Connect with us

Federalists

A movement begins

Published

on

New Conservative Movement

I was going to sit down and write about President Trump and the latest dumpster fire.  But, let’s be honest, who isn’t writing about that.  Instead, I want to piggyback on an article JD Rucker wrote regarding elected republicans leaving the party.  I would like to take a moment and consider the actions our so-called representatives are taking.

Just for the sake of discussion, imagine neither the republicans nor democrats control either house of congress.  Imagine there is a third-party.  While small in number, this third-party wields great power.  Without their support there is no majority.  Legislation stalls without bringing them on board.

Small But Mighty

My hope is for an emergence of the Federalist Party.  I can envision a small group of Senators and a solid group in the House.  Not enough, at this time, to be a majority.  Rather, enough to prevent what we are currently witnessing.  Men and women with the conviction and ideological backbone to withstand the pressure to conform.  And a party that supports them.

We have a few members of the Senate who sort of fit this bill.  Honestly, though, they are still republicans and we’ve seen all of them fold at one time or another.  There’s the Freedom Caucus in the House.  This is a solid group of conservative republicans.  Again, at the end of the day they are republicans.  We have seen them bow to the pressure of the party machine.

What is needed are members in both houses, and legislative bodies across the country, who will stand firm.  Members who will protect life and property.  Members who are serious about reining in the growth and influence of government.  Officials who know they are the people’s representative and will be held accountable.

A True Counterweight

The Federalist Party can be a true counterweight to the “republicrat” party in Washington.  With enough members, we could provide significant pressure on the republicans and democrats.  Granted, the two major parties could simply vote in-block together.  Honestly, what’s the difference in what we are getting now?  At least with a significant presence in Congress I believe we have a fighting chance to uphold federalist principles.  As things stand, a significant portion of the population has no true representation in government.

Looking Forward

As JD wrote, the Federalist Party is a ground up movement.  We are trying to build the party at the local level.  However, we will not dismiss national political opportunities.  The time for talk and half measures is nearing an end.  While working to get elected officials in local offices, the time seems ripe to see the emergence of a legitimate Federalist Party option on the national scene. I would love to see some of my favorite current office holders unchained from the constraints of their current party.  Free to actually fulfill campaign promises and truly represent their constituents.

The Federalist Party is growing by the day.  I hope for our children’s sake, enough of us have begun to wake from this slumber.  I pray enough people are tired of binary choice politics.  Enough of you are sick and tired of being ignored.  This will not be easy.  Powerful forces are arrayed against us.  Just look at this recent article by Steve Berman.  However, I trust my fellow citizens.  We will look back at this as the moment the people made our voice heard.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Federalists

Be careful about calling for more national election laws

Published

on

Be careful about calling for more national election laws

We’re starting to hear rumblings, mostly from Republicans, calling for national standardization of elections. It’s understandable that people are frustrated by what’s happening in Florida. Arizona and Georgia also have some questionable happenings. But it’s imperative as conservatives that we allow the states to fix the problems no matter how bad they may seem.

The biggest reason: the more the federal government gets involved in just about anything, the easier it will be for voter fraud, counting mishaps, and election official corruption to occur. Take, for example, calls ringing out again for national voter ID. Would it make it harder for non-citizens to vote? Perhaps. But it also runs the risk of catastrophic failure when we centralize and/or digitize the voting system itself. Not only will all of our eggs be in one basket that becomes a single point of failure, but it also slows the process of adjusting against threats. Sophisticated vote manipulators in or out of the country would love nothing more than a federalized voting system.

Taking away the states’ responsibility to administer their voting protocols takes away their accountability as well. Calls for centralization of nearly every other component of administration, from education to the environment to healthcare, has resulted in horrific results that greatly overshadowed the localized problems they were intended to fix.

Some states are having major problems with elections. These states must fix their problems. When the federal government gets involved in sweeping changes that force solutions for isolated cases on the rest of the country, more problems arise. The benefits are greatly outweighed by the detriments.

Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes is incompetent, corrupt, or both. She needs to be replaced and the voting process in Florida needs to be fixed. Let Broward County and Florida replace her and fix their voting process. It may be hard to have faith in the county and state, but do we really have more faith in Washington DC? Should we be calling for more centralized voting laws and protocols because of a few persons’ gross negligence?

No.

It’s frustrating when local officials can affect national elections, but that’s why people can vote them out and force reforms. Where it’s broken, let those states fix it. Bringing in a DC solution will give us DC results, and that’s almost never a good thing.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Bipartisanship has two major downsides

Published

on

Bipartisanship has two major downsides

The GOP losing control of the House of Representatives completely changes the course Washington DC will take over the next two years or more. For whatever reason, most Americans don’t seem to understand the repercussions. Most know this means the Democrats can start doing more things against President Trump even if they don’t quite understand the power of subpoena. They know this will slow down the President’s agenda, but probably don’t understand the degree of deadlock this creates.

Democrats won’t be able to get legislation through because of the Senate, and even if they could they’d be blocked by veto. Republicans can’t get any legislation through because of the House. Anything that is not bipartisan such as infrastructure will not even be attempted for at least two years. Since there are very few possible pieces of legislation that can be considered bipartisan, we can expect very little to be done.

That’s the good news.

There shouldn’t be much done. That’s how DC is supposed to operate. It’s supposed to be slow and methodical. The founders envisioned a federal government that could basically only push forward legislation that both sides of the political aisle agreed to, at least in part. Remember, the didn’t like a party system and they definitely didn’t want a two-party system, but that’s how our government has evolved. Perhaps it was inevitable for two parties to split power incessantly, but the founders hoped we would avoid such a mess.

While it’s good for things to move slowly in DC, there are two big problems with it and we’re about to face both of them. The first can best be described as half-measures. The solution to a problem that can get bipartisan support is almost always loaded with political backscratching. One of the reasons the bureaucracy is so big is because politicians have been packing things into their bills for decades. It’s like a bribe – “We’ll include a sugar subsidy in the bill in exchange for your support of our tax hike, Mr. Florida Senator.”

The second problem is the tendency for bipartisan projects to be gargantuan and expensive. The aforementioned infrastructure fix is the perfect example. President Trump, Senators Schumer and McConnell, and possible future Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have all discussed infrastructure at one point or another in the past couple of years. Rumors and leaks have indicated such a bill would cost over a trillion dollars. There’s also much talk about attempting a public-private partnership to make it work.

As we face a trillion dollar deficit next year, any thought of spending more money is ludicrous. However, it’s appealing to politicians on both sides because it would create jobs and represents a tangible benefit people can actually experience in their daily lives. It’s not a question of whether both sides can come together on it. The only question is how they’ll divide up credit for it.

In the end, taxpayers will feel the pain. The budget deficit will rise. The national debt will continue to grow at an untenable pace. All the while, Mr. President and Madam Speaker will be giving each other fist bumps.

We don’t need bipartisanship. We need nonpartisanship. The real solutions America needs all point towards limiting government, cutting spending, and pushing more power to the state, local, and individual levels.

Continue Reading

Federalists

Pete Sessions’ limited government message is exactly what we need to hear

Published

on

Pete Session's limited government message is exactly what we need to hear

It isn’t often you see a politician operating in Washington DC say something that goes against the common claim that Washington DC must fix everything. The power grabs on Capitol Hill and the White House happen all the time regardless of the party. Democrats may be better at it, but Republicans have been pushing for bigger government for a while.

There are a few notable exceptions. Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) is one of them. The Congressman has been an advocate of federalism in which states have an equal say on most issues. It’s hard to wrest power from DC politicians, but thankfully some of them, such as Sessions, are cognizant of the Constitution’s separation of powers between federal and state governments.

“We have to allow people in the states to make their own decisions, to get government agencies out of the way and let local people make decisions about what’s best for them.”

Texans need to help keep America heading in the right direction by putting Pete Sessions on Capitol Hill where he belongs. This race is too important to let it slip through our fingers.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report