The Principles of American Conservatism

(Note: The following was originally exclusively written for a conservatism section of my website, Captain Justin’s Page N’at, but is now being published here on this blog as well for the potential of giving it greater exposure. Its content has not been changed. You can see that version by clicking here if you wish.)

HOW CAN CONSERVATISM be defined? What beliefs label someone as a conservative? While I as a conservative could easily give you a list of my positions on every political subject of the times, what good would that do to further the conservatism movement and the great traditions of America? No one can form an opinion on a matter without first believing in something greater: individual principle. These principles define people, their morals, their ethics, their judgments. It is with these principles that one can decide what is right and what is wrong in their own eyes.

Which brings us to conservative principles. What people who consider themselves to be conservatives believe as their underlying principles are the very root of what they base their social and political views on. Without underlying principles, there is no bedrock on which to build a position.

I as a proud conservative have drafted 20 conservative principles on which I believe conservatives’ opinions take root from. These principles can then be applied to a particular issue to determine if it is an issue to support or oppose.

Written in a semi-legal tone with the occasional specific and direct clarification, the 20 principles below can be applied to and interpreted to cover a strong majority of social and political issues.

ON THE CONSTITUTION

1. A True Conservative All-American believes in and adheres to the principles ingeniously drafted by our Founding Fathers in the greatest document of freedom ever penned by man, the United States Constitution.

2. A True Conservative All-American believes that the Constitution is indeed the law of the land and must be interpreted based upon the way framers intended, not through the biases of judges who want to enact their own ideological interpretations. Amendments to the Constitution are the only way to change the great document, not through an activist judiciary.


ON THE AMERICAN DREAM

3. A True Conservative All-American believes in the American Dream: that all Americans have an equal opportunity to live their lives to the fullest, succeed, be prosperous, and live in the pursuit of happiness. The government ought not interfere with this goal and ought to keep intervention at the minimalist of levels.

4. A True Conservative All-American believes that the excessive taxation of those who have gone out into the world and made successes of themselves hinders the American Dream by punishing those who have become “overly successful.”


ON RACE

5. A True Conservative All-American believes that the race and ethnicity of an individual are not grounds on which they are to be judged, but rather they are to be judged by their character, morals, and worth to society. Neither racial bigotry nor preference is justified, as no race is superior.


ON THE RULE OF LAW

6. A True Conservative All-American believes in the rule of law and that those who fail to follow it shall be brought to justice. No one is above the law. Punishments for failure to adhere to the law ought to be based upon the severity of the crime committed, with the most stringent of punishments applied to those worthy of such.


ON LIFE

7. A True Conservative All-American believes that life has value and should not be destroyed or desecrated by those who allege they have a right to do so.


ON RELIGION

8. A True Conservative All-American believes that America was founded by individuals who strongly believed in a power higher than themselves: a Creator.

9. A True Conservative All-American believes in the Constitution’s right to the free exercise of religion, and believes that this provision was meant to prohibit the government from establishing a national church, not to outlaw religious presence – regardless of whatever faith represented – from the public square or traditional capacities of government.

10. A True Conservative All-American believes America, because of its founding and heritage, is, in practicality, a Christian nation, and although no requirement that Americans must follow Christianity ought to ever come to be, it is incorrect to deny that the word of God is in the blood of the nation.


ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

11. A True Conservative All-American believes that the best government is that which governs least, and that bureaucracies and overregulation infringe upon individual liberties.

12. A True Conservative All-American believes that the government ought not to act as a “nanny” by regulating or criticizing actions of the individual that are best suited to be decided by the individual.

13. A True Conservative All-American believes that the role of the government is to provide for only what cannot be done or provided by the American people themselves. Such principle was said by Abraham Lincoln long before the 20th and 21st century liberals began to create dependencies looking for handouts: “You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”


ON FISCAL MATTERS

14. A True Conservative All-American believes that government ought to exercise sound fiscal judgment, cut spending, resist increasing taxes, and cut taxes to allow and encourage economic growth.

15. A True Conservative All-American believes that government funds ought not to be allocated for items of trivial importance or for items that ought to be funded or established by the willful citizenry.


ON NATIONAL & PERSONAL PROTECTION

16. A True Conservative All-American believes that in order to protect the freedoms and rights cherished by the people of the nation that we must first defend the nation and the nation’s interests from attack or detriment by establishing a strong military supremacy and by always perusing victory in any endeavor involving its use, as well as the use of additional sensible methods of protecting the nation, defending the nation, and averting threats to the nation, the people, or pertinent interests.

17. A True Conservative All-American believes in the right of an individual to protect their wellbeing and the wellbeing of property or entities of which they hold ownership.


ON PATRIOTISM & TRADITION

18. A True Conservative All-American believes in maintaining the time-tested, longstanding traditions of our nation and opposes altering tradition to pander to those who wish to undermine these traditions in order to form a “new” America. We believe in patriotism and pride in our nation and its culture.


ON MORALS & COMMON SENSE

19. A True Conservative All-American believes in morality and decency and fully understands right from wrong.

20. A True Conservative All-American practices and stresses common sense, sound judgment, personal responsibility, and rationality towards all situations and issues.


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

Primaries: Voting at 17?

On Thursday, May 1, 2008, the Connecticut State Senate passed, by a unanimous 36-0 vote, a proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to allow 17-year-old residents to vote in primary elections, so long as they turn 18 on or before Election Day. Having already been widely passed by the Connecticut House of Representatives in April, the subject will now appear as an amendment question on November’s ballot, as the measure requires the approval of voters before the state Constitution can be amended.

