Posted on 01/23/2006 5:51:10 AM PST by mr_hammer
Farewell to the GOP, for now at least!
January 21, 2006
To: RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman
Subject: The return of my 2006 RNC Membership Card
It is with deep regret that I find myself writing this letter to you.
I did in fact receive my 2006 RNC Membership Card. I will not be renewing my membership and I am returning the card to you. If you care about the why, then please read this entire letter.
When I pulled the lever for our current President in the elections of 2000 and 2004, this is what I thought I was voting for.
Limited Government
I am at odds with certain aspects of the Patriot Act with regards to the access of all types of records and data that may be private and none of this governments business.
Very appalling also is the attempt of this government to access Google’s database.
Don’t bring the War on Terror into this, you had all the info in the world to nail the 911 hijackers, but the size of the bureaucracy prevented this government from doing so.
Equally disappointing is the bungling of communication that occurred during Katrina. I am not holding the Federal Government responsible for the suffering, but I am making the point that the more you grow the federal Government the less it will actually be able to accomplish.
A Reduction of Taxes and Simplification of the Tax Code
Although some progress has been made on tax relief overall the tax code as we know it is a mess. Let’s move to the “Fair Tax” specified by Congressman Linder and Libertarian Neil Boortz. This will go along way in helping remove the lobbyist influence over our tax code in addition to trapping a lot of currently uncollected revenue.
Giving in to the WTO with regards to expiring export taxes is a joke. What happened to a level playing field? How can the exporters of domestic services and goods compete when you tie their hands behind their backs? How can you encourage investment state side with policies like that?
Adherence to the US Constitution and Working to Up Hold it’s Values!
U.S. Constitution Excerpt
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The campaign finance law passed under this administration was an direct assault to our Constitution. This must be reviewed and repealed.
U.S. Constitution Excerpt
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
The illegal immigration problem is at critical mass, but our President refuses to act forcefully in concurrence with our Constitution.
U.S. Constitution Excerpt
Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
No greater assault on the Constitution and the ownership of private property can be seen than the Kelo decision. Where is the outrage from our supposedly Conservative controlled congress and Senate about this horrendous decision? What about the “Ownership Society” that is so often talked about in the halls of Washington? I cannot even convey the utter disappointment I feel over this.
A Strong Military
I do support the President on Afghanistan and Iraq, but do not support more butter than guns. Being able to afford a couple of hundred state of the art fighter’s is a far cry from where President Ronald Reagan had us a mere 20 years ago.
The Economy
Please, let’s not even go there. The only thing that kept things pointed in what appears to be the correct direction is Alan and the printing press. You want proof? Look at the price of gold and energy; they are the “real” international currency, not the dollar. The current administration and the previous one of Clinton did and are still living off of the economy and military of a real Conservative!
In closing, yes the Administration has done a good job in the Middle East and twenty years from now will probably be seen as a brilliant move in bring democracy there. I just hope we will be as free here at home.
If you need money to fund your mid term elections I suggest you go talk to the people the listed organizations below, because they seem to know what a Conservative should stand for. They are also getting all of my available funds in the future that is if the RNC does not change course.
Minute Man Project
The Gun Owners of America
Aopa
The NRA
Congressman Tancrado
United States Senate Candidate, John Mitchel (To replace the “RINO” Dewine)
Ohio State Gubernatorial Candidate, Kenneth Blackwell
National Right to Life Association
Free Republic.com
P.S. This may not be fact, but it is how I feel. You guys on the hill do not give a rat’s arse about the Constitution or the Son’s or Daughter’s of this Nation. The only thing that seems to matter is the amount of cash that can be jammed in the coffers and pleasing the Socialist One Worlder’s and I for one am sick of it.
Here's how - assume these smaller figures to make the point:
election results:
JFKerry - 99 votes
GWBush - 101 votes - Bush wins by 2 votes.
