FederalRepublic.net

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.

I’ve been slow to write this week, but not without excuse. College finals and TDY preparation have taken much of my time at home, while blogging has taken a back seat to priorities. However, sitting here at the Denver International Airport waiting for my plane to San Jose, California has allowed me the opportunity to relax and write about my political feelings.

The general feeling in the press these days is that Republicans have no chance in the midterm elections, thus allowing Democrats and “Speaker” Pelosi to take control of Congress in order to raise taxes and start impeachment proceedings against President Bush. Though the conservative body politic is indeed disappointed by the Republican Party this year on various issues like federal spending levels, the deficit, tax code reform, immigration reform, and its pandering to leftist interests, I believe the fears of Democratic control of the House is unfounded.

Historically, one would expect that the opposition party would gain control of the Congress in this November’s midterm elections. However, the last few years have been disturbing in terms of major political and natural events. History has shown the American people are reluctant to elect major political change in a time of war or disaster. The American people elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt to four terms as president, with his reign of governance stretching from the Great Depression to World War II. Abraham Lincoln was elected to a second term as president, though he was constantly called a liar by the then “loyal opposition” and was accused of misleading the American people into an unnecessary civil war.

Another factor allowing me to conclude the Republican Party will remain in power after the midterm elections is the state of the economy. With a 4.7% unemployment rate, the creation of literally millions of jobs since 2003, and an ever rising real GDP and consumer confidence, the economy has never looked better. Even the DOW has reached a six year high and is on course to break its record high later this year. At no time in American history has the rate of home ownership been higher or have so many people in the country been employed.

Finally, conservative Republicans are starting to realize what years of power have done in terms of the discontinuance of fiscal sanity in Congress. Led by Mike Pence of Indiana, conservatives on the House Study Committee have created a renewed “Contract With America,” with the stated objective of reforming Congressional spending habits by cutting spending and making the Bush tax cuts of 2003 permanent. Even more moderate members of Congress, including House Majority Leader Boehner, have attempted to bring a renewed mindset of fiscal sanity to Washington.

Though the Republican Party has definitely demonstrated its faults this year (weak leadership, fiscal irresponsibility, and immigration idiocy) I believe the party will survive the midterm elections and still yield its power in Congress, though perhaps with a few less Republican controlled seats in the House. For this prediction to become reality however, Republicans must return to their roots and promote limited government, low taxes, fiscal conservativeness, states rights, and strength in immigration reform.

Despite many good reviews of United 93 and what the movie stands for, Margohla Dargis, writing for the New York Times, has written an article that clearly explains she has no clue what the movie is about or why it was produced in a dramatic, thought provoking way:

“United 93″ is a sober reminder of the breakdown in leadership on the morning of Sept. 11. Unlike Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” the film doesn’t get into the whereabouts of the president that day, or why Osama bin Laden ordered the attack; its focus is purposely narrow. But that narrow focus, along with the lack of fully realized characters, and the absence of any historical or political context, raises the question of why, notwithstanding the usual (if shaky) commercial imperative, this particular movie was made. To jolt us out of complacency? Remind us of those who died? Unite us, as even the film’s title seems to urge? Entertain us?

The underlying context of the movie is already known, nobody has to explain to the audience the basis of the attacks or who ordered them - it is an obvious conclusion. What is great about this movie is what it didn’t do, which was insert some underlying political or historical subtext into the plot. Not only did this decision save us from any subconscience political bias, but it allowed us to think for ourselves about the film from strictly a fact-finding point of view.

As far as fully utilizing characters and a lack of deep character development, I think “93″ has it right on the money. The passengers looked to each other on the morning of September 11; they looked for hope and strength from each other. There was no character inequality because they were all in the same dilemma - they were prisoners aboard a plane under the rule of terrorists. Frankly, there was no need for “fully realized characters.”

