I've said it before and I'll say it, again: I am not a conservative. This comes as a shock to some people. We have come to view politics in America in this paradigm of right vs. left, conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat. I tell you that is no choice at all.

I don't like the label "conservative." I reject the label. With all due respect to my "conservative" friends, I find the description detestable, extremely unflattering, simplistic and an insult. Let me tell you why.

Conservatives, by definition, seek to conserve something from the past – institutions, cultural mores, values, political beliefs, traditions. What happens when a society moves so far from righteous values and freedom principles that there is little left to conserve? That is where I believe America finds itself in the early part of the 21st century. Let me give you some examples of why: the breakdown of the institutions of marriage and family; the inability of many to distinguish between right and wrong; the consolidation of power in Washington and in the executive branch; the breakdown in the rule of law; the usurpation of power by unaccountable supra-national agencies; infringements on personal freedoms; increasing vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction and government's unwillingness or inability to address such a basic concept of defense.

What do these and other problems our nation is facing have in common? Today we have a federal government that acts without regard for the Constitution. What's the conservative prescription for that? Has "compassionate conservative" George W. Bush reversed unconstitutional government or continued it? Can you defeat unconstitutional government by putting your finger in the dike to prevent more? No, it takes a radical agenda to defeat a radical agenda. Conservatives have no stomach for fighting – the kind of fighting it takes to restore real freedom to America. It's not a time for timidity or compromise. It's not a time for defensiveness and conciliation. It's time to take the offensive in this struggle.

I'm not a "conservative" because I see precious little left in this world worth conserving. Conservatives, from my experience, do not make good freedom fighters. They seem to think a victory is holding back attacks on liberty or minimizing them. They are forever on the defensive – trying to conserve or preserve an apple that is rotten to the core.

What is the rotten apple? You can see it in the government schools that dumb down American kids. You can see it in the universities that pervert the concepts of knowledge and wisdom. You can see it in the federalization and militarization of law enforcement. You can see it in the proliferation of non-constitutional government. You can see it in the real "trickle-down economics" of confiscatory taxes. You can see it in the unaccountable authorities, which give us global treaties. You can see it in the relentless attacks on marriage and the family. You can see it in euthanasia, population control and the phony "right" to abortion on demand. You can see it in the surrender of our national security.

It's all got to go. But how? Politics as usual will never get us there.

Conservatives, it seems to me, only forestall the inevitable slide into tyranny. I don't want to forestall it. I want to prevent it. I want to reverse that slide. I want to restore the dream that was America.

Was George Washington a conservative? No. He was a revolutionary. He is known throughout the world – or was when people appreciated such concepts – as the "father of freedom." Today, those who stand for freedom, justice, the rule of law, self-government and the moral principles of the Bible are not part of "the establishment." We're the rebels. By the world's standards, we're the renegades.

The founding fathers knew that even the best designed government wouldn't work if the people were not righteous, moral and God-fearing – if they didn't love liberty and cherish it.

To practice self-government again, we must have a people capable of self-government.

It takes courage to stand in the gap, to man the barricades, to say, "enough is enough" – and mean it. It takes more than a "conservative" vision to lead the way back to freedom.

After I wrote my column, "Why I'm not a conservative," many libertarians wrote in happily proclaiming me one of their own. I hate to disappoint them, but that political label doesn't describe me, either. Here's why I am not a libertarian – and why, I believe, that political movement will never resonate with the American people.

I believe a nation's borders are sacrosanct. Without borders, there are no nations. We become one big global village – subject ultimately to a new form of tyranny imposed by unaccountable internationalists. Borders are also critical to maintaining the distinct culture of a nation. That's not a racist or jingoistic concept – it is a matter of practicality. If anyone and everyone can become an American simply by relocating – and without any pledge to our nation's Constitution and political creed – then we lose everything our founding fathers established in fighting for our independence, our sovereignty and for the rule of law.

While I agree with libertarians that our national drug laws and the enforcement of those laws are terribly abusive and beyond the scope of our Constitution, I have no problem with states and local governments passing laws prohibiting the sale of narcotics and enforcing such laws. The truth is, legalizing dangerous drugs will surely lead to increased use and abuse – a trend that could pose problems as severe or worse than those created by the drug war. I'm all for ending the drug war at the ineffective federal level, but condoning drug use is the wrong prescription.

America needs a strong defense – and this is a reality many libertarians don't accept. True, the concept of defense in America has been distorted and twisted. We spend mega-billions not on defense, but on offense. We deploy tens of thousands of troops in more than 100 countries around the world as if America was the world's policeman. That is wrong. We leave Americans at home virtually defenseless against terror attacks and weapons of massive destruction. That is equally wrong.

Libertarians, more often than not, fail to understand the moral dimension so critical to self-government. Read the words of the founders. They all got it. They all intuitively understood that even the best form of representative and limited government would be twisted into coercive tyranny if the people did not have the basic morality necessary to govern themselves.

