Conservative Congress Forums » Forum: Issues Statement

Conservative Congress Forums » Forum: Issues Statement - Recent Posts http://conservativecongress.com/forums/forum/issues-statement Conservative Congress Forums » Forum: Issues Statement - Recent Posts en-US Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:09:44 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://conservativecongress.com/forums/search.php Nick R. Brown on "Press Release: MO 7th District Candidate Scott Eckersley Ignores The Facts" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/press-release-mo-7th-district-candidate-scott-eckersley-ignores-the-facts#post-58 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 22:57:18 +0000 Nick R. Brown 58@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Conservative Congress 10/8/2010 ConservativeCongress.com <a href="mailto:info@conservativecongress.com">info@conservativecongress.com</a> <center>Missouri 7th District Candidate Scott Eckersley Ignores The Facts</center> On Thursday, October 7, 2010, Missouri District 7 Democratic candidate Scott Eckersley’s campaign website boasted the claim that his Republican opponent Billy Long supported harming seniors by eliminating Social Security. Additionally, in televised debates on October 6 and 7, Mr. Eckersley made this claim again. Mr. Eckersley claimed his accusation came from Conservative Congress, which supports reforming Social Security and federalizing it. Given the mischaracterization of their position, Conservative Congress immediately followed up with the following clarification on its website: “On his website and in two recent debates, Mr. Eckersley made the claim that “Billy Long wants to turn Social Security over to Wall Street.” He made this statement allegedly based upon the Issues Statement on Conservative Congress’ website. Since this is a false characterization of our position, Conservative Congress would like to correct the record. The fact is that we believe Social Security and other federal social programs are in serious financial trouble and will not be able to provide their mandated assistance to seniors and other Americans in the future. As such, we support any reforms to Social Security that make the program affordable and/or bring it to the state level, where it belongs constitutionally. Mr. Eckersley quoted Conservative Congress on his website- but what he failed to bring up was the full quote he mischaracterized. Here is Conservative Congress’ full Issues Statement regarding De-Regulation and/or Reform of Federal Programs: “In an ever growing and changing world, it is important that the administration of social programs be kept under the exclusive control of state and local governments. Conservative Congress supports candidates who are committed to de-regulating and dismantling wasteful federal social agencies and programs. Specifically, Conservative Congress supports candidates who seek to dismantle the Department of Education and Social Security, by and through constructive reforms, and who firmly oppose the expansion of federal control over our nation’s healthcare industry.” In researching candidates that Conservative Congress would endorse the organization looked for candidates that recognized that there is currently a problem and that reforms are needed. The organization recognizes that the solution to this issue is not a silo of a single idea, but that there may be many solutions and many ideas that can lead the country out of the current status quo. Research for the Long campaign was conducted by phone. The campaign indicated to Conservative Congress via a phone conversation that there is a problem with Social Security and that Mr. Long is in favor of reforms to Social Security. Whether or not the solution to the current problem is to return social programs to the states, introduce privatization, or some other reform is something for the voters of Missouri to decide. Mr. Long clearly understands what Mr. Eckersley and many others on the left do not: that Social Security in its current form will take ‘social security’ away from seniors faster than any reform Mr. Long or Conservative Congress could suggest. The Eckersley campaign willfully and purposefully misused the mission statement of Conservative Congress in order to scare the voters of Missouri’s 7th District. The act is deplorable and we challenge the Eckersley campaign to remove the misleading article from their website and enter into a real conversation on the issue rather than taking a “politics as usual” approach.” Nick R. Brown, Co-Founder of Conservative Congress can be reached for questions at: <a href="mailto:info@conservativecongress.com">info@conservativecongress.com</a>. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Conservative Congress 10/8/2010 ConservativeCongress.com <a href="mailto:info@conservativecongress.com">info@conservativecongress.com</a> Nick R. Brown on "Jack Bailey of TN-4 Now Endorsed" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/jack-bailey-of-tn-4-now-endorsed#post-53 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:17:54 +0000 Nick R. Brown 53@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ We are happy to announce the endorsement of Jack Bailey of Tennessee's 4th District. You can find him listed here: <a href="http://conservativecongress.com/states/tennessee/" rel="nofollow">http://conservativecongress.com/states/tennessee/</a> Will ElLaissi on "Princella Smith added in AR-CD1" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/princella-smith-added-in-ar-cd1#post-37 Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:46:31 +0000 Will ElLaissi 37@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ After research and speaking with Ms. Smith, we are promoting Princella Smith in the 1st district of Arkansas. Conservatives in Arkansas have a big day in May. Nick R. Brown on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-28 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 05:57:09 +0000 Nick R. Brown 28@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ I can't say that I know enough about the political climate to give you a fair answer on what type of democracy may or may not be emerging in Iraq. But one thing is for sure. There is a ton of money being poured into that country, especially in the rebuilding of Babylon. I fully believe that Iraq will in the next few decades become the next UAE in the Middle East and a major trading power in the global economy. SteveJ11 on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-27 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:27:00 +0000 SteveJ11 27@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ Nick, Ha! Good one. I read Tom's response to that blogger. He makes good points about that particular blogger. But the notion that a Conservative like William F. Buckley would agree with Tom's statement that a liberal democracy is forming in Iraq -- it simply boggles the mind. Iraq is on the same track as the illiberal democracy in Indonesia -- probably worse. RJ Caster on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-23 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:36:11 +0000 RJ Caster 23@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/" rel="nofollow">http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/04/the-enemy-within/</a> ...sorry RJ Caster on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-22 Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:35:35 +0000 RJ Caster 22@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ Check out Tom's very polemical riposte to YAL's response to his original DailyCaller article. Nick R. Brown on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-21 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:49:00 +0000 Nick R. Brown 21@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ I think before anything else can be addressed we would have to determine if private property in America is truly private property. The 5th Amendment really doesn't guarantee us anything but due process or just compensation. SteveJ11 on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-19 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:35:51 +0000 SteveJ11 19@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ I agree with you that the mid-terms will be based largely on domestic matters. I fear, however, that the Republican Party will not consider its foreign policy follies soon enough, if at all, to get itself back on track by 2012. I would also like to claify my comment in light of your remark: "There has certainly been and always will be a difference in opinions on whether we as a nation have a duty to spread democracy or whether our example should be the limit." That isn't really the disagreement here. Recognizing the anti-Conservative nature of Bush foreign policy is not the same thing as isolationism. It has long been accepted by Conservatives that private property, not democracy, is the root of freedom. Until there are land property rights in the Arab world, elections will not be helpful. It is also going to take several decades for such institutions to grow under the best of circumstances. I share your aversion to Saddam Hussein, but the timeline for constitutional development is much longer than his life span. A secular Iraq, as opposed to the theocracy in place now was more favorable to such development. There needs to be a clear distinction between spreading constitutional development as opposed to spreading democracy. The United States should do all that it can to spread constitutional development. Spreading constitutional development lays the groundwork for constitutional democracy. The United States, for example, evolved from a Constitutional Monarchy into a constitutional democracy. Japan copied the European land code and other European institutions during an event known as the Meiji restoration in the 1860s, well before we arrived on the scene in the 1940s to introduce further democratic reforms. Had Japan not done so, holding elections there in the 1940s would not have made sense. There simply are no instances of democracies evolving into constitutional democracies. Elections are extremely destabilizing. The stability needed for true land reform and private property rights is not achieved when you keep having elections. And this doesn’t even begin to address the fact that places like post-war Japan and Germany were already nation-states formed over a period of several hundred years. In short, the Republican Party has a foreign policy disaster on its hands. That recognition appears to be gaining some traction -- at least outside the current Republican Party establishment. Nick R. Brown on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-18 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 03:54:25 +0000 Nick R. Brown 18@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ Steve, You make some good points. There has certainly been and always will be a difference in opinions on whether we as a nation have a duty to spread democracy or whether our example should be the limit of what we offer allowing other nations to have their own revolutions for independence from tyrannical bonds. I'm not sure I would agree that Iraq would have become more democratic under Hussein though. And I'm not sure that the Reps will have trouble because of foreign policy with the mid-terms. Possibly with the 2012's, but this election is immersed in domestic policy more than any one in recent memory. SteveJ11 on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-17 Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:31:17 +0000 SteveJ11 17@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ The problem that Tom ignores is the conflation of a strong national defense with Bush foreign policy. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush pursued a strong national defense. Recognizing the threat posed by the Soviet Union, funding the Nicaraguan Contras, and Gulf War I are examples. (People on the left understood none of these 3 issues.) By contrast, George W. Bush and the current crop of Republicans are pursuing what can best be termed an international version of Lyndon Johnson’s great society programs — and such programs never bring about their intended objective. One of the worst things you can do to stimulate constitutional development or combat fundamentalism is spread democracy. Sharia Law, now in place in Iraq is perfectly compatible with Democracy. Iraq had been the only secular Arab state. It might, over the course of the next century or so, actually have had some constitutional development. Now it is not a candidate for constitutional development. Until there is an understanding about the anti-Conservative nature of Bush foreign policy, the Republican Party is going to have trouble regaining its footing. Nick R. Brown on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-16 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 21:16:04 +0000 Nick R. Brown 16@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ I think Tom has made some good points. But I'm not so sure that foreign policy should be as big of a concern in the mid-terms. We obviously decided for this site that domestic issues were the priority for these mid-term elections. But I believe next go around that when we return to review candidates for 2012 and include presidential candidates that foreign policy will have to be higher on our radar, and we will have to include it in our Issues Statement as part of our review of candidates. RJ Caster on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-15 Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:11:27 +0000 RJ Caster 15@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ Speaking of foreign policy. Our friend and thelobbyist contributor has this piece on the DailyCaller (<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/02/hawks-we-are-hawks-we-must-remain/" rel="nofollow">http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/02/hawks-we-are-hawks-we-must-remain/</a>) and is responded to by AntiWar (<a href="http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/03/02/the-war-party-a-paper-tiger/#respond" rel="nofollow">http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/03/02/the-war-party-a-paper-tiger/#respond</a>) and YAL (<a href="http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/eagles-we-were-eagles-we-will-be-again" rel="nofollow">http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/eagles-we-were-eagles-we-will-be-again</a>). Any thoughts? Nick R. Brown on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-12 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:35:55 +0000 Nick R. Brown 12@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ Foreign Policy will be a big issue in the 2012 elections. I mean obviously we felt this would be an issue in these elections, but not to the point of the 2012 elections. There's some problems with finding an area that all conservatives can agree on here. On the issues we decided would be most important for our platform this time around, I believe there is a general consensus on where conservatives should stand on these issues. We all managed to find common ground even though we all come from different parts of the conservative spectrum. So that should stand for something in itself. When this project begins to look at the 2012 election cycle a year or so down the road, I think foreign policy has to be looked at, and that will be a tough one no doubt about it. RJ Caster on "Foreign Policy" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/foreign-policy#post-9 Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:13:57 +0000 RJ Caster 9@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ There is one topic very near and dear to my heart, and that is the issue of foriegn policy and national security. This happens to be a very controversial topic in the movement today, as libertarian-minded members of the movement have abdicated their support of what counted as a "Conservative" foreign policy under President Bush, while a majority of Conservatives still favor a more 'Interventionist' foriegn policy approach. I fall into the latter camp. Nevertheless, I think it was important to leave foriegn policy out of the ConservativeCongress issue list, because there is a lot to be said about domestic issues in this point in our nation's history. Nick R. Brown on "About This Project" http://conservativecongress.com/forums/topic/about-this-project#post-3 Sun, 28 Feb 2010 02:15:30 +0000 Nick R. Brown 3@http://conservativecongress.com/forums/ If you'd care to comment on our About This Project page regarding our approach or anything else, go ahead and do so in here.