Connect with us

Federalists

Two-party power politics has led to creeping socialism

Published

on

For those who were able to catch JD Rucker’s interview with Steve Deace on his September 28, 2017 program, I found the interview quite refreshing and a message that needs to be heard. Not because Rucker founded NOQ Report and The New Americana or the fact that he is a leading voice of the Federalist Party, which is honestly trying to break the Republican/Democratic Party lock on our nation; but because Rucker is “right about the fight”…period.

Background: Thank a Frenchman, Maurice Duverger

Believe it or not, a lot of creeping socialism has been accepted by many Americans whether they know it or not. Some of the biggest ideals that have slowly crept into the political world are indeed out of situational ethics. The biggest one is that of “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and out of that a philosophical law espoused regarding how a two-party political system anywhere on the planet forces weaker factions to join stronger factions in order to win power in elected office…but it also disallows the good candidates (based mostly on character) not to run for office and get behind a candidate is that most likely to win (regardless of the candidate is of character or morally corrupt).

Wonder why you find it a challenge to get rid of the Bush Family (when it comes to elected office) and their associates like Karl Rove? What about getting rid of a John Boehner, John McCain or a Mitch McConnell, only to be replaced with someone similar, or not at all and is rewarded with more power? Well you can thank a Frenchman named Maurice Duverger (political sociologist, and politician and above all a socialist if not a Marxist) and his correct observations about how people would act in the world of politics if they did not have a moral compass and focused only on in the words of the fallen actor Charlie Sheen; “winning.”…even if some of our founders like Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles of Jesus Christ but understand that we needed the Law of God even in our Government.

Duverger: The Electoral System

The Technical Factor: The Electoral System To these socio-economic and historical factors a technical factor must be added: the electoral system. I expressed its effects in 1946 in the formulation of three sociological laws: (1) a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system; (2) proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system; (3) a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions. The brutal finality of a majority vote on a single ballot forces parties with similar tendencies to regroup their forces at the risk of being overwhelmingly defeated.

Analysis

The so-called Establishment in both parties have stayed in power in part because of Duverger’s Law. Not too many people have the money and time to actually form a political party to actually challenge the Republican/Democratic paradigm like the Republicans did originally back in the days of Lincoln and making the Whig Party a footnote in history. The Whigs would rather cut a deal and eventually give what the Democratic Party wanted (back in the day, it was more slavery…hey follow the money).

In that example, certain people made strong sacrifices in order to abolish the act of slavery. They did things to actually protest against slavery and win power through the use of the grass roots and accomplish the goal of abolishing slavery, rather than get behind some charismatic personality or someone in the elite. Many followed those who offered prescriptives that Person W only can do it and therefore must win office to do it. Yet in the long run Person W either couldn’t and didn’t do it and eventually bore false witness to his base (as in “lied”) in order to maintain trust and loyalty. In those days it was slavery, today it’s pre-born baby/child-killing (aka abortion).

The Takeaway

While it’s important to win elected offices, it’s also important to do a little housekeeping from time to time as well. The third parties of today (Libertarian, Constitutional, America’s Party) are nothing but small protest movements. Protests actually get things done–but being small is not enough. Thus we come to JD Rucker and The Federalist Party. They want to be more than just a protest against what the Democrats and Republicans claim to be the ONLY CHOICES on the ballot.

To be continued…

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Pingback: Truly starting a 3rd Party that can challenge the Republican/Democratic paradigm Part 2 – DNM's World

Leave a Reply

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

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

Published

on

GOP plays pro-life card in an election year bluff for votes

With another year of failure behind them and a midterm election ahead, the GOP is busy doing as it always does under such circumstances, squeezing a boatload of bills through Congress designed to give the appearance that they’re keeping their word to the conservative base of the party.

An ace-in-the-hole often played by the Gang Of Phonies when they are desperate for our cash and our votes is the pro-life card, which explains their plan to hold a show vote on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act (BAASA) later this week.

If passed, BAASA would allegedly protect infants delivered alive after a failed abortion which begs the question, if a failed abortion delivers a live baby and a successful abortion delivers a dead baby, isn’t abortion the very definition of premeditated murder?

Premeditated Murder: The term that is used to describe a murder that was planned in advance and was carried out willfully. – Black’s Law Dictionary

In 2002–strangely enough, another midterm election year–George W. Bush signed a similar bill called the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA). While the bill claimed to provide legal protection for an infant born alive after a failed abortion, BAIPA failed to provide penalties or enforcement mechanisms to punish violators.

