One Less Republican in Camp

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….

Oh BTW, Sabey, it seems with your reply #294 you are just drolling and hoping that this President fails.

Is "drolling" a real word?
In any case, I'm actually hoping that the President changes strategy so that I can vote for him again, as I did twice in 2000.

I'll say it again: A principled loser is still a loser. Losers do not have much effect on policy or legislation. When you have an answer for that, get back to me.

1. You assume that VETOING CFR will make Bush a LOSER

That is a LOSER's ATTITUDE

2.According to you you have an effect on legislation by passing your opponents legislation so you can have an effect on future legislation by passing more of their legislation

3. The VETO is a powerful weapon for a party to have that way the oppostion needs a veto proof majority, if you use it that is. And if there was ever a bill that needed vetoing it is this one

4. If you have such a weapon and are at 80% in the polls and polls show that the public isn't really concerned with CFR and then you fail to use that weaapon YOU ARE RUNNING SCARED

This is where we differ. I more vehemently oppose the violation of our first amendment rights.

Well, you should call me when that happens. The bill will be before SCOTUS before it even takes effect!

In thinking about your post, something just occurred to me: All of these people say they are "leaving the party" and "never voting for a Republican again". Why aren't they doing something the party will actually notice and that will effect the direction of a candidate -- withholding money? I mean, that has a direct influence. Give money to the candidates you support and to the party when you like what they are doing and withhold it when you don't.

Or maybe I already have my answer.

Is "drolling" a real word?

Nope, but it is a real typo, oh great and all knowing grammar teacher.

In any case, I'm actually hoping that the President changes strategy so that I can vote for him again, as I did twice in 2000.

Yeah, right and there is a tooth fairy. Sorry but your general demeanor and tone makes me cycnical about your above italicized statement.

If you have such a weapon and are at 80% in the polls and polls show that the public isn't really concerned with CFR and then you fail to use that weapon YOU ARE RUNNING SCARED

But, what about cooties?

We're doomed! Defenseless!

Sorry but your general demeanor and tone makes me cycnical about your above italicized statement.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I did vote for Dubya twice in 2000, and for his Dad in 1992.
In October of 2000, I pulled my daughter out of school to see Bush at a campaign swing through Burbank. After the rally, I hoisted her above the crowd nad she shook his hand.
She's 14, and has now shaken hands with Dubya and also President Reagan.
But just because I vote for a man, that doesn't mean I forget that he works for me, nor that my vote is his to take for granted.

I just wanted to make sure everyone saw this statement of yours:

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.

Nope, they can't. CFR was their baby.

And so was the big tax cut that the democrat controlled congress PASSED and then PRESSURED Bush to sign so the deficit could be reduced. That sure as hell didn't stop them from using his read my lips promise . And successfully so as a lot of people went for PEROT because Bush lied to them

nor that my vote is his to take for granted.

And that is what the hillary's and daschle's of the world count on.

One issue voters like you, who take things out of context and create hyperbole about their pet subject.

In your case, the 245(i) bill.

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

So when is the GOP going to start advancing conservative principles? When they have the White House, six conservative justices on the Supreme Court, and a three-fifths majority in both houses of Congress? I find it hard to believe that when enough Republicans are elected the GOP leadership will say, "Okay, that's enough liberal pandering. We have enough votes now to push through our real conservative agenda. Let's roll!" Bush had the political power (and the obligation, I might add) to prevent the Incumbent Protection Act from becoming law and he didn't. What is our recourse when one actually has the power but refuses to use it?

FYI, the 'Sierra Times' is a loony ideologue rag run by a self-avowed Libertarian.

-- 'Bashing ... is against ...

LOL! I am only providing a public service announcement in case anyone was under the mistaken notion that it was a reputable media source or without any ulterior motives or hidden agendas.

It is not the president's job nor place to determine if a law is constitutional or not. That is the supreme courts responsibility not the presidents, and you know that

It is very much the job of the Congress and the President to know whether or not the legislation they are writing or signing is Constitutional. That job is implicit in the very oath of office by which they are bound under Article VI of the Constitution. (Which portion of Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech did this Congress and this President not understand, re campaign finance reform?) The Constitution, further, bespeaks nothing in terms of where the Supreme Court is the sole responsible party for determining a law's Constitutionality - that responsibility was claimed first by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. I can think of no better way to phrase it than a headline attached to a recent column on the CFR brouhaha by National Review editor Rich Lowry: The courts do not own the Constitution.

I shall not determine whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. - Barry Goldwater. (Even now, it seems a shame that a man who thinks that way would be considered "unelectable" today.)

It is very much the job of the Congress and the President to know whether or not the legislation they are writing or signing is Constitutional

Yup. To damn bad they vote for or sign the un-Constitutional crap anyway.

Regards

J.R.

Do you believe Bush is leading the American electorate in a conservative, constitutional direction? Or is he slowing the lurch to the left?--The Irishman

Does it matter?--Amish Dude

If it doesn't matter, why would an "unspun" conservative vote for Bush?

Regards

"I can't wait to see what excuses people come up with when Bush Jr. re-signs the Assault Weapons ban."

I've made it a habit of being wary of anyone who says, "Now here's a gun law I can live with." Besides, Bush's 2000 campaign web site clearly said that he favored the current ban on automatic weapons. Like the liberals, he believes government should have a monopoly on firepower.

"Yup. To damn bad they vote for or sign the un-Constitutional crap anyway."

Part of the problem unfortunately is the American people. This indifference and ignorance of the Constitution is going to be our downfall if we don't fix it and fix it fast. It is like Thomas Jefferson told us:

""Lethargy [is] the forerunner of death to the public liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.

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.