Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

One Less Republican in Camp
Sierra Times ^ | 3-29-02 | Colonel Dan

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: coloneldan; republicanparty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 401-408 next last
To: tpaine
We must find a way to 'devolve' their hold on this power.

Absolutely. And that is your job. You develop a detailed plan, with charts and graphs and ensure that it's a fool-proof way of doing this and don't post until you're finished.

201 posted on 03/29/2002 8:15:01 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
You live in a desert of political acumen. You have neither forest nor trees.

OOOH, how droll. Oh well that should be expected from someone who is vain enough to post a "picture" signature on every one of his posts.

202 posted on 03/29/2002 8:15:19 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
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.

Medicare and Social Security are a LOT different than CFR

Poll after Poll show CFR is zilch as a concern

Public is cynical enough to know the $$$$ will find the politicians no matter what

Like I said with the Middle East going up and who knows what else CFR is not a big issue and the dems trying to make it one won't work
203 posted on 03/29/2002 8:15:47 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: marajade
Right. Then you still have an "issue." There's always another issue down the road, too. Lucky them.
204 posted on 03/29/2002 8:15:50 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: ActionNewsBill
Is that the only qualifications the Pubbies are looking for....an "electable candidate"?

Heck, no. I like to be out of power, don't you? If you don't want to win so you can enact your ideas, why are you here?

205 posted on 03/29/2002 8:17:04 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Poohbah
It's pretty easy to "win" a debate when you dismiss all opposition as lying sacks of $%&^, isn't it?
206 posted on 03/29/2002 8:17:07 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
I must admit, it's a bit surprising to see a Constitutionalist described as a "kook".

Ahem. His screen name is the pretentious "oursacredhonor" and refers to himself as "The Colonel". Yup. That's enough for me.

207 posted on 03/29/2002 8:17:12 AM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Free Republic is NOT THE ONLY venue for free speech

And even FR isn't that free... Trashing and telling outright lies about Pres Bush is allowed at FR but even responding negatively about Alan Keyes isn't.

208 posted on 03/29/2002 8:18:04 AM PST by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
If you don't want to win so you can enact your ideas, why are you here?

It would appear that even when we do win, our ideas cannot be enacted. This is to ensure the next victory. What's the purpose again, aside from retaining power?

209 posted on 03/29/2002 8:18:53 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Actually (Robert Byrd) said "white n****r" on TV. But it is still out there.

Still out there: doing nothing... And Byrd is a former Klansman!

But if Charlton Heston, who marched with Martin Luther King on Washington in 1963, used the term "white n****r" on TV, we'd have never heard the end of it.

The KKK issue with Byrd is going nowhere, because he's a Democrat. Not saying it's right, but it's reality.




210 posted on 03/29/2002 8:18:57 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
You have repeatedly mischaracterized 245(i), even after you were corrected numerous times.

Pointing out that you are a liar may technically be an ad hominem attack, but it is relevant to the issue at hand.

And refusal to debate someone who doesn't follow the rules of debate is kinda like negotiating peace in the Middle East with the guys sending suicide bombers in pizza parlors, hotels, and supermarkets--it's pretty stupid.

211 posted on 03/29/2002 8:19:28 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
Well, there is the issue that Sabertooth IS a lying sack of Clinton...
212 posted on 03/29/2002 8:20:25 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Colonel, I am independent too, having ditched the Dem Party. But, just as you are leaving the GOP, others are now joining, as explained here.
213 posted on 03/29/2002 8:21:54 AM PST by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Well, there is the issue that Sabertooth IS a lying sack of Clinton...

Man, this is a tough crowd. Even on Good Friday, we go for the jugular here (me included). ;-)

214 posted on 03/29/2002 8:22:44 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
It is not the president's job nor place to determine if a law is constitutional or not.

George Washington only vetoed bills on the grounds that they weren't Constitutional. Of course it's the President's duty.

215 posted on 03/29/2002 8:22:48 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: uncbob
Poll after Poll show CFR is zilch as a concern

After a full-court press by the "Manufacturers of Consent," showing Enron employees reduced to eating dogfood in cardboard boxes, holding signs saying "Will manage commodity deals for food," and piously wailing about how we need CFR "For the CHILL-ILL-RRUUNN," are you STILL willing to bet on that outcome?

IF you are, you're a bigger fool than I believed possible.

216 posted on 03/29/2002 8:23:21 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: NittanyLion
FReeping is a full-contact sport :o)
217 posted on 03/29/2002 8:24:25 AM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: oursacredhonor
Please explain to me why the current active military is having an orgasmic love affair with President Bush.

Politics is no longer a battle between conseratives versus liberals per se but conservitaves versus the press.

218 posted on 03/29/2002 8:25:06 AM PST by tubebender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
Washington was much more respected, even by those who disagreed with him, than President Bush is today.

And frankly, as much as I respect him, I don't think he could beat Bill Clinton in a campaign today. There are some objective conditions here, and we need to figure out a way to turn things around within those conditions. If we ignore them, we are toast.

219 posted on 03/29/2002 8:30:55 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
You have repeatedly mischaracterized 245(i), even after you were corrected numerous times.

Pointing out that you are a liar may technically be an ad hominem attack, but it is relevant to the issue at hand.

Your second sentence would be relevant, if your first was not false.

I have not mischaracterized Section 245(i) at all, as you full well know. According to the INS...

INS Memo: Sec. 245(i) filings

Section 245 of the Act allows an alien to apply for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while in the United States if certain conditions are met. The alien must have been inspected and admitted or paroled, be eligible for an immigrant visa and admissible for permanent residence, and, with some exceptions, have maintained lawful nonimmigrant status. The alien must also not have engaged in unauthorized employment.
Section 245(i) of the Act allows an alien to apply to adjust status under section 245 notwithstanding the fact that he or she entered without inspection, overstayed, or worked without authorization.
LINK.

President Bush's 245(i) extension was specifically about illegals. .


How Do I Benefit From Section 245(i)?
(from INS website)

Our immigration laws allow qualified individuals to enter the United States as lawful permanent residents ("green card" holders) after they obtain immigrant visas from a consulate or embassy outside the United States or, for many immigrants already lawfully in the United States, through a process called "adjustment of status." If you entered the United States unlawfully, if you entered with permission but did not stay in lawful status, or if you worked without permission, you normally would have to leave the United States in order to apply for an immigrant visa. Special rules under section 245(i) may allow you to apply to adjust status without leaving the United States.

You might need section 245(i) if you:

  • Entered the U.S. without being inspected by an INS official.
  • Stayed in the U.S. longer than allowed by INS.
  • Entered the U.S. as a worker on an aircraft or ship (crewman).
  • Entered the U.S. as a "Transit Without Visa."
  • Failed to continuously maintain a lawful status since your entry into the US.
  • Worked in the U.S. without INS permission.
  • Entered as an "S" nonimmigrant (relates to witnesses about criminal or terrorism matters).
  • Are seeking a work-related visa and are out of status at the time of filing the application to adjust status (Form I-485).
  • Worked in the U.S. while being an "unauthorized alien."


LINK

This has been posted numerous times to Amnesty Deniers, but they still persist.
Letting Illegals stay = Amnesty for those Illegals.

What is the source of your difficulty with understanding this?




220 posted on 03/29/2002 8:32:27 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 401-408 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson