FederalRepublic.net

I am a conservative. What I thought conservatism represented was an allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, states’ rights, limited government, a strong defense, free market capitalism, low taxes, and traditional American values. These days, I find myself more disenchanted with conservatives (not just Congressmen, but regular blog-surfing Americans) than I ever have before.

It seems like establishment Republicans, including regular people, have forgotten what conservatism is. They’ve forgotten what the U.S. Constitution says, except when it will fit within the conservative construct of their own minds. I call this principle “constitutional on demand” syndrome. For example, recently the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a legal American resident dubbed an enemy combatant by the executive could not be detained indefinitely without being charged and would be afforded habeas corpus protections. This ruling should make sense to conservatives. Under the 14th amendment, those who are citizens of the United States or within the jurisdiction of the United States are afforded due process of law:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You would think conservatives would applaud this decision as it upholds the constitutional rights of a legal United States resident. Don’t get me wrong - I am NOT condoning this man’s alleged personal attempt to aid and further terrorist activities, but this man was a United States resident, and as such, he should be awarded constitutional rights and protections.

I communicated this very thought to what I thought were like-minded conservatives and this is what I got:

Your statement of “terrorist or not” is ridiculous. You would make the Constitution a suicide pact. You think it is good to protect foreign enemy combatants that do not even fight against us under the flag of another government but just simply get in under the guise of our pathetic immigration law and seek to destroy us.

You feel good because you think you are protecting some high and mighty principle of freedom in theory but you do not care one iota about protecting that principle of freedom in reality.

I believe that the People and the President that they have elected have a say on this issue. It is not the principle that you seem to think that it is. I do not accept giving foreign terrorist combatants the rights of our citizens.

The fellow poster later apologized for saying that I didn’t care for one iota about protecting freedom because I told him I had gladly served in Iraq, but that’s besides the point.

My point in the above example is that establishment Republicans and conservatives are so worried about security that they are willing to throw constitutional protections in the toilet in order to defend the very freedoms enshrined within it! I just don’t get it. I used to think that Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals were distinctly different. I don’t think that anymore. Both political parties or factions of the populace want bigger government, but in different areas. Democrats want big government to turn this country into a socialist state and to increase government dependence. Republicans want big government for the sake of security, at the expense of our liberty. Both scenarios are equally as damaging to our republic and our way of life as Americans.

At the last minute, I decided to do a live blog on the State of the Union address. The following blog will be a quick paraphrased understanding of the president’s priorities outlined in the speech. I will update as needed.

9:00: I turn on C-Span.

9:01: Laura Bush enters upper gallery.

9:03: Supreme Court Justices and Cabinet secretaries enter chamber.

9:09: President Bush enters the chamber, applause seems rather muted compared to past speeches, though it could just be a broadcast audio characteristic.

9:12: President Bush turns to Speaker Pelosi to bring the chamber to order. She introduces the president. President Bush starts the speech giving congrats to Pelosi. Ugh. Clearly an attempt to reach out to Dems.

9:15: Bush starts to talk about common purposes. Spending money wisely. Talks about government division and bipartisanship. Make life better for Americans and extending prosperity. Growing the economy - talks about job growth, 7.2 million jobs, low inflation and unemployment. More enterprise.

9:18: Economic priorities - balance federal budget without raising taxes. Spending discipline - touts deficit surpluses and growth. Eliminate the deficit within 5 years. Touts earmark reform - budget reform process, accountability and visibility, cut earmarks in half by end of session. Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare reform - no specifics.

9:21: Promotes No Child Left Behind Act, asks to renew. Touts school choice.

9:23: Americans must have affordable health care. Government must help elderly and children. Two initiatives - standard tax deduction for families and individuals for health care. No payroll taxes for healthcare, touts tax reform to help people pay for private health care. Promotes grants for states who help provide healthcare assistance. Promotes association health plans, information technology, health savings accounts, price transparency, medical liability reform. Best health decisions made by patients and doctors.

