Connect with us

Everything

Overcoming our biggest obstacle: The knowledge gap on what Federalism means

Published

on

Since before we were officially a party, I always knew we’d focus on small-government Federalism. I grew up hearing President Reagan preach about government being the problem, how more powers needed to be returned to the states, and how the individual was ultimately responsible through self-governance. This country needs Federalism now more than ever, but I wasn’t crazy about the name of the party being the “Federalist Party” out of fear that people wouldn’t understand it properly.

We came up with eight possible names. I loved a couple of them, hated a couple of others, and the rest were acceptable. At the time, we had about 3000 people who had signed up to participate in building a new party, so we put it to a vote. I made the mistake of allowing votes to come in through email to prevent duplication or “ballot box stuffing” because I expected to get a couple hundred votes. It took two weeks to tally the thousands of votes we received and at the end, it wasn’t even close.

Of the eight options, “Federalist Party” received 73% of the vote with the other seven names combining for 27%.

It was clear that we had a well-educated group. I remember literally smiling when I realized that my fears may have been premature. Perhaps enough people were familiar with the balance of powers the early Federalists wanted. Maybe the “New Federalism” espoused by President Reagan had solidified the notion. Either way, our earliest adopters didn’t need an explanation of how small-government Federalism is supposed to operate.

Now, the challenge is still before us. Our early adopters understood it and our exponentially expanded membership is well-aware of the need to rein in DC by dramatically reducing budget, bureaucracy, and power. It’s time to bring this understanding to the rest of America. We have to make them aware that balancing powers between the states and federal governments based upon Constitutional restraints is at the core of the Federalist Party’s mission.

This is where we need your help. We’re not going to get much of it from the education system and many in the media seem to lack the understanding necessary to communicate our perspectives, so the Federalist Party needs the grassroots to spread the word. We need every Federalist to know that our core principles are reining in government, defending freedoms, and protecting life. It will help if we can get Federalists to send their friends and family to the party’s website, Twitter profile, and Facebook page.

Money helps, too. A $50 contribution helps us expose the Federalist message through Facebook to an additional 2650 people. A $90 contribution pays for 5,000 text messages to those seeking updates on the party. A $245 contribution allows us to send over 600,000 emails to 50,000 Federalists. A $550 contribution puts another pair of boots on the ground to work events such as our booth at Rolling Thunder in Washington DC for Memorial Day Weekend.

Whatever you can comfortably contribute, we’ll be extremely grateful.

This is an exciting moment in history to be a Federalist. There hasn’t been a better time to build a successful new party since the 19th century. The key to our success will be getting enough people to understand what Federalism really is and why it’s the best hope for America’s future.

Entertainment and Sports

What makes a great movie villain great?

Published

on

What makes a great movie villain great

As a lover of cinema, there are two things any “fun” movie must have: a good hero and a great villain. A good hero with a great villain works. A good example of this would be Saw. Unfortunately, a great hero with a good villain often falls flat. The Amazing Spider-Man saw a great variation of the hero mixed with a decent yet boring villain.

“Fun” movies are action/adventure, horror, thriller, or anything that pits good versus evil. Silence of the Lambs, The Dark Knight, and Star Wars are the obvious examples everyone uses when they think of great villains, but I prefer to call on a creepy villain that nobody remembers until I mention him. Taylor Negron’s Milo in The Last Boy Scout was the perfect foil to Bruce Willis, arguably better from a purely evil perspective than Alan Rickman’s baddie in Die hard.

To see if my choice stood up to the tests of video essayists characterizing the perfect villain (which all of them have at some point), I picked #Filmento to test my bad guy.

The making of a bad guy is imperative for a fun movie to really be fun. This breakdown by Filmento is a good place to start if you’re about to make your own bad guy.

Continue Reading

Opinions

Nature, an international journal of ‘science,’ makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Published

on

Nature an international journal of science makes ludicrous political statement on sex and gender

Anyone who thinks science is objective would be partially correct. Anyone who believes scientists are objective hasn’t been paying much attention lately.

Let’s look at a single paragraph from Nature, the self-proclaimed International Journal of Science. I’m not cherrypicking a single bad paragraph. It just encapsulates the lunacy being promoted in the name of this “scientific” article.

US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.

Let’s start from the top and work our way down. The opinion of this “scientific” journal is that a proposed classification system designed to protect all people’s privacy and safety without the possibility for discrimination is a “terrible idea that should be killed off.” This, of course, has no basis whatsoever in the science they claim to promote. Don’t get me wrong. There are times when science and politics mix, especially when it comes to allocation of research spending. But this isn’t like saying, “Research dollars spent on curing individual types of cancer would be better used helping scientists understand the root cause of all types of cancers.” That conclusion would come from the mix of science and politics. On the topic of sex and gender, they’ve abandoned the scientific side of the argument and gone completely political.

Their next statement is incredible. “It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress in understanding sex.” This isn’t simply inaccurate. It’s a bald faced lie. Of course sex is based on science. In the rare cases where sex is ambiguous or indeterminable, science enables doctors to help babies move along the path of least resistance while also allowing them the ability to self-determine their sex when they are older. Exceptions can and should be made in such cases. As for undoing “decades of progress understanding sex,” this is also a politically motivated lie. The HHS proposal has absolutely nothing to do with progress understanding sex. They aren’t changing textbooks or erasing research. Again, Nature is weaponizing their scientific credentials to give weight to a purely political statement. It’s a catchy use of words that could have just as easily been written by leftist speechwriters as alleged scientists.

