FederalRepublic.net

As a sign of pride and support of our way of life, we Americans often proclaim our United States as the most free nation in the world. We consider our government far more limited than governments in Europe and we would like to think that we have the freest, most robust economy on the planet. Indeed, there may be truth to some of these claims. But have you ever stopped to wonder, are we really as free as we say we are?

I am first disturbed by the God-awful regulation of private property. First, we’re taxed on the value of our property in the form of yearly property taxes. Second, we’re required to obtain licenses from our communities to build houses, barns, or even add things to our house like decks or storage units. Third, we cannot improve our property unless our property falls within the correct development zone for what we want to build on it. Fourth, we cannot form a business on our property without obtaining business and tax licenses, among many others depending on the type of business we want to open. Fifth, in small communities, town councils must approve property improvments or vote to welcome your business into the community. Sixth, Kelo V. New London has confirmed the government can take away your property and give it to some other private organization for the raising of tax revenue. And we call ourselves a free country? You cannot even cross the road legally without a crosswalk; to do so is jaywalking!

The ability to own and develop private property used to be thought of as a sign that society was free. But I cannot see how that really applies anymore. In my opinion, our society is licensed to death and must get permission from government agencies to pursue commerce and industry in ways the founding fathers would have never even dreamed. The erosion of private property rights are just a small glimpse of the type of administrative society we’ve become. No longer is our focus on freedom and liberty, but rather, regulation and control.

The more regulations and laws we have, the more freedom is lost. John Adams said “Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” Indeed, I believe as we approach a society that values regulation more than freedom, our liberty is slowly erroding away before our very eyes. The populace doesn’t see it because it is a gradual process. But it’s our fault really; American society is not vigilant enough to see what we have become - a society based on regulation and legislative tyranny, not freedom.

As an Iraqi Freedom veteran, I know what it’s like to be stuck out in the sand for months on end. I know what it’s like to wake up to a mortar explosion and all you have for cover is a bed frame and some body armor. I know what it’s like to sink your boot into inches of sticky mud after a rainstorm, and I know what it’s like to be in 120 degree heat. But unlike my Army counterparts, I don’t know what it’s like to serve fifteen months in the sandbox. I only served four.

I am in no way discounting what my Air Force comrades and I did while in Iraq. I felt honored to be there, but at the same time, lucky I didn’t have to stay longer than I had to. Unfortunately for many Army and Marine troops, Iraq and Middle East fifteen month deployments are becoming the norm, rather than the exception. It pains me when my Army buddies here in Colorado receive word they’re being deployed again, this time to serve in Iraq for fifteen months, and maybe longer. I’ve heard “Fuck Iraq” so many times from Army friends that it has become a normal event.

Though I agree with the reason why we’re over there and although I am happy that President Bush has not backed down to critics, I’m still concerned over the welfare of those who deploy for extended periods of time. There is only so much the people can do to support the troops, until deployments become overbearing. Too many times I’ve seen good guys get cheated on; too many times I’ve seen guys get divorced; too many times I’ve seen men come home to children they don’t know. Too many times.

The Democrats in Congress are proposing a bill that would match troops’ deployment time with rest time at home. Secretary of Defense Gates has suggested the President should veto it, as the bill would constrain the use of available forces, while further extending troop deployments. While I can see how the Dems’ bill would limit the flexibility of the Armed Forces and commanders, I have to pose the questions, “How much is enough? How many times are troops going to go back to Iraq?”

People argue that those who volunteered to serve our country are required to do their duty and shouldn’t complain. Many people argue that’s the way the military is - you follow orders and get over yourself because it’s your duty to do your job. And while I agree there is a certain responsibility of service involved and that one should consider it is their duty to protect this country, I don’t agree one should never question “why?” Even in wartime, there is a limit to the patience of our soldiers - a limit to how many times they can be deployed and a limit to their will to finish the mission, before they can’t emotionally or physically stand it anymore. And though I agree with President Bush and Secretary Gates that a bill matching rest with deployment time would be detriment to having a well equipped and prepared defense force, I have to wonder, how much is enough?

Food for thought this Monday morning.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been busy with college this term. It just started and already I’m reading full books and analyzing The Federalist Papers. For those who have gone to college for any extended period of time, I’m confident you know what I’m talking about when I say that sometimes going to class can really open your eyes to what’s really happening in our world.

My “American Political Thought” teacher is a moderate Republican. And yesterday, I talked to him about a paper I wrote about Thomas Paine because I didn’t really like the grade he gave me on it (B). While he was talking to me about analysis and writing, he said something that struck me rather harshly. He exclaimed “When I was on city council, I thought I believed in limited government. But when I looked back and saw all the things I voted to put into law, I asked myself ‘Do I really believe in limited government?’”

His internal question struck me as something that conservatives are missing. Do conservatives really believe in limited government? I know we all pay lip service to “limited government” as a core belief of overall modern conservative thought. But I haven’t seen politicians come out in favor of repealing any legislation lately. Yeah, there may be new laws put in place for modern circumstances or situations that need to be fixed, but even if a common sense bill gets passed into law, it further restricts freedom. It seems like nobody is really paying attention to that fact.

When the government puts a new law on the books, it forces people or businesses to do something. And because laws force people to act a certain way or restricts certain behaviors, our freedom gets limited. But I thought conservatives believed in limited government! Show me by repealing legislation, by getting out of the way of the economy, or letting people have a choice with how they run their own lives. Repealing legislation or simply not acting to correct a “problem” with the market are some ways conservatives in government can promote this core belief. It is not necessary to cure over-bearing government legislation with more legislation! Just repeal the original stuff and get out of the way!

Conservatives need a true gut check about what they really claim to support, including the principle of limited government. But unfortunately, I believe most things many conservatives say these days is a bunch of lip service to get more votes.

When I think of where I was on September 11, 2001, I recall that I really had no clue about the significance of the historic terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Centers. That morning, my high school English class had gone on a field trip to Fort Wayne, Indiana’s main public library to do research for upcoming papers. As we were getting briefed by the librarians on the library resources, I remember the librarian stating that if we were going to use the internet for research, we may find that many news websites may be bogged down due to an incident in New York City. Because I was curious about what happened in New York City, I delayed my research into the true identity of Robin Hood to find out what actually happened.

As I logged onto the computer and brought up the web browser, I remember reading about two commercial jets crashing into the World Trade Centers and how initially, people thought it was a tragic accident. As I read deeper into what was being reported, the suspicion was later confirmed to be a terrorist attack. I remember looking at a friend and just saying “Wow.” I never knew an event of that much significance would change the course of my life or my political thinking.

Days later, I was sitting in my senior economics class watching the latest on the terrorist attacks. While I watched, a news reporter interviewed a woman I suspect was from New York, asking how she felt about the attacks. I remember she said that the attacks were tragic, but she was thankful we had a powerful military to bring the terrorists to justice. In that moment, I felt an overwhelming feeling of respect toward our men and women in uniform, and begin thinking about becoming one of them.

In November of that year, an Air Force recruiter came to my school. I left a lunch table full of friends to go talk to SSgt Branum about the opportunities the Air Force could provide. That same month I enlisted in the United States Air Force and the rest as they say, is history.

September 11 is not just a defining day in my life, but a defining day in the history of our nation. That day our way of life was attacked and our constitution challenged. I will never forget the power of pride in the American conscience in those first few months after the attacks, the respect our military received, and the support our nation gave to the city of New York, Washington, and the families of those lost in the attacks. September 11 was my generation’s “Pearl Harbor,” and I will never forget what happened on that day.

As our country travels through a period of transition six years after the 9/11 attacks, I think that we Americans have sort of lost that patriotic spirit we had when we rallied behind Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty. We may not agree that the Iraq War was justified, or that we’ve lost focus on Al Queda in Afghanistan, or even about the leadership of President Bush in these crucial times. But I do think we must remember, that we as Americans are “One Nation Under God,” ready to defend our ideals and our way of life. Today, let us remember what we Americans value and let us turn to God for guidance in these troubling times.

