Throwing your vote away....or is it?

I have finally decided to cut ties with the Republican Party. Rest assured, I am not heading left to the socialist democrats though. No, after much research, soul searching and prayer (probably not nearly enough prayer though) I have chosen to join the Constitution Party instead.

The hard part of choosing a 3rd party instead of the mainstream was the idea that my vote would no longer count, or worse, be an indirect vote for the opposition. I'm sure everyone of us has heard that voting for a 3rd party candidate is paramount to treason, but after reading much well thought out papers on the subject I no longer believe that.

One such paper pointed out the clear fact that a vote for a 3rd party candidate was not a vote for ms. kerry, no more than was it a vote for Mr. Bush. It was in fact, a vote against both in favor of a person I feel has a better vision for this country and this world. It's a vote for my conscious, for the ideals I believe in and espouse to my children. Its a vote for a better future and a vote for something rather than a vote for the lesser of two evils.

If you look at the party platforms, its easy to see that the Republicans have been preaching one philosophy while living another. Under the Republican controlled congress and Whitehouse, spending increased more than any other time in history, as did the size of government. With that spending and growth, the American people also gave up more bits and pieces of their liberties and freedoms. The Republican party did very little in step with the party platform but continued the policy of spend and grow.

I looked long and hard at what I believed in, and the realization is that I believe our founding fathers had a pretty good handle on human nature. They learned the lesson of big government and what happens when the people are indebted to the bureaucracy instead of the government working for the people. They struggled long and hard to devise a system of government that had very clearly defined boundries with very limited powers. This was intentional and based on a fundamental belief that God was the center of the universe, not man. They began on the premise that God granted equality to all and that a government's single role was to protect against infringements of the gifts given by God.

Their idea was that all people had a God given right to health, happiness, and the pursuit of liberty. This does not mean that all people will always be health, happy, and rich, but that in terms of governing, all people have the right to these things and a government's singular role is to protect those rights. Therefore, first and foremost, the government is charged with protecting the freedoms of the people. This is mostly accomplished through a strong military. When we as a nation are faced with people who would mean us harm, dilute our freedoms to pursue health, happiness, and liberty, it is the government's first duty to do what it can to protect us. The forefathers took this to heart, most of them loosing everything in the revolutionary war, with the vision of protecting the larger body of citizens. We've seen our nation rise to great challenges to protect our freedoms; from the desires to separate into different nations,to fighting dictators bent on destroying anyone who didn't fit an ideal of "perfect". Millions of men and women have given up great deals of wealth, health, and even lives to protect the rights given to men from God.

Yet, our current administration and sitting congress is unwilling to enforce the laws that govern who can enter our country and feed off the rest. Even with the vast majority of Americans demanding stronger boarders and enforcements of existing immigration laws, not the president, nor most members of congress, are willing to take steps to protect the people of this nation. The attack of 9/11 was not accomplished from outside, but within. The next attack will happen again from people already living among us, and very likely having not been screened to any great extent. I am not calling for the abolishment of immigration, but the end to illegal immigration that does not bring benefits to the nation but rather adds to the depletion of our society. The illegal immigrant does not contribute more than they take, and often takes far more than they contribute. Along with the lax boarder security, our real enemies, those who have flat-out declared their intention to harm us as much and as often as possible, use the carelessness of our policies against us. They know they are free to move among us, to plot and execute at will. Allowing these things to happen is the first and most important breach of trust our government is guilty of.

The current "conservative" republicans proclaim victory over the upholding of the partial-birth abortion ban as if somehow that makes up for all the other murders they easily ignore. They wave the flag of righteousness yet do nothing to eliminate the larger sin. Where is the leader who is demanding a public debate on the court's interpretation of the Constitution? Does any one truly believe that even one of the founding father could have even fathomed that the Supreme Court would declare their precious constitution as giving the right to a women to kill her unborn baby? How does that protect the God given, God ordained rights of anyone?

One of the biggest worries of the founding fathers was that a central government would have the power over the individual states. Their fears, despite their best efforts, have become a reality. Rather than allowing smaller groups of people (states and local communities) to decide how best to educate their children, the federal government establishes a National Education Association that dictates and rules over states to define what should and what should not be taught to the young of our country. If the local schools don't tow the line, the federal government withholds tax payer money from them. It is blackmail to the tenth degree! In many states, parents have to fight for the right to teach their own children! There are penalties imposed on those that do not want their kids taught that we all came from rocks and that sex is permissible as long as you "do it safely". Heaven forbid that you try to teach your own children that the lessons of the government are wrong, unhealthy, and immoral. Doing so could result in the government taking those children away from their homes. No, the federal government dictates that children must be taught that homosexuality is just another choice. They must be taught that a Godless "scientific" method was responsible for our existence and any lifestyle that one chooses is just as good as another, so long as it doesn't require the concept of a higher authority.

These are not the ideals of the republican platform as I've read it, yet these are the end results we have received with every republican vote cast over the past 25+ years. Both sides are power hungry. Both sides want to increase the dependency of the populace to feed their power bases. Both sides want a Utopian world, but their view of utopia is not one of free people, but of the masses enslaved to the elite. The only real difference is how fast each party wants to achieve these goals. The socialist democrats boldenly pursue these goals as quickly and openly as possible, while the republicans are craftier and more patient. They'll settle for bits and pieces of freedoms over a longer period of time, but the end results are the same. Large government with clearly defined authority roles and sheep useful for labor and herding.

