Connect with us

Everything

We are not anti-Federalists, we are conservative, constitutionalist Federalists

Published

on

Many people have heard of the term federalism and believe it is synonymous with conservative or the right. With the rising of the new Federalist Party, it is important to know what is Federalism. If we look at North America, you see that Canada, United States, and Mexico are all based on a federalist form of government. Most of the countries around the world which have a federalist form of government would not be considered conservative.

In the United States, our Founding Fathers were divided on this issue. Should the United States have a strong federal government and Constitution or simply have each State be a nation-state and stick with the Articles of Confederation. The debate over Federalism was most prominently seen in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

The Federalist ultimately won the debate, and the compromise was the Bill of Rights. I think all modern day Federalist are happy this vigorous debate happened, and we are ever grateful to the Anti-Federalist for the Bill of Rights.

In today’s America, it might seem that the Anti-Federalist were correct. That the Federal government is too powerful and today we don’t need a Federalist Party but an Anti-Federalist Party.

I wholeheartedly agree that the federal government is way too powerful, but I would also argue that state governments are way too powerful. If our Founding Fathers were alive today, they would look at our government and wouldn’t recognize our government as something born out of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe the Progressive movement in the early 20th Century from both Republicans and Democrats and the adoption of the 16th & 17th Amendments began to move this country into a centralized government which the Federalist would have opposed.

Therefore, if the Anti-Federalist seemed to have been more right should the Federalist Party rebrand itself as The Anti-Federalist Party?

In one sense, yes and no. The Federalist Party believes in having a federalist form of government by going back to the intended role on which the federal government was formed and not what we see today. So in one sense for the Federalist Party to accomplish its goal it must first become the Anti-Federalist Party until we bring down the size of the federal government and restore powers back to the States and the People.

Today, we see conservatives looking at the political landscape and seeing two political parties which are emulating the progressive policies of the early 20th Century. Many, including myself, want something new, or better yet, something old.

We want to go back to the founding principles which formed this country. We do want a federal government but one that is limited to the enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8. Instead of Republicans fighting over a replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA – ObamaCare), why isn’t the discussion about repealing the ACA and reducing the federal government to its defined Constitutional role. The federal government has no business in nationalizing or regulating health care. We the People have not enumerated those powers in the Constitution to the federal government.

We also don’t want state governments regulated our everyday lives.
The Anti-Federalist were not only worried about State sovereignty being usurped but individual rights. If they looked at what states are doing today, they would be appalled.

What we are lacking isn’t federalism in the country what we are lacking is genuine conservatism applied to federalism. We lack leaders throughout government that believe that government is a tool, not the solution. It’s a tool for the general welfare of society. To protect our natural rights, which are universal and inalienable. Leaders that recognize that we are a People with a government and not a Government with people.

We want a federal and state governments limited to the powers we enumerate to them. Not Rights the government graciously grants us. We demand Conservative Federalism but can we expect to receive it?

The answer will always be no. You can’t wait to receive it. You must take it. You must make the decision today. Will I take back my Rights? Will I finally realize that the binary choice of Democrats and Republicans is a false narrative?

If you agree with me and want our country and government back then today is the day we resurrect the conservative movement. Together we can bring real conservative federalism back to America. I believe we can do this if we come together and destroy the binary choice of Democrat or Republican. If we unite under the flag of Federalist Party and begin our campaign of Anti-Federalism we can and we will bring true conservative federalism back to America.

Mr. Roditis a candidate for California State Controller. He is an entrepreneur and owns several companies. He graduated from UCSD with a B.A. in Political Science/International Relations. He's a former City Commissioner with the City of Anaheim, CA. He's a Conservative Constitutional Federalist. Follow him on Twitter @KonRoditis

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

Forget lowering unemployment, Bernie Sanders will eliminate it!

Published

on

During his 2016 Democrat primary campaign, Bernie Sanders was “absolutely sympathetic” to the idea of a universal basic income; however, he felt that his plans for a $15/hr. minimum wage, expanding Social Security to pay for guaranteed healthcare, and providing free college would do more than creating just another government handout.

