Everything

On winning: Discretion is the better part of valor

Published

2 years ago

August 19, 2017

Are there times when losing, regardless of the repercussions, is preferable to winning? We are a society which has stopped keeping score at our children’s athletic events. Instead of MVP awards we hand out participation trophies to everyone. Yet, there are segments of our culture where winning is prized above all else. On one hand our children see use say everyone is winner and no one fails, while on the other hand we seek to crush out opponents by any means necessary. Losing with grace and honor is a thing of the past. But, should it be, and did we miss an opportunity to show our children what an honorable loss looks like?

Caleb Howe wrote a terrific article on Thursday, over at Red State, titled The Flight 103 Presidency. I would encourage you to read it. His position is that the game of Russian roulette, that was the 2016 Presidential election, we got a gun with every round in the chamber. There was no chance of drawing a blank and living to spin again. Caleb says the bomb on board is going to blow, now it’s just up to us to determine where we are going to be when it blows, not if it blows.

This brings me back to my opening question. Are there times when it’s just better to lose? Can there be more honor in losing and maintaining some amount of dignity and honor. Is discretion the better part of valor? Is it better to take some hits, but live to fight another day?

The election of 2016 was just such a decision making opportunity. It was very apparent during the primaries, and subsequent general election, that Donald Trump had struck a nerve and ignited people’s passions. Those opposed to the left’s radical agenda feared Hillary Clinton and the continued policies of the last eight years. You know the story, and I won’t repeat it here.

Trump won, despite his historically low approval ratings and despite his complete lack of any moral compass. We have had some bad presidents in our history, but I’m not sure we’ve ever had one who so completely lacks any moral, or ideological, identity. The only consistent thing about President Trump is that so long as you praise him, you are good. If you don’t, you are bad. That is the one thing you can put money on with Trump. Nothing else matters. But, it didn’t matter. We had to win. We had to win at any costs. Well, now we are seeing the costs.

So, what are the costs and were they worth it to avoid a Clinton presidency? This administration has accomplished nothing other than Justice Gorsuch and rolling back some regulations. To be honest, we could have gotten that from a President Jim Gilmore. Hell, insert any republican name behind “President” and we would have at least gotten that. And for those victories, what has been the costs?

Seven months of complete dumpster fire. Every Friday, we wait for the next shoe to drop. A different position from every administration official who opens his or her mouth. Every republican elected official having to decide if it’s more beneficial to defend Trump or distance themselves and risk awakening the wrath of the Twitter Monster that is President Trump. I haven’t even gotten to the latest with the race issues. Like it or not, the Republican Party, and candidates, with spend the rest of their existence fighting allegations of racism and collusion with the alt-right. All at a time when the party was supposed to be expanding the base and becoming a “Big Tent”. Personally, I’ve never been more confident in my decision to leave the party in May 2016, and more proud to have found a home in The Federalist Party.

The argument by some, in conservative circles, during the election was that the Republican Party would be in a better position had Hillary Clinton won. I tend to think they were right. With a Republican House and Senate, she would be opposed at every turn (perhaps). They could have held the line on judges, funding, and any number of issues. (I say this hypothetically, because they really showed no spine during the Obama years) With all of that said, at least there would be some moral authority left, however slight. That is gone.

This is beyond the point of fixing. The President’s inner circle in now void of any right leaning voices. He is surrounded by life-long democrats. If you have been unhappy with the way the first seven months have gone, I anticipate it only getting worse. As Caleb Howe said, the bomb is going to blow. There is no stopping it. The only question now is whether those who are in the Republican Party, and those of us who already left, can admit that we must disassociate with this President and live to fight another day and take the high ground.

“It does not take a majority to prevail … but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

― Samuel Adams

Jacob is the provisional State Chair, Federalist Party of NC

Related Topics:Donald Trump Election of 2016

2 Comments

Doug Olson

August 19, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Well said, Jacob. For over 30 years I have been a member of the GOP. I felt a great relief in May when I left the party and joined the Federalist Party. When the GOP became so feckless due to the maneuvering of Priebus, Trump, Ryan, McConnell and Graham, I saw the writing on the wall. Conservatives are now the enemy of the GOP and of Trumpism. I believe, only through the Federalist Party can true conservatism be re-defined back to where it should be, not what the likes of Flake and other “RINO” would say it is.

Reply
Hermann Fegelein

August 20, 2017 at 7:06 am

Conservative would have a more compelling message if it have ever been anything but a failure and a disaster anywhere it had been put into practice, and if we’re possible to point to a conservative economic philosophy based on anything other than racism and federal handouts. Your argument that Hillary clinton is uniquely horrible actually looks like an ex cathedra declaration, with your claim to make such declarations undermined by your apparent lack of cognitive skills sufficient to enable you to pour water out of a boot. I used to be a conservative, following a conservative leader. It led to a catastrophe the like of which had never before been witnessed on Earth.

Reply

Judiciary

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

Published

6 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Census case will demonstrate if the Supreme Court is political or not

There is an unnecessary amount of controversy surrounding whether or not a citizenship question can be added to the upcoming United States census. But now that it’s here, the outcome of the case will say a great deal about the makeup of the Supreme Court and whether or not it has become a body that is driven solely by politics despite the intent of the founders to make sure it never would be.

