Connect with us

Federalists

How does the Federalist Society relieve stress? “But Gorsuch” stress balls, of course.

Published

on

But Gorsuch

Conservatives who aren’t pleased with the actions, direction, and/or rhetoric coming out of the White House often invoke a simple phrase: “But Gorsuch!” It’s intended to remind them that no matter what the current administration does that goes against limited-government principles, at least they can find solace in a Constitution-loving judge being appointed by President Trump to the Supreme Court.

This popular meme made its way to the Federalist Society’s annual convention as the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank, distributed stress balls to attendees. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s image and the famous words of solace were printed on the balls.

No matter how bad it gets, remember that it could have been worse, at least from the bench.

Further Reading

‘But Gorsuch’ stress balls give relief to distraught lawyers at Federalist Society conference

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/but-gorsuch-stress-balls-give-relief-to-distraught-lawyers-at-federalist-society-conference/article/2641092“I adore Gorsuch and he’s a dream judge on so many levels and we don’t do a ton with the judiciary at R Street … [but] we just love doing the silly stuff,” said Shoshana Weissmann, R Street Institute’s digital media specialist who hand-delivered the balls to attendees on Friday.

Weissmann said the R Street Institute made 150 balls, which it started distributing when the Federalist Society’s annual convention began in Washington on Thursday. The think tank had about 50 balls remaining Friday, with attendees coming to get them while Weissmann spoke with a reporter.

Scarlett is a mom and a friend. She blogs for a living but really prefers to read more than write. She writes mostly about politics, but occasionally delves into book and movie reviews.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Don McCullen

    November 17, 2017 at 6:58 pm

    Just keep voting Republican right????

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Democrats

Roy Moore’s loss does not signal a ‘Democratic wave’

Published

on

Roy Moores loss does not signal a Democratic wave

Contrary to what the Washington Post claims, there is no “Democratic wave.” Even if there was one, the idea that Roy Moore’s loss in Alabama yesterday was indicative of anything resembling a wave is utterly ludicrous.

More Americans are waking up to the reality that the Democratic Party doesn’t have their best interests in mind. This is why they’re losing membership almost as quickly as the Republicans. As more people become Independents or join the Libertarian, Green, or Federalist parties, it’s a signal that the Democrats are not rising or part of some wave. There is an anti-GOP wave. In the current two-party system, that results in Democratic victories.

The real wave points to the idea that third party and independent candidates can start winning elections in the near future. It may not happen in 2018. It may not even happen in 2020. It will happen at some point. The corruption in both parties is too blatant for them to hold on to their duopoly for much longer.

Regarding Moore, mainstream media has been putting out stories about how improbably his loss was and how ruby red Alabama is a sign of the end for the GOP. Their end may be in sight, but Moore’s loss is not a result of it. The more truthful narrative is that the Democrats barely won by 1.5% against a man accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct with minors, including at least two accusations of pedophilia. Ruby red or not, that doesn’t sound like anything resembling a wave.

The WaPo article below is a pep talk. It’s a rallying cry. It’s an attempt to get the Democratic base excited about its prospects going into the midterm elections. Perhaps more importantly to their narrative is the idea that this is the sign of a trend towards removing President Trump from the White House, whether soon through legal means or at the latest during the 2020 election.

In other words, it’s opportunistic propaganda riding the wave of the Moore loss and trying to pretend it’s a Democratic wave instead.

Democrats did absolutely nothing to win in Alabama. The Washington Post did all the work. Now, the same publication is trying to translate their first big win of 2017 into more victories for their agenda in 2018. They, not the Democrats, are the GOP’s biggest threat until we’re able to mount a formidable challenge from outside of the duopoly.

Reference

2018 looks like a Democratic wave

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2018-looks-like-a-democratic-wave/2017/12/13/6af61844-e037-11e7-bbd0-9dfb2e37492a_story.html?utm_term=.bc7050a46bdfJones’s improbable victory was much more than a rejection of Moore. It reflected a broader trend within the American electorate since the 2016 presidential election. Trump’s presidency has divided Republicans and energized Democrats. As a result, Democrats have made substantial gains in special and off-year elections.

Last month, Democrats won the Virginia gubernatorial election by a larger-than-expected margin. More surprisingly, they made substantial gains in the Virginia House of Delegates, coming close to regaining control of that chamber. At the same time, Democrats were making inroads in special elections across the country, including flipping three GOP-held seats in the Georgia legislature.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Chip Roy makes the Texas 21st district race much more interesting

Published

on

Chip Roy makes the Texas 21st district race much more interesting

The diminishing sway and coordination of the various Tea Party factions has had an effect on 2018 GOP primary races. Most of them are Establishment Republicans versus slightly-less-Establishment Republicans. Following the 2016 election season that didn’t treat conservatives very well, they seem hesitant to throw their hats back in any races.

