Connect with us

Everything

Boots and Bytes: The Federalist growth strategy

Published

on

We received an email this morning asking us to buy an ad in a print-only magazine. I asked how much and received a phone call within seconds of replying to their email. It’s a well-known publication most often read on airplanes. The pitch was a great one: captive audience, bold messaging potential, 400,000 copies in planes or mailed out every issue. Then, the price-tag came. $12,000.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, we can reach 2,650 people on Facebook for $50. We can email 50,000 people for $245. Why would we ever consider buying a print ad for so much more? Answer: We wouldn’t.

The sales rep emailed me a picture. It looked like she had just taken it with her smartphone after leafing through a recent issues. I was supposed to see it as validation. Another third party had taken advantage of their offer. It wasn’t the full-page ad she was pushing me to get, but she noted that they were an older, more experienced party and had put out ads with them at least once a quarter for years. I wanted to ask her how many elections they’d won by buying the print ads, but decided not to be rude.

Personally, I like a good newspaper or magazine. Call me old-fashioned, but there’s something appealing about looking at paper rather than the glow of a screen. With that said, I can count on two hands the number of times I’ve actually read an article in a newspaper or magazine over the last few years. We’re in a digital age. Our information comes in bytes instead of ink.

The Federalist Party will use modern technology and trends to reach the masses. As appealing as it is to nearly every other party to advertise in traditional media sources like print, radio, and television, we understand that the most cost-effective way to spread our message is digitally. Social media, text messaging, branding ads, and articles will get us more exposure for our efforts and expenditures than traditional advertising. That’s not to say we’d never look at traditional media; we have a contract we’re about to sign to hit 40 radio stations across the nation. However, it has to be the right deal. We won’t spend money or put effort into traditional advertising just to be able to say, “Look at this shiny magazine ad we bought.”

Does that mean we’re going to put all of our eggs in the digital basket? No. The other portion of our outreach strategy is getting boots on the ground. The best way to truly reach the grassroots is one handshake and conversation at a time. We will put a great deal of emphasis on meeting people face-to-face and sharing with them the virtues of smaller government, greater freedoms, and the fight to protect life.

For this, we need to be frugal as well. It can get expensive travelling around the country. We’ll have to pick and choose which events to attend and how we intend to be represented at them. Memorial Day weekend’s Rolling Thunder event in Washington DC is an example of picking the right event based upon access, potential reach, and most importantly our ability to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. Our supporters work hard for their money. We need to treat every dollar we receive as the precious gift that it is.

Direct contact with people is absolutely necessary for the party to grow. We might not touch as many people at Rolling Thunder as we would through a bulk text message blast, but the touches themselves will be more meaningful. We’ll actually be meeting people and talking WITH them rather than most advertising platforms where we’re talking AT them. The Federalist Party wants to be the most technologically advanced party, but we won’t let our tech-savvy side disrupt the interpersonal engagement we can only get by talking to people directly.

We need the tech to help us reach the masses and we need boots on the ground to help us reach people one-on-one. It’s a solid 1-2 punch that will give us the upper hand when mobilizing for elections in the near future. We’re in growth mode now, but the current “boots and bytes” strategy is a microcosm of plans we’ll implement when running in actual races. Just because you won’t see us in a magazine on your next flight doesn’t mean we’re not working hard to be seen.

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