One Less Republican in Camp

Sierra Times ^ | 3-29-02 | Colonel Dan

[oursacredhonor]

I can no longer tolerate the GOP's disgraceful lack of principle and outright hypocrisy. I have therefore officially resigned from the Republican Party. Here's why.

Life is a balance scale of choices and few choices consist of all positive or all negative factors. Most are a combination that we must weigh and then make our choice.

Such is my case with the GOP. On the positive side, Bush brought personal morality back to the White House, has been an effective war time President and for now, has slowed the all out assault on the II Amendment. For this, I applaud him and his team.

However, the negative side of the Republican scale is heavily weighed down by serious failures to stand firm on principle, serious dereliction of duty and hypocrisy.

Although my voter registration card indicated Republican, I am much more of an independent Constitutionalist. I could have "un-registered" numerous times and aligned my voter card with my ideology but I just delayed getting around to it.

I delayed in 1995 when the GOP took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and we heard bold promises of change. Despite the rhetoric about smaller government and replacing the income tax, government expanded and income taxes became even more complex!

I delayed resigning again when a Republican was elected president but look what happened.

A Republican education bill increased funding 11% for the unconstitutional Department of Indoctrination, a.k.a. Department of Education.

A Republican president signed the USA/Patriot Act after it passed the Senate 98-1, and the House 356-66, giving government the power to install the carnivore e-mail snooping system without a court warrant.

Under a Republican administration, airport security was federalized and Gestapo-like screening tactics implemented.

Bush told the world we would go after terrorists wherever they were, yet we pressure Israel for restraint in battling terrorism in their own backyard. That's tremendously hypocritical. Then on 14 March our Republican president committed 5 billion of your tax dollars to the war on global poverty—an international version of Lyndon Johnson socialism. The final burr under my saddle was the GOP disregard for the Constitution in two major ways: Ongoing failure to secure our borders and Campaign Finance Reform.

This Republican administration has failed to effectively enhance border security even after 9.11. Recently, it even prevented the National Guardsmen patrolling that border from being adequately armed because they wanted to avoid sending an "undiplomatic message" to Mexico and Canada. This violates government's constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and sending soldiers on a security mission unarmed is totally unforgivable!

Such neglect clearly says that America's security, even in light of 9.11, takes a back seat to the potential benefits gained from political pandering. That's dereliction of duty bordering on criminal negligence in my book.

Campaign Finance Reform passed both houses and Bush signed it even though it's "flawed in some areas" as he said.

Yes sir Mr. President it sure is flawed! Besides not complying with any of the principles you specified in a letter to Trent Lott, it clearly violates the Constitution you swore an oath to uphold. So why then did you sign it?

Our Constitution was clearly subordinated to political expediency and this "new tone" of yours. 'Politics over Principle' is standard operating procedure with the Democrats but it's also clear that's the theme and substance of this "new tone" as well. 'Go along to get along and to hell with the Constitution' is the same old tone we've seen in Washington for years Mr. President—there's nothing "new" here.

Despite how the Supreme Court may finally rule on Campaign Finance Reform or how our border situation ultimately turns out, when those sworn to uphold our Constitution can't be trusted to do so, it tells me a lot about them and we've been cautioned about such folks:

"If you can trust a man in little things, you can also trust him in greater; while anyone unjust in a slight matter is also unjust in greater." ~ Luke 16:10 ~

Although their rhetoric proclaims more freedom and less government, facts clearly show the GOP isn't really interested in standing firm in defense of and preserving America's constitutional principles—period. As most now realize about our major parties, the Republicans are nothing more than miniature Democrats. While the Democrats are clearly "SOCIALISTS", the Republicans are merely "socialists."

Don't take this as surrender or dropping out on my part. I'll remain decisively engaged and fight for the principles of colonial traditionalism through my writing. After all, I'm still 100% American and a son of my colonial forefathers. I'll just not be officially registered as a member of any party where principles and the Constitution are so easily ignored, blatantly stepped on and repeatedly compromised.

I can accept compromise on style [technique] but I can't accept compromise on principle and our Constitution is the very foundation of America's most basic principles.

As Thomas Jefferson put it, "In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

With extremely rare exception, the Republicans never stand like rocks on anything and are thus untrustworthy guardians of America's principles.

Personally, I don't care for any party, Republican or otherwise, where principle is negotiable, lip service is paid to the Constitution, sacred oaths are ignored, and America's security is bargained away. If that means I'm "party-less" and remain an independent irritant in the side of all politicos, so be it. As a "gun slinging columnist", that's probably as it should be anyway.

I've had my fill of disingenuous politicians, ulterior motives, incremental socialism, sacred duties neglected, constitutionality ignored and sworn oaths brushed aside.

The GOP has violated my trust for the last time. Since I will always choose Christ's teachings and Jefferson's wisdom over political hypocrisy and lack of principle, there is now one less Republican in camp.

Note: This isn't intended to persuade anyone to follow me out of camp. This is….

Just the view from my saddle…

The Colonel

DON'T TREAD ON ME

[Skooz]

Amen!

[AmishDude]

IIRC, recess appointments are only for executive branch assignments, not the judiciary.

[southernnorthcarolina]

You can almost tell where one of these screeds is headed when there's a basic error of grammar in the headline. If there's going to be one fewer Republican, I'm glad it will be this dude, who's about two tacos short of a combination plate.

Always, and I mean always, these melodramatic leave-takings are written by those who were never on the team to begin with. The recap of his near-departures reminds me of a 6 year old kid threatening to run away from home, and yet hoping that Mom will try to stop him.

