RPVNetwork

Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

Through my involvement in the Republican Party, I have come to realize that there is a distinction between those who call themselves Republicans and those who live by conservative principles. I do not wish to offend anyone with the points that I must make, as I know that many, if not most of our Republican leadership operate under the most admirable intentions. My demur lies not with this framework itself, but with the occasional lack of consideration for political principles within it.

I believe that the moral prerogative that charters the party cannot be cast aside merely at the bidding of the mechanism itself. I am of the belief that our party no longer serves principle, but is more focused on winning elections. I do not believe, as I have found many others do, that winning elections ought to be our ultimate goal. Winning an election is a means to an end, not an end itself. Our end, if it be just, is the implementation of sound policies -- those that are requisites for a free society. Certainly, the Republican Party realizes great victories in countless elections year after year, but seldom it seems are the principles that we find so reputable nearly as victorious. It saddens and concerns me that we often see that the most important standard that our candidates are held to, is one of mere victory. If this is our goal, then we really have no goal at all.

The message of America -- that of peace, liberty, and prosperity – has loosened its guard. The inclination of power, which inevitably seeks nothing but its own advance to victory has permeated our leadership. We are failing in our sacred duty of self-government, which is to offer compassionately to one another the contract of liberty, and to stand relentless in defense of the moral action which that ideal necessitates. Will we continue to mollify this decree, a responsibility as intrinsic to ourselves as the rights which it defends? If I see that my enemy is winning, my inclination ought to be to fight harder, not to drop my own flag, and lead the charge with theirs. But that is what many conservatives did in this last election. They have lost their faith in the Republican Party and of the once sacred values of conservatism that are no longer evident.

Our Republican candidates must adhere to some very basic criteria. The party must reject candidates who do not accept the fundamental precepts of natural rights, or the American notion of federalism. They must understand the moral consequences of human action as broadened to the wider sphere of economics, and the system that most effectively incorporates that action -- the free market system. We must see in them a deep respect and concern for human life, and a boundless consideration of the human spirit. They must value individualism over collectivism and statism. We should expect that they would do honor to the Republican Creed.

These candidates will be bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States to the best of their ability, and if that binding is weak, we should assume that their understanding of the proper functions of government is just as weak. The Constitution is not perfect nor is any human capable of being a perfect Constitutionalist. But without the constituting of a philosophically sound mandate on the purpose of government, there can be no rule of law by which justice is maintained, and no civilities by which we may improve our governance. Foremost, candidates must understand and abide by the mutual contract of liberty, the piPce de résistance of the American ideal. I believe this is a very broad and flexible set of standards.

One of the worst things that we can do is support more candidates who will dismantle and distort the message of limited government even further. There are Republicans , in name only, who show no qualms in vehemently declaring their "progressive" policies (in this context, this means Big Government). Over the years, I have preserved a portion of society's collective memory which reminds me that an alike vein of progressive "Maverick" policies brought no-holds-barred welfarism to the United States and that "Change" is what Hitler brought to Germany in 1933.

There is indeed an ideological lineage around and within the Republican party that I am proud to count myself as a subscriber to -- embraced whether wholly or in part by the likes of Barry Goldwater, Walter E. Williams, Howard Buffett, Jeff Flake, P. J. O'Rourke, Gary Johnson, Felix Morley, Robert Taft, Ron Paul, Bob Marshall, Ken Cuccinelli, Calvin Coolidge, and many others. But this gives no credence to the policy of rubber stamping.

If we are to save our Republic, it must be done by individuals such as ourselves, through education and political action. The former is my primary aim, and with the latter, I must proceed carefully. Thus, while I can vote for whomever I wish in the privacy of the voting booth, I do not want to be dishonest or misleading in my intentions. I would imagine more respect for me would be lost if I were to simply lie instead of making a principled decision that you might not agree with. It is regrettable that I cannot commit to always abide by the by-laws of the Republican Party, in particular the section that requires me to support the Republican nominee for every respective office if that candidate does not demonstrate through practice, adherence to the conservative principles that are the very foundation of our great nation and to the Republican Creed.