With such a wide passage by the General Assembly, Connecticut’s legislative body, the measure is a victory for democracy, a way to create greater enthusiasm and participation among the state’s youngest voters, right? Actually, in my opinion, such a move would not be as truly democratic as it may seem, and I plan to vote against it in November.

It is important that we realize what lowering the voting age in primaries would actually do before we approve such an amendment. While the strongest argument in favor of the 17-year-old primary vote proclaims that those who would be of age by the time of the general election ought to have a say in who the final candidates in it are, we must contrast this with the long-standing premise that voting is a right reserved for those capable of possessing the capacity to cast a vote with true understanding. Today’s average 17-year-old is a high school junior or senior, likely preoccupied with not only their scholastic studies and activities, but likely also with out of school recreation, some sensible and benign, some which may causes parents to ask, partially out of frustration and partially out of love, “Why did I have children?” While there are always exceptions, because of other issues on their minds, many of which concern their current lives and the insignificant matters of the moment, the reality is that today’s 17-year-olds are not going to be as politically informed as they could be. As such, their participation in primary elections would likely cause them to make less informed or uninformed decisions, perhaps even by ignoring any personal feelings they may have and going along with popular cultural trends among their demographics.

Time and time again, the “go with the flow” mentality can be seen among America’s youth. I cannot count the number of times I have seen or read in the news or heard on the radio about the frenzy for Democrat Barack Obama on American college campuses among the students. But ask one of these students why they practically worship Obama, their answer is, nine times out of 10, either that he is “for change,” that he inspires them, or because they dislike or despise President Bush and his administration’s policies (likely because they have been misinformed or uninformed of Bush’s real accomplishments, convictions, and records). When pressed for specifics, these students often enough cannot name accomplishments (accomplishments?) in Obama’s political career or name his issue-by-issue political positions. And they’re over 18 – you’ll probably be standing in line with one of them on Election Day.

Is it wise to allow likely uninformed voters access to the polls – in Connecticut’s case, if 17-year-olds had been allowed to vote in the February 5 “Super Tuesday” primary – up to nine months before they reach the age of majority and the long-held age of participation in voting? It’s troublesome enough to me and countless others that too many of those over 18 who do vote do not know much about why they are voting for the candidate they vote for. I do strongly believe that everyone in America 18 and above should vote in each election and primary they are eligible to vote in, but I just as strongly believe in making an informed vote. That means there’s going to have to be a little effort on behalf of the voter. They ought to research all candidates and examine their current positions and proposals, as well as their records of the past, in order to select the best candidate for each office. Even those who tend to be quite partisan (admittedly, me) should at least know where and why their party’s candidate differs from the opposition’s. In fact, if I could have it my way, because Connecticut now uses optical scan ballots on which voters use a felt-tipped pen to bubble in their choices in the fashion of a standardized test, I wish that there were a few blank lines below each office on the ballot where voters could write in a few brief reasons why they are voting for their choice of candidate. There would be no checking of the truthfulness of voters’ responses and no election official would ever bother to read them, but it would serve as a reminder to vote with understanding and reason.

So, in conclusion, does it disenfranchise those who will be 18 by Election Day that they cannot vote in the preceding primary? Or does it strengthen the value of a vote by their having to wait until it becomes a right at 18, a way to welcome in a transition to adulthood (at least under the law)? I can say with some authority that I probably could have cast an informed vote at 15, as I found gaining political knowledge to be fun and rewarding. (I’m not going to say how many years ago that was, however, though I still haven’t yet been summoned for jury duty.) But I realized that good things happen to those who wait. And I was not bitter over it. I spent those years gaining more knowledge and celebrating conservative victories and liberal defeats. Finally being able to vote allowed me to use my knowledge through the simplest and most fundamental form of governmental participation. It was better for me to wait.

Would the value of a 17-year-old primary vote truly be worth the same? In this effort to get more young people to participate in government, do we create their loss of drive to seek out political information in its most rewarding form: on their own? Before long, will we have 16-year-olds wanting the vote because they can work and pay taxes? Folks, it’s the knowledge that comes with time and our seeking out of information on our own accord that is our greatest resource, both for voting and in life.


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

It's 3 a.m. in America ...

About a month or so ago, Hillary Clinton came out with a political ad featuring a phone ringing in the middle of the night at the White House apparently due to some major event taking place in the world and the President being notified of it. Not long after, the Barack Obama campaign came out with their own version of the ad, using some of the same stock footage video in it. Both of these Democratic candidates’ “qualifications” for being competent to answer the red phone in the wee morning hours were stated in their respective propaganda pieces by announcers, concluding with each candidate stating in their own voice that they approved the message, required by the FEC. But did either ad carry any messages of substance? Or were they both nothing more than desperate efforts to bolster the appearance (to an untrained, unknowledgeable observer) of national security credentials?

Below, I will provide the actual transcript of the Clinton and Obama ads and then re-write the ads to tell you the way I heard them. And while I admit my interpretations to be highly editorialized, I believe they will serve the purpose of informing concerned Americans that neither of the Democrats in this race has what it takes to take office as our next President. Additionally, because Republican candidate John McCain never came out with one of these “3 a.m.” ads, I will write what I would say in such an ad if it were to be created.


SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY)

(Announcer): It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone? (Clinton): I’m Hillary Clinton, and I approve this message.

And now for the meaning of Clinton’s ad the way I heard it.