3 Republicans decide they don't like Bush, so they vote for the Libertarian candidate instead.
Now:
JFKerry - 99 votes
GW Bush - 98 votes
Libertarian candidate - 3 votes - JFKerry wins by 1 vote.
Those 3 dissatisfied Republicans just gave the election to Kerry.
Multiply those 3 by enough voters and it could change the outcome of an election.
While the dissatisfied Republicans didn't "add" to the Kerry total, they "subtracted from the Bush total - giving the same result as if you "added" to Kerry's total.
My logic is not flawed - you're arguing semantics - subtracted or added, the result is the same, a changed election.
And we have the United Nations, but if you really want to see the sparks fly on FR, just try suggesting that we (the U.S.) get out of the U.N.
Sooo many FReepers like the U.N., and woe be unto those who say anything bad about it.
I surmise you simply wake up in the morning and look outside to see what the forces of evil have accomplished last night, then squeeze out some more toothpaste. I, for one, am simply not going to stand by and allow our Constitution to be trashed.
That's interesting since your entire rant was based on idealogical concerns. Conservatism and liberalism are idealogical philosophies. But in any case, I was simply asking you a question about your 2004 vote for a man you say let you down completely. So far, you have totally evaded the question. Perhaps your rant needed a bit of work before posting....?
Read the rant! It's quite simple.
I did. Read my question. It's quite simple.
I for one will be the thing that WON'T LEAVE..
The uninvited house guest, the stink in the living room..
Even if I say nothing they can smell me.. with garlic breath to boot..
See ya.. Only thing better than me to keep them honest is a whole bunch of ME's.. Fouling the very air they breathe.. I know I'm mean, a mean spirited republican.. I hate RINOs so much, I talk to them.. and breathe heavily on them..
Suggest a re-think..
Nothing wrong with the suggestion. After all, Americans refused to join the League of Nations, and I guess no harm came from that......
But I'm not an apologist for the United Nations. It is in complete disarray and requires major surgery. My reality however is that as long as we are in it for the long haul, let's fix it. Others would move us out of the UN and disband all treaties and agreements we have entered into over the past hundred years or so.
I surmise you simply wake up in the morning and look outside to see what the forces of evil have accomplished last night, then squeeze out some more toothpaste. I, for one, am simply not going to stand by and allow our Constitution to be trashed.
First, try and make your argument without attempting to denigrate the opposition. It doesn't work with me. I just get cantankerous too. Second, other than broad statements about trashing the Constitution, I'm not sure how to respond. I asked you some questions earlier about your more serious charges about CAFTA, but got no answer. Hopefully this will emanate into a two way conversation.
My point exactly, candidate kerry has exactly the same number of votes regardless.
Your logical flaw lies in the assumption that the "3 votes" that were cast for the libertarian candidate were actually taken away from bush. In other words you are suggesting that bush, or whatever candidate you are talking about, actually has a pool of votes that are committed based on party.
It's a common misconception, I have heard the same arguments from democrats stating that a vote for nader was the same as a vote for bush, yada yada, yada.
The argument is made often that perot cost bush1 and dole their respective elections. This is incorrect. Both candidates lost because the majority of votes in the race went to another candidate. In reality both were very poor candidates.
The concept is quite simple.
Each vote must be earned, not taken for granted.
It's only been 60 years since the U.N. was formed.
Look, I know the strategy; if I start to try to explain how CAFTA and others denigrate our sovreignty, you will come back with a rejoinder, which in your mind at least, will mean that you have successfully countered my argument.
If you didn't like my earlier examples of how it and others will destroy our sovreignty, perhaps you should try to understand why I think they do. To wit; any multi-national agreement (treaty) that sets some non-accountable agency above our own Senate, House, Executive Branch, and Judiciary, will, in my book, detract from our national sovreignty.
And it has already happened. The WTO effectively dictates our domestic farm policy. NAFTA has interceded in our ability to make trade agreements, and since I and other FReepers made reference many times to the CAFTA will exacerbate the illegal immigration issue, I don't know why you still have trouble seeing the loss of our sovreignty.
