Connect with us

Federalists

Could current Republican lawmakers leave the party before 2018 elections?

Published

on

Could current Republican lawmakers leave the party before 2018 elections

For full disclosure, I’m a co-founder of the Federalist Party. It behooves me to want certain Republicans, those who want to limit government, defend freedoms, and protect life, to leave the Democratlite party (better known as the GOP).

The last week has been a whirlwind for the GOP and the nation. In the gap between two major hurricane disasters, the Republican Congress has worked on or plans to address issues that one would normally associate with the Democrats. They’re going with the Democrats’ plan to raise the debt ceiling. They are now tasked to legalize DACA, bail out Obamacare, and push forth “tax reform” that seems increasingly likely to resemble a Bill Clinton plan than something fiscal conservatives would draft.

Their leader in the White House is making it crystal clear he loves working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi while despising the agenda (which he helped create) being botched by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. If they’re unable to put forth the so-called tax reform as well as Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure plan (which is conspicuously similar to Schumer’s plan) while trying to fund the border wall, it’s possible for the GOP Congress and the White House to no longer be on speaking terms by Thanksgiving.

Stakes are high heading into a midterm election cycle that is laced with uncertainty. That’s been part of the buzz this week, but even with the debt ceiling being in the news, few have discussed the actual debt itself. With GOP control of both chambers and the White House, it’s inexcusable that the debt continues to skyrocket. How can Constitutionalists in DC watch as their party squanders an opportunity to address the fiscal cliff we’re heading towards? That’s the $20 trillion question.

Could we see Republicans abandoning ship ahead of the election to run as Independents or Federalists? Are some who aren’t going into an election year considering changing allegiance soon rather than waiting? If things continue to look gloomy for both Republicans and Democrats in coming months, the answer to both questions is “maybe.” It’s a long-shot; we weren’t planning on running in many national elections until 2020, but the growing angst has accelerated things.

I wish I could go into detail about the conversations I’ve had this week. Some were surprising. The rest were downright shocking. We’re in a very strange situation where both major parties are failing to inspire any form of support outside of the fervent base. The best thing going for the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. The best thing going for the Democratic Party is the Republican Party. There’s a distinct lack of positive momentum on either side. At this point, all they can rely on is trying to make the other side look worse.

That’s the problem with binary choice. It’s a system that mathematically offers the lowest chance of yielding candidates the people truly want. It’s why we’ve become a political society of attack ads rather than issue-based platform building. Instead of laying out concrete plans for policy, campaigns have devolved to pure mudslinging. They no longer give reasons why you should vote FOR someone. They simply focus on making us vote AGAINST their opponent.

Our intention has always been to focus locally in the 2018 elections and expand to national races in 2020. That plan hasn’t changed, but the calculus is much more favorable now than it ever has been. I’ll be reaching out to those who appear to be Federalists before the end of the year to see what’s possible. If the interest is there (and based upon my calls this week, it is), it’s possible we could see current GOP lawmakers jump ship.

Who can blame them? The Establishment is no longer a representation of what conservatives call RINOs (Republican In Name Only). They’re now what the Republican Party embodies philosophically. It’s the small-government-minded, Constitution-loving Republicans who are no longer considered true representatives of their party’s ideology or plan.

Constitutional conservatives are now Republicans in name only. They see the party as the best vehicle during campaign season because there haven’t been any viable alternatives. We’re trying to change that. Judging by the response we’ve received so far, we’re on our way to reaching the necessary tipping point.

Our biggest challenges are the ongoing failures of third parties. They’ve suffered from amateur strategies and poor choices that end up wasting time, money, and votes. They’ve paved a road towards a dead end. Combine that notion with the self-perpetuating false dichotomy created by the masters of the two-party system and it’s easy to see why so many Americans want a third party but have a hard time believing they’re even possible.

We can suspend disbelief if one or both of two things happen. Our strategy of starting with local, city, county, and state elections is the long road heading towards DC, but it’s solid. The longshot – an exodus by current lawmakers – is entering more of our internal conversations. This time last month, it wasn’t really an option. We’ve apparently been causing some people to take notice which has prompted this week’s enlightening conversations. Now, the exodus gambit is getting stronger consideration. Thankfully, they’re not mutually exclusive. We’ll continue with the first plan while keeping our eyes and ears open for the second.