On the surface, this case seems rather mundane. It’s just a question about the citizenship status of individuals. Some may be wondering what the big deal really is. In reality, it’s a very big deal. Census data is used to determine pretty much everything as it pertains to the relationship between the federal government and the states. Grant money, House of Representative seats, and district allocations are among the many changes that will all be determined by the census.

From a purely political perspective, this should be a no-brainer to conservatives. Of course the question should be included. It’s unfair for states who allow a higher level of illegal immigrants to gain more power as a result. These are not voters (at least they’re not supposed to be). It’s idiotic to give states a great incentives to bring in as many illegal immigrants as possible, so if the presence of a censorship question lowers the numbers reported, that’s not a bad thing.

Politically, the citizenship question is a winning play for conservatives.

But here’s the problem. The judiciary is not supposed to be driven by politics. Their job is to interpret the Constitution and the law of the land to determine how it’s to be enforced by the executive branch and whether the legislative branch is in line with the intent of the Constitution through the laws they establish. By those criteria, the Trump administration has a major problem with the citizenship question. The Census Act clearly states Congress is to be given notice of changes to the census three years in advance. They were not. The citizenship question was not part of the original list sent by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in March, 2017. It was sent in the March, 2018 list, but that’s not enough time for Congress to review if we’re going solely based on the letter of the law.

This is an insanely stupid aspect of the law; it shouldn’t take Congress three years to read a question and determine whether or not they need to make new laws as a result. But it’s the law nonetheless and Ross broke it by not including the question in his original list. It was a rookie mistake made by someone who really shouldn’t be in his position, but what’s done is done.

Part of my heart says the censorship question is righteous and does not violate the Constitution, therefore it should be allowed. But the other part of my heart longs for a judiciary that is truly apolitical, one that does its job as laid out in the Constitution. If that’s the measure of this case, then the Administration clearly did not meet the standards set forth in the law to add the question to the census.

Where I take solace is knowing the balance of political bias within the judiciary favors the left. If it’s impossible to completely remove politics from the judiciary, then any win for conservatism is acceptable just as any loss for conservatism is unwelcome. I desperately want the originalist perspective to prevail in our judiciary, but if such apolitical adherence is only possible when convenient or in a robotic utopia of a truly impartial judiciary, then I’m forced to defer to the side of my heart that says, “Take the win and move on.”

We need the citizenship question in the census, and though I would have preferred to have seen it handled properly by the Commerce Department, I’ll accept a victory on it even if it comes by the hand of conservative bias.

JavaScript required We are sorry but without JavaScript enabled, this widget does not work. Please enable JavaScript in your browser’s settings and reload this page. Reload

Culture and Religion

Matthew 22:37 – ‘love the Lord thy God’

Published

8 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. – Matthew 22:37 (KJV)

We’ve all heard this verse, but have we really contemplated it? This is a verse that sits in the middle of many different things happening. The Pharisees and Sadducees were questioning Him. His answers were profound and defining.

This important portion of this message is echoed three times: all. Love thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all they mind. This is the most important Commandment according to Yeshua.

Boost This Post

Get this story in front of tens of thousands of patriots who need to see it. For every $30 you donate here, this story will be broadcast to an addition 7000 Americans or more. If you’d prefer to use PayPal, please email me at jdrucker@reagan.com and let me know which post you want boosted after you donate through PayPal.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

Opinions

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

Published

8 hours ago

April 24, 2019

JD Rucker

Sign the petition demanding term limits on Capitol Hill

It’s time for term limits. This has been on my heart for some time, but I have held back because there are so many other important issues to cover. Today, I realized if I wait until more pressing issues are solved, I’ll be waiting forever. There are always going to be more pressing issues than term limits, but here’s the thing. Our representatives realize this, too, which is why it’s never given the attention it deserves. They use these other issues as cover to prevent them from having to address the one issue that will affect them the most.

This is my first petition on Change.org. I’ll admit I’ve never been a fan of the site because it is mostly progressive topics on the table, but this is an issue that even progressives should be able to acknowledge as a problem.

Here’s what I posted:

Set term limits for U.S. Representatives and Senators

Corruption is rampant in Washington DC. One of the biggest reasons this is the case is because lifetime politicians have become power brokers, making them the beneficiaries of favors, payoffs, and under-the-table deals. They live in a perpetual state of campaigning rather than focusing on addressing the problems that face Americans.

Term limits were never included in the Constitution because it was expected by the founders that those serving as our representatives in the legislative branch would do so as a duty to be fulfilled rather than a luxurious position of excess. They did not anticipate the electoral benefits of incumbents, nor did the realize the two-party system would polarize the nation to the point that positions could be made essentially permanent.

Power should not be accumulated over the length of a long career. It should be earned through action and earnestly held for a brief period of time. Today, too much power is consolidated in Washington DC, partially as a result of the extended lengths in which our representatives enjoy their tenure.

Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate should be there because they want to serve their country, not because they enjoy being part of the DC Country Club. Term limits are very popular among the people, but Capitol Hill continues to ignore our will by failing to address it. Why should they? Only they can be hurt by it, and it does not behoove them to hurt themselves.

Instead, they continue hurting us.

We demand Congress immediately put together legislation that spells out term limits for themselves. Americans need to know who is willing to suppress their own power for the sake of the nation. This can only happen by bringing legislation to the floor.

Imagine Capitol Hill without the perpetual campaigning. Imagine forcing our representatives to work within a time limit instead of working to stay in the DC Country Club forever. It’s time for term limits in the House and Senate.