Wednesday, January 25, 2012

My Take on The Republican Race

Well, let's start off by saying that I'm not excited about anyone. I'll also say that when the primary rolls around here, I'll be voting for Santorum, if he's still in the race. (And please spare me the "elect-ability" crap. The only reason people believe that is because they are being fed it by the media. If people actually voted for who they wanted, instead of who is "elect-able", we would see a much different line-up.)  If not, well, I may not be voting Republican. No, I am not one of those people who is crazy about "their" candidate and refuses to vote for anyone else. I just don't know if I could vote for any of the other three due to principle. Allow me to explain.

Ron Paul: I agree with a lot of what he says, but some things just don't add up. I don't think I'll have to worry about him being the nominee, anyway. Something just doesn't sit right, but I can't quite place it. I'll have to look into it more.

Mitt Romney: Okay, the obvious - Romneycare. Too many inconsistencies in what he has said about it and the reality. Shoot, that goes for about everything he says. I think the comic going around with him having a dozen mouths all over his face is pretty accurate. I don't trust him. Then there is the fact that he is on the record publicly supporting abortion while governor of Massachusetts. Sure, he has since said that he changed his position, but see previous statement. Then there is the firearms issue. He believes that at least half of the guns I own, I shouldn't be able to own. To say that you support the Second Amendment, and then say that you don't believe the public needs to have X-type of weapon, shows that you don't truly understand or support the right to keep and bear arms. The abortion issue alone is enough to kill me voting for him. I will never vote for someone who supports abortion. End of story. Toss in guns, and he's a dead as a candidate in my eyes many times over. As Robin Williams said in Patch Adams, "IDGARA" what he believes I should be allowed to own and for what reason.

Newt Gingrich: Let's start this one off by saying that I don't trust him any more than I trust Romney. Also, hearing him talk on the Glenn Beck Show, I'm pretty sure Glenn is right that Gingrich is a collectivist in conservative clothing. Now I'm going to go into something that many will disagree with me on, but I believe what I believe, so it is an issue to me. Marriage. Adultery. The man made a vow to two different women, and if it is anything like the one I made to my wife, it includes fidelity and "till death do us part". Twice, he broke his vows. Vows made before God. If he doesn't take a vow seriously to remain faithful to a woman until death, how can I trust him to remain faithful in the oath he would take to be President?

Yes, I know, some people would ask me if I'm willing to "allow" Obama to win re-election by not promising to get behind the nominee. No, I'm not. I have a duty to remain true to myself and to God when I press the button in the voting booth. Romans 1:32 says that approving of something or someone that is sinful puts you in the same position as the one practicing it, in God's eyes. I will not bear their guilt.

To be completely honest, I'm not sure the country/world will survive in it's current form until November. Even if it does, the only thing that will change as a result of electing a Republican will likely be the rate of decay. The end will be the same, simply delayed. Call me a cynic or a pessimist, whatever. Truth doesn't lie. That's where the truth points. "Have a little faith. Trust God." I do. I don't trust politicians or governments which has proven themselves corrupt time and again. Sometimes God's plan is destruction to set the stage for rebuilding. So be it. Prepare yourselves, no matter the politics. It will be a bumpy ride.

Keep your powder dry.

Act Free.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Response to "A Declaration"

Recently, I posted "A Declaration". As I said I would, I sent copies of it to all of my "representatives" in Congress. Senator Bob Corker responded to me today. The text follows, and then I will have some more comments.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding provisions related to the disposition of detainees in the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.  Like you, I believe that protecting our constitutional rights is one of the most significant responsibilities of the U.S. Senate.  I understand the concerns presented in your letter, but I think it is important to note that there is a significant amount of misinformation being circulated with regard to the provisions of the  NDAA which recently passed in the Senate.   I want to assure you that there is nothing in this bill that changes current law or practice in any way as it relates to the rights or treatment of U.S. citizens or the military's ability to operate within the United States. In an effort to clear up any misconceptions about the impact of the bill on the rights of citizens, an amendment was adopted by the Senate and was included in the final version of the bill, which reads:  "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of US citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States." This amendment passed overwhelmingly by a vote of 99 to 1. The final bill passed by a vote of 86 to 13, and includes authorization for a number of essential programs and benefits to support our troops, including a 1.6% pay raise for all members of the military. Our country's fight against al Qaeda and associated organizations is a struggle that continues to pose significant and diverse challenges for our country. I want you to know that protecting American citizens is a solemn responsibility, and I therefore believe we must have legal methods in place to remove combatants from the battlefield, obtain critical intelligence, and detain those that are a threat to the American people.  However, I understand the important balance that must be met between protecting our nation from future attacks and preserving our civil liberties.  As we work to strike that critical balance, I can assure you I will continue to uphold my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me throughout the course of my term.  

Bob CorkerUnited States Senator

Now yes, the amendment that was passed does help - barely. Go take a look at Arctic Patriot's post that fits well as a response to this e-mail. He cites a bill that is in the house and would allow citizenship to be stripped from any deemed to be a "terrorist" or to be aiding them. Keep in mind that we are each just a few keystrokes away from being determined to be "terrorists" by the .gov. Politicians, including everyone in our current presidential administration, have already said they believe Tea Partiers, and of course that means also those of us who are further to the right than the Tea Party, are terrorists. Just for our beliefs. We have a president who is openly defying the Constitution and Congress by making recess appointments while Congress is still in session. Federal agencies are running rampant with treating normal citizens like criminals without just cause. They are even mobile now (VIPR). Go ahead and try to tell me again that this amendment makes you feel safe.

To me, it looks more like theater.

Act Free.