6-year-old Dan: "I'm leaving now, and I'm not coming back!"

Mom: "Don't you want lunch before you leave?"

Dan: "Okay, I'm really leaving now!"

Mom: "Better take a sweater with you."

Dan: "All right, I'm really, really leaving now! Don't try to stop me!"

Mom: "Don't forget to write."

Somehow, I think the GOP can survive this grievous loss. And Dan can go back to his silly vanity internet column. A happy ending for everyone!

[Lazamataz]

Another award winning rational thought, bravo. When are you going to publish a book listing all these gems of original thought?

Why bother? I can piss off people like you right here.

So my needs are met already.

[Darth Sidious]

Everything you just wrote about is focused on taking power, not on serving others.

The Republicans want power. Bush wants power. Their supporters and followers, in one way or another, want power.

They lack the gumption to ask themselves if they deserve power.

So I'll ask aloud: do the Republicans deserve to be in power? Do the Democrats? Did Bush or Gore deserve to have such power?

They and their followers will be quick with an answer in the affirmative. But they are so consumed with the accumulation of power, they can not examine themselves as to whether their identities are worth being entrusted with power.

As long as the Republicans continue to crave power, without a sincere desire to serve, then it really matters not that the Democrats have the Senate, or that "conservative" judges will be squeezed out of the system, whatever.

Is there anyone at all in this place that's looking for something above the meaninglessness of power?

[Clara Lou]

Thanks for posting the comments by TexasForever. I hadn't seen them.

[Poohbah]

More recent experience trumps the experience of 1980. And conservatives generally expect to be given everything from the GOP by Divine Right, and will "punish" the GOP if the majority of the GOP disagrees with them.

Your ilk do a fine job of scaring off more moderate conservatives and centrists--based on your tendency to "punish" the GOP when they don't deliever 110% of your specification, most folks view your faction as being likely to write laws forbid anything that isn't compulsory. If your stripe of conservative made up a 50% +1 majority of all likely voters in America, this would not be an issue. Unfortunately, you don't.

Third party candidates do nothing but allow you to feel good as the Left gets a free pass to execute their agenda without your interference.

[uncbob]

How else can he uphold and defend it, besides preventing unconstituional bills from becoming illegal laws? And possibly using the bully pulpit to cojole the other branches of the government into doing their part in protecting the Constitution.

And in the past SCOTUS has requested ( do your jobs you dumb asses ) that congress NOT fall into the practice of using the SCOTUS as a filter as to the constitutionality of laws they pass

[going hot]

No sarcasm intended, just how does one "serve" through enaction of legistation if they are out of power, politically speaking?

[68 grunt]

We might as well just close shop and dissolve the Republican Party.

That appears to be your goal. Laugh out loud if you like but I think it's rather pathetic.

[uncbob]

So all of you professional GW haters can rant and rave. This is going to the Supreme Court as it should.

Wrong . It should have been vetoed

Now time effort and $$$ that could have gone for campaigning will have to be expended in fighting this in the courts.

A plea was posted yesterday on this site for donations to help the court battle All you people that think not vetoing was such a great idea HOW MUCH YOU GONNA ANTE UP

[Howlin]

If we agree, fine, if not, that's ok too.

Well, I believe you've gotten to the heart of the problem; apparently it's NOT okay with we don't agree with them.

[Sci Fi Guy]

nobody yet here can refute or challenge the poster with substance, in concise, unemotional tones. its just the usual mudslinging; maybe folks are late for work and can only post a line and run. I don't know. I think it merits wider academic debate.

why bother? He has already surrendered. We have a 2 party system. And rather than working to make one of those parties more conservative(a never-ending task), he would rather quit and weaken the conservative voice in the Republican party.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I would neither worrry, nor waste time and bandwith, fretting therefore about third parties, if they have really no effect on the outcome. What's the big worry if conservatives 'walk' when they are fed up. They simply lose power, right?

[uncbob]

IIRC, recess appointments are only for executive branch assignments, not the judiciary.

Not according to what I have seen and heard but the pundits could be mistaken .
Anybody have any more facts on this

[Sabertooth]

These Bash Bush/Repulican post have increased in numbers over the past several days. (If I was paranoid I would think there was a group like the "seminar callers" that infected talk radio that have found a new tactic).

If this poster is serious, debate is not going to change his mind. If as I suspect, he is nothing more than a disrupter, debate is not going to change his mind.

So what is the point?

Thoughtful contemplation on the part of the Loyalists as to the cause of the division and strife?

I'm not leaving the GOP, but I understand much of the frustration of those like the Colonel... my own vote is now in play, rather than straight line Republican. Instead of greeting this news with derision, shouldn't the Loyalists consider a more prudent approach?

Or, after the closest Presidential election in American History, are you confident you have votes to spare?

[gitmo]

Right. Why choose the most inefficient method of filtering out illegal laws?

Gee, let's let it pollute our nation for a few years before the filter (Supreme Court) catches it.

[going hot]

So true.

It's actually entertaining when they hold their breath and throw a hissy fit. :-)

ps, gotta get to work, will check on this thread later.

[Skooz]

Yep. If we do not agree, we are unprincipled apologists in favor of tyranny.

Dang. This morning I thought I was a pretty nice guy.

[Ima Lurker]

While I agree with a lot of what you say, I still live in fear that a vote for an Independent is a vote for the Demonrats. So, even though I will rant and rave, I will continue to vote Republican. Frankly, I don't think a bunch of Independents in control would be any better than the other two parties. I think 99% of politicians are only interested in getting elected then re-elected and nothing more.