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

[Texasforever]

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

Sorry friend but you are wrong. GW used the constitution as his basis for vetoing a congressional apportionment bill that is true. however he had decided not to veto it because it would give the impression that he was siding with the southern states. It was only after Jefferson talked him into it that he vetoed the bill. His only other veto was a bill that would have disbanded a company of Light Dragoons. Washington in both cases weighed the political costs as heavily as the constitutional costs.

[rightofrush]

Well stated and thoughtful. It's too bad that we're a minority, but with sinkspur as the alternative, I much prefer your company.

[rightofrush]

Well stated and thoughtful. It's too bad that we're a minority, but with sinkspur as the alternative, I much prefer your company.

[Texasforever]

It is news to me that Anderson was a conservative. What was his ACU rating?

As far as I know he had none just as PJB had none.

[Texasforever]

Unfortunately, John Anderson has turned down our effort to run for President in 2000.

He lately has been touring the country talking about the need for third party reform in America.

John Anderson ran for President in 1980 and received 7% of the vote.  He is a living symbol of the third party movement in America.  His experience in independent politics and his ability to reach a broad cross-section of the electorate would have made him a perfect candidate for a reform-oriented ticket.

In the meantime, please read about Proportional Representation, which Congressman Anderson is a big proponent of....

[NittanyLion]

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!"

Of course not. They'll say, "We have to pander to the liberals so we can get reelected, or we soon won't have the filibuster-proof majority. Then where will conservatives be?" And people like the ones on this board will go right along.

[AmishDude]

Actually, I don't think you asked the question you wanted to ask. I think you wanted to ask: "Is Bush moving the country to the right or is he slowing leftward advancement?" The answer to that is probably the latter.

If you are asking "Is Bush moving the electorate to the right or is he slowing leftward advancement?" then the answer is undoubtedly the former. You must understand that around 50% of the people who vote are willing to vote for Al Gore. Al Gore has no charisma, flunked out/dropped out of two graduate programs and has rode on the coattails of others all his life.

And yet people were willing to vote for him. This is a problem. Hearts and minds must be changed and people must be willing to be conservatives by default and be naturally suspicious of anything leftward-seeming.

[Dane]

It is news to me that Anderson was a conservative. What was his ACU rating?

Uh he wasn't. Mr. Anderson was a typical RINO, but that didn't stop him from trying to divide the Republican base.

But in 1980 the country was in such a screwed up state from Carter that voters flocked to Ronald Reagan.

Looks like you all(the 110% principle) "Republicans"(i.e constant naysayers) are willing to take a page out of John Anderson's book for "principle" and undo all the good done by Reagan(it was his policies that created and carried the economic boom of the 90's, even with Clinton's hinderances) and reinstate another LBJ.

[AmishDude]

Oh, it only seems like I advocate state control because I think you ought to be locked in a rubber room with your sleeves tied behind your back.

[NittanyLion]

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

You mean like his father's tax cut that was pushed through by the DEMS? For all the talk about meeting liberals on their own turf, it appears you're forgetting that liberals will simply make things up if it serves their agenda. Just because CFR was originally their cause doesn't mean a thing - they'll conveniently forget to mention it when they remind everyone that Bush broke his campaign promise.

[rightofrush]

Why aren't they doing something the party will actually notice and that will effect the direction of a candidate -- withholding money?

As a former GOP donor, I really enjoy sending back those money raising pseudo polls with comments that I know will be disregarded, but I enjoy doing it, as do those who freep Condit.

[FR_addict]

I agree with you. You've named Bush's good qualities and then articulated many of the same problems I have with the Bush administration.

[NMC EXP]

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.

I agree. Here are a couple of more observations on this topic:

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”
-- Thomas Jefferson

“If once they ["our people"] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. “
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter from Paris, 1787

“What luck for rulers, that men do not think.”
-- Adolph Hitler

A Republic....if you can keep it.

J.R.

[wku man]

Rank and file Republicans have been irrelevant since the 104th Congress forgot it was the majority in 1995. Since then, the GOP has caved, made concessions, compromised, read the polls, failed to fight back and counter ridiculous assertions by the Dims, lost seats in every election, lost control of the Senate, and is nine votes away from losing it's hold on the House. I just wonder why it took Colonel Dan so long to leave the party...I left in 1996. When the party re-discovers it's conservative principles and it's, uh, testicular fortitude, I'll consider coming back.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Darth Sidious]

Re: #225, I love that list :-)

[Darth Sidious]

Thank you. It is true, every bit of it. If you want to continue wallowing in the mud of materialism and petty bickering, you're more than welcome to it. But some of us at least have the sense to steer clear of it. At least we're doing everyone the favor of trying to show them something better.

Now don't bother to respond: in typical Miss Marple fashion you'll announce to us all that you've got to go to dinner. So proceed to eat your hor'derves and whine to the "uncool AdMod" as is your fashion.

[Darth Sidious]

Nope my Hope is in the cross..but we are to render to Cesear what is Cesear's.....government is our business too

As another writer pointed out a few weeks ago:

"Caesar is dead. Don't pay the man."

[Deltaforceeoo7]

Colonel, Goodbye and Good Riddance!!!!!

[Deltaforceeoo7]

Colonel, Goodbye and Good Riddance!!!!!

[marajade]

What have you accomplished since 1996 when you left?