Over the last few years, we’ve seen more and more candidates invoke the memory of President Ronald Reagan. I don’t blame them for admiring Reagan’s accomplishments, but I do often question their sincerity. Are these candidates simply sharing thoughts about their fondness for Reagan, or is it solely a transparent method of trying to ride the coattails of a man they may not really identify with?

This has been going on a while, but it has been Newt Gingrich’s frequent mentions of Reagan during debates that have annoyed me. To hear Gingrich tell it, he and Reagan were rather close, and shared credit for some of the accomplishments of the Reagan Presidency.

Upon hearing Gingrich’s boasts for the first time, I was taken by surprise. How would a fairly young Congressman with little seniority actually gain so much power in the Reagan Administration? Well, it turns out he didn’t.

Since Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina, members of the Reagan Administration have come forward to refute Gingrich’s wild claims. Others have pointed to times where Gingrich criticized Reagan on several occassions.

When it comes to flip-flopping and getting creative with the truth, Newt’s only competitor might be Mitt Romney.

President George W. Bush spent, and spent, and spent...

Politico has an interesting article titled, “GOP Magic Trick: Making George W. Bush Vanish.” To sum it up, Republicans are starting to embrace the fiscal conservatism that was the bedrock of the party’s platform, while moving away from George W. Bush’s reckless spending.

Thankfully, many Republicans are moving away from the neoconservative philosophy that has resulted in never-ending wars, expanded government, and a ballooning national debt. I’m glad to see this philosophical change break into the Republican mainstream, but why did it take so long? There are Republicans who are (rightly) criticizing attempts by the Obama administration to raise the debt ceiling. Where were they when George W. Bush made similar requests? Why did they support increases then?

Of course, the answer is the team mentality that politicians have, a ridiculous tendency to give too much slack to a member of their own party. Ladies and gentlemen, if an idea stinks, it stink regardless of the party affiliation of the person who caused the stench. If more Republicans believed this, they would have far more credibility when opposing Barack Obama’s policies. They could say, “we didn’t like it when Bush did it, and we’re not going to support you.” Instead, they’re left saying, “we won’t support your decision, but we supported President Bush when he did almost the same exact thing.” So you see the problem?

I hope more of our elected officials do see the problem, and make an attempt to put their country before their party.

Presidential Candidate Michele Bachman

If Michele Bachman were to win the Republican nomination, I would definitely vote for her rather than Barack Obama. With that said, I hope Bachmann doesn’t win the nomination. There are certainly worse choices, such as Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich, but ideally you would get to vote for someone you like rather than the lesser of all evils.

Here’s one of my problems with Michele Bachmann: She criticized Mitt Romney for not signing the Susan B. Anthony List’s anti-abortion pledge. Here’s her rationale for the criticism:

“It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party’s nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign.”

Romney claims he didn’t sign the pledge because it’s too broad. In my opinion, he didn’t sign it because it would be harder to flip-flop in the future. When I hear Romney speak, I don’t feel like I can trust anything he says. He seems interested in saying the most popular thing, while leaving room to wiggle out of a position if need be. I want someone who is principled, and Romney doesn’t fit the bill.

As for Bachmann, I really don’t understand her. I admire her support of limited government, but I have problems with politicians who preach limited-government then embrace socially conservative causes which undermine personal responsibility. There seem to be a lot of Republicans who don’t get the distinction. They’re ready to jump on the Tea Party bandwagon and use the talking points, but the underlying philosophy seems to be lost.

Michelle Bachmann will go far into the primaries, and if Sarah Palin doesn’t decide to run, she will attract her supporters. I just hope that those who vote for her realize that she isn’t truly a “limited-government” candidate.

In a recent Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage in 2011, up from 44% in 2010.

For the first time, a Gallup poll indicates that a majority of Americans support gay marriage. 53% support gay marriage in this year’s Gallup poll, compared to just 44% last year.