Best exchange of the other night’s debate. I agree with Huckabee in that our nation must be united and finish the job in Iraq, but I also agree with Ron Paul that we should take our marching orders from the constitution and that it is the people’s responsibility to change the course of our nation through their representatives:

As a conservative who would identify much with mainstream conservative thought, especially when it comes to foreign policy, I am ashamed that Ron Paul was the ONLY Republican candidate on stage arguing in favor of following the constitution. In fact, I see most, if not all of those candidates (perhaps with the exception of Tom Tancredo) offering more of the same big-government conservatism we’re used to seeing under George W. Bush. I mean, Rudy Guiliani started laughing at Paul when touting Congress’ authority in declaring war. Frankly, I became insulted by his lack of respect for constitutional principles and legitimate debate. Unfortunately, the only other candidate offering up ideas to protect our constitution who isn’t considered a fringe candidate like Paul is Senator Fred Thompson. By looking to states’ rights and federalism as a solution to many of our national political problems, Thompson has presented himself as someone who would consider federalism in and of itself, a solution to many of our country’s needs. Most of the candidates on stage last night seemed to be advocating stronger executive authority, especially in terms of war-making. In my opinion, instead of citing rhetorical nonsense that they would protect the constitution as president, perhaps the candidates should actually READ the constitution first.

Other examples of big-government conservatism among those who claim to be Reagan’s heir:

We see Mitt Romney offering tax cuts for, in his words, “middle income Americans” and those who make under $200,000 a year. I like Romney, but his economic rhetoric is just more class warfare in the same flavor offered up by Democratic candidates. He has also said he would enforce “decency” laws. Since when is it the government’s responsibility to regulate what is shown on television?!

Rudy Guiliani claims he would uphold the Constitution of the United States as president. How do pro-abortion (even taxpayer funded) and anti-2nd amendment sediments uphold what’s written in our constitution? Has he even read it? From last night, I really couldn’t tell.

Sam Brownback agreed that a federal marriage amendment must be ratified to protect marriage. First off Senator, marriage is not the responsibility of the federal government - it is a state issue only. I don’t remember anywhere in the constitution that says the Congress shall have the power to regulate the welfare of the family. Using the constitution as a catalyst for social change cheapens the respect it deserves. Wanna go change social policy? Do it through state legislatures, not through usurpation of federal authority.

Mike Huckabee suggested that those who want to build a border fence are racists. Since when was it racist to want to protect your country from illegal invaders governor? In my opinion, Huckabee has his head so deep in the sand that he doesn’t realize this country will be transformed culturally and economically for the worse if we do not do something to stem the tide of illegal aliens coming into this country. Maybe Huckabee should listen closer to Tom Tancredo, who suggested following the rule of law.

I know my post is a little short on specifics when it comes to exposing the hypocrisies of mainstream Republicans, but I see a distinct disconnect with what conservatives claim to support (the constitution) and what they are really for (executive usurpation of authority in wartime, bigger government, etc.). All I see is two parties vying for more government control over our lives and more government interference in our economy. Republicans are destroying our constitution for the sake of security. Democrats are destroying our constitution for the sake of socialism. Which is worse? They’re both equal because our constitution gets ripped to shreds at the end anyway.

His formal web announcement:

Because I can’t come up with a good introduction about how I felt coming into this week’s debate, I’ll get right to the point. The following is what I think of the candidates’ performances and their answers regarding current and pressing issues as heard on tonight’s Fox News debate:

Tom Tancredo: First, it seemed as though Tancredo was not granted as much time as top tier candidates in terms of simply answering questions. Tancredo just didn’t seem to fit in tonight, though I agree with much of what he says. Unfortunately, Tancredo has shown that he cannot perform in a debate setting by spouting out unorganized and multiple answers, showing the inability to hear the moderator, and going off on rants that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Tonight’s best Tancredo moment: Political correctness will kill us all!

Sam Brownback: It seems to me that though Brownback demonstrates socially conservative ideals that may appeal to the conservative base, the fact remains in my mind that Brownback is not one deserving of being Commander-in-Chief. In my opinion, Brownback has really nothing to offer conservatives other than his social positions. His idea that Iraq should be divided into a three state federal system is pointless to suggest when it is up to the Iraqis themselves to decide how their federal system is designed, not a U.S. President. Tonight’s best Brownback moment: Marriage is the foundation of society and should be protected.

