be up to the people of each individual State, to determine what they want to legalize and what, be they don’t want to legalize. For instance, I am against the federal government legalizing gay marriage, because nowhere in the Constitution is that allowed. BUT, I am also against DOMA because, once again, nowhere in the Constitution is that allowed.

    It should be left up to each individual State, as per the 10th Amendment. This goes not only for gay marriage, but for drugs, prostitution, etc.

    Now, I personally don’t feel it’s the government’s job to stop anyone from doing whatever they want, provided that 1. Everyone involved is a consenting adult, 2. They do not harm anyone or their property, and 3. They accept the responsibility for and the consequences of their actions.

  • Judy Morris

    That skinny skank Atomic Annie Coulter will do more to destroy what is left of the Republican Party than constitutional Paulite liberty activists ever could. She’s just a loud and obnoxious shill whose days as a mouthpiece are numbered. The neocon and theocon Republican Nazis are in a total panic because they are going DOWN. It can’t happen fast enough for me!

    Frankly, I’m sick to death of these psychos, most of whom are affiliated with Fox News.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    A very embarrassing moment for the idiot, Coulter. How embarrassing and unserious.

  • Lost Cannon

    “What Coulter is arguing is that because we are all forced to pay for each other’s health care, etc., etc., that’s justification for the state to micromanage people’s lifestyles.” What are you talking about???? I watched this whole clip (and actually the whole show), and that’s not the point she was making. She was trying to say – What the hell is wrong with Libertarians? You guys are always making the point (as she was asked about her views on) lets legalize pot, gay marriage, etc like its their primary concern (trivial items as compared to government control of your other liberties) We are the “BROKEST” NATION on the planet. The Government is paying for everything (and hence about 50% of the population is living off the other 50%), and you’re worried that their keeping pot from you at the 7-11? I am sure that this administration would love for you guys to be getting stoned 24/7 so you wont be inquiring about how this president is adding hundreds of thousands of dollars of IOU’s to the future citizens liabilities (like that the nation is 16 trillion in debt) That’s of course until the day it takes a wheelbarrow full of 1,000 dollar bills for you to get your munchies. What she said is she could care less what someone is putting in their body – its not her top priority, if she (and I) didn’t have to pay for your consequences – I could care less. Why don’t you guys just stay sober until we turn a 3.5 Trillion Dollar budget into a less than 1 Trillion dollar budget. The pot loving libertarians should help the conservatives get the government out of our pockets, then you can worry about where you going to get your next Mexican fix. When asked about government getting out of the business of determining marriage laws, She also rightly made the point that marriage is a legal contract, and as we have designed the government (whether its local, state or federal) to be a model that enforces laws – including contracts (supposedly equally) that they are by our granting them this responsibility the arbiter of contracts. Marriage contracts are between Men and Women for the purposes of stabilizing the environment for raising of children, and for the protection of the children should one of the parties violate the contract. If Adam and Steve want to have a legal document that says they can decide who is their next of kin on hospital visiting days, or who can be their beneficiaries in a will – go ahead – WHO CARES. But leave Marriage to a man and woman. I don’t care if they go out onto a beach and say vows to the moon god that they are “married” it doesn’t affect me. Isn’t it funny that you guys are for government intervention when it comes to Gay Marriage, I don’t want the Government telling my church that they now have to marry Adam and Steve – but that’s what will happen as sure as now the Obama HHS is telling organizations that they have to pay for insurance plans that include abortion inducing drugs to their employees.

Top