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. Shouldn’t who answers that call be a woman who’s long been ambitious to lead? Whose husband loathed the military and had the conviction to slash its forces? Someone who’s open to an afternoon tea with the world’s evildoers? One who slept for eight years in the White House and has been re-elected to the Senate from one of the most liberal states in our union? When that phone rings, only Hillary Clinton would have the unique qualifiers to take charge from Day One.


SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL)

(Announcer): It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House – something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the President be the one – the only one – who had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start? Who understood the real threat to America was al Qaeda in Afghanistan, not Iraq? Who led the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons around the globe? In a dangerous world, it’s judgment that matters. (Obama): I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.

And now the truth – I mean – what I heard in the ad.

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House – something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the President be one – just one of countless Democrats – who wishes for retreat in Iraq and who turns a blind eye to the progress made to spread freedom and democracy abroad? One who understands that there are few anti-American terrorists in the world and that those that exist voluntarily remain stationary in one region of the globe? Whose vision of hope and change transcends the tired notions of freedom and liberty? One who can lead after not even completing his first six-year Senatorial term? When that phone rings, only Barack Obama can speak the platitudes necessary to defeat worldly unrest.


SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)

Here’s how I would write McCain’s 3 a.m. ad if I was asked to. Solidly national security-themed throughout.

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone ringing in the White House – something’s happening in the world. When that call gets answered, shouldn’t the President be a leader who’s not afraid to back down in a time of global conflict? Someone who advocated for the surge strategy in Iraq and who understands the meaning of victory? One who once wore the uniform and served his country honorably? In this time of war, America needs someone who won’t just be prepared to answer the phone, but someone whose actions can prevent it from ringing in the middle of the night. It’s 3 a.m. and America is safe.


CONCLUDING WORDS

While I could talk much about the policies of all three of these candidates, since we are dealing with national security-themed ads, I’ll only delve into the national security subject here, and will do so briefly.

Many factors will go into determining who is our next President. But when it comes down to what is going to be the most important of these factors this election year, national security and keeping America safe in this time of war is surely going to be the apex issue, regardless of whether Americans know or chose to recognize it as such. While economic issues have ascended to the top of the list as the most important issue to voters in many recent polls, when it comes down to it all, we cannot have a stable and bustling economy if we cannot first assure the security of the nation whose economy we are trying to improve.

It is of great importance to put a commander-in-chief in the White House whose policies do not traverse the security of the nation and whose policies can strengthen our defenses against insurgency and uncertainty. The outcome of the Iraq war is often underestimated as a factor in global security. But winning on that front contributes to the betterment of the world by spreading democracy to those who have never before known the power of participation, and by preventing the region from being used as a breeding ground for the types of evildoers who if they got their way would make “Death to America” a national motto. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged to retreat in Iraq, although they don’t like to consider it a retreat. Neither Democrat is wishing for another great tragedy on American soil, but their naïve and irrational policies only encourage our enemies to act upon their thoughts of killing us, the “infidels,” the champions of freedom. The fact that Obama claims to be someone who “had judgment and courage to oppose the Iraq war from the start” is, in my mind at least, a reason to dismiss him from Presidential consideration because he has clearly shown that he does not understand the world in which we live.

In November, Americans from coast to coast will cast their ballots to determine our next President. I will be one of them. It will be up to us all to decide whether to elect someone who will have the experience and judgment necessary to answer a ringing phone at the White House or to elect someone whose policies may have caused that phone to break the silence of the night. But it is even more essential for us all to elect someone whose actions and strength can keep that phone silent while America is at rest.

Who will you vote for?


UPDATE (April 21, 2008): You can now view all three of the ads that I wrote in a YouTube video. Click here to view the video.


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

I Confess: My Ties to the McCain Campaign

(Note: The following blends humor and seriousness together to make an important point about the nation’s future beyond Election Day.)

Today marks three weeks since I watched Mitt Romney, the candidate I supported for the 2008 Republican nomination for President of the United States, suspend his bid for the White House. His departure, although understandable, forced American conservatives, including myself, to accept that no matter what the outcome of the general election in November, we would not be having a conservative (or at least not an across-the-board one) in the Oval Office until 2013 or 2017 at best, indefinitely at worst.

While I have much disagreement with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) over the issues he has pushed and sides he has taken both in years prior and within the past year, I today feel it necessary to be honest with the American people and make public a historic decision I made in the early morning hours of Tuesday, February 26. No, I have not made a secure online donation to the McCain campaign, erected a sign in my yard, nor have I even adhered a bumper sticker to my car or other surface. Some may consider what I did even more drastic. Yes, in only my second trip to JohnMcCain.com ever (the first time was to bookmark the site months ago), I signed up for email updates from the campaign.

Shocking, I know. But I felt the time was right. You see, on November 2, 2007, I signed up for email updates from the three Republicans I at the time thought would be most likely to win the nomination: Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson. But as I’m sure you’re aware, one by one, their emails ceased to arrive in my inbox, as their campaigns shut down. My email account grew lonely, so I felt it necessary to add a familiar face somewhere between the offers for second mortgages and the requests to send money to some guy I’ve never heard of in Zimbabwe who claims that he needs my help to unlock his frozen assets. (Who am I to not believe him – he said he was a doctor! I say he must be a witch doctor, because I can’t think of any other way he could have gotten my email address without being part of some illegal scheme.)