9:27: Immigration reform, touts temporary worker program (Ugh…not again). Enforce immigration law at the worksite. Touts “melting pot,” and assimilation. Asks Congress for comprehensive immigration reform.

9:29: Talks about dependence on foreign oil. Diversify energy supply. Use clean coal, nuclear power, wind and solar. Biodiesel fuel and find new methods to use ethenol. Agricultural wastes for energy. Asks Congress for cooperation in reducing gasoline use by 20% in 10 years. Promotes government intervention in setting fuel efficiency and alternative fuels standards. Step up domestic oil production, double supply of strategic petroleum reserve. Touts global climate change and confronting the problem (Why??!!!).

9:33: Talks about judge vacancies, for a prompt up/down vote on Senate floor.

9:34: Starts to talk about defense and stopping terrorists. Must take the fight to the enemy. (Democrats slow to stand and about half just stay seated). Starts to tout successes in breaking up terrorist plots. Gratitude to public servants who stop terrorists. America is at war as long as terrorists are still in the world. Terrorists want USA to abandon cause of liberty. Touts Iranian influence on Sunni extremism. “They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the middle east.” Dangers have not ended. Use every lawful and proper tool to find enemies and protect America. Ideological struggle. Free people are not drawn to violent ideology. Build free societies and promote human rights for our security.

9:42: Talks about Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq elections. Talks about 12 million turnout for Iraq vote. Terrorists strike back in 2006. Syria and Iran undermining Lebanon. Al Queda blow up mosque, promoting Iraqi death squads and sectarian violence. Don’t abandon our friends, leaving our security at risk. Let us find resolve and turn events toward victory. New Iraq strategy, demanding more from Iraqi government. Iraq must stop sectarian violence. Deploying 20,000 troops to Iraq, mostly Baghdad. “Marines…with orders to find the terrorists and clean them out.” Time for Iraqi government to act, commitment is not open ended. Lift military restrictions on coalition forces. Iraq must take responsibility for its security. Violence backed by Iran, Al Queda. Nightmare scenario for Americans…chaos is their greatest weapon. Must spare America from the danger.

9:49: Congress did not vote for failure. Support our troops in the field and those on their way. Generational struggle. Close consultation on Iraq war. Bipartian advisory panel. Calls for increase in size of Army and Marine Corps. Civilian reserve corps, hire critical skills for use abroad. We have diplomatic strategy. Sanctions on Iran, won’t be allowed to aquire nukes. Promotes independence Palestine. Diplomacy for North Korea. Work to save the people of Dafur.

9:54: Continue to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. Touts success of those getting AIDS drugs. Calls Congress for foreign aid to fight malaria in Africa. Support trade and debt relief to help eliminate poverty. American character, self sacrifice greatest strengths. Pounts out NBA star Mutambo, proud to call him American citizen. Others in gallery examples of American character.

10:02: America faces danger, but we can go together. Our cause goes on. End of speech.

Conclusion: Unusually interesting speech in my opinion. The sections on defense and American resolve were great and definately showed a commander-in-chief who is strong in character and not afraid to stand up for victory abroad. Domestic priorities seemed more liberal however. The call for comprehensive immigration reform is NOT what the majority of Americans want and the president seems adamant to defy the call for increased border protection. The call to decrease gas consumption by 20% and increase fuel standards are sure ways to help tank the economy. Tax deducations for health care seem like an interesting idea, though I’d like to read more analysis on the logical results from conservative think tanks. Earmark reform and balancing the federal budget were mentioned, both great ideas. Bush also included talk about school choice, which definately leads into vouchers. The debate will be interesting on No Child Left Behind in terms of funding levels.

Overall, a stong speech for the president, though I think he’s wrong on most domestic priorities. I think he’s too concerned with appeasing Democrats and is showing his true moderate colors. However, I think he was very strong on his defense of Iraqi policy and plainly communicated what American priorities are in Iraq.