As a registered Republican who supports gay marriage, I’m disappointed and a bit surprised that only 28% of those in the G.O.P. support same-sex marriage. For those who think of the Republican party as a bastion of social conservatism, it makes perfect sense. Still, I find troubling inconsistencies.

In recent years, groups like the Tea Party have pushed for small government and found many Americans who are sympathetic. I’m one of those people who support limited government, but unlike many Republicans, I go beyond taxation. I respect personal beliefs of what’s right and wrong, but I disagree with using those beliefs to limit individual liberty.

If you’re an advocate of small government, spend some time looking for inconsistencies in your thinking. Just like you might support restricting someone’s liberty today, someone else may try to do the same to you in the future.

Ron Paul will run for President in 2012.

There are several Republicans who might run for President in 2012. There are some, like Newt Gingrich, that I could see myself voting for, while there are others, such as Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, that I wouldn’t vote for in a million years. With that said, there is only one candidate whose honesty is unquestioned, and whose views on limited government developed from well-researched, strongly held beliefs, not because it was the hot idea of the moment. That candidate is Ron Paul.

Today, Ron Paul announced that he will run for President in 2012. Now, Americans are assured of at least one candidate who truly understands the Constitution, and will put forth a unified plan, rather than some hodge podge of ideas grounded in the polling data.

My only concern with Ron Paul is the probability that he will run as a Republican. Getting by some of the establishment names will be difficult, especially for those who don’t fully understand or appreciate his libertarian views. Ideally, I’d like to see Ron Paul run as an independent. With his built in following, he would surely have enough support to assure himself a spot in the Presidential debates against the Democrat and Republican candidates. Once those who are unfamiliar with Ron Paul had the opportunity to hear his idea, I have no doubt that his popularity would skyrocket. Unfortunately, an independent run doesn’t seem likely.

It’s my hope that conservatives and Tea Party members realize that Ron Paul truly believes in limited government, unlike those who merely parrot the group’s talking points.

Mitt Romney doesn't think the federal government should infringe on your rights, he thinks that's up to the individual states!

After watching Mitt Romney try to explain why Romneycare and Obamacare are different, I’m left with a question. Is Mitt Romney a liar, or does he just not get it? By “it” I mean small government.

To hear Romney explain it, Romneycare and Obamacare are nothing alike. Of course, any literate person can see that they are nearly identical. Later on, he says that one of the big differences is that Romneycare was a state solution, and was not pushed on the states by the Federal Government. I will give him that point, but still, his argument is lacking.

Romney seems to be saying that the Federal Government should stay out of our business and stop infringing on the liberties of it’s citizens, because that’s the states’ job! Romney doesn’t believe the feds should require us to purchase health insurance, but he believes the states should have that right. I’m a big supporter of state’s rights, but I don’t think anyone, at any level, should tell people they have to purchase a particular product.

Mitt Romney is once again trying his hand at revisionist history, and is failing miserably. To me, he seems like he would say absolutely anything to get elected.

French Presiden Nicolas Sarkozy

“It’s a failure,” Sarkozy said of multiculturalism. “The truth is that, in all our democracies, we’ve been too concerned about the identity of the new arrivals and not enough about the identity of the country receiving them.”

I couldn’t agree more. Think about it: By allowing, and often encouraging immigrants to keep their own culture at the cost of assimilation, aren’t we weakening our national identity? If millions of immigrants take up residence in a country, consider themselves to be separate, and raise children to believe the same, how will that country survive? How will its people exist without a shared identity?

Most politicians in the United States would be afraid to make a statement similar to Sarkozy’s. Instead, they would likely recycle the same old line about the United States being a nation of immigrants who strengthened out country. Of course, the elephant in the room is that the immigrants of yesterday did a much better job assimilating than the immigrants of today. Do you need an example? How often do you see signs and documents written in Spanish? Ask a 90 year old if it was common to find signs and documents in Italian or German 60 years ago. It wasn’t, and those people who came hear needed to adjust.