In this campaign season, I never would have predicted that John McCain would have taken off the way he did, especially after his infamous McCain-Kennedy immigration debacle of spring 2007. I ruled long ago that his chances were slim, if not nil. Though sure enough, he took good footing to the ledges of the tiny cracks he found himself squeezing into among the wide field of Republicans he was up against; for him now, officially receiving the title of nominee is just a formality.

There is no doubt that I had hoped for a conservative to win the Republican nomination and the ultimate prize of an all expenses paid, four-to-eight-year-long stay at the fabulous Pennsylvania Avenue Suites, but now the people in America who want to see America remain strong in this world full of unpredictable challenges must act to defeat a common foe, that of full-fledged liberalism currently taking host in candidates and current U.S. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barack Obama (D-IL).

The negatives I have with McCain I have opined on many times before, so for a more positive angle, I will sum up highlights of where I can agree with McCain. In the essence of fairness, however, I will also highlight the few areas I like Clinton and Obama on in a simple list written in plain English.


McCAIN: He is committed to the cause of fighting global conflict by supporting our troops and their mission in Iraq and elsewhere, as he knows America has much to gain by combating the world’s evildoers and their supporters; he supports giving Americans control over their Social Security accounts; he says he would make the authors of pork-barrel add-ons to appropriation bills “famous”; he supports requiring a three-fifths vote to increase taxes; he supports a nationwide database for individuals convicted of sex crimes involving children and related measures to keep our nation’s children safe; he supports a missile defense system; he supports some other good ideas.

CLINTON: She said once that she ate pizza; she’s been inside of the White House; she can do a mean Margaret Hamilton impression.

OBAMA: Wore a nice tie once; isn’t Hillary Clinton; um, well, that’s about it.


It is true that many conservatives will find it difficult to vote for McCain come Election Day. While many conservatives have said that they will hold their noses and vote for McCain for the sake of defeating the Democrats’ disasterous agenda of, including other things, ensuring defeat in Iraq and hindering America’s security interests, too many have said that they will abstain from participating in this year’s election, or even cross over to the dark side. Not me. I firmly believe that if we as conservatives don’t all hold our noses and vote for McCain, we’ll inevitably have to hold on to a whole lot more if Clinton or Obama take the reigns of the nation.

No matter which liberal the Democratic Party nominates to go on to November’s election, there is one thing they will never receive from me: my vote. Well, two things if you count signing up for email updates.


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

Google Shows Wide Support for Romney in 2012

(Note: The following is speculation and not scientific. Disclosure: I supported Mitt Romney’s 2008 Republican candidacy.)

Here’s some optimism for Mitt Romney should he want to pursue another shot at the White House.

Just for fun, I decided a short time ago to run the names of some of the 2008 Republican hopefuls into the Google search engine to assess their possible support in future presidential bids. I did this by placing their last names in quotes along with the year 2012 and then the year 2016 (examples: “Romney 2012” or “Thompson 2016”), and then recording how many references there were to that exact phrase online. Since 2012 and 2016 will be the next presidential election years after this year, I figured that how often a slogan phrase like the candidate’s name and the election year came up would give an indication to how many of a candidates’ strongest backers wanted their candidate to run again. Mitt Romney led by far in terms of the 2012 search results, more than doubling those of Ron Paul and Fred Thompson. I have provided the full results below for your perusal:


Candidate.........2012 Results*............2016 Results*

Mitt Romney..............1,130.......................................2
Ron Paul......................500........................................103
Fred Thompson.........448...........................................9
John McCain...............14............................................12
Mike Huckabee..........13.............................................4
Rudy Giuliani...............9..............................................4


So what do these numbers mean? In truth, I do not have enough experience in the study of human behavior or data analysis to offer any definitive conclusion, I can only offer to you my best guesses at what the results of my study could mean.

First, let’s get the Ron Paul thing out of the way. His second place rank in the 2012 results and dominating lead in the 2016 results are not because he is a popular candidate. Paul has but a small number of actual supporters, but they’re often forceful, rabid, and desperate for attention. Thus, the Internet is their playground and only real place to get behind their candidate by spreading his name all across the digital world.

Second, Mitt Romney in 2012. A commanding lead over the other five, but last in 2016 numbers. This means (again, I have no credentials to interpret definitively) that Romney supporters want him to be president as soon as possible, not just someday. Because John McCain is the presumptive GOP nominee in 2008, this means that Romney supporters are either hoping for a challenge to McCain should he seek re-election if he is elected in November (which may not be a bad thing if McCain pushes a non-conservative agenda in his administration) or that McCain will be defeated in November (which would cast a dark cloud over America during a four-year-long full-blown left-wing administration) and Romney would rise to become the Republican candidate to clean up the nation after a disastrous term of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Third, John McCain in 2012 and 2016. Not a whole lot of support in future ambitions, at least not at the moment. (Note: McCain could not serve a third term if elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012.) Perhaps this shows that his rise to the 2008 GOP nomination is a fluke based on so many factors that played out in this election cycle, which I believe to be the most unpredictable in history. (No incumbents running, the number of candidates at one time running in both parties, the beginning of the race essentially in early 2007, many states moving up their primaries, and the coming and going of media-dubbed “inevitable” candidates are just some of the factors making 2008 a historically different campaign cycle.)

And last, the rankings of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson in my investigation show a demand for conservatism the next go around. I don’t consider myself out of line when I say that we could see (and I’d even hope for) a Romney-Thompson ticket the next time the GOP nominates.

Well, that’s what I think anyway.


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.