Something kinda funny happened today. When the BCS title game started between Ohio State and Florida, a friend looked at me and said, “There’s your boy, John McCain!” I looked at him and said, “Well, I hate John McCain.” Since they know I tend to vote Republican, he was amazed. “But he’s a Republican!” he said. I turned back to him and said, “He’s just too liberal for me. And he tried to take away first amendment rights with some legislation he designed.” Another friend couldn’t believe it.

Even though John McCain is a Republican and is running for president, I think he’s just a RINO (Republican in name only) in disguise. I really hope he gets trounced by Romney and Hunter in the GOP primaries.

Edit: See a great related article at Rightwingnews.com - The Conservative Case Against John McCain in 2008

The Boston Herald is reporting that Terry McAuliffe, former Democratic Party Chairman, is up in arms about the inadequacies of John Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004:

McAuliffe said Kerry’s camp was so afraid of offending swing voters that it didn’t defend his record or criticize Bush. He said he was muzzled by Kerry’s aides from assailing Bush’s military record.

-Snip-

“I thought the decision of the Kerry campaign to back off any real criticism of Bush was one of the biggest acts of political malpractice in the history of American politics,” he said.

Mr. McAuliffe is right in his opinion of the Kerry campaign, but for the wrong reasons. You see, John Kerry already offended swing voters in 2004 by first, being a “Taxachussetts” liberal on the wrong side of history. Kerry, with votes against military funding, 2nd amendment rights, tax cuts, and “yes” votes for more social programs and spending, flip-flopped through the entire race on all of these major issues. Not only was Kerry a huge liberal, he gave the public a preview of what it would be like to have a defeatist in the White House.

Read the full article…

Christmas has come to Iraq today. Though I am not able to be home for the usual festivities this year, I am thankful to be defending my country on this fine, special day. Though the temperature has taken a plunge recently, the Lord God has shown his mighty hand this morning by allowing me to gaze at His beautifully pink Christmas sunrise. The peace I felt this morning on my way to breakfast while singing carols to myself is something I can’t describe. Somehow I felt connected to all those who have served on Christmas Day in some foreign country, fighting for the freedoms that Americans cherish today. I felt as if I belonged alongside those who have served and will continue to serve their country in a faraway land during the holidays.

Words cannot describe how I feel to be serving my country at Christmas. I know my family wishes that I could be home around the dinner table with them or unwrapping Christmas presents so lovingly placed under the tree. But I say to my friends and family - I am honored to be in Iraq, doing my part for the glorious cause of liberty. Though I cannot be with you today, know that I too am celebrating Christmas in my own special way. So please don’t worry about me feeling left out of Christmas; nothing could ruin the gratitude that I may be able to serve you this day.

So often with you think of Christmas, you think of brightly colored trees, presents, friends and family, and Christmas dinner. Serving overseas has allowed me to realize that some Christmas Days haven’t been all about traditional festivities or the grand shopping season. Even in 1776, American troops realized Christmas was not just a day to celebrate the birth of Christ, but was a day to fight for liberty:

During the night of December 25, Washington led his troops across the ice-swollen Delaware about 9 miles north of Trenton. The weather was horrendous and the river treacherous. Raging winds combined with snow, sleet and rain to produce almost impossible conditions. To add to the difficulties, a significant number of Washington’s force marched through the snow without shoes.

The next morning they attacked to the south, taking the Hessian garrison by surprise and over-running the town. After fierce fighting, and the loss of their commander, the Hessians surrendered.

The news of the American victory spread rapidly through the colonies reinvigorating the failing spirit of the Revolution. The battle’s outcome also gave Washington and his officers the confidence to mount another campaign. On December 30 they again crossed the Delaware, attacked and won another victory at Trenton on January 2, and then pushed on to Princeton defeating the British there on January 3.

Although not apparent at the time, these battles were a decisive turning point in the Revolution. The victories pulled the languishing Revolution out of the depths of despair, galvanized colonial support, shocked the British and convinced potential allies such as France, Holland and Spain, that the Continental Army was a force to be reckoned with.