To be honest, I haven’t a clue. I didn’t need a studio movie to remind me of the humanity of the thousands who were murdered that day or the thousands who have died in the wars waged in their name. That’s one reason why the arguments about whether it’s too soon for a film about the attack rings hollow and seriously off the point.

It’s obvious enough that this author has no clue about the point of the movie. In these trying times, we must be reminded why we’re fighting and reminded of what the values of our country stand for. Thomas Jefferson once stated “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” “United 93″ reminds us of this principle and reminds us why we must defeat the terrorists on their soil, before they attempt to attack us in our cities.

I just returned home from watching what in my opinion was a cinematic masterpiece, the new film “United 93.” To all who read my site and then some, I submit this review for what I believe to be the most important movie of the year.

Upon entering the movie theater, I could feel this film was going to be a special one. I had heard “93″ being promoted all over the airwaves of talk radio, but I wanted to find out how good it was for myself (understandable, considering many of the talk show hosts hadn’t even seen it, yet continued to promote the film). Aside from the general opening day movie talk, I wanted to see what really happened because I am not as knowledgeable as some about the events of that day.

Spoiler Alert

The movie begins with the terrorists praying in their hotel room on the morning of September 11, 2001. As the plot progresses, we see these extremists board the plane and wait for the right time to hijack the plane and attempt to steer it to Washington, D.C.

While the audience follows the nothing-out-of-the-ordinary drama in the plane (mainly flight preparation of morning meals and standard take-off procedures), the viewing shifts to the business of the FAA and regional air traffic control centers. Mysteriously, two planes crash into the World Trade Center, getting notice from both military and civilian authorities and sending them into a frenzy.

Suddenly, the terrorists on United 93 take control of the plane, murdering the pilots with knives and exciting fear in the passengers in the form of a fake bomb strapped to one of the hijackers. Slowly, the passengers on the flight began to talk amongst themselves, eventually planning to overtake their captors. Their plan goes into action, throwing the terrorists themselves into panic. The rest of the story, as they say, is history.

I cannot tell you the emotional turmoil I experienced when I sat through the movie. It tugged at my heart strings in the most sincere way. Seeing the fear in the passengers’ eyes while they dialed their families, seeing the sweat on the faces of both passengers and terrorists, seeing the sense of panic and heroism in those who stormed the cockpit, literally brought me to tears. As the passengers of United 93 stormed the cockpit, the audience in the theater literally clapped and cheered as the passengers retook the plane. This was not any ordinary movie moment, it was a moment that made me proud to be an American.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone - liberal, conservative, or anyone in between. Contrary to some people’s beliefs, this movie is not one bit biased, but truly represents the pain and anguish our country felt on September 11, 2001. I encourage all of you to see this movie and attempt to realize we should be thankful for those who have given their lives for the freedom of others.

Pete Du Pont of the Wall Street Journal has written a great piece Republicans should take to heart regarding fiscal responsibility and responsiveness. Clearly, Republicans must re-learn the art of cutting spending and chopping out the pork:

So how can Republicans get their identity back? The current Congress is unlikely to fix itself from the inside–would a Congressional majority ever want to give up authority to do anything?–so it will be up to the American people to fix it from the outside
 
First, the president must be persuaded to reduce congressional spending. He must use his rescission authority to force the Congress to vote on rescinding some $15 billion, about the average of what presidents have requested since the rescission process began in the 1970s. The president has proposed one rescission of $2.3 billion, but he must be far more aggressive.

Second, when Congress enacts legislation exceeding the president’s requested budget spending levels, he should veto those spending bills. Legislators need to be forcefully reminded that spending requires executive as well as legislative approval.

Third, the president needs line-item veto authority. Most of the states governors have it and use it to control spending, and so should the President. When President Bush recently suggested a line-item veto, Mr. Lewis said the legislative branch of government had the spending power and to give any veto power to the president “could be a very serious error.” But the opposite is the case: the line-item veto is a very serious improvement that the president and Republicans should pursue.