Now, it seems that those from other countries are asked to make few, if any adjustments. While the greater culture is de-emphasized by the politically correct, “cultural diversity” is upheld as a virtue. Gradually, nations will pay a price for political correctness.

I just found this video linked from The Drudge Report. The man in the video is a high school history teacher addressing a La Raza rally. During his speech, he talks about “racist white people,” refers to America as the “belly of the beast,” and calls California “stolen, occupied Mexico”. As you will see, he also talks about the fight against capitalism and imperialism.

While watching this video, one question kept coming to mind: Why doesn’t he leave the United States and move to Mexico? If the United States is so evil, then leave here and go to a place that is more to your liking. In the video, he mentions his hero Hugo Chavez. Venezuela sounds like it would be a great choice, especially if you don’t mind the inflation rate of more than 30%.

I also find it troubling that someone who is so racist and anti-American could be teaching history to high school students. If he teaches 6 classes per day, that’s 150 victims he can attempt to indoctrinate each school year. I’d love to know how he teaches his students about the founding fathers, but then again, I’m sure I an guess.

The next step is to keep our eyes on the immigration reform bill. Obamacare won’t provide health insurance for illegal aliens, but it will provide help for legal immigrants. If the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States receive amnesty, won’t that make them legal? Won’t they then be eligible for subsidized health care? It certainly looks that way to me.

Would you expect any less from the Obama administration? Subsidized goods and services, which will all have more recipients if amnesty is allowed yet again, will further increase our national debt. A whole new group of individuals will be added to the dependent class known as Democrats, while the increased number of dependent supporters will ensure a study march toward socialism.

Thanks to Barack Obama and progressive Democrats, our nation is turning further and further away from what made us great, until one day, it will be unrecognizable.

“One of the things that concerns me is that in the United States there is real talk of maybe we need to have this big tent and accommodate every view,” Huckabee said. “That will kill the conservative movement.”

I’m not sure if Mike Huckabee realizes it or not, but the United States only has two major parties. When you have only two parties, you should have a “big tent” to accomodate a broad cross section of the country. If not, your party will get decimated in elections. Of course, if Mike Huckabee really believes in having total agreement on a wide variety of social and fiscal issues, it might lead the GOP to become a powerhouse…among second tier parties. That’s right, it will probably be able to dominate the Libertarian, Green, and Socialist parties in elections. Sure, the Democratic Party will continue to pick up seats at a rapid pace, but at least the dwindling membership of the GOP will be homogenous and won’t have to put up with dissenting voices. You know, those pesky people who contribute to a lively debate.

What I don’t quite understand is the inconsistency displayed by “conservatives” like Mike Huckabee. Here’s an example:

“There are some things I believe true, genuine conservatives believe are essential to the liberty of each individual, and those are not negotiable,” he added.

Mike Huckabee talks a good game. He throws the word “liberty” around and pretends to be conservative, but his claim is hollow. Many people would characterize me as a moderate, yet I consider myself a conservative. People like Mike Huckabee claim to favor small government, less spending, lower taxes, and state’s rights, which I agree with, but then they contradict themselves on social issues. They want to work through the government to make abortions illegal, tell people who they can or can’t marry, and throw people in jail for victimless crimes, such as marijuana possession. Basically, they are creating more government rules, which are then used to interfere with the individual’s right to make a personal decision. How can you reconcile that with being a small-government, liberty-loving conservative? In my opinion, you can’t.

Many people are confused by the idea of a conservative who truly values liberty and individual rights. What happens is that there is a disconnect between wanting liberty and respecting others personal decisions. Just because I don’t agree with a behavior doesn’t mean it should be made illegal. There’s no reason why we can’t all have have our own set of morals and acceptable behaviors, yet live in a society where a wide range of lifestyles and behaviors are allowed. If you don’t agree with this, then you probably don’t value individual liberty as much as you thought.