Views: 83

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Mark. Innuendos are typical of bigots I knew when I lived in the North East and many other places in America. You primarily comment negatively about immigrants to make your point, a tactic well known by Latinos like myself. I know what are your motivation is. You say “people, who make excuses for it,” which people? What excuses? Also you say, “Because a law doesn't suit you, doesn't make it ok to disregard it,” the law that does not suit who? Me? Read my first response, which was: “Mark: I am against immigration that is not legal” I would prefer you say you don’t like immigrants like me, and then you and I will be able to understand each other better. I respect honesty over innuendo.
Since you know so much about immigrants, I would like to invite you to our next meeting of my coalition where we try to find solutions to the problems of all Americans including the problems of Latinos in the Republican Party. I will pay for your expenses if you need it, or to be accommodating to your needs, maybe we can have a meeting at your place.
Sandy - I didn't choose Chuck Baldwin because Ron Paul endorsed him. I had already picked him before RP had endorsed anyone. Believe it or not, I chose to support Chuck Baldwin because he stands by the U.S. Constitution, something neither of the big two did.

Also, I don't ask for you to like me, or any of us Constitutionalist. Don't really care, because it's not about me or us. It's about the survival of this experiment in self-government that our founding fathers left us with. Like Ben Franklin said, we were handed a republic, if we can keep it. Looks like we may not be able to do that. Like I said, prove me wrong. Judgement without investigation is the height of arrogance.
Tito you are the one making assumptions. Not me. I don't have any problem at all with immigrants like you. If you were talking to my dad that might be a different story. I do however sense this going down the "if you're against illegal immigration your a racist" avenue. That is the type of argument that is only designed to end the conversation. I however could give a rats behind less about political correctness. Let me sum up again

I do not care if you are latino, black, Irish, Hindu, Italian, Muslim, or Martian. If you go through the process to come here legally, and stay only so long as that process allows, or go through the process of citizenship I welcome you with open arms. It just so happens that by vast majority those currently in the country illegally are from Central and South America or Mexico more specifically. I am for immigration reform to allow those who want to come here and become hard working Americans to do so. I am also for kicking those who came here illegally to the back of the line. We'll pick this up on the other thread since we inadvertantly stole this one.

FYI I do enjoy the conversation. We probably agree on most other things. Were probably not as far apart on this one as you think. At least I sincerely hope not.
WOW! There’s a lot to respond to here since I last posted on this discussion. Sorry to have been away so long. I lost my dog to cancer a few days ago and have been dealing with that loss.

Where to start!?!?

Sandy, yes, I do look to educate people on Constitutional principles. Contrary to what you may believe, Ron Paul and his supporters have been very outspoken against Obama’s socialistic/ marxist philosophy. As well, we have spoken out against, not Republicans, but those who call themselves Republican but demonstrate less than conservative principles.

I thought my first post clearly stated my position but I will spell it out in more detail.

1) A true Republican believes in a balanced budget, the dollar backed by real assets, a free enterprise system (free market), fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints.

Before President Bush took office, the largest deficit in our nation’s history had been $290 billion in 1992, and under President Clinton the nation had begun to run large budget surpluses. President Bush and Washington Republicans now have the largest deficit and the greatest debt in history. We have a society of welfarism both domestic and corporate.

Republicans have so many times vowed to reform welfare but have done nothing to do so.
Studies show that 70% of the Federal welfare budget goes not to the poor but to the bureaucrats - the department managers, clerks, lawyers, paper-shufflers, politicians, and consultants - who run this maze of programs. The "welfare mother" that conservatives blame for taking your money - and that liberals chide you for not caring enough about - sees only thirty cents for every dollar the government takes from you to help her! Government-run welfare programs are robbing the "rich" (i.e. anyone with a steady job) and frittering away the funds they claim are for the poor!

The government welfare system is destroying human beings, wrecking our cities, and wasting our money. The Republicans think they can reform the system with even more rules and corporate bailouts (welfare). The Democrats think they can reform the system with even more tax dollars and “sharing the wealth”.

Ron Paul tells us that a charitable, compassionate society can flourish only when individuals voluntarily contribute their time and money to help other individuals, and that taking money from one person by force and giving it to another destroys these virtues rather than strengthening them. Our government needs to stop taking care of us from cradle to grave and fostering programs that are enablers of the problem that only leads to more of the same. Our current welfare system promotes self-destructive behavior: non-work, illegitimacy, and divorce. Welfare insidiously creates its own clientèle; by undermining the work ethic and family structure, it generates an ever growing population in need of aid. This is also what true Republicans have said in the past.


2) A true Republican believes the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by
observing constitutional limitations.

It is the Republican administration and a Republican Congress that enacted the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act that are clear violations of our rights under the constitution and will do nothing to stop illegal immigration and terrorism. It is failed policy and failure of our government to do its job that enable both.

