For full disclosure, I’m a co-founder of the Federalist Party. It behooves me to want certain Republicans, those who want to limit government, defend freedoms, and protect life, to leave the Democratlite party (better known as the GOP).
The last week has been a whirlwind for the GOP and the nation. In the gap between two major hurricane disasters, the Republican Congress has worked on or plans to address issues that one would normally associate with the Democrats. They’re going with the Democrats’ plan to raise the debt ceiling. They are now tasked to legalize DACA, bail out Obamacare, and push forth “tax reform” that seems increasingly likely to resemble a Bill Clinton plan than something fiscal conservatives would draft.
Their leader in the White House is making it crystal clear he loves working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi while despising the agenda (which he helped create) being botched by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. If they’re unable to put forth the so-called tax reform as well as Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure plan (which is conspicuously similar to Schumer’s plan) while trying to fund the border wall, it’s possible for the GOP Congress and the White House to no longer be on speaking terms by Thanksgiving.
Stakes are high heading into a midterm election cycle that is laced with uncertainty. That’s been part of the buzz this week, but even with the debt ceiling being in the news, few have discussed the actual debt itself. With GOP control of both chambers and the White House, it’s inexcusable that the debt continues to skyrocket. How can Constitutionalists in DC watch as their party squanders an opportunity to address the fiscal cliff we’re heading towards? That’s the $20 trillion question.
Could we see Republicans abandoning ship ahead of the election to run as Independents or Federalists? Are some who aren’t going into an election year considering changing allegiance soon rather than waiting? If things continue to look gloomy for both Republicans and Democrats in coming months, the answer to both questions is “maybe.” It’s a long-shot; we weren’t planning on running in many national elections until 2020, but the growing angst has accelerated things.
I wish I could go into detail about the conversations I’ve had this week. Some were surprising. The rest were downright shocking. We’re in a very strange situation where both major parties are failing to inspire any form of support outside of the fervent base. The best thing going for the Republican Party is the Democratic Party. The best thing going for the Democratic Party is the Republican Party. There’s a distinct lack of positive momentum on either side. At this point, all they can rely on is trying to make the other side look worse.
That’s the problem with binary choice. It’s a system that mathematically offers the lowest chance of yielding candidates the people truly want. It’s why we’ve become a political society of attack ads rather than issue-based platform building. Instead of laying out concrete plans for policy, campaigns have devolved to pure mudslinging. They no longer give reasons why you should vote FOR someone. They simply focus on making us vote AGAINST their opponent.
Our intention has always been to focus locally in the 2018 elections and expand to national races in 2020. That plan hasn’t changed, but the calculus is much more favorable now than it ever has been. I’ll be reaching out to those who appear to be Federalists before the end of the year to see what’s possible. If the interest is there (and based upon my calls this week, it is), it’s possible we could see current GOP lawmakers jump ship.
Who can blame them? The Establishment is no longer a representation of what conservatives call RINOs (Republican In Name Only). They’re now what the Republican Party embodies philosophically. It’s the small-government-minded, Constitution-loving Republicans who are no longer considered true representatives of their party’s ideology or plan.
Constitutional conservatives are now Republicans in name only. They see the party as the best vehicle during campaign season because there haven’t been any viable alternatives. We’re trying to change that. Judging by the response we’ve received so far, we’re on our way to reaching the necessary tipping point.
Our biggest challenges are the ongoing failures of third parties. They’ve suffered from amateur strategies and poor choices that end up wasting time, money, and votes. They’ve paved a road towards a dead end. Combine that notion with the self-perpetuating false dichotomy created by the masters of the two-party system and it’s easy to see why so many Americans want a third party but have a hard time believing they’re even possible.
We can suspend disbelief if one or both of two things happen. Our strategy of starting with local, city, county, and state elections is the long road heading towards DC, but it’s solid. The longshot – an exodus by current lawmakers – is entering more of our internal conversations. This time last month, it wasn’t really an option. We’ve apparently been causing some people to take notice which has prompted this week’s enlightening conversations. Now, the exodus gambit is getting stronger consideration. Thankfully, they’re not mutually exclusive. We’ll continue with the first plan while keeping our eyes and ears open for the second.
America needs to be released from the inherent dysfunction of the Democratic-Republicans who’ve had a stranglehold on government since the 19th century. President Trump has stirred the trough shared by both major parties. The time is near when Constitutionalists on Capitol Hill can no longer willfully partake in eating the slop. When the time comes, we’ll be ready.
Dear Illinois Conservatives, what is the Repubican Party accomplishing for you?
