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.

Immigration

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall?

Published

on

Will Trump suspend the Constitution to build his wall

What do martial law, illegal immigration, and using the military as a national police force have in common with Barack Obama and Donald Trump? Possibly more than you realize.

After years of failing to fix the illegal immigration problem and Obama’s abuse of executive orders, there were conspiracy theories being spread by people like Alex Jones at InfoWars.com that Obama was laying the groundwork to declare martial law and cancel the 2016 election.

Of course, that never happened, although I sometimes wish it had (just kidding, no letters please). But with the obvious assault on our Constitutionally protected, God-given rights increasing with every passing day, and with Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution, we need to ask ourselves if something like that could still happen.

Trump convinced America to vote for him in 2016 based on his promise to build a “big beautiful wall” on our southern border and have Mexico pay for it. Yet, after two years, no such wall exists, and Mexico has let Trump know in no uncertain terms they have no intention of financing one.

As a result, all of the problems associated with illegal immigration not only still exist, but they’ve gotten worse. On top of that, Trump is busy gearing up for another four years as president … or more.

Trump has often joked about being president beyond the Constitutionally allowed eight years, but recent comments about his border wall would seem to indicate that he’s not all that concerned about any limitations placed on him by the Constitution he once called “archaic.”

On Tuesday, Trump bragged about the success he was having with the wall even though it doesn’t exist while issuing this threat. “If the Democrats do not give us the votes to secure our Country, the Military will build … the Wall.”

In essence, Trump is saying that he will play the role of dictator by ignoring Congress and using the military to force his will, a threat he also made earlier this year.

Such an action would turn the military into a national police force, but it would also require some manipulation of the Constitution. Trump can’t simply shift Border Security funds from the Department of Homeland Security to the military without Congress, unless he declares a national emergency.

Such a declaration would suspend the limits placed on the president by the Constitution and allow him to use the military as he sees fit without Congressional approval such as he did when he sent thousands of troops to the border to deal with the migrant caravan in October.

In a survey released in the summer of 2017, a majority (52%) of respondents supported the idea of postponing the 2020 election if Trump needed to declare a national emergency to deal with the immigration problem.

It looks like Trump might just take them up on the offer.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


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

News

Shooting near West Bank settlement kills at least 2 Israelis

Published

on

Shooting near West Bank settlement kills at least 2 Israelis

JERUSALEM (AP) — A shooting attack near a West Bank settlement on Thursday killed at least two Israelis and critically wounded another two, Israel’s rescue service said.

The deaths extend a violent week that began with a shooting outside a West Bank settlement on Sunday, resulting in the death of a baby who was delivered prematurely following the weekend attack, and continued with the killing of two Palestinians wanted in that and another attack on Israelis in the West Bank.

Eli Bin, the head of Israel’s Magen David Adom service, told Israeli Army Radio that two people were killed in the shooting, which occurred at a location about a ten-minute drive south from the place of Sunday’s attack. Their identities were not immediately known.

A later statement from the service said paramedics arrived at a bus stop to find four “youngsters” with gunshot wounds.

Israeli media reported that a passing car opened fire outside the settlement, but it was not clear if the gunmen had fled the scene or were stopped. The Israeli military had no additional information.

While the West Bank experiences occasional deadly violence, often between Israeli troops and Palestinian protesters, much of the Israeli-Palestinian violence in recent months has been limited to the Gaza Strip, where some 175 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire in border protests.

“In recent days, we definitely feel like the situation (in the West Bank) is getting worse,” Shalom Galil, a paramedic who assisted at the scene of the shooting, told Israeli Army Radio.

The shooting comes hours after Israeli security forces tracked down and killed a Palestinian accused of killing two Israelis.

Israeli police said Ashraf Naalweh was found armed near the West Bank city of Nablus and was killed during an arrest raid.

Israel accuses Naalweh of shooting to death two Israelis and wounding another at an attack on a West Bank industrial zone in October. He fled the scene and Israeli forces have been searching for him since.

“Israel’s long arm will reach anyone who harms Israeli citizens,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said.

Police said it had made a number of arrests in its attempt to hunt down Naalweh and suspected he was planning on carrying out another attack.

On Wednesday, Israeli forces killed Salah Barghouti, a Palestinian suspect wanted in the drive-by shooting earlier this week at a West Bank bus stop.

In Sunday night’s attack, assailants in a Palestinian vehicle opened fire at a bus stop outside a West Bank settlement, wounding seven people, including a 21-year-old pregnant woman, before speeding away.

The militant Hamas group that rules the Gaza Strip said that both Barghouti and Naalweh were its members but stopped short of claiming responsibility for the attacks the two carried out.

“The flame of resistance in the (West) Bank will remain alive until the occupation is defeated on all our land,” Hamas said.

Also Thursday, police said an assailant stabbed two officers in Jerusalem’s Old City, wounding them lightly. The officers opened fire on the attacker and he was killed, spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

Police identified the man as a 26-year-old Palestinian from the West Bank. It released security camera footage that shows the man lunging toward the officers and appearing to stab them.

Continue Reading

Politics

The administrative state is far too powerful

Published

on

The administrative state is far too powerful

The administrative state is essentially a loophole in government that gives citizens no recourse. We don’t elect them. We can’t expect Congress to do its job. What are we supposed to do?

Philip Hamburger took to PragerU to deliver one of the most important talks the channel has had in a while. The dangers inherent to unelected bureaucrats and their fiefdoms is real and must be addressed now.

We can’t vote them out. Capitol Hill has abdicated. The founding fathers would be ashamed of the administrative state that holds too much control. Philip Hamburger and PragerU have made a must-watch video. The question is, how do we fix this?

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report