Next, Congress needs to clean up its earmark spending process. As a start it should adopt the proposal from Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.) that each earmark’s sponsor be identified in the text of spending bills, and that a vote be allowed on specific earmark proposals. Congress should also establish term limits for Appropriations Committee members so that the congressional political establishment cannot go on swag-splitting forever.

Though I don’t agree with any proposal of line-item veto as I believe it violates the principle of separation of powers in terms of the constitution, I do agree President Bush needs to yield his veto power on spending bills that are either pork-laden and unneeded (massive earmarks or various highway spending proposals for starters). The Congress must cut massive federal spending in order to promote long term economic growth in the United States.

“Dissident President” by Natan Sharansky

There are two distinct marks of a dissident. First, dissidents are fired by ideas and stay true to them no matter the consequences. Second, they generally believe that betraying those ideas would constitute the greatest of moral failures. Give up, they say to themselves, and evil will triumph. Stand firm, and they can give hope to others and help change the world.

Political leaders make the rarest of dissidents. In a democracy, a leader’s lifeline is the electorate’s pulse. Failure to be in tune with public sentiment can cripple any administration and undermine any political agenda. Moreover, democratic leaders, for whom compromise is critical to effective governance, hardly ever see any issue in Manichaean terms. In their world, nearly everything is colored in shades of gray.

That is why President George W. Bush is such an exception. He is a man fired by a deep belief in the universal appeal of freedom, its transformative power, and its critical connection to international peace and stability. Even the fiercest critics of these ideas would surely admit that Mr. Bush has championed them both before and after his re-election, both when he was riding high in the polls and now that his popularity has plummeted, when criticism has come from longstanding opponents and from erstwhile supporters.

With a dogged determination that any dissident can appreciate, Mr. Bush, faced with overwhelming opposition, stands his ideological ground, motivated in large measure by what appears to be a refusal to countenance moral failure.

I myself have not been uncritical of Mr. Bush. Like my teacher, Andrei Sakharov, I agree with the president that promoting democracy is critical for international security. But I believe that too much focus has been placed on holding quick elections, while too little attention has been paid to help build free societies by protecting those freedoms–of conscience, speech, press, religion, etc.–that lie at democracy’s core.

-Snip-

I also believe that not enough effort has been made to turn the policy of promoting democracy into a bipartisan effort. The enemies of freedom must know that the commitment of the world’s lone superpower to help expand freedom beyond its borders will not depend on the results of the next election.

-Snip-

Today, we are in the midst of a great struggle between the forces of terror and the forces of freedom. The greatest weapon that the free world possesses in this struggle is the awesome power of its ideas.

The Bush Doctrine, based on a recognition of the dangers posed by non-democratic regimes and on committing the United States to support the advance of democracy, offers hope to many dissident voices struggling to bring democracy to their own countries. The democratic earthquake it has helped unleash, even with all the dangers its tremors entail, offers the promise of a more peaceful world.

Link

While the mainstream media and the Democratic Party denounce President Bush at every turn, I stand by the president’s policies in combating terrorism. In today’s world of 30 second sound bites and liberal left dissent, it is refreshing to hear President Bush never once give up on freedom and liberty as a catalyst to solve major problems in the Middle East. He has never wavered from his convictions because of changes in the political winds or deafening party dissent.

Though I don’t always agree with the president when it comes to domestic policy, I have always agreed with him in the War on Terror. First, we must kill or capture the terrorist enemy before the enemy has a chance to land on U.S. soil. I support Bush’s national defense strategy of preemption in dealing with the terrorist crisis before us. I agree with the president that the best defense is a great offense. And I agree with the president we must stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan until the job is done. Truth be told, if American national security is not protected, no other issues will matter.

President Bush, unlike many obstructionist, Democratic Party leaders who flip-flop on every major issue, has continued to lead and remain steady through two wars, several natural disasters, economic recession, and patriotic heartache. Americans must stand by President Bush in his plan to win the peace in the Middle East and protect America by promoting liberty and freedom abroad.