Excuse me if I come off sounding like Steve Deace. I don’t mean to. However, when I elaborate on how bad the Republican Party of Illinois is, I also offer a solution. My solution is to consider joining the Federalist Party movement. Because honestly, what do you have to lose?
The 2018 Illinois Primary should be a wakeup call as Conservatism suffered defeat after defeat. The only two salvageable victories were Douglas Bennett in the 10th and David Merkle in the 2nd. Both of these candidates are longshots in November. There were also a couple of conservatives who won because they ran unopposed, Jitendra “JD” Diganvker in the 8th and Bill Fawell in the 17th. JD is a longshot, though District 17 isn’t lost yet.
District 3 Fail
Avowed neo-nazi, Author Jones won the nomination because he ran unopposed. This was the biggest headline for the GOP in Illinois. A neo-nazi is now their candidate. What is also highly disappointing is that the Republican Party had a chance to win this race in November. This is the race where the Democrats were engaged in a civil war of sorts. Socialist, Marrie Newman challenged Daniel Lipinski. If Marrie Newman had won, the District may swing red due to Newman’s socialism. But Lipinski held on, likely due to the open primary system. The GOP just sat back and allowed its own defeat in District 3. They failed to step up and challenge Jones. Is there no establishment or leadership there? Leadership would have been fielding a candidate to first ensure that a neo-nazi will not carry the torch. But instead, the GOP facilitated its own defeat.
RINO Victories Rampant
I do applaud Bennett for his victory in the 10th, but I do recognize that he won, in large part, because the two well-funded RINOs saw fit to hammer each other. Through their big money, they lost their appeal through mudslinging and robocalls. The less funded, but more conservative candidate was able to sneak a 259 vote win over the pro-abortion Jeremy Wynes. The other RINO, Sapan Shah was a close third place. But looking at the other races, RINOs came out on top when head to head with a Conservative. Preston Nelson, a strong libertarian, was no match for the RINO incumbent Mike Bost. The more formidable James Marter still lost handily to incumbent Adam Kinzinger. The largely criticized incumbent governor, Bruce Rauner, still prevailed over Jeanne Ives. Bruce Rauner, by the way, signed a sanctuary state law. So come election day in November, leftist will have two of them to vote for. And Conservatives will only vote for a party that does not represent, in their state, a limited government nor the US Constitution.
As stated by Real GOP Illinois
Bruce Rauner was always a liberal. He was never a conservative. We question whether Rauner was ever really a Republican or if he just saw an opportunity to buy the Illinois Republican Party for his own enrichment and the enrichment of his elite friends. Who has profited from Bruce Rauner? Let’s start naming names.
The Illinois GOP has no interest in a limited government. It has no interest in responsible immigration laws. It does not seek to protect the 2nd Amendment. It does not believe in protecting the unborn. How can they? They’re too busy fielding rich leftist candidates to pass on to the loyal opposition to the state’s Democratic majority. Sapan Shah, Jeremy Wynes, John Morrow all rich leftist who infiltrated the GOP ranks to garner the nomination. They failed, but Mike Bost, Adam Kinzinge, Rodney Davis, John Shimkus, are all blatant RINO incumbents representing their respective districts. Then there’s the crooked John Elleson who won the 9th.
Compared to other Blue States
I live in Maryland. I know very well what it’s like to live under a super-majority of Democrats. I know the futility of opposition. But remarkably, the Maryland GOP isn’t all that bad or at least it’s gotten better. Andy Harris, the state’s lone Republican Congressman on the Eastern Shore, is a solid conservative. Governor Larry Hogan is one of the nation’s most popular governors. He has done as well as a conservative seeking reelection in a blue state can do.
In California, there are solid conservatives running. We’ve interviewed them here on NOQ Report. See Erin Cruz, Shastina Sandman, and Dr. Ken Wright. There is also Konstantinos Roditis a Republican but a solid constitutional conservative federalist running for Controller in California.
The Illinois GOP does not have the same interest or ambition as the other blue states. So what is the point of the Illinois GOP? It is incapable of representing and advancing small government conservatism.
A New Party
For Conservatives in Illinois, it’s time for a new party. Part of the Illinois GOP’s issue is that the GOP platform is meaningless to them. The Federalist Party addresses this exact problem
Over time, the Federalist Party will address issues in a way that is very different from other parties. Platforms today are essentially meaningless. There is no accountability for politicians within the parties. They’re able to act any way they wish. As long as they can confuse the electorate during campaign season, their adherence (or lack thereof) to the party’s platform can be disregarded.
They offer an intricate solution that not only allows some dissension but provides transparency. Read more about their solutions here. The goal of the Federalist Party is to prevent the corruption of ideals that has taken place in the Illinois GOP and the Republican Party as a whole. Give it some thought. In the meantime what have you to lose?
