FederalRepublic.net

Even though I don’t agree that Mike Huckabee should be President of the United States, his new campaign ad is still pretty darn funny. Take a look:

So we all know that Mike Huckabee is rising in his poll numbers from Iowa, only trailing Mitt Romney. This, I think, is in large part to his socially conservative agenda that would attract traditional social conservatives along with evangelicals and pro-life supporters. While I do like his stances on gay marriage, abortion, the family, and many other traditional family values (he is a Baptist minister afterall), I think the following video is telling about his stance on big government and fiscal responsibility:

If this is the kind of “conservative” Mike Huckabee would be if he were in the White House, I’d rather pass. In a past GOP debate, he made no excuses for his tax hikes, saying he would not denounce his prior choice to raise taxes because Arkansas needed new roads. That position, in my mind, is foolish. The right way to raise revenue is to CUT taxes and REDUCE spending. Instead of acting like the *government* needs more money to close its budget gap, it’s about time politicians starting thinking of the money they bring in as *the people’s money* and quit spending more than they bring in.

If individuals and families are expected to be financially responsible, why shouldn’t government be as well?

Lately I’ve been disappointed with many establishment GOPers, that is no secret. Their ambivalence toward the U.S. Constitution is troubling, their support for “judicial activism” when it suits their interests is disappointing, and their adherence to unconstitutional usurpation of executive power is frightening. Another issue I think that conservatives fall flat on is talking about real, concerning issues.

My thoughts on this matter all came about by an article in the University of Colorado’s Newspaper, The Scribe. Looking at the political editorials, I found an article denouncing one, Norman Hsu and the behavior of Hillary Clinton. There was nothing wrong with the article, and in fact, I agreed with it. But unfortunately, it left a bad taste in my mouth - mostly because I have been feeling that conservatives spend too much time on petty little issues that don’t matter when considering the big picture. The Hsu opinion was what I consider a petty matter that most of the public won’t even pay attention to. In my opinion, conservatives need to talk about the big issues that actually matter and reside in the public mind.

In my opinion, mainstreet conservatives need to stop talking about the little petty social nonsense that comes up in the news every week, but instead focus on BIG ideas and big issues - like the Constitution, terrorism, states’ rights, limited government, social security reform, and other ignored issues like trade and taxes. When it comes down to it, BIG ideas matter to the people, not little petty things that pass from the public’s mind after a few weeks. Conservatives need to touch on issues that liberals will NEVER touch, like keeping taxes low, strategies for market-based economic growth, and the need to promote representative government abroad

UPDATE: I just got out of my Constitutional Law class. Though I’m in class with a bunch of Colorado Springs right-wingers (which is refreshing), I feel many only pay attention to the 30 second soundbites and current media stories. People only mentioned warrant-less NSA wiretapping 3 times(!!!) and really didn’t have anything to say in terms of historical or institutional knowledge about the presidency at all (which was discussed today). Unfortunately, this may be something I will have to deal with on a regular basis - many conservatives simply toe the party line and repeat talking points instead of really exploring the issues involved. This is why I would rather have a discussion with *classic* liberals and economic libertarians than modern, mainstream conservatives.

The video speaks for itself. Go Jason!

H/T to Hot Air

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.