But now Bernie has apparently found a way to accomplish his goals as well as the goals of the universal basic income crowd.
Yesterday, we learned that the self-proclaimed Democratic-Socialist is ready to announce a plan that will guarantee every American “who wants or needs one” a lifetime government job paying at least $15/hr. and proving paid family and medical leave plus retirement, health, and vacation benefits.

While the details are still being worked on, Bernie has admitted that he currently has no idea exactly how much his plan will cost or where the money to pay for it will come from. However, if his 2016 campaign is any indication, the cost will be irrelevant, and the money to pay for it will come from “the billionaires and oligarchs” he refers to as the “top one percent of income earners.”

While it would be tempting to shrug off Bernie’s plan as the rantings of a socialist loon living to the left of the left-wing, we should remember how his Marxist beliefs concerning income inequality caught fire with a generation of Constitutionally ignorant voters raised on the socialist ideology taught in today’s public schools indoctrination centers.

And a poll conducted during the 2016 primary season showed that a majority of millennials rejected capitalism.

Democrats would see a huge voter advantage by creating a new state-run workforce dependent upon them for their jobs. And politicians from both parties would have a new voter-bloc to advance their ideological and political agendas.

Bernie’s plan is being called a guaranteed-jobs program, but the only guarantee it gives us is the destruction of capitalism and Constitutional America.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

In UK, Ancient Heathenism Reigns Supreme

Published

on

Several minutes had passed since the medical examination of the newborn had begun. They stood inspective over the infant, occasionally murmuring to one another in a hushed tone.  The babe’s father stood nearby, pacing: his eyes intractably fixed on the small group of elders in a desperate attempt to interpret each subtle lift of an eyebrow or pinch of the lips.

Then came that dreaded nod…

The tormented father wept as the judge read the decision aloud: “as thinking it neither good for the child itself…” the child must die.

The above description is not a reference to the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Alfie Evans, nor the United Kingdom’s government-ordered killing of little Charlie Gard.

The infant’s death-order, described above, was merely the price of societal perfection for his father, living in the Statist abyss of Ancient Sparta.

In Lives: Lycurgus 16, Greek historian Plutarch (48-122 A.D.) wrote of the medical inspections of infants by “elders,” and of the state-ordered murder of infants in Ancient Sparta under the rule Lycurgus, a tyrannical central-planner:

“Nor was it in the power of the father to dispose of the child as he saw fit (as was his right in most heathen societies). He was obliged to carry (the newborn) child before certain men at a place called Lesche; these men were some of the elders of the tribe to which the child belonged; their business was to carefully view the infant, and, if they found it stout and well made, they gave order for its rearing and allotted to it one of the nine thousand shares of land above mentioned for its maintenance, but, if they found it puny and ill-shaped, ordered it to be taken to what was called the Apothetae (“depository”), a (large cave) under Mt. Taygetus (in the Peloponnese); as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself, nor for the public interest, that it should be brought up, if it did not, from the very outset, appear to be healthy and vigorous.” (emphasis mine)

Undesirable Infants – those either deemed unfit in some way, were conceived through rape, were unwanted, or were female – were often exposed, meaning that these infants were tossed into pits or over cliffs, or were abandoned in the wilderness and then left to starve or to be eaten by wild animals.

Such was life in the pagan purgatories of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome.

Such has life begun to be again, today, in the United Kingdom.

As I type, a toddler lies in the hospital, a prisoner, detained by the pagan pride of evil monsters, by his own Statist government.

The “elders” in the UK have sentenced little Alfie Evans to die, “as thinking it neither for the good of the child itself. Alfie may not be alone in the wilderness, but he is being exposed by the sword of starvation.

Right now, a tormented father weeps for his child.

The cruel winds of an evil-ridden history are circling ’round again.

 

Once Christianity came upon the scene, Christians began to regularly rescue exposed infants.

As Tertullian stated, “Christians sought out the tiny bodies of newborn babies from the refuse and dung heaps and raised them as their own or tended to them before they died or gave them a decent burial” (Early Church History).