Libertarians make a fundamental mistake about the nature of man. Man is not inherently good. Man can only learn to govern himself when he understands there is a higher accountability – a higher authority. Ideally, that higher authority is not the government, but God. Government can only demand good behavior through force. But when individuals understand they are accountable to God, and that He requires certain kinds of behavior as defined in the Ten Commandments and the totality of scripture, there is a chance for man to maximize his freedom here on earth.

Freedom can only be experienced and maximized though, when it is accompanied by personal responsibility. Personal responsibility cannot be legislated. It cannot be forced. It cannot be coerced. Libertarians generally understand this, but too few of them comprehend a laissez faire society can only be built in a culture of morality, righteousness and compassion.

Libertarians who expect to build such a society through politics alone make a fundamental error. In a sense, they are utopian dreamers like the socialists, ignoring the importance of human nature in shaping communities and nations.

I don't want to be too hard on the libertarians, because of all the political activists in America, they may have the best concept of limited constitutional government. That's a big start, but it's only a start. We cannot ignore the flaws in their positions. We cannot ignore the fact that they don't have a complete picture. We cannot ignore that a libertarian society devoid of God and a biblical worldview would quickly deteriorate into chaos and violence.

Would this country be better off with more libertarians? Absolutely. Do they have all the answers? Not even close. The truth is there's more to life than politics. Much more.

Here's the way the father of our country and, as some have described him, "the father of freedom," George Washington put it in his inaugural address:

"The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People."

When the libertarians add such a provision to their national platform, let me know. I'll be happy to consider the new label.

When you write a treatise titled, "Why I am not a conservative," and follow it up with one titled, "Why I am not a libertarian," you are, according to popular demand, obligated to publish a third discourse titled, "Why I am not a liberal." This may prove to be the toughest challenge of all. For me, it is like explaining why I am not a communist, or why I am not a Nazi. Where does one begin? I've never been mistaken for a liberal.

Let's start here: Liberalism, as we know it in the United States in 2002, is an evil ideology inflicting massive suffering, misery, injustice, oppression and death wherever it gains power and influence. You will notice I never use "liberal" or "liberalism" as an epithet. I rarely use the term at all, because I believe it is a misnomer and a label that is widely misunderstood. But, for the purposes of this column – and this column alone – I am going to critique liberalism just as I critiqued conservatism and libertarianism.

Liberalism is the dominant ideology in Washington, D.C., today – no matter which political party runs the White House or Congress. Liberalism controls the Republican Party only to a slightly lesser degree than it controls the Democrats. Liberalism proffers that it is a good idea to forcibly take the wealth and property rightfully and legally acquired by one party and redistribute it to others. Of course, liberals always take a sizable cut of the transaction for themselves – sometime as much as 80 percent.

My friend Walter Williams accurately describes this process as "legalized theft." There is no better way to explain it. Legalized theft is the central creed of liberalism. Liberalism is not possible without it. All manner of justifications and rationalizations are made for this process – the greater good, helping the poor, leveling the playing field. No matter what you call it, theft is theft.

But theft is only the beginning of the evil liberals spread. Liberalism also kills. It kills in a thousand different ways. Let me give you a few:

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling, more than 40 million unborn babies have been killed in America. Liberals, in general, seem to have more respect and reverence for bald eagle eggs than unborn humans.

By actively working to disarm the American population, in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, liberals condemn the defenseless to death – often at the hands of criminals they help spring from prison.

Through opposition to missile defense and civil defense, liberals leave the entire civilian population open to annihilation at the hands of a nuclear-armed madman, an accidental launch by a nuclear power and terrorist attacks.

Through over-deployment of the armed forces all over the world and wars like Vietnam, liberals kill U.S. soldiers and foreign soldiers and civilians without so much as a care about the constitutional basis for their actions.

Liberalism is less an ideology than utopian wishful thinking. It cares not about the actual results of its policies, only about doing something. The "something" that it does always empowers government at the expense of people.

Liberalism, as we know it today, is simply a new name for an old-fashioned idea formerly known as socialism. It stands on its head the basic concept of liberty as the Founding Fathers thought of it. Liberals think the government that governs most, governs best.

The sheer volume of laws it passes is staggering. No one has the time to read them, let alone live by them. Yet, each new law is another nail in the coffin of a free society.

Liberalism believes government is the best vehicle for solving problems – not the worst, not the course of last resort.

Government is the god of liberalism. And that's why I am in no danger of being mistaken for one. My god is God.

Publisher's Note:

The above is a combination of three columns written by Joseph Farah, Editor, CEO and daily columnist of the Internet news source WorldNetDaily. These columns appeared on WorldNetDaily's web site on June 13, 2002 (Why I'm Not a Conservative), June 18, 2002 (Why I'm Not a Libertarian) and June 20, 2002 (Why I'm Not a Liberal).

Farah's new book, Taking America Back, which delineates the problems our nation faces and the solutions, is set for release in February 2003. In the meantime, you may wish to consider purchasing his most recent book, This Land Is Our Land.

For the latest breaking news and commentary that you won't find in the national media visit WorldNetDaily's web site at www.WorldNetDaily.com. The above articles are reprinted by permission from WorldNetDaily.com, the Internet's leading independent news web site.