During President Barack Obama’s first term in office, the new president and his liberal allies in Congress faced severe criticism for back room legislating and lax governing. Republicans, too, shared the blame, as they were deemed incapable of being able to block the passage of these laws.

With the economy still going under and the disputed “necessity” of the wars abroad coming into focus, populist groups screamed louder against the growth of “big government,” and changed the face of Congress in the process in 2010.

Now Obama is faced with the harsh reality of his record as president. Republican rival Mitt Romney is leading the polls and the charge is that the president has allowed government to grow beyond its financial means and constitutional limits.

While this charge is correct,we must realize the blood is on all of their hands in Washington.

[quote]All advocates of liberty and small government would do well to research those they intend to vote for, and keep their eyes on them once they have made their way into office. It is painfully apparent that this country cannot afford to let elected officials do as they please.[/quote]

One of the greatest myths in American politics today is the assumption that the Republican party is the advocate of small government  conservatism. Akin to this is the assumption the Democratic party is the bastion of liberal big government.

The truth is they are two sides of the same coin, and the two parties have taken advantage of the limited choices Americans have in electing their governments.

Congressman Allen West (R-FL)  recently tweeted he would be voting in favor of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). West has been a local Tea Party favorite in the district, a self-proclaimed, small government conservative dedicated to preserving individual liberty and cutting spending.

But nothing about CISPA is in the least bit conservative. HR 3523’s provisions would allow sharing of information between the Federal Government and technology companies, effectively limiting online privacy and civil liberties.

Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan originally introduced this legislation and has defended it staunchly, claiming it to be vital to national security.

We’ve all heard this argument before, one that the Founders warned against when they framed the republic.

Trading our liberties for perceived securities of any kind, perhaps financial or defensive, undermines the American experiment of a strong nation where individuals take care of themselves and one another free of tyrannical restrictions.

Tea Party favorites are giving into the temptations of statist power. Florida Senator Marco Rubio recently came under scrutiny by former supporters after revealing a preference for a “muscular, robust foreign policy." A policy of policing the globe that comes at the expense of American taxpayers and the security of our armed forces.

West and Rubio are known supporters of the Patriot Act, SOPA and the NDAA — all measures that have allocated (or attempted to) additional power to the executive branch to peer into the private lives of American citizens under the guise of national security. West and Rubio would recover conservative support by repudiating their mistakes and denouncing further assaults on privacy.

The general election draws near. All advocates of liberty and small government would do well to research those they intend to vote for, and keep their eyes on them once they have made their way into office. It is painfully apparent that this country cannot afford to let elected officials do as they please.

Remember — they work for us.