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

[68 grunt]

...if you agree with, him adios! We don't need fifth columnist...

No, we don't need another fifth columnist. You and some of your pals are doing wonderfully. Divide and conquer. Kull the herd. Disgust the open-minded. Separate this group from that group. Pit them against each other, watch them leave in droves. Dang fine good, gramps.

[Skooz]

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.

Exactly. You said it better than I did. Such actions only empower the RINOs and assure Dem victories.

[hchutch]

If I were the President, I'd do that for one or two seats on the Sixth Circuit, which has a dire emergency (half the seats are vacant in that circuit), but in general, such a move would only solve things for the short-term, and it could only be a rallying point for the opposition, which seems to be in as much disarray as we are, probably more.

For the most part, it is better to get a GOP Senate elected, which will get the nominees to the floor. Recess appointments would be like putting a band-aid on malignant melanoma.

The only answer that will work in the long term is to get a GOP Senate. The recess appointment was meant for situations like Otto Reich's, where the post NEEDS to be filled ASAP. The situation in the Sixth Cirucit calls for it. Pickering, I will admit, is of more use to our side as a political weapon against Senators like Max Cleland, Mary Landrieu, and Democrats at the present.

I don't like it, but we have to get the Senate back.

[Poohbah]

OK, I give up. I thought I was having a conversation with a sane person who had an IQ higher than that of a turnip. My mistake...

[Darth Sidious]

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

If very few in office have the true humility required to serve, then that's our fault.

We keep accepting by the shovelful the smooth-talkers and slick-promisers. For the very most part we refuse to question who is put before us by the party bigwigs. In the power economy that most Americans embrace, the parties hold the power: they decide the "leaders" with nearly total control.

I'm all for leaving them behind. Tell both major parties to go straight to Hell. We choose to remove ourselves from the stagnancy that the "power paradigm" is dragging us into. No one can affect you, if you freely choose on your own that they will not have power over you.

That's the source of much of the vitriole on FR: some people are upset that others are taking themselves out of that sphere of influence.

Someday, Lord willing, those so blinded will have the scales fall from their eyes, and see that there is more to this life than the petty pursuit of power. Until then, I and others shall sit above them, and chuckle aloud in witnessing the futility of their obsession.

[AmishDude]

You're still a nice guy. But if you act nice, then you don't get any replies. They just gloss right over you. I spend all this time on a post and only got one hostile reply. I must be losing my touch. :)

[gunshy]

Simple mind, simple life.

[Howlin]

These ARE your words, aren't they?

Colonel, you've already got a lot of snide comments about "nobody cares" and "you're now irrelevant", etc.

I don't have to reiterate, that you're far more principled than the people are who say those things. You, Colonel, you have your own identity. People like those others have to peg theirs on something as petty as collective might. On their own, they are spiritually impotent.

Nobody else typed that, did they? How is that putting words in your mouth?

My statements were in discussion of anyone who ascribes party identity as their own.

But you are implying that anybody who disagrees with the Colonel IS a person who defines themself as the party and the party alone.

I disagree with much of what he said; so, according to what you wrote, that would make me defining myself by the party identity, and, again according to you, unprincipled.

Sorry, but I think for myself. If you choose to believe that the opinions I have are flash faxed to me from RNC headquarters, that's your problem, but you surely aren't giving me much credit for my own intelligence.

[uncbob]

I think 99% of politicians are only interested in getting elected then re-elected and nothing more.

Once you realize that you won't be as disappointed

Mad but not disappointed

Next lesson and most important one

Politicians have NO CORE beliefs or principles and the Constitution means NOTHING to them . Any oaths they swear mean NOTHING
They respond to ONE thing and ONE thing only .
PRESSURE from strong lobbies who control the contributions or the votes

[Ward Smythe]

These grand goodbye opuses never turn out the way people want them to.

That's because nobody serves snacks. What's a party without snacks? When I give my opus, I'll at least throw in some bean dip and chips. Maybe some cheese.

[hchutch]

Well, the fact is you cannot advance your political principles unless you have power in the political arena.

Like it or not, that's the way it is. I'm not a fan of those rules, but to protect my principles, I will play by them. A principled loser is still a loser.

You can't score points if you're not on the field.

[Howlin]

I thought I was, too. Hey, I'm even making teeshirt transfers for my grandkids!

[Lazamataz]

Simple mind, simple life.

A point amply proven by your one line 6th-grade-level comments.

Why don't you go tell someone else 'Up yours', like you like to do.

[68 grunt]

Dang fine good, gramps. = Dang fine job, gramps.

[AmishDude]

there is more to this life than the petty pursuit of power

Power is there. If we don't have it, the enemy will. And the enemy will not hesitate to grow it and wield it -- against us.

I don't want to seem trite, but there is a further Lord of the Rings analogy here which you may appreciate. But only at your request.

[Skooz]

I would like to add to your excellent post, but the RNC hasn't downloaded my opinion into my brain yet. I cannot respond until they tell me what to think, but my connection is real slow this morning.....darn 56k dialup!

[Don Myers]

"Some gop varmit actually said this after they passed the semi-auto weapon ban."

Yes, these people just don't have a clue.

[Sabertooth]

Take the anmesty debate going on now. The 245(i) extension was more or less a way to acquire ammo to use on the Democrats. Right now, you have a former member of the Ku Klux Klan that is blocking this measure, along with the host of border and visa security measures that the GOP wants.

How is giving Robert Byrd the ammo to block the important border and security measures a smart thing?

Why hold the rest of the bill hostage to a limited Amnesty that most Americans would oppose if they knew about it? If you doubt that most would oppose it, why was it done at the last minute with all of the attempted secrecy?

Who do you suppose flooded the Capitol with phone calls and e-mails opposing the 245(i) extension... a few malcontents on FR?

Where was the grassroots groundswell favoring Amnesty?

President Bush has created unnecessary division in the GOP that I think you seriously underestimate. How do you keep believing this as politically shrewd?

Do you really believe the division not Bush's fault?

[Skooz]

LOL!

Yeah, maybe I'll make mine a grand party catered by Savoie's (a very fine local restaraunt/catering service). You'll ask me to leave and leave again.

[Darth Sidious]

Power is there. If we don't have it, the enemy will. And the enemy will not hesitate to grow it and wield it -- against us.

And then we have power, and will become an enemy ourselves.

I don't want to seem trite, but there is a further Lord of the Rings analogy here which you may appreciate. But only at your request.

Kindly indulge me. 'Cuz all I can make out so far is Boromir's belief that if his side had the power, and used it against the Enemy, then everything would be hunky-dory.

Only the very wise, or the very simple, can hold on to power and expect to survive. I see neither in either party.