As for gender, we’ll give that part of the statement to them. If we are to base sex on science, then we should accept that gender is a preference. We may not agree with someone’s preference, but that’s really none of our business unless it affects us directly. Thankfully, the rules proposed by HHS pertain to sex, not gender identity.

The last sentence of the paragraph is the funny one. Any hopes the editors had of not coming across as total political hacks masquerading as scientists can be tossed out the window when we read, “Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.”

Their entire article tries to ride the scientific high horse to the leftist finish line, but they can only do so by abandoning the science they claim to uphold and embracing the politics they claim to despise. This is why their best arguments revolve around discrimination. Unfortunately for them, being their best arguments does not mean they’re good arguments.

Let’s be clear about the charges the left likes to make about discrimination. By definition, there is nothing discriminatory about basing decisions surrounding sex on the biological physical components that determine sex. In fact, it’s the only way to NOT discriminate because it puts all people on equal footing. There are no advantages given to those who choose a non-biological sex as their gender and there are no disadvantages to people who abide by the sex they were born into. But the left loves throwing “discrimination” and “bigotry” into the mix any time there’s a perceived threat to their all-encompassing supremacy over accepted cultural norms.

Political statements disguised as science hurts both sides of the coin. It confuses the politics and dirties the science. Shame on Nature for weaponizing their credentials to push a political ideology. The credibility of this “scientific” journal is gone.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Democrats flip Utah House seat as McAdams tops Rep. Mia Love

Published

on

Democrats flip Utah House seat as McAdams tops Rep Mia Love

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Democrat Ben McAdams has flipped a U.S. House seat in deep-red Utah, defeating incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Mia Love by fewer than 700 votes in a race that took two weeks to settle.

McAdams defeated Love by a margin barely over what would have been needed to require a recount, according to final results posted Tuesday.

McAdams’ victory adds to the Democratic majority in a year when they’ve flipped more than three dozen Republican-held seats across the country to win control of the House of Representatives.

The race had been too close to call for The Associated Press until the final votes were tallied. State election officials will certify the results next Monday.

McAdams declared victory Monday night after a release of ballots gave him a margin his campaign believed was insurmountable.

“This race was about connecting with Utah,” he said. “This race was about who was best positioned to serve Utah and working to not get it caught up in a national, partisan election.”

Love, the first and only black female Republican in Congress, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. She was seeking a third term.

Love finished about 20 votes short of being able to request a recount in a race where about 269,000 votes were cast.

This is the second time she has lost a bid for Congress by a razor thin margin. In her first run in 2012, Love lost to incumbent Democrat Jim Matheson by 768 votes. She went on to defeat Democrat Doug Owens in 2014 and again in 2016.

For McAdams, it’s a victory that validates his reputation as an emerging political force in Utah.

He pitched himself as a solid moderate, and not a typical Democrat, while calling Love a partisan who almost always votes with President Donald Trump. The strategy was aimed at independent voters who account for nearly four in 10 voters in the largely suburban district, and designed to overcome his built-in disadvantage in a district where registered Republicans in the district outnumber Democrats by nearly 3-to-1.

He is an attorney who graduated from Columbia Law School and practiced in New York before returning to his home state of Utah. He has been a political figure in the state for a decade. He was elected as one of the few Democrats in the GOP-dominated state Legislature in 2008 and successfully ran for the Salt Lake County mayor’s seat four years later.

He became known for working with the state’s Republican leaders on issues like homelessness, where he backed a narrow Medicaid expansion to cover treatment and once went undercover as a homeless person when the issue reached crisis mode downtown.

Though solidly conservative, Utah voters have long been uncomfortable with Trump’s brash style and his comments about women and immigrants. That anxiety is especially pronounced in the suburbs of blue-leaning Salt Lake City, and McAdams’ mayoral position gave him solid name recognition with voters.

McAdams said during the campaign he would not support California Rep. Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker and insisting he’d be able to work with the president. He has already signed a letter along with 15 other Democrats vowing to oppose Pelosi.

He sharply criticized Love’s support for the GOP-backed tax overhaul and said she had not been available enough to her constituents at town halls. Love pushed back hard, saying the tax overhaul has been good for people in Utah and defending her approach of meeting with voters in smaller groups, on the phone or online.

She highlighted the times she’s stood up to the president, like when Trump used an expletive to describe her parents’ home country of Haiti. She tried to separate herself from Trump on trade and immigration.

Trump didn’t appreciate her approach, calling her out by name in a news conference the morning after Election Day, where he also bashed other Republicans who he said lost because they didn’t fully embrace him.

Love seemed to struggle to find the right balance among conservative voters as she tried to keep her distance but stopped short of disparaging the president, said Damon Cann, a political science professor at Utah State University.

“It became very difficult to satisfy everyone,” Cann said.

Voter turnout among registered voters was the highest for any midterm election in Utah since 1962 at about 74 percent, according to Justin Lee, the state elections director.

McAdams was an excellent candidate and also probably benefited from displeasure with Trump and the Republican party, Cann said.

“The winds were all at McAdams back,” Cann said.

____

Associated Press writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report