Posted on 03/29/2002 5:48:42 AM PST by 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
That's how we have to think about some of this stuff, IMHO. We have to be willing to score runs however we can, and not wait for the three-run homer.
Opposing Amnesty in any form is not "waiting for a three-run homer." It's an applause line every time with the majority of Americans.
What will it take to convince you? Will you insist that we lose elections over it?
And if we do, if we don't get "the results Pataki got," whose fault is that?
1. I mentioned the Sixth Circuit. Put the three nominees who have been waiting the longest in as recess appointments. Make it clear that this is to address the emergency there because the Senate is not acting on these nominations.
2. Retaking the Senate would be much harder if the Dems can run attack ads that tell Mr. and Mrs. Six-Pack that "Republicans support corporate crooks who buy influence." Don't you remember the Mediscare campaign? I didn't think people would buy it. I was wrong, and I won't risk a similar attack ad campaign.
3. No. But there was very adverse polticial terrain post-Enron.
4. You haven't seen the number of editorials in major newspapers, stuff from the broadcast media, or the way the Dems would run attack ads this fall.
5. This bill isn't effective until the day after the 2002 election. It won't affect this election. Also, if you would read Congressman Billybob's posts, this bill is dead legislation walking, anyhow.
6. It has only angered those who don't understand how to play the political game. And it probably saved him from losing far more votes due to an attack ad campaign.
7. Yes. But the victory will be more permanent than one that would come from a veto. And it costs less than refuting millions of dollars in attack ads. The terrain is more favorable in court, as well.
8. From what I've heard it will be Common Cause doing most of the defending. DOJ is taking a back seat on this, and might not do that good a job defending the thing.
What will it take to convince you? Will you insist that we lose elections over it?
And if we do, if we don't get "the results Pataki got," whose fault is that?
Yep and that so-called "applause" line is being said by pork barreler racist democrat. Daschle is in a box and a wedge is being created.
But you are a "one issue" voter and will never see the forest for the trees.
As far as the things I don't like about the party, I have more of a voice from within than from without.
Is that the only qualifications the Pubbies are looking for....an "electable candidate"? Pretty low standards to shoot for, don't you think?
That's why we got Bush....he was electable, but not exactly living up to his campaign rhetoric.
Hmmm....a politician who can't be trusted....what are the odds?
The GOP couldn't do a thing against Byrd when he said "n****r" on TV. You think they'll be able to do it on an issue that puts him on the side of most Americans?The wedge created so far is in the GOP. Whose fault is that?
But you are a "one issue" voter and will never see the forest for the trees.
You live in a desert of political acumen. You have neither forest nor trees.
The problem is that the government offices will always be there. Always. We cannot pretend they don't exist and we cannot destroy them.
The only thing that is possible is to devolve power from them and that cannot be done as long as those offices are held by those whose ideology demands the use of power. They will simply accrue more power to themselves.
------------------------------------
How true.
Democratic & Republican ideology demands everincreasing government power.
We must find a way to 'devolve' their hold on this power. - Think & vote for rational libertarian principes.
I must admit, it's a bit surprising to see a Constitutionalist described as a "kook".
As for illegal immigration, I refuse to debate lying sacks of Clinton, even if they claim to be conservative.
Actually he said "white n****r" on TV. But it is still out there. The wedge created so far is in the GOP. Whose fault is that?
From your world view. Feinstein and Daschle are in a box. Why the delay in the vote? First of all 245(i)is not an amnesty and second if they block it they look like the obstructionists to Hispanics.
This is creating a wedge for the demo's.
Well Bush was elected was he not? Besides, it always much easier too just cry about it and take your marbles and go home.
Ad hominems and refusal to debate.
I see.
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.