America needs to be released from the inherent dysfunction of the Democratic-Republicans who’ve had a stranglehold on government since the 19th century. President Trump has stirred the trough shared by both major parties. The time is near when Constitutionalists on Capitol Hill can no longer willfully partake in eating the slop. When the time comes, we’ll be ready.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Economy

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

Published

on

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

When Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) hadn’t been in Washington DC for very long when he said this amazing quote. At the time, many weren’t paying much attention. After all, many Republicans say similar things when they get to DC, but over time they become jaded, corrupted, or start to get used to being in the DC Country Club.

Amash is different. He has remained consistent with his message and views throughout his career. Now, it’s time for other Republicans to remember what they were sent to Washington DC to do in the first place. Defense of the Constitution is their top priority as it’s the best protection against a government that wants desperately to control every aspect of our lives. From healthcare to the internet to how we use our energy, government intervention has become so commonplace, it’s often hard to see the fabric of our nation behind all the layers of bureaucracy that has been placed on top of it.

“I follow a set of principles, I follow the Constitution. And that’s what I base my votes on. Limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty.”

If more Republicans followed the same principles and didn’t just use them in campaign speeches, we may actually be able to return liberties that have been taken and remove layers of government that have been formed unnecessarily.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Federalists

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Published

on

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Vice President Mike Pence has been a strong proponent for federalism throughout his political and radio careers. While he may have had to push his federalist leanings aside while in the White House as his boss feels the need to expand DC power, but at his core I believe he’s still a federalist.

DC power is out of control. States, cities, and most importantly individual Americans need to do whatever we can to rein in the federal government. They believe they know best despite clear evidence they don’t.

“Our founders insisted that protecting the states’ power to govern themselves was vital to limit the power of Washington and preserve freedom.”

Continue Reading

Federalists

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

Published

on

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

There’s a false narrative circulating that claims sanctuary cities are an example of the proper use of federalism that keeps law enforcement powers in the hands local, city, county, and state governments as it pertains to illegal immigrant sanctuary status. On the surface, this argument may actually make sense to some. Dig a little deeper and it’s clearly not what federalists should embrace.

Briefly, federalism is the belief that powers should be shared between all levels of government starting with the individual and family unit at the top of the pyramid and working its way down to the bottom level, the federal government. When it was first pushed by the founding father federalists such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, they fought to make sure the federal government had enough power to be relevant, as their opposition basically wanted states to have all the power. Today federalist tenets have had to refocus on taking powers away from a bloated federal government and return them to the states, counties, cities, communities, and, of course, the individual.

Proponents of sanctuary areas say they’re simply following the principles of limited government federalism by choosing to ignore federal-initiated holds for illegal immigrants who are detained by local jurisdictions. This is false federalism because it suffers from one major flaw.

For states-rights to kick in, one very important criteria must be met. The actions of one location cannot be allowed to have a major detrimental effect on another location. The federal government should only get involved in states’ affairs when their actions influence other states. Such is the case with sanctuary cities and states. Criminal illegal immigrants are not stuck in the city that ignored the federal hold orders. When they release a criminal illegal immigrant, they’re allowing them to roam free across the nation. That means the actions of a state like California can cause harm to residence of neighboring states.

We’re not talking about residents in a state without legal marijuana crossing into another state to buy a joint. We’re talking about people who have entered the country illegally, broken our right to sovereignty, and who pose a clear and present danger to American citizens.

Moreover, it creates an atmosphere of unfairness. As a legal immigrant to the United States, I receive no sanctuary in California. If I have a federal warrant against me and I’m detained for, say, drunk driving in California, they’re not going to release me so I can avoid my federal warrant. If I were an illegal immigrant instead, they would. How backwards is it that my rights as an American citizen are lower than the rights of an illegal immigrant?

Let’s not confuse the real issue, here. This is all about power. The sentiment towards illegal immigrants is both backwards and illogical in cities and states that offer sanctuary to them. Yet politicians know many will continue to vote for them in states like California because to most leftists, hurt feelings are more powerful than actual facts.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report