Did you know that prior to 9/11, to get an official photo identification card from the state of Virginia, a foreign national needed three documents: two to prove his identity, and one to prove his legal residence in the state. A person lacking ordinary documentation of their identity and residence--such as an out-of-state driver's license, a passport, a paycheck, a utility bill--could present the DMV with a pair of certified forms instead. The first form, a DL6, was to establish the applicant's identity. To be legal, a DL6 needed to be signed by a witness who knew the applicant and certified by an attorney in the presence of a notary public. The second, the DL51, which was supposed to establish the applicant's legal residence, needed to be signed--in the presence of a notary public or a clerk at the DMV--by a witness who knew where the applicant lived. This is how 2 of the terrorists were able to obtain an official state issued ID in Virginia and once they had their ID, they were able to vouch for and obtain the same notarized documents for other illegals.

3) A true Republican has traditionally taken a conservative non-interventionist position on foreign policy.

President Bush, when he ran in 2000, came out very strongly against nation-building, which of course is exactly what we've been doing over in Iraq. And he said very forcefully, and many times, that we needed a more humble foreign policy.

I think a great majority of the people in the party have not realized that what they're doing is going against every traditional conservative and traditional Republican view that the party has traditionally espoused. I remember when I was a teenager reading something from the Republican National Committee that said that Democrats start wars, Republicans end them.

CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion and Bush even said Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet, it was our Republican President, not Congress, who declared war on Iraq which is unconstitutional.

4) A true Republican has traditionally said that peace is best preserved through a strong national defense

Here we have military bases in 130 countries while our borders are wide open. Where are our priorities? If we truly believe in a strong national defense, then lets defend our own borders first. We have a serious problem with identity theft in this country and the majority of it stems from “undocumented immigrants” in this country stealing identities, taking jobs, welfare, medical services, tax refunds they are not entitled to and on and on; not to mention drugs and crime.

Our Republican Congress tells us the Real ID Act of 2005 is designed to put an end to illegal immigration. Are they really so naive that they would believe a driver's license turned into a national ID card would protect us from illegal immigration.. Imagine the fodder of all your personal information stored in a federal database and shared with all 50 states without any limitations on what information is stored and who has access to that information and for what purpose to identity thieves.

It seems to me our Republican administration has it backwards; make intervention in the policy of other nations a priority and put defense of our borders on the back burner.

Tito, you are an example of everything right about immigration and I would be proud to stand along side you in defense of liberty. As for terrorism, no I have not personally experienced it but I did have family in friends in Iran when the Shah was exiled and under Ayatollah Khomeini, 52 Americans were taken hostage in November 1979. My point was not that I would invite terrorism. My point is, I believe if our government did it's job, as it seems to be doing with regard to protecting us against terrorism since 9/11, we would not have the need for unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act and Real ID that would invade the privacy of innocent law-abiding citizens and violate our states 10th amendment right under the constitution.

Bottom line- It is not the traditional Republican ideal I have a problem with. It is the Republican move from the conservative principles that defined us as Republicans that I have a problem with.
Sandy,

Glenn Beck isn't as anti-Ron Paul any more.

In one interview with Dr. Paul, when talking about the CFR and other "conspiracies," Glenn Beck said the following:

"I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but you know what, at times I believe I am a conspiracy theorist because there’s a lot of stuff that just, if you read history and you go back all the way to Woodrow Wilson, you can see that the foundation was laid for one-world government, the foundation was laid for socialism, and I really, truly believe....."

Before his show ended on CNN he had Dr. Paul as regular guest, talking about the coming depression, hyperinflation, martial law and one world government.


Sandy Cope said:
Frank- The beauty of the American election process is that everyone has the right to vote for whom they choose. You choose Chuck Baldwin, perhaps because he was endorsed by Ron Paul. There were no policies that Ron Paul had that Baldwin did not ascribe to in full. It is not my desire or choice to get involved in the education that the Ron Paul/Chuck Baldwin supporters have deemed necessary for the American electorate. I am well aware of the Conspiracy Theorists fear mongering concerning the CFR, UN, WTO, IRS, Federal Reserve and NATO. I'm sure there are other organizations that I have not mentioned.

The best way that I can find to back out of this discussion is by adopting something I heard Glenn Beck say one day to a Ron Paul caller-

"You make me not like you immediately, because you people always feel that everyone is after you, and you are always victims"
Donna Holt, Thank you for prompting this fruitful discussion having 42 responses.