An exception has popped up in San Antonio, Texas. Despite a flurry of Republicans entering the race for the seat of retiring Representative Lamar Smith, a known conservative name has joined the fray. Chip Roy, the former Chief of Staff for Ted Cruz and more recently the director for the Center for Tenth Amendment Action at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, is bringing his distinct brand of conservatism to town.

Chip Roy, former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz, is running for Congress

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/12/06/chip-roy-former-cruz-chief-staff-running-lamar-smiths-seat/Roy’s campaign is being staffed by a number of Cruz veterans. They include Jason Johnson, the chief strategist for Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign; John Drogin, the campaign manager for Cruz’s 2012 U.S. Senate bid; and Jordan Berry, another alum of Cruz’s 2012 bid.

Since Smith announced his retirement, more than a dozen Republicans have lined up for the seat. Some of the more prominent names include state Rep. Jason Isaac of Dripping Springs, ex-Bexar County GOP Chairman Robert Stovall and former U.S. Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco of San Antonio.

My Take

This site favors the rise of the Federalist Party, as do I. My attachment to the Republican Party ended last year, but until the Federalists are putting out candidates, I have to jump on the opportunity to support constitutional conservatives like Roy. I’ve followed him since before his stint with Cruz and, unlike some of his former bosses, he’s stayed consistent with his conservative stances. His leadership at the TPPF was exemplary. I’d love to see him in the House of Representatives.

Continue Reading

Economy

Food stamps and federalism: Why putting more control in the states’ hands is a great idea

Published

on

Food stamps and federalism Why putting more control in the states hands is a great idea

Getting Americans in poor financial situations help acquiring the basic need of food has been under the control of the federal government for decades. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as the food stamp program, has been been in a continuous state of increase even as the overall fiscal health of the nation has improved.

The USDA has released a promise to push the program towards a federalist solution. By giving more control over the delivery and administration of food stamps to the states, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue hopes to pull more people off the program and down the road to self-sufficiency.

“SNAP was created to provide people with the help they need to feed themselves and their families, but it was not intended to be a permanent lifestyle,” he said.

Details of the move have not been released, but the general theme of the pledge is to bring it in line with federalism. This is a great thing. Here are three reasons why:

Localizing welfare programs improves accountability

As with any federal program, the food stamp program is rife with corruption. Having the federal government dictate how states administer the program takes responsibility away from the states to monitor how it’s all handled.

One of the benefits of localizing government is making people responsible for their own actions. When messes are pushed over to DC for accountability, they can get lost in the mix. Localizing allows people closer to home to ask the tough questions. That’s not to say there’s no corruption in local or state governments, but it’s much easier to identify and sort out when the buck stops locally instead of getting pushed up to the federal level.

Let states innovate as the labs of government

SNAP was intended to be a stopgap solution, but history has proven it isn’t. More people join the food stamp program than leave it. Some of this is due to the direction the economy is going where higher prices of basic living expenses outpace lower end wages. Most of the problems can be attributed to lack of innovation.

The federal government is not known for innovation. It’s just too big.

By applying the basic tenets of federalism to allow states to be the laboratories of government they were intended to be from our founding, we can see a diverse mix of solutions attempted. As some fail, other states can learn from those lessons. As others succeed, policies can be adopted and improved upon based upon those successes. The goals of both the federal and state variations of the agencies should be to help those who need it now by getting them food and in the future by making them self-sufficient. Opening up innovation at the state level is the best way to achieve both goals. This leads us to the most glaring reason we need federalism applied to food stamp (and most other) programs…

DC doesn’t shrink anything, ever

We want fewer people on food stamps. This isn’t just for the sake of taxpayers. It’s for the sake of the Americans in need. There will always be some who prefer to game the system and be supported for their whole lives. There are others who have no choice. However, there are millions who can and should be able to get back on their feet. All they need is a little help.

Washington DC is incapable of this because it goes against the nature of our current federal government system. Until we elect true federalists to enough offices across America, we’re stuck with the Democrats and Democratlites (also known as the Republicans). Both parties have grown accustomed to keeping DC in a perpetual state of growth. For every positive move like this one, there are five more programs getting boosts for no good reason other than earning the current party in power some votes.

What the USDA is proposing is that rare opportunity when a federal agency is relinquishing power to the states. We should take the successes that come from the move and use them as shining examples of how the principles of federalism can be made to work better than the current big-government system that rules over just about everything in DC.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.