*Results listed as “about” (about that many results) by Google on the top right of the first page of each quoted-term search. (Quoting search terms requires the terms to appear in the order they are listed.) Actual results may vary. Results used in this post retrieved between 12:26 a.m. and 12:29 a.m. Eastern on February 10, 2007.

Thank You, Mitt!

America will have no President Romney in 2008. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, the former Massachusetts governor announced that he would suspend his bid for the White House. While many states are yet to vote, it is now expected that Arizona Senator John McCain will clinch the Republican nomination.

I can admit that I have lost some confidence in the judgments of many Republican primary goers for looking past Romney and instead paving the way for our party to be influenced by liberals and moderates by essentially crowing McCain the de facto party leader come November. But there exists some optimism for Romney’s future. The Republican Party has a history of nominating “leading losers,” if you will, of previous presidential bids the next time it nominates. (Examples include Ronald Reagan’s loss to Gerald Ford in 1976, but he was nominated and won the election of 1980; George H.W. Bush’s loss to Reagan in 1980, but he was nominated and won his own term in 1988 after serving as Reagan’s vice president; and John McCain’s loss to George W. Bush in 2000, now likely to be nominated this go around.) So if Romney wants to give it another shot – regardless of who wins the White House in November – the odds are in his favor.

While I could address what having McCain as our nominee will mean in more detail, I feel a greater need at the moment to thank Romney for running a good race. So below is a copy of a letter I am sending to the Romney campaign thanking Romney for his efforts and encouraging him to continue the message into the future.

----------

(Note: The following is the text of a letter I am sending to the Mitt Romney campaign following the former Massachusetts governor’s withdrawal from seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President on February 7, 2008)

Dear Governor Romney:

For the past year or so, the American people have really gotten to know the names of those seeking the Republican nomination for President. And chances are no matter who one person supported, there was always the odd feeling when all of the sudden the name of a perspective nominee was no longer heard – all of the sudden someone we had all watched grow was out of the race. But while there’s a sort of collective remembrance for those who have tried and ultimately left the race, it never truly affects you until the person you supported has withdrawn.

While it took me a few months to finally decide who to support, I selected you, Governor, and your vision for America. You rose to become the conservative candidate, bringing into the race your conviction, belief in America, and strategy to improve Washington. And for that I thank you. While the majority of Connecticut Republicans voted for John McCain on Super Tuesday, know this: While McCain may have won Connecticut, he did not win me. You did, sir, and I am proud to have supported your candidacy.

No matter who the American people eventually select to be our next President, it is clear that the conservative movement is going to need representatives in the political arena to hold and promote the ideals which we hold dear. I’m sure that I speak on behalf of all of your supporters in encouraging you to remain one of those representatives. Please consider your victories among the conservative voters as a nomination to champion our values into the future.

In the past year, you have succeeded in taking a campaign to the national level, become a household name throughout America, and became a strong contender at receiving our party’s nomination for the White House. The fact that the nomination will not be yours is hard to accept for your supporters, but I for one believe it does not mark the end of your presidential future. In truth, the 2008 election will be but one election in our nation’s history, and nothing is to say the race couldn’t be yours in 2012 or beyond. (After all, you can only be President for eight years – your term just won’t begin as soon as we had hoped.)

Yes, while you have withdrawn from this race, you have not withdrawn from your values, and for that, I thank you for your contributions to conservatism and America.

Best Wishes and God Bless,
-Justin Margeson


© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

'But He Didn't Win Me'

It’s a claim the media has made all too often lately. That Northeastern Republicans are a bunch of moderates who have more in common with independent-thinkers like John McCain than they do with conservatism and candidates like Mitt Romney. Apparently the media lost my number; they never asked me.

I'm a Connecticut Republican, but I’m no moderate. I’m a proud and strong conservative. I defy the media’s regional labels. I may live in a Blue State, but I’ll turn it red within a 10-foot radius of wherever I may be. And I don’t care who the media assumed I’d vote for on the day known as “Super Tuesday,” I am one who would never vote for a candidate who compromises my values for expediency or simply because they may be a member of my party. And while John McCain may have won the state’s first Republican presidential primary since he snagged it in 2000 with a majority of 78,741 votes, I joined with the 49,850 others who opted to pull the lever (well, slide their optical scan ballots into the tabulation machine) for the last remaining conservative in this race, Mitt Romney.

When the largest ever nationwide primary event was over, McCain added nine more states to his résumé and took a decent lead over Romney in the delegate count. Romney took first in seven states, while former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claimed five of his own. Naturally, with McCain’s sudden leap, it must be time for the Republican Party to part ways with the defunct conservative movement and move the party of Lincoln and Reagan to the left in order to remain viable on the political front, right?

My answer is concise: No, because as I’ve said before, I don’t let the media dictate what being a Republican is all about. I refuse to accept the pseudo-Republican mantra that the values which sparked the Reagan Revolution are dead. While the issues may change, the principles remain the same, and they ought to only grow stronger as we pass through time.

That’s why I believe it is essential to examine candidates on their beliefs and on their prior political history. Voters ought to seek out candidates with clear visions for the future. On that note, I staunchly believe that you ought to know why you’re voting for a candidate before you approach the voting booth, and it should have nothing to do with personality, sound bites, or the skewed analysis of media reporters and pundits. It should have to do with the issues. After all, the differences on the issues are where the true distinctions are made between conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, and ultimately whether a policy is a wise direction for our nation or a foolish path to go down.