Source 

Christmas has always been in the hearts and minds of American troops, even during wartime. An article from Time Magazine printed December 25, 1944, provides a proper and familiar prospective on how American troops stationed overseas during WWII celebrated Christmas. Like today’s Operation Iraqi Freedom, American troops had been fighting tyranny and oppression for four Christmases.

Excerpt:

This would be the fourth U.S. wartime Christmas. The first already seemed as if it had been in another decade. On Christmas Eve, 1941, antiaircraft guns were set up in the backyards of West Coast cities. San Antonio’s telephone system was jammed by a rumor—the Jap Fleet was cruising into the Gulf of Mexico. Electric toasters, alarm clocks, nylon stockings were still for sale. There were debutante balls at which orchestras played Blues in the Night. Everywhere, East, West and South, the people waited for air raids. Christmas, they thought, would be just the time the enemy would choose.

But now the air-raid sirens were silent, and the new factories, not yet built in 1941, were begrimed. The early battles at Wake and Manila seemed almost as distant as the Argonne.

Mud, Cold and Death. Christmas, 1944, would find millions of Americans overseas. To front-line troops, Christmas would be another day of mud, cold, death and wounds. There seemed no prospect of the spontaneous Christmas Day truces of World War I. But everywhere, on U.S. war fronts, there would be time for religious services—on the field, in tiny tents and in foreign churches. Sometimes the churches would also be crowded with white-swathed wounded.

Source

In this spirit of the season and on behalf of those who have served and those who continue to serve, thank you all so much for your support. May God bless you and Merry Christmas!

In these crucial and trying days, it is necessary to review from time to time why we’re fighting the War on Terrorism. Like our union’s founding fathers or WWII’s greatest generation, it is our time to answer the call for freedom from tyrannous madmen who would destroy our way of life.

Patrick Henry, a renown American patriot and a father of the resistance in the American War for Independence realized that we must never back down on our commitments to freedom. As he put it so bluntly on March 23, 1775:

…if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight!

Unlike “cut and run” politicians of today, patriots like Patrick Henry knew the value of freedom; he knew the value of not compromising until our “glorious object” of freedom was obtained. Mr. Henry knew that to abandon the struggle those early patriots fought for would end in disaster for the union and would render any chance of liberty infinitely futile.

Patrick Henry’s speech to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775 would live on as a speech of conviction and inspiration to modern day American patriots. We must never forget the values our founders taught us in those early years, nor the sacrifice they endured while leading our early union to absolute victory.

Excerpt of Patrick Henry’s speech:

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Source

An awesome reminder of the resolve of the American people after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941:

Check out LittleGreenFootballs for more…

Unlike the majority of Americans today, the greatest generation had the necessary strength to defeat the evil of its time. The words of then President Franklin Roosevelt remind us of his generation’s great determination in ridding the world of Nazism and fascism:

As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense, that always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people, in their righteous might, will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God.

Source

Unlike today’s impatient, value-lacking government hacks, the greatest generation thought freedom was worth fighting for. The difference couldn’t be any clearer- just look at what the defeatists in Washington are producing these days, 79 recommendations for a “cut and run” from Iraq.

Link

Due to mounting college homework and the ever present summer vacation season, I may not be writing for a little while, but hopefully won’t be in a non-writing position for very long. Every once in awhile my love of politics kind of dives, mostly due to liberal backstabbing and a need to refocus on school work. To those who may come, I recommend clicking on some of my favorite links on the page, they are good reading and may change your mind even more than I have. Thanks for visiting and do come again.

One day I was surfing around the web reading my favorite political blogs and I came across a great article from Brad Warbiany, who is a leading contributor for The Liberty Papers. In it, Brad explains what a political radical really is and how they can be defined. As one who feels I am a radical by definition, I feel Brad fully explains the political backdrop and mindset of one who truly wishes to see our country live up to its promise and go back to the constitutional law we once adhered to:

Janice Rogers Brown believes that the Constitution is the guiding law in our land. Specfically, she reads the Constitution literally, and believes that whatever is not in there shouldn’t be done by our federal government. And she’s an extremist. An extremist isn’t by definition wrong, or bad. It simply means that she is out of the mainstream.