Ron Paul: In mainstream GOP circles, Ron Paul is often accused of being a loon or a kook. It is said many times that his supporters are also kooks. To those in the GOP mainstream, I say that you have forgotten the basis of our government and would readily give away our liberties for security in the same way liberals would give away liberty for socialism. In my opinion, Ron Paul was great tonight when arguing against government intrusion. Unfortunately for Paul however, his foreign policy ideas are a joke in the 21st century. I felt that he even went to such extremes as to suggest indirect appeasement with America’s enemies. However, I do agree with him that Congress should have declared war for the current Iraq conflict and that we must return to the founders’ constitution to restore our republican form of government. Paul gets a thumbs up for domestic policy and a HUGE thumbs down for foreign policy. Tonight’s best Paul moment: “I take my marching orders from the constitution!”

Duncan Hunter: I truly wish Hunter had more of a following. Though he may very well be the most conservative candidate on the stage (vs. Paul who is more libertarian), Hunter simply does not have the charisma to draw a very big following. Sure he won the Texas GOP Straw Poll, but early primary states show Romney and Guiliani to be the frontrunners. Tonight’s performance offered nothing special, though he did press the Democrats into the validity of Gitmo’s treatment of prisoners and compare it to the treatment received at prisons within their districts. I’ll give Hunter a “B” for his military knowledge. Tonight’s best Hunter moment: His plan for U.S. troops to leave Iraq by replacing American troops with battle-hardened Iraqi soldiers.

Mike Huckabee: Many people around the blogosphere seem to think that Huckabee would make a fine vice president. The truth is, I can’t really see what is so special about this guy. Sure he’s a social conservative and tonight’s debate proved it, with Huckabee calling for national unity and faith in the midst of trying times. I feel however, that Huckabee is just too generic and his record on taxes isn’t really the best. To me, he’ll always be a “B” candidate because he just doesn’t represent himself like he should. Tonight’s best Huckabee moment: Debating Ron Paul about the realities of the Iraq conflict.

Rudy Guiliani: I thought Rudy had a strong performance tonight, though I often felt tired of hearing about what he did for New York City. It almost felt like that without Rudy, New York City would have collapsed into chaos. Anyway, he definitely held his own in the debate, arguing several times that his sole job as president would be to uphold the Constitution of the United States, something he really hasn’t said before. He also defended states’ rights and federalism when it came to the issue of the 2nd amendment through the argument that Virginia Tech may have not happened had someone had a gun on campus. Seems to me he’s already starting to delve into Fred Thompson’s arena. Tonight’s best Rudy moment: When he described the scenario in which Iranian sponsored nuclear terrorism should be a focus of our foreign policy considerations.

John McCain: To be blunt, John McCain should be out of the race. The only thing I really agree with McCain on is his view of the troop surge (that it’s working) and that spending must be restrained. I do not agree with him in many other areas, especially immigration. If you notice, McCain has finally seen the light for one reason or another, to support border protection. I really don’t think that’s gonna help Senator, you already killed any chance you had for president by supporting amnesty for illegals. Tonight’s best McCain moment: Our troops must come home with the honor they deserve.

Mitt Romney: I usually like Mitt. But sometimes I feel as if he gets a little too slick or doesn’t look like he really believes what he’s saying. But then again, maybe that’s just how he comes off. Of all the debates I’ve seen, Romney has been the most consistent, especially when it comes to his three-legged stool; the need for a strong military, a strong economy, and strong families. Tonight it seemed Rudy was getting on him a bit about unemployment and crime in Boston, though Mitt didn’t really retaliate. I think Romney continued to establish himself as a credible candidate tonight, arguing for tax reform, immigration reform, and a sensible, gradual withdrawal from Iraq based on the success of those on the ground. Tonight’s best Romney moment: Explaining the steps of withdrawal were dependent on the successes of ground troops.

Overall winners: Guiliani, Romney, Hunter

Overall losers: Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, Brownback, McCain

Bigger winner than the above: Fred Thompson because he declared his candidacy tonight and was noticably absent from the NH debate, opting to declare his candidacy on Leno.

I think this is something worth taking a look at. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate speaking the truth about the United States’ fiscal problems, including the disadvantages of using a paper money system that is not backed up by gold or silver and the hidden costs associated with inflation:

I think his words have as much meaning today as they did when he stumped for Barry Goldwater:

This video almost forces you to ask the question, “Where are today’s patriots when we need them?”

*Hat tip to C-Rock for pointing this out to me