Connect with us

Everything

Keeping our representatives beholden to those they represent

Published

on

The vast majority of responses to our stance on having individual “platforms” for every candidate and representative has been positive. People like the idea of a party that is willing to hold its own people accountable to the promises they make. With that said, there have been a few concerns that must be addressed.

By far, the biggest concern is that if there is no centralized direction from the national party, we could get an extremely diverse range of perspectives from representatives. As a national party our platform is quite simple. We believe in reining in the federal government by dramatically limiting budgets, bureaucracy, and power. We hold the rights that every American is born with as sacred; the Constitution defends those rights which means our representatives must defend the Constitution. Lastly, we believe in the sanctity of human life.

Based upon the simplicity of this platform, many assume there will be too much room for interpretation. We feel strongly that there will be just the right amount of room for degrees of flexibility, but interpretations will not be skewed by whimsy or creative reckoning. For example, limiting government is as straight-forward as it needs to be. We do not fear a Federalist representative misinterpreting this in a way that makes them act to the contrary. If a bill is on their desk that truly reins in overreach, they’ll be able to recognize that just as easily as anyone else in the party would. The beauty of Federalism is that it isn’t hard to apply even with a basic understanding. We expect the understanding of those representing us to be more than basic.

Here’s the key to our stance: every state, city, community, and individual is different. We all have different needs and priorities. Today, Washington DC has become too detached from the will of the people because our national representatives are compelled to work from a national level. That’s not to say they don’t listen to their constituents, but most are only truly listening around election time and only for the purpose of determining how to win votes. In between elections, they’re willfully insulated from the real world by the partisan politics and inherent corruption of Washington DC itself.

We need our representatives to make and keep promises to their people. In some cases, “their” people may very well be the entirety of the United States. The attempted debacle of an Obamacare repeal bill currently working its way to President Trump’s desk is an example of this. In most cases, the promises made and kept by our representatives in DC should be directly influenced by the people who voted for them. This is why it’s so important for the Federalist Party to hold them accountable for their promises in the form of a clearly outlined personal platform. If a Texas Congressman says he’s going to fight against natural gas regulations to free up businesses and employees in his state, we’ll hold him accountable to that promise. If a California Congresswoman pushes forward legislation to reduce protections for illegal immigrants, it’s because she made that vow to the people in her district. That’s how Federalism works. A Congressman in New Hampshire might not care about either of these promises and likely wouldn’t list them in his platform, but he would almost certainly vote for them since they fall in line with the overarching Federalist mentality.

This works at every level. Just as a state representative has to make some decisions for the state and others for the local district, so too does a city council member often have to make promises and take actions that work on multiple scales. This is the flexibility that we desire for the party. It’s not to make it harder for the party to unify as some have suggested. It’s to allow representatives to act based upon the needs of the people they represent.

For over a century, the nation has been creeping towards more centralization. At times, it’s been lurching towards Statism at an alarming pace. Today is such a time which is why the Federalist Party must rise. We have to push for localization in order to have true accountability. Only when our representatives are beholden to the people they represent will we be able to move the country back in the right direction.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Media

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

Published

on

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

There are plenty of things about the Jussie Smollett scandal that should disgust us. The instant reaction by celebrities, politicians, and the media is right there at the top, especially when we consider how many are now saying, “let’s wait for the facts.” The notion that a successful gay black man thought it appropriate to make himself seem like a victim is also up there.

As One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler points out, we should also be disgusted that Smollett chose this victim status over being a strong leader and role model for less privileged black and gay people who could have looked up to him for his strength instead of now being scornful of his weakness.

What does that say about America when the left tries so hard to build the narrative that everything is wrong, they’re unwilling to recognize the real problems that are plaguing America. Why? Because they’re the biggest part of the problem.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as ‘sweetheart,’ prompting zero outrage

Published

on

Louis Farrakhan refers to Ilhan Omar as sweetheart prompting zero outrage

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan referred to Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as “Sweetheart” as he addressed her during a speaking engagement on Sunday. He apparently caught his faux pas and immediately justified the remark, but at that point the moniker which many consider to be sexist or misogynistic had already been noted.

Nevertheless, it didn’t cause the stir one might expect. As a far-left progressive, Omar is known for being a feminist icon on Capitol Hill even though she hasn’t been in office for a full two months yet. As our EIC noted, the lack of a rebuke was because of the source, not because she now feels it’s okay to refer to her as “sweetheart.”

The statement came as Farrakhan was telling Omar she shouldn’t be sorry for the statements she made last week about Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish influence in Washington DC, particularly over Republicans.

In a world where consistency was still considered a virtue, followers of Omar would be wondering why she’s not expressing outrage over the belittling reference from a powerful man. But the world isn’t consistent and Farrakhan always gets a pass.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report