Your call, If we are to save our Republic, it must be done by individuals such as ourselves, through education and political action. The former is my primary aim, and with the latter, I must proceed carefully." is wise enough to be adopted be every patriot. With respect to RPV and its place in saving our republic, that education must include its notice of our law.


VA§ 1-248. Supremacy of federal and state law. The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth. "

This requirement applies to RPV and RPV’s obligations to the RP and the nation.

As much as I can see every portion of RPV & RP history that tasted of ashes and shame could have been cause for honor and victory if RPV constrained its actions to what is required by our Constitutions and Code.

Virginia could become the Mother of Presidents again.
If each of us affirms our existing duty as RPV member and voter, as in the oath of office, do you think we could raise leaders having the necessary backbone and wisdom?

Do you it is possible for Virginia to become the Mother of Presidents now? How?
Yes I do! The answer is very simple. Vote for principle, not party. Many of us did that in the last Presidential election and though what we got more destructive to the Republic than the Bush administration, it is my hope that the RP is beginning to get it.

Russell Patton Davis said:
Donna Holt, Thank you for prompting this fruitful discussion having 42 responses.

Your call, If we are to save our Republic, it must be done by individuals such as ourselves, through education and political action. The former is my primary aim, and with the latter, I must proceed carefully." is wise enough to be adopted be every patriot. With respect to RPV and its place in saving our republic, that education must include its notice of our law.


VA§ 1-248. Supremacy of federal and state law. The Constitution and laws of the United States and of the Commonwealth shall be supreme. Any ordinance, resolution, bylaw, rule, regulation, or order of any governing body or any corporation, board, or number of persons shall not be inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the Commonwealth. "

This requirement applies to RPV and RPV’s obligations to the RP and the nation.

As much as I can see every portion of RPV & RP history that tasted of ashes and shame could have been cause for honor and victory if RPV constrained its actions to what is required by our Constitutions and Code.

Virginia could become the Mother of Presidents again.
If each of us affirms our existing duty as RPV member and voter, as in the oath of office, do you think we could raise leaders having the necessary backbone and wisdom?

Do you it is possible for Virginia to become the Mother of Presidents now? How?
"Vote for principle, not party" is all well and good, even essential – if in the long run we roughly keep our ship-of-state headed in the direction we should go - but don't you think the course of our ship-of-state has been much more divergent from our principles than we can afford to bear? Does it matter if we were essential right in our intentions if we allow our ship-of-state to end up on the rocks? Must our actions remain synchronized on the union of our intentions with our conditions if our intentions to be more substantial that mere excuse?

As far as I can see, the sovereign people have given fairly explicit obligatory instructions to our three branches of government (on all levels) by our Constitutions and existing laws.
Moreover by our RPV creed and our pledge of allegiance we have further instructed our candidates in their duty as is entirely in obedience to VA1-248. Yet, according to our Republican history, this instruction to our candidates needs to be as explicitly binding on our candidates as our law is binding on us. It is profitable for us and our people to constrain our own to what is honorable before any remedy by ballot box or jury box could apply.

Democratic officials are equally bound by to VA1-248 and its remedy defined by VA18.2-481(5) and VA18.2-111.
Every citizen whether, Democrat or Republican, is law bound to seek remedy on witness of ANY such violation according to VA18.2-482 and 18USC4.

How can any excuse of ours withstand the fullness of truth when our law bound instructions are plainly defied and we take no remedy until the next election? Particularly, when we are in the custom of conducting our next election so that it is neither secure, nor timely, in keeping our ship-of-state off the rocks – EVEN IF WE WIN the election?

We have work to do. NOW. Have I deceived myself in this?
Might I have deceived myself in this?
Please?
Is it important to you that we prevail in Election 2010?
If it is possible, and takes relatively little effort, are you interested in making it happen?

That is a serious question.
The evidence that there is so little activity on this web site makes me wonder at what your default answer is.
Please prove my initial evaluation wrong by NOT DEFAULTING on your duty and opportunity.

The political, identity and character weaknesses of the Republicans and their natural allies may be EASILY fixed in time for the 2010 election.

Are you interested?

Meeting election 2010 with that easy work undone would be a great flaw.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

****************************

 

U.S. DEBT CLOCK

****************************

 


 

 

(sales help fund this site)

 

Badge

Loading…

© 2020   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service