Without those provisions, the law was meaningless and made it possible for a baby killer like Kermit Gosnell–who routinely murdered babies by severing their spinal cords with scissors through the back of the neck or drowning them in toilets after being born alive–to become a millionaire.

While it can be argued that BAASA might do some good, this is simply an election year ploy that falls woefully short of doing what’s necessary to end the abortion holocaust.

For example, there has been no advance of the “most pro-life platform in GOP history,” which included commitments to defund Planned Parenthood, ban dismemberment abortions, and pass a Human Rights Amendment to the Constitution. In fact, Trump and the GOP actually supported the abortion industry by passing three spending bills in 2017 that fully funded Planned Parenthood.

As a supporter of the Federalist Party and the Convention of States project, I see this charade as more proof that conservatives need to leave the GOP and join these movements. Only by reigning in the federal government and returning power to the states will we bring an end to this holocaust.

What difference could it make? Well, Indiana State Rep. Curt Nisly just introduced a bill that would completely ban abortion in the state. In Roe v. Wade America, his chances of success are somewhere between slim and none. But in Constitutional America, where “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” NIsly’s bill would likely succeed.

BAASA may or may not become law, but it’s nothing more than a lame attempt by RINOs to save their jobs. The lives of the unborn deserve better than this.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be 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

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood?

Published

on

Will Trump and the GOP ever defund Planned Parenthood

Despite claims that 2017 was a “tough year,” Planned Parenthood still managed to have a very profitable year according to a just-released annual report.

After murdering 321,384 unborn babies still in their mother’s womb at their so-called clinics–occasionally selling their body parts on the black market–and receiving nearly $544 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies, Planned Parenthood was able to report an increase in its profits of nearly $21 million despite shutting down 32 centers last year.

According to Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood manager who currently runs an organization designed to help abortion workers get out of the baby-killing business (And Then There Were None), the report proves what we already knew: Planned Parenthood is a political movement, not a women’s healthcare organization. As noted by WorldTribune.com, data contained within the report supports Johnson’s conclusion.

  • The organization’s birth control services continued to drop in the past year. According to its 2016-2017 annual report, contraception services were 2,701,866 – four percent less than 2015-2016.
  • The annual report also shows the number of prenatal services once again dropping – this year to 7,762 – a 17 percent decline from the 9,419 performed the year before. In 2014-2015, Planned Parenthood claimed 17,419 prenatal services performed.
  • While Planned Parenthood performed 3,677,503 sexually transmitted infection (STI) tests, and 706,903 HIV tests over the past year, the organization performs no mammograms but lists 336,614 manual “breast exams.”

During his 2016 campaign, Trump’s position regarding Planned Parenthood changed depending on the day of the week–or Ivanka’s agenda–as he defended the organization for the “good things” it did for women’s health while claiming that abortion was a “small part” of their business operation.

Abby Johnson shot down Trump’s conclusion in a Newsmax interview at the time.

“My message to Donald Trump… [is] nothing Planned Parenthood does is for the greater good of women. Every single service they provide leads back to abortion.

“So why do they provide contraceptive services to women? Because they know that eventually that contraceptive will fail; 54 percent of women who have abortions were using contraception at the time they got pregnant.

“They know that method is going to fail and because they’ve already developed a relationship with that woman then that woman will come back to Planned Parenthood whenever that method did fail and they will be able to sell her on an abortion.

“Why do they provide STD services? Because they care about eradicating STDs? No, because they want to have that first point of contact with a person who is participating in high-risk sexual behavior.

“Because they know that that person has a greater chance of having an unplanned pregnancy and that’s a person they can sell an abortion to. Every single service leads back to abortion.” (emphasis mine)

Candidate Trump wrote a letter in September, 2016 to a group of pro-life leaders stating that he was “committed to … Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women.”

Unfortunately, President Trump–who warned America that he would be different once he became president–agreed to a budget deal with Democrats that funds Planned Parenthood into Fiscal Year 2018, which began Oct. 1. It was the third spending deal Trump signed as president that continues federal funding for the abortion group.

The current extension on that deal expires two weeks from tomorrow and Democrats have a long list of demands to be met in exchange for their vote on a new budget. Also, as we witnessed during the Obamacare repeal debates, the GOP has demonstrated a disgusting willingness to abandon the unborn in order to appease Democrats.

With Trump’s track record of near-schizophrenia when it comes to defunding Planned Parenthood, and with the spineless GOP more concerned about keeping their positions than with keeping their promises, the odds look pretty good that Planned Parenthood will be reporting about another banner year 12 months from now.

Time will tell if the American taxpayer will continue footing the bill for this American Holocaust.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

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.