Is Don't Vote.com a good or bad idea?

Is Don't Vote.com a good or bad idea?Prelude:Hopefully, my thread may provoke meaningful discussions of whether Don't vote.com is a good or bad idea. As the author I am voicing my personal viewpoint. It's not to say that my personal viewpoint is right or wrong. It is merely my own personal opinion. So, please don't become offended or threatened. Feel free to voice your own personal viewpoint or opinion to let others know how you think.Personal viewpointMy personal viewpoint is that Don't vote.com is a bad idea. My reasoning is as followson't vote.com is saying, "Don't vote until you have heard the issues!" Off the top it sounds to be a very good campaign slogan. Yet, it may have a severe backlash. The slogan places candidates on the hot seat to divulge his or her personal views and/or beliefs. Moral issues (e.g. same-sex marriage, stem cell research or partial birth abortion etc.) are personal or private beliefs. Civic officials are not obligated by any civil law to give up his or right to privacy. Each is placed on civil service payroll to perform a duty or carryout the rules.For Example:

• One doesn't question the postal delivery person about his or her moral beliefs. Rather, their job duty is to deliver the mail unopened until it reaches its destination or recipient. Capitol Hill is the destination or recipient of all voter mail and/or votes.

The danger that I perceive is that incumbents and/or candidates seeking election to civic office will be intimidated or influenced by Don't vote.com. They may bend the rules to vote on issues without polling his or her district. Bending the rules inevitably leads to a broken government. A civic official is a person, who has temporarily stepped down from his or her superior rank as an American citizen to officiate the rules of our United States Constitution and/or State Constitution. It is the same as if a person were to step down to accept the office of an umpire, referee, judge, arbitrator or mediator to officiate a contest or dispute between competing parties. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 construes any civic office and/or civic establishment privately or publicly owned as a public accommodation (i.e. affects the safety, health or welfare of our community). As such, an individual or group may neither intimidate nor influence any civic officer to differentiate enforcing any rule, law or policy based upon color, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, creed, age or disability. The duty of a civic official, in respect to enforcing a rule, law or policy, is to refrain from interjecting his or her personal viewpoint. If a civic official were to do the latter, it will be perceived as favoritism or discrimination. The end product will manufacture schism (i.e. civil strife or racial riots etc.). A minority population will dissent to protest its grievances in the form of anarchy against civic officials for taking sides.Legally speaking, a State Representative, Congressman/woman, or Senator owns a fiduciary duty to officiate a democratic poll of his or her district. If he or she is derelict to perform the latter duty, in lieu to cast his or her own personal vote or viewpoint, then the people of his or her district are ill served or misrepresented. Instead, the people are left to hope or pray for which way the wind will blow on Capitol Hill.Under our civil system of self-government the people are in charge and/or the master of our own fate. The Preamble and Constitution protect the civil liberties of the people to make political decisions autonomously of our government. We need our civic officials to step down off his or her high horses, and supply us with the civil services that we have paid for through our taxes to carryout our own self-government.It may seem difficult for any layperson to conceive intellectually that the highest ranking civic officer (i.e. President) is lower in rank than any civilian citizen (i.e. taxpayer). It is the same as in the Army where the highest ranking Non Commission Officer (i.e. Command Sergeant Major) is lower in rank than the lowest Commissioned Officer (i.e. Lieutenant).Our Preamble has commissioned each citizen of the United States to hold the the highest rank of office to form a Federal Union to govern our own civic affairs. The President is the highest ranking civil servant on our payroll. His job descripition doesn't call for his leadership or rule. Our President has to step down from his superior rank as an American citizen in order to accept his subordinate oath of office to serve the People of our Union. The lawful duties of our Oval Office are to: enforce our Constitution, Bill of Rights and UCMJ for military personnel. Anything less would be uncivilized.
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The truth of the matter is that Congress operates a barter system. Our elected civic officials trade their votes along/and or across party lines to pass a particular piece of legislation. The latter bartering process contaminates our democratic process.If our democratic process were adhered to by the letter of the law, then it would eliminate the bartering practices of our civic officials. The latter is the problem that is inciting apathy and/or distrust of voters to participate in general elections. The overall perception is "Why vote?" It is a well known fact that our elected civic officials will breach his or her promise. If any civilian were to breach his or her promise, then our Courts would construe said breach to violate our civil laws. Pursuant our rule of law, legislators et al. are held to the same standard as the people.We have come to where we worship civic officials as if he or she is a demagogue. We have naively elevated him or her to be above the law. Civilians feel it a taboo to summon an elected civic official into civil court to account for his or her infractions to commit a breach of promise. Permit me to touch a bit on moral issues. Our First Amendment is a safeguard to protect each civilian citizen against the likelihood that Congress may vote to make laws that respect the establishment of religion. Yet, Congress has broken the law. The White House has enforced morality laws under its color of authority.
Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
One final note: Our First Ten Amendments (i.e. Bill of Rights) to our United States Constitution are the supreme laws of our land. The Ten Commandments are the supreme laws of the Jewish land. The Separation of Church and State doesn't permit Congress to allocate Federal tax dollars to hire police and/or military to enforce the Jews' Ten Commandments. Rather, Congress may only allocate tax dollars for police and/or military to enforce our First Ten Amendments. Certain American voters, may find our First Ten Amendments offensive, and vote against its enforcement. Yet, the latter isn't an issue that's eligible to be voted upon by Congress. Our Supreme Court is tasked with the eminent authority to overturn any legislation that demeans the protection and/or civil liberties warranted by our Bill of Rights.

Christians are deeply divided. A house that is divided can't stand. If you accept the latter truth, then America is imminent to fall. Yet, "Why are Christians divided?" is the first question we need to answer truthfully. Some Christians choose to follow after Moses or the OT. Others wish to follow after Jesus or the NT. The old may sound good. Yet, the new is better. If one were to try to mix the old and new together, then one becomes confused and/or hateful. He or she will seek to place one in bondage according to the law. There isn't any salvation with the law. Further, there isn't any, who can live up to the law accept Christ. Jesus has fulfilled the requirements of the law. Thus, we have been set at liberty from the law. Yet, rather than to accept our liberty, certain prefer to return back to the harshness of the law.The division comes when the conservatives choose to move us backwards and liberals choose to move us forward. At some point in time we must reconcile to one direction either backwards or forward. I choose to move forward. God's grace is sufficient for me. What about you?Luke5[36] And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.[37] And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.[38] But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.[39] No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.Gal5[1] Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.[13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.Amen!