“The Christian idea that each individual person has worth because they were created by God was foreign to the lies of pagan society where the State, the tribe, the collective was the only value they knew” (Early Church History).

One can even visit these once abandoned babes at the Catacomb of Praetextatus. “The catacombs are filled with very tiny graves with the epitaph ‘adopted daughter of…’ or ‘adopted son of…’ inscribed on them. These inscriptions refer to the many babies and young children Christians rescued from the trash over the centuries” (Early Church History).

Unlike during the times of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece, however, today’s United Kingdom prevents Christians from aiding Britain’s exposed children.

Christians from across the globe have offered aid and open arms to little Alfie Evans. Pope Francis has faithfully attempted to save the ailing child, arranging medical transportation for Alfie so that he might fly via air ambulance to the Vatican’s hospital.

Still, the prideful “elders” cling mercilessly to their pagan heathenism, determined to deny any and all Christian charity for little Alfie.

 

Alas! One thing is now crystal clear: in the United Kingdom, ancient heathenism reigns supreme.

For a glimpse of the future, listen to these famous voices from the past:

In On the Laws 3.8, Cicero (106-43 BC) states:

“Deformed infants shall be killed.”

Posidippus, a Greek poet, wrote:

“Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes a daughter even if he is rich.”

In On Anger 1.15, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) wrote:

“…mad dogs we knock on the head…unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children at birth who are weakly and abnormal.”

In Politics 7.1335b, Aristotle (364 BC-322 BC) wrote:

“As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared;  but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practiced on it (the child).”

In Theaetetus, the Greek philosopher Plato (quoting Socrates) wrote of the important societal task of killing infirm infants:

“For we must take care that we don’t overlook some defect in this thing that is entering into life; it may be something not worth bringing up, a wind-egg, a falsehood. What do you say? Is it your opinion that your child ought in any case to be brought up and not exposed to die? Can you bear to see it found fault with and not get into a rage if your first-born is stolen away from you?”

In Ad Nationes, Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) recorded the frequency of pagan infanticide in the Roman Empire during the late 100’s and early 200’s A.D.:

“…because, although you are forbidden by the laws to slay new-born infants, it so happens that no laws are evaded with more impunity or greater safety, with the deliberate knowledge of the public, and the suffrages of this entire age…But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.”

In Book 3 of Instructor, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) wrote of Roman women caring more for animals than for children:

“And though maintaining parrots and curlews, they do not receive the orphan child; but they expose children that are born at home, and take up the young of birds, and prefer irrational to rational creatures.”

 

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

New California law voids religious freedom to advance LGBT agenda

Published

on

In the war on American culture waged by the Marxist Rainbow Jihad and LGBT terrorists, there has been perhaps no greater battlefield than the state of California. And as the front where many of the battles are fought, it is also where we find the greatest number of casualties, usually children.

Government authorities working as a type of Gay Mafia have turned public schools into LGBT indoctrination centers where acceptance of deviant lifestyles is mandated by the state in the name of so-called tolerance. In these indoctrination centers, parents are denied the right to teach their kids the values they believe in, and children as young as five-years-old are disciplined as “bullies” for “misgendering” their gender-confused classmates.

Not content with brainwashing young minds, however, LGBT radicals in the CA legislature want to make it a crime for parents, pastors, and professional councilors to engage in “sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.”

Under a banner of so-called consumer protection, the bill (AB-2943) defines “change efforts” as:

“Any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behavior or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The bill furthers the LGBT agenda in one more way; it codifies LGBT lifestyles as normal and scientific:

“Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.”

With this language added to the bill, freedom of speech and freedom of religion concerning LGBT issues will be essentially eliminated . . . by law!

I once wrote an article about how the LGBT culture war was one more reason for parents to take their kids out of public schools, but now that won’t be enough. This war has grown into a full-fledged assault on religion and traditional moral values.

We can no longer accept the “live and let live” ideology of the left under the mistaken belief that equality is their only goal. It’s time to fight for the souls of our children and the future of America while we still can.


Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.