Senator McCain (R-AZ) is a commendable man for his heroics while serving the nation on the Vietnam front. It’s not just an obligatory mention, I really believe it. Anyone who as a prisoner of war refuses the opportunity to leave out of respect for their fellow comrades who were imprisoned before them deserves the salute of the nation. It’s simply the issues on which I, well, have issues with him. His campaign finance legislation to restrict political speech, his cavorting with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) to draft an amnesty bill designed to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, his vote against President Bush’s tax cuts, his desires to close Gitmo and relocate all the – yes, I’ll say it – terrorists we’ve captured to facilities on U.S. soil, his opposition to enhanced interrogation techniques, his hostility towards drilling in ANWR, and his overall unpredictability – just a few highlights – make him one I just cannot get behind for the nomination of the nation’s conservative party. (The fact that I strongly urge members of the Republican Party to embrace the Reagan-era conservatism the way we used to is another subject for another day.)

To be honest, chances are I’ll never vote for a Democrat, but it’s not out of sheer party loyalty. I will always make a decision on who to support based on what they stand for, their record, and because of any obviously detrimental positions of the opposition. So, although I hope it doesn’t come to it, I would in all likelihood support McCain should he become the party’s nominee, as I believe the nation would be safer from an attack under his leadership and because Hillary’s (or Obama’s, for that matter) God-awful liberalism is far worse than McCain’s less-than-conservative record. Whether I’d desire that he’d be replaced with a conservative in 2012 is another story, however.

But when it comes down to it all, I consider myself to be a real Republican, one who embraces the conservative message. And that means that when one member of the party detracts from the principles on which that party stands, you put down pure partisanship and take them to task. It seems too difficult a concept for many Republicans to do these days, as they rally behind a frontrunner and abandon a fundamental principle: You ought to be a conservative first.

Yes, if all I did on Super Tuesday was raise the vote total for Mitt Romney in Connecticut by one, than so be it. McCain may have won Connecticut, but he didn’t win me. Proof that principle always wins, no mater who is labeled victor.

© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

The Case for Closed Primaries

Party primaries (and caucuses and other comparable contests) are the means by which members of a political party can vote in the process to help determine who the party’s candidate should be for a particular office in the general campaign. Or at least they ought to be.

On the Republican side (which, admittedly, is the only side I really care about), of the 50 states of this great country, only 24 operate closed primaries, primaries which restrict voting to enrolled members of the Republican Party. Of the remaining 26, 16 operate open primaries, primaries open to every voter regardless of affiliation, and 10 operate modified primaries, which generally allow independents to vote in the primary of their choosing. (Although I concentrate on Republican primaries, most states have the same system in place for both parties.)

While it may seem nice to open up primaries to independents and those of one party who wish to vote for a candidate of the other party, such a system threatens the entire premise of political affiliation.

People register with a party because it is one which they most identify with the ideals of. As members of a political party, registered Republicans and Democrats ought to have influence over who becomes the nominee of their party in various elections. Because of this, I believe that it is improper to let non-party members vote in a primary that they are not affiliated with because the vote of the affiliated members would be, in essence and effect, diluted by those whose views do not necessarily or normally align with that of the party, as well as the underlying principle of political identification.

We have independents and members of minor parties in this country because not everyone fits in with the policies of the Big Two and because many don’t truly have an ideological inclination and may want to free themselves of partisanship. And while that’s fine for them, keeping party primaries within the family helps to ensure that the candidate the party nominates will best suit the party’s philosophy. Closing the primaries will bring out the strongest conservative Republicans to vote in the GOP primaries and, ultimately and unfortunately in my view at least, the most liberal Democrats out to the Democratic primaries. This will allow the parties, through the actions of their members, to filter out those who just don’t fit enough into the mold of the party, rather than allow outsiders to infiltrate or sway the party from its roots.

If the opinion I have just stated seems harsh, let’s look at it a different way. I am a registered Republican and I support Mitt Romney to be our next president. I want to ensure that he receives the full strength of my vote. Now New Hampshire, a modified primary state, voted for John McCain, arguably the most liberal candidate in the Republican field, 37-32 percent over Romney in their Republican presidential primary held on January 8. And while McCain was the legal victor of that first in the nation primary, if we examine the facts, CNN exit polls show that only 61 percent of Granite State Republican primary goers identified as Republicans. Among the Republicans, it was Romney who actually got the highest percentage, albeit a difference of one percent, over McCain, receiving 35 percent of the Republican vote. It was the 37 percent independent vote which I believe cost Romney in New Hampshire, as they voted a 40 percent plurality for McCain, just 27 percent for Romney. So – regardless of the fact that I live in Connecticut, a closed primary state – was this result fair to the real New Hampshire Republicans? No, as it was the independents, many of those with arguably weak ideological inclinations – not the conservative Republicans – who tipped the scales in favor of the maverick McCain.

Despite the unfairness to actual party members, some independent voters may whine that closed primaries are liken to disenfranchisement, in the sense that not being allowed to vote in a primary contradicts their right to be an independently minded voter. However, I must argue with them on the same basic grounds: Independent means independent, not a member of a political party. Thus, independents have just about as much fundamental right to vote in a party primary as I, a Connecticut resident, have a right to vote for the governor of Tennessee. If you wish to participate in the activities of a party, you ought to enroll in it before you partake. Being independent confers no rights or privileges to engage in the voting processes of established parties.