There’s a good reason for this. The mainstream has been moving more and more left for the last 92 years (I use 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was passed for that calculation). Someone who views the New Deal as a socialist program and openly states so is not in the mainstream. Someone who believes that private property rights may include the right of discrimination is not in the mainstream (even though it is obvious she doesn’t approve of discrimination). Someone who has the view that coerced redistribution of income is a mild form of slavery is not in the mainstream. It is her view that this country is ruled by laws, as enshrined in the Constitution, and if the “mainstream” wants to change that law, it requires Constitutional amendments, not judicial activism.

So am I a “radical”? Am I an “extremist”? Yes. It is obvious that compared to the mainstream thought in this country, I am nowhere near the average Joe. The average Joe believes that the rule of the majority is just. The average Joe believes that government exists to promote his agenda, not protect individual rights. The average Joe views taxation and regulation as tools for social engineering. The Republican and Democratic parties are full of average Joes looking not to further American ideals with their votes, but to get “their guys” holding the reins of power.

So yes, I am a radical. I’m not afraid of that label, because the government I envision is radically different than the one we have. And yes, I am an extremist. Because I believe that we should be much closer to the extremes of personal liberty and personal responsibility than we currently are. I make no claims that the rest of the country thinks the same way I do. But the principles I believe in don’t require them to. They can live they way they want, and I’ll live the way I want. They don’t offer me the same courtesy. My beliefs put me well outside of the mainstream. But with such folks as Janice Rogers Brown out here with me, I can at least claim good company.

Yes Brad, I am also a radical and you are in great company…hands down.

I really wanted to believe President Bush would be willing to stake what political capital he has left with conservatives and swing voters on illegal immigration, or the correction thereof. Sitting on my bed watching the speech, I hoped he would not play into the political correctness so many of us deal with on a daily basis. Afterall, what’s so politically correct about denouncing the breaking of our border and entry laws? But I was wrong.

President Bush played right into the centrist scheme on the issue of illegal immigration. He tried to include measures into his immigration plan that not only played to the conservative base like protecting the border and promoting stronger enforcement measures, but also tried to reach out to more liberal members of society, capitalizing on the need to support lawbreaking by providing a toned down version of amnesty to illegals. I find this not only wrong, but insulting to the point of anger. Lawbreaking must not be rewarded; providing a path to citizenship gives illegals a chance to be rewarded for their unlawful behavior. In an ideal world, illegal immigrants should not be offered citizenship at all, but rather a chance for lawful residency for those with extensive American ties only.

My first reaction to President Bush’s movement on the idea of National Guard troops at the border was one of excitement and satisfaction. However, the president’s plan did not call for National Guard troops to secure the border, but only to provide logistics, training, and intelligence in support of border agents. This move is only a bandaid in solving the larger problem of not enough border agents or physical security. There are large portions of the southern border that remain open and easily crossable by immigrants wishing to come to our country illegally. This must be stopped.

One issue I did not hear President Bush speak much of is the issue of businesses hiring illegal immigrants. All in all, I believe businesses must be penalized to the full extent of the law for hiring illegals. One major reason immigrants come to this country in the first place is to make more money. By drying up the job market for illegal immigrants, people will be less likely to cross the border illegally. Businesses should also confirm Social Security numbers and other documentation of applicants to confirm their immigration status. Those immigrants being paid under the table must be found out so they can be deported, while those committing document fraud should be prosecuted then sent back to their native country.

So many people have stated their opinion on this matter, from condemning illegal immigrants to labeling those who wish to send illegal immigrants back to their native countries as biggots. However, the bottom line remains, we must enforce our entry laws and swiftly deal with the millions of illegal aliens in our country. President Bush’s speech, while a welcome start to correction, has not given me much confidence in his determination or leadership in dealing with this problem.