An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum
The Honorable Lamar Alexander
Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee
United States Senate
CC United States Senators
March 17, 2018
Dear Senator Alexander,
It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.
On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.
As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.
A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.
Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.
Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:
“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”
For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.
She is, in a word, tyrannical.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.
A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”
Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:
- “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
- “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”
Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:
“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”
In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.
While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.
In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.
Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.
Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.
Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.
Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:
“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”
The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.
If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:
“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
Paige Rogers, Tennessee
Why Principles Matter – 2nd Amendment Edition.
There are times when one feels compelled to write on certain subjects without knowing the reason. Consequently, this was begun a few days ago in anticipation of some occurrence. Then came the infamous utterance of President Trump to ‘Take the guns first, go through due process second’. This was followed up by the stomach-churning video of that meeting with Senator Dianne Feinstein giddy at the prospect of Trump betraying his core base in banning almost all firearms.
Anyone with a logical mind should be able to see what is going to happen next. Whatever measures passed under the auspices of Trump will not solve the problem – because this was Never the intent. Soon enough, another massacre will take place, the rhetoric will be reset to zero with a repetition of the same process. Demands will be repeated to “Do something”!
Once again President Loose cannon will blithely advocate parceling away our God-given rights as a sacrifice to ‘Bipartisanship’. The precedent will have been set for another round of attacks against our common sense human rights. The same meetings will take place, with as yet another denigration of our rights. At some point, it will occur to Trump that the nation’s socialist Left doesn’t have his or Liberty’s interests at heart. But by that time the damage will already have been done.
Let’s make this perfectly Clear: The 2nd amendment is non-negotiable.
It is not to be trifled away like Christmas hams for the sake of a pleasant photo-op. The Bill of Rights has a two-fold purpose, it restrains the government while protecting the liberty of world’s smallest minority – the individual. Each one of it’s carefully crafted amendments limit the collective power of the mob against a minority of one. The truly Liberal founding fathers knew that freedom is diminished with the expansion of the government:
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.” Thomas Jefferson
This crucial point is perfectly exemplified with the 2nd amendment, for each denigration of this common sense Human and Civil Right has a corresponding expansion of the power of the government. It is an understatement to declare that this Civil Right is the most important. People cannot exercise their other rights without having the means to defend themselves from oppression.
This has been proven many times down through history with the Hungarian revolution against the oppressive USSR in 1956 to the massive daily protests last year against the Socialist regime of Nicholas Maduro in Venezuela. From the Prague Spring to Tiananmen Square, if the people do not have the right and means to defend themselves, they do not have rights of free-speech, free-press or every other right.
This is a debate over Liberty, not about inanimate objects.
The people who falsely fashion themselves as being ‘Liberal’ have been quite busy exploiting this current “Serious Crisis” to the hilt. They’ve dropped the toxic phrase ‘Gun control’ for the fascist friendly phrases ‘Gun reform’ or ‘Gun safety’.
Make no mistake, this isn’t about ‘safety’, ’Gun law reform’ or a number of other deceptive terms. This is about Liberty Control or Liberty reform. Yes, you read that correctly: Liberty instead of the word ‘gun’. Unlike the national Socialist-Left, we are going to use the words that precisely define the issue at stake. Guns are nothing but inanimate objects of metal, wood or plastic. These items have no inherent Civil or Human rights, they are only the means to secure Liberty. Rights can only be possessed by individuals – not a hunk of iron, thus the real meaning of this debate.
It’s been said that “He who defines the terms, wins the debate”. The gun grabber Left would love this to be about inanimate objects: guns, or even the undefined term “Assault Weapons”. Those who are supposedly ‘Liberal’ don’t want this debate properly framed as one over Liberty – because then they would lose the argument.
One last point: The Left has clearly shown themselves to be the enemy of Liberty.
The Left has made this perfectly clear with their moves to eviscerate the most important right, the first freedom if you will, along with other attacks against the 1st and other amendments. The right of self-defence is the lynchpin for all the other rights, take that away and the rest will be in jeopardy. Therefore, it should be patently obvious the Left does not care for the cause of liberty in the form of the 2nd amendment or any others. They are following in the blood-soaked footsteps of collectivist of the past who have used the vestiges of democracy to attain power and then ejected them when convenient.
It should also be clear that they do not deserve the self-lauding approbation of being ‘Liberal’. Liberty and Liberal both have the same root word origin in Latin as meaning freedom, it should be clear that they no longer fit this overly complimentary term. We will not win this argument playing the rules set down by the national Socialist Left. And we will not win if we don’t stick to our founding principles.