And, as I have already posted; the FTAA is "trade" agreements on steroids. (Actually, it is more about control than trade, but I have said that many times as well.)
I do agree with that, what is happenning with the Republican Party could almost be taken directly from Mr. Hayek's essay, "Why I am not a conservative," in which he explains how conservatives, since they have no real principles of their own (other than retaining some sort of status quo) are inevitably dragged gradually to the left, and to acceptance of greater and greater control of government over our lives.
It's almost Tolkienesque in its aspect of a "long slow defeat," in which brave battles may be fought and sometimes won, but in which the world will change nonetheless, and what once was, will never be again.
I think such a view is a fairly accurate representation of our current situation, it's hard for me to imagine that there is much sentiment in the modern USA for a return to limited government, to a country where one makes his own choices and lives with them without government help or interference. There's even a limit here on FR to sentiment for such a thing .
Meanwhile, I haven't noticed any politicians outside of the 2 main parties who are serious enough to warrant a vote. I could be mistaken about this.
There, in a nutshell, is one of our most compelling arguments.
Thanks, WhiteGuy.
It's not "bad enough" yet. See 50/50 DEM/GOP split in national elections and tendency of both parties to increase government influence in society. Makes a darn good reality show though.
As for the flaming and exchanges on this thread, I give a grade of C-. I've seen FR lots more entertaining than this, and I'm sure it'll get back up to speed as the election draws closer.
You are most welcome.
However to be fair, this fact is too obvious to take any real credit for.
Too "obvious", eh?
Then why are we doing all this arguing here? The thread started out as a rant by someone else, then some others of us chimed in, but I don't see much consensus around here, such as might happen if the facts were obvious to everyone.
At least you know why the rant, WG, but not everyone does.
I'm sure Mr. Mehlman cares as much about this cr*p as I do.
Good point, so many refuse to see..............
What I said was..."and disband all treaties and agreements we have entered into over the past hundred years. They had nothing to do with the UN.
Look, I know the strategy; if I start to try to explain how CAFTA and others denigrate our sovreignty, you will come back with a rejoinder, which in your mind at least, will mean that you have successfully countered my argument.
I simply asked you for the references to the sovereignty and constitutional claims you made. I didn't even argue the point, just ask for a clarification. It's very similar to the global warming enthusiasts. They make a statement about such and such leading to warming, but when asked for references, somehow never have them.
If you didn't like my earlier examples of how it and others will destroy our sovreignty, perhaps you should try to understand why I think they do. To wit; any multi-national agreement (treaty) that sets some non-accountable agency above our own Senate, House, Executive Branch, and Judiciary, will, in my book, detract from our national sovreignty.
I've heard that. But since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, no agreement can supercede it. Nor can any agreement withstand abrogation by Congress or the judiciary if such agreement is not constitutional.
Any agreement is simply as good as the willingness of the parties to honor it. And all agreements are generally made to benefit all signatories, and generally require something from each.
The WTO effectively dictates our domestic farm policy.
It can do nothing we do not consent to. Nor can NAFTA.
All that and more, in 2008. It's hard to predict which posts will trigger the better flame wars - even though the list of "hot subjects" is predictable. Once in awhile there are some surprize subjects, e.g., Schiavo and Miers of recent. The Grey Davis ouster and naming of a GOP candidate was another.
Good blast from the past, that thread you linked. Thanks - I got a kick out of it - don't recall seeing it before, but have heard references to JR's past "anti-Bush" sentiment (and I recall seeing him "take it back" later, too).
Compelling would not be my choice of descriptors. Silly comes to mind. Had Perot not blathered his way to 19% of the vote, more than 90% of those who had voted for him would have voted for Bush. About 10% would have either sat it out or voted for Clinton. As for the 2000 election, those who voted Green would have voted for Gore not Bush if Nader did not run as effectively as he did. Gore would have won the election.
So those who talk of moving to the Constitution Party will simply be putting Hillary in the White House if you are successful in your campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.