Folks, when it comes down to it all, you really register with a party for three main reasons: identification, if you want to run for an office, and/or the ability – ultimately granted to you by the party, not the government – to participate in primary elections. There is no legal decree which makes the Republican and Democratic Parties the official parties of the United States; their longstanding presence in the American political process, although widely accepted as the dominant forces in it, is de facto. Hence, there exists no Constitutional grounds to undermine the freedom of willful association. Government oversight of party primaries exists only because candidates are ultimately competing for elected governmental positions and the government is playing its necessary role in enforcing established rules regarding elections and the electoral processes. After all, once the primaries are over, the American people – Republicans, Democrats, what have you – will all vote to make the final decision of who is the ultimately elected candidate.

But when it comes down to primaries, keeping the participants within the party allows for the best implantation of the party’s goals via the selection of the best candidates to compete in general elections. This is in no way a concerted effort to disenfranchise independently minded voters, but rather means to prevent the gradual disenfranchisement of the members of political parties in their own nominating contests.

© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

'True Strength for America's Future': Mitt Romney for President

(Also released as a press release on Captain Justin’s Page N’at)

When I first began to see the slate of Republicans hoping to become the next leader of the free world emerge, I never would have thought that I would find difficulty in selecting the one that I wanted to get behind. Although there’s something I like about each one of our candidates – as well as something to which I take issue with – and although I’ve been through a few frontrunners for my personal endorsement, when it came down to it all, it required much more thinking and assessing than I had initially believed.

It is with that careful thinking and rational assessing that I am today announcing my support for former Governor Mitt Romney, the 70th Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for the next President of the United States.

Although Romney had been the preliminary frontrunner for my support, the decision to officially endorse him was made fairly recently. I had liked former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson since he officially declared his candidacy this past September – and I still do – however, his falling poll numbers and not as fierce of a campaign as I would have liked to see out of him ultimately played roles in my final decision. Combined with the endorsement of National Review, the conservative biweekly political opinion magazine, going to Romney, [Read National Review's endorsement] I was inclined to give Romney a second look, which led to this endorsement soon after.

I spent a few days of late December researching Romney and the issues most important to his campaign, finding many which I thought were good ideas. Highlights of his vision for America include, in no particular order:

• Supporting a required Congressional supermajority of three-fifths for any proposals to increase taxes;
  
• Proposing new, tougher penalties for first-time sex offenders who use the Internet to offend children, which would include implementing strict, mandated sentences and lifetime GPS tracking, calling it “One strike and your ours”;
  
• Supporting giving the president the power of line-item veto so they would have the ability to remove unnecessary elements in spending bills, thereby reducing frivolous spending on items of waste;
  
• Encouraging legal immigration to allow the world’s best and brightest a shot at the American Dream, while cracking down on illegal immigration by securing the boarder, punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals, creating a reliable employer verification system, and punishing sanctuary cities by cutting their federal funding for not allowing immigration laws to be enforced;
  
• Supporting free market solutions to healthcare issues not by creating a bureaucratic socialistic national healthcare plan, but by reducing burdensome overregulation of the industry, promoting private insurance options, and using money already allocated to paying for the healthcare of those who are uninsured due to their inability to pay to assist them in obtaining reliable private insurance;
  
• Eliminating as many abortions as possible by supporting the issue returning to the state level while at the same time promoting a culture of life to help the U.S. attain the greater goal of eliminating the issue altogether and supporting laws that lead to it;
  
• Believing in a stable Iraq before the U.S. departs, opposing a “date for surrender,” understanding that a success in this front of the War on Terror is vital to U.S. security interests, and supporting the surge strategy;
  
• Supporting preventative homeland security measures to avert attacks before they occur;
  
• Appointing justices who interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it to serve a special interest;
  
• Increasing military forces by 100,000 troops and increasing defense spending to four percent of the GDP;
  
• Supporting an amendment to preserve marriage for one man and one woman;
  
• Combating jihadists by supporting moderate Muslims;
  
• Supporting school choice;
  
• Supporting performance-based pay for teachers; and
  
• Supporting, proposing, and believing in many other issues important of today’s America.

I am aware of Romney’s past support of some issues of social policy which I oppose, although I believe that his reformations on these positions are genuine, not calculated, fraudulent attempts at getting the vote of the base. [Watch YouTube video on Romney becoming pro-life] Romney has now found himself and believes in what he professes; I would not offer him my endorsement if I suspected that he would revert. Unlike liberal contender Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), who often tends to form positions based on whatever is the popular thing to do (and at that particular period in time) without any true conviction, rationality, or credibility, Romney now has a far clearer vision of right and wrong. He deserves to be saluted for seeing the light, not criticized for amending his views in the correct direction.

The 2008 Presidential Election will be an important one, one that will determine the direction of America for the next four or eight years and shape the future of the nation for many years beyond. Taking this into account, I believe staunchly that all Republicans in this race are infinitely better that their Democratic polar opposites, and I will support the eventual GOP victor to the fullest. However, among a field of commendable men, only one will rise to become the Republican nominee and go head-to-head against a threat to change America as we know it. In my opinion, that one is Mitt Romney.

My endorsement is a vote for Romney, and although it may be a clichéd statement, is not a vote against any other Republican in this race. It is, however, a vote against the defunding of the war in Iraq, the punishment of success and prosperity, the creation of endless entitlements and dependencies on your tax dollar, and the compromising of the physical, moral, and economic security of the nation: the agenda of the modern Democratic Party.