I strongly suggest that anyone who has not looked at the ideals and beliefs of the Constitution Party do so. It will be very difficult for you to cast another Republican vote if you do. If everyone voted their conscious and belief, this would not be a nation with a four year choice of who is less evil, but a nation again under God, with their collective priorities in the right order.

Where is the Republican Party these days?

The only clear fact that I see in the political spectrum today is that the Democrats are simply getting further left and socialist. If you look at what they do (which always contradicts what they say) its easy to see where they fall on the issues.

But what about our party, the Grand Old Party. What has become of them? The words Republican and Conservative always went hand in hand (at least as far back as I remember) but it seems that the current Republican party has followed the Democratic lead and moved left as well.

Granted, the GOP is still far right of the liberals, but they are just as far left of the ideals of Ronald Reagan. "We" had 2 completely unfettered years of controlling both sides of congress and the Whitehouse but what happened?

Spending is up. Abortion laws haven't changed all that much, taxes are still WAY to high, people are still being taxed on their productivity (a moral crime if nothing else). Billions are still being wasted on fraudulent welfare roles, Social Security is still a bad pipe dream (anyone over 40 really think they'll see a dime of it?) and now our Nation's leader is no more interested in stopping illegal immigration that king clinton was about doing anything involved with moral integrity.

I'm not placing these problems at the feet of the President, as clearly most of the liberal spending problems come from congress, but why did Mr. Bush not veto a single bill for nearly 5 years in office? There were some seriously troublesome bills that passed his desk with far too much pork. (any pork is too much) so why did he not send some of those bills back to get fixed?

Everyone knows the tax breaks were the single biggest reason our economy didn't tank after the clinton years. Every national and financial event that happened from his last year in office up the day after the WTC attacks should have caused massive economic upheaval in the USA. Save mostly for President Bush's tax cuts, the economy and consumer confidence weathered storm after storm. So why didn't the Republican lead congress make those cuts permanent when they had the chance to do so?

It appears (and I have nothing to factually back this up with) that our GOP elected officials are more interested in "fitting in" than they are doing the people's business. Rather than accepting the fact that Conservative ideals are different than liberal ones, they've chosen time and again to take the road of appeasement. This approach has failed over and over again yet it seems to be the only play in their book now. They want "everyone to like us". Bull Shit! There are very serious problems facing our nation and our world. I really don't care how the rest of the world views us. I believe that true conservative ideas are the best methods to fixing what can be fixed in the world today.

Less government, secure boarders, dictators that quiver at what might happen to them if they step out of line, NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY, tax only for the amount needed to run an efficient government. Let the States, local governments, and people care for those in need (not federal hand-out programs). Put the power for education back in the hands of the local communities (ban the NEA and take the IRS with you!). These are the things real republicans stand for. These are the ideas we need championed in Washington. These are the methods that will return some sense of civility and safety to the world.

Has the GOP left the station? I think so. There are a few potential candidates running under the Republican banner, but so long as we keep putting these moderates back in office, a single conservative or two will never be able to change things. We need to start at the top though. Even with the troubles President Reagan had with a democratic congress, he was able to get his vision implemented. His number one priority for decades had been the defeat of the Soviet Union and he accomplished that.

Perhaps if another visionary would emerge, the GOP could swing their bloated boat around and start heading right again, but I'm afraid this new leader hasn't shown himself yet. If nobody steps forward soon, I think we're in for a long up-hill battle under the flag of a new party. The political spectrum could very well become a 3-party world with the wacko's on the left (we already know who they are), the current Republicans in the left-center, and a moral, honest party holding up the right.

It will probably take many decades, but I pray that if the Lord doesn't come before then, that my children will have better leadership when they're my age.

Is more gun control the answer?

The recent mass-murder at Virgina Tech has once again sparked the gun control debate.

The main question is whether or not stronger gun control laws will actually prevent things like Virgina Tech from happening in the future. Here are a couple of things to ponder:

• The campus already had stick gun laws. Supposedly this was a "gun free" zone. Did the shooter really care?
• It seems that these guns were purchased legally. Does anyone think though, that had this idiot not been able to purchase his weapons, that he simply would have walked up to those 30 some people and just called them nasty names?
• Weapons can be constructed by a wide variety of items, guns are far from the only weapon capable of killing multiple people. Anyone heard of 'fertilizer' before?

The big question one should ask though, is this: If your child was in that classroom when someone burst in shooting anything that moved, would you rather that he/she had a stronger desk to hide behind, or an automatic firearm capable of taking this jerk out?

Clearly the left has distorted the facts on gun use. They keep claiming that you are 63% more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This is just plain false. The statistic is more around 12%. But the flip-side to this is that simply brandishing the gun often accomplishes the goal. An intruder who sees a firearm pointed their direction normally flees. So there is no need to kill the intruder. Hence this statistic is simply weighted to make it look like a reasonable fact.

When we look at history, all dictators have banned personal firearms as their first act upon taking control of a country. The reason is simple, a defenseless populace is easier to control than one with an ability to counter attack. Study after study proves that more guns equates to less crime. Perps are not usually stupid, at least not where their own lives are at stake. If they think you'll shoot back, they are far more likely to pick on someone else. If they're not sure if you can shoot back, they're far more likely to re-think their actions.

The second amendment is there for a reason and we need to make sure it does not get polluted by those who think the world would only be a nicer place if "everyone just got along". That is a silly pipe dream with no basis in reality. YOU need to protect yourself and not rely on the Government to do it for you.

The government surely didn't do a very good job at protecting the students at Virgina Tech now, did they?