With the aforementioned in mind, I fully declare my intention to support Mitt Romney when Connecticut holds its 2008 Presidential Primary on February 5, 2008. Should the necessary number of fellow Republicans agree with me, I look forward to seeing his name on the ballot in November.

For further information on Mitt Romney and his campaign, visit www.mittromney.com.

© 2008 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

The Lights are On for Jesus

Why do so many people like to decorate their houses with festive lights and displays this time of year?

This past Monday evening, I went down to the Green in the center of Milford, Connecticut to take some time exposure pictures of the trees all lit up for the Christmas season. After taking several shots of some trees lit with white and colored lights, I walked over to take a few photos of a Nativity display that was there also. There, at the bottom right of the display, read a plaque with golden lettering which informed observers of the miniaturized recreation of the birth of Christ that the "display [was] provided by the Hyatt family and not erected, maintained or sponsored by the city of Milford." The fact that the city had to put up such a plaque to pander to an ever-pettifogging politically correct society was, in my mind, ridiculous. I took a photo of the plaque just for my own sense of disagreement, then resumed taking pictures of lighted trees.

Sure, compared to the ever-growing number of municipalities being against any display of Christianity on public land or with anything associated with a government entity, the Nativity display on the Milford Green is a cause for celebration. But why must we deny that our heritage and traditions identify ours as a Christian nation? There is no requirement - nor should there be a requirement - that Americans must follow Christianity, but we must not deny that the word of God is in the blood of the nation. We must not allow ACLU-types to infringe upon our Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion and trample upon the Christmas spirit in the name of equality, tolerance, and diversity.

What rational and non-discriminatory individual would be offended by seeing a religious display that was not associated with their faith? I am not Jewish, but I have absolutely no problem whenever I come across a menorah. In fact, I am happy to see Jews not afraid of expressing their religious faith. It is in my opinion that regardless of one's particular religious denomination, religious individuals are generally not bothered by the display of others' religion, and that the majority of those who do not tolerate expressions of religious faith are themselves without one to cling to.

Not long after I finished taking photos of the illuminated trees on the Green, I came to a simple conclusion: The lights do not shine for the sake of shining, nor do they glow for just another glorious winter evening. The lights are on for Jesus. Whether ACLU-types would like to admit it or not, Christ is the reason for this season.

Regardless of weather you recognize December 25 as the birthday of the savior of the world, or simply as the fourth Tuesday of December 2007, fail not to remember that the day holds meaning for many.

Merry Christmas!

(Top photo: The Milford Nativity scene discussed within [note the location of the "disclaimer" plaque]; bottom photo: Two lit trees next to a sign displaying notable Milfordites of the past.)

© 2007 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.

All Seriousness Lost With CNN/YouTube Debates

(Note: This post was never meant to be here. But without it, this blog might not ever be here. You see, this post I originally wrote to be a comment on a YouTube video which featured a man playing a guitar and singing a song about all the Republican candidates. A relatively harmless tune. The only problem was that the video song was the way the CNN/YouTube debate actually began its broadcast to millions of viewers nationwide, which, although I only saw clips and not the live broadcast, I thought took away from the serious nature of the debate. So I opined on the subject, typing in a Microsoft Word document what I thought to be a poignant comment to place on the YouTube version of the video. The only problem was that YouTube had a 500-character limit on comments! Thus, I had to dissect and hack apart what I wrote in order to meet YouTube’s length limitation. Still, I thought, why be forced to have to let what I had originally written go unpublished and unseen by man? The below then became the first post at A Forum for Freedom.)

Folks, whatever happened to the seriousness of the highest office in the land? While I admit that I did not watch the CNN/YouTube GOP debate yesterday, I feel it necessary to voice my opinion on this matter. I believe that the uploaders of the videos are likely to have little to no true political knowledge. The only thing required to post a video for the debate is an Internet connection. How many of the folks who posted videos for the debate did it in a serious and dignified manner so as to bring credit to themselves and to their inquiry? How many really understand the seriousness of politics and know of the Great Conservative-Liberal Divide? I believe in real people asking real questions, such as at a town hall-style debate, not in a video debate where those who ask the questions need not speak directly to candidates and instead hide behind their computer screens or ask questions that are either silly or conducted in a silly nature in order to attract attention.

Would Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, or Reagan ever appear for such a foolish debate? With CNN/YouTube having conducted both a Democratic and Republican debate, the next leader of the free world did. I don’t care much for these candidates – especially the Republicans, the more serious political party – pandering to the tech-generation with a YouTube debate and profiles on MySpace and other social networking websites. It hurts credibility. I believe all Americans of age should be involved in the political process, but I don’t believe in candidate pandering to any demographic or voting block. It’s issues of national importance that make or break elections and truly matter, not demographic specific ones.

In listening to talk radio today I was able to assess that the Republicans did as good as they could under the circumstances, which I also believe were manipulated by CNN to make the Republicans appear false and to bring on discredit by those not politically savvy enough to decode this agenda by an anti-conservative network. That being said, the Democrats still remain in opposition to appearing on a Fox News debate because they know that they’ll have to answer real questions from real journalists who won’t hand them a cakewalk or spin the questions or responses, as well as knowing that by appearing they would give “credibility” to a news network they oppose because it is fair and not a left-wing home base they feel comfortable in.

YouTube, although full of its share of crazies in both political and non-political aspects, can be a fun place to view and share videos. However, it’s time for America to be America again, and it’s time to bring back the seriousness to the process to determine who will occupy the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

© 2007 Justin Margeson for A Forum for Freedom. All rights reserved.