Connect with us


Third parties done wrong, and done right



I wanted to talk about JD Rucker’s interview with Steve Deace, but I really felt compelled to tell you about why we are stuck with the Republicans and Democrats and why we can’t replace either of them. That in part is because of Duverger’s Law, and how that infected modern American politics.

Two-party power politics has led to creeping socialism it or not, a lot of creeping socialism has been accepted by many Americans whether they know it or not. Some of the biggest ideals that have slowly crept into the political world are indeed out of situational ethics. The biggest one is that of “voting for the lesser of two evils,” and out of that a philosophical law espoused regarding how a two-party political system anywhere on the planet forces weaker factions to join stronger factions in order to win power in elected office…but it also disallows the good candidates (based mostly on character) not to run for office and get behind a candidate is that most likely to win (regardless of the candidate is of character or morally corrupt).


In Steve Deace’s interview with JD Rucker, Rucker admits that he had a successful business and that he could have just focused on that, and try to be a good provider for his family. However, as a citizen of America he decided that he needed to be the one to truly step up and look for a new way to break the current two-party system; and how they keep certain players in place in spite of the primary system.

I disagree with the ideal Steve Deace presents that the current established third parties are fragile. The problem with them is that these political parties are nothing but a protest, throwaway, wasted, “all of the above” vote. Have these parties actually tried to run at the local levels, regional levels, county levels, and state levels? Not nearly as much as they should.

I am a fan of KOA NewsRadio’s Mandy Connell out of Denver, Colorado. One thing she said about third parties when I called in to her show is that they need to start locally and build from there. Rucker is doing what Mandy Connell told me is what a third party needs to do.


Start with city governments, school boards, country governments (including the local sheriff), college/university regents etc. Get grass roots people truly involved in the hands of pulling the levers in government at the local level. With that momentum, then focus on the state level, and after that our federal races.

Only then can the White House be a goal. You’ve heard the saying, “all politics is local.” Starting small forces a focus on what is truly local. Remember that the emotional and historical attachments bred by Duverger’s Law are powerful, and many in the media will remain cultishly loyal to the two-party system. The likes of Hugh Hewitt and KOA NewsRadio’s Mike Rosen fall into this category.

At the same time, allies must be pulled from the crop of media who are open to change. Those kinds of people will forever change their opinions not necessarily based on their honest convictions, but by the whims of certain masses of what a group of people think about things. Mark Levin while an honest constitutional scholar will still work within the whims of Duverger’s Law trying to uncorrupted what was already corrupted, and his history reminds us; that is truly Mission: Impossible. Good luck Mark, but your government will eventually self-destruct. Maybe not in five seconds, but it will eventually. I do, howver, believe that a Convention of States (Article V) must happen.

The Takeaway

I totally agree with Rucker and the fact that the Federalist Party must do whatever humanly possible to stay a grassroots party, and never be influenced by big money, regardless if that is from big labor or major corporations. The big union bosses or the big corporate officers must never become the voice of the Federalists like they did with the Democratic and Republican parties. Otherwise we shall ensure the swamp that we are trying to drain now only gets swampier.

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading


  1. Alan Levy

    October 11, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    If Duverger’s Law is that which is highlighted above then it’s nonsense and unnecessary. The Founder’s themselves in a extremely rare moment agreed in unanimity about the dangers presented from a two-party system, and went so far as to provide clear examples of the inevitable outcome, that closely follow our condition today. Socialism is in itself not a driver, but only a tool used by those seeking a methodology for control. It’s a way station to the inevitable further tightening on the reins of power because it is uneconomic, and in the end must rely either on brutal force and or a continual replenishment of a constantly dwindling population. That said, the article, in it’s chastisement of earlier third-party failings, actually returned to the scene of the crime and suggested another try. Einstein warned that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same over again while expecting a different outcome. “Socialists” commonly explain that their failures were because of not having the opportunity to succeed, instead of the truth, which is that they actually did succeed and it simply doesn’t work. Apparently, there’s too much use of “philosophy” for self-promotion and not enough common sense. Politics are local, but political parties are built around a state. Attempting to conduct politics prior to building a political party is the exact reason our third parties fail. Someone with many decades of experience and an understanding of party operations, from the top to the bottom, would know that. The first goal of a successful political party is not to run candidates, but to gather public participation in the political process. Candidates rarely attract the public and convince them to participate. And, even when that rare occasion occurs, it is insufficient to build an ongoing party. Think on it, the smallest county may have close to 200 elected officials. Winning a handful out of 200 offices doesn’t exactly inspire confidence for changes to come. It’s correct to recognize a need to attract public participation, but the problem with of third parties is that they fail to learn how to offer the public sufficient reason for participation. They fail to offer an exacting path to power. Do that, and the public will come. Vague promises for future electoral successes don’t work. And yet, there is a path. It simply hasn’t been explored. Do as I did, and study what powers are already allocated to the public. Then learn how to exploit them, turn them into something even more useful, and afterwards deploy them in a way that feeds off the two-party system. Do that, offer them power, and the people who already participate within the political process will become your allies.

    • Don McCullen

      October 12, 2017 at 9:08 am

      I think those are fair statements Alan. It is still trying to empower the grassroots, which need to be done.

      • Alan Levy

        October 12, 2017 at 10:56 am

        Even the term grassroots is a misnomer. The public is not grassroots, they are constituents or voters. They are the body politic. Political participation neither begins nor ends at the voter’s booth, except under totalitarian government. The public participates in the political process through membership in a political party. You cannot empower the public without first drawing them into the process, into a political party. On a rare occasion you might convince them to support an individual wild card candidate such as President Trump, but that’s infrequent and one need look no farther back than to President Reagan to see most results are temporary at best. The key is to find and provide “power” directly to the public. If you can do that, the public will return to political participation, which is to say they will return to membership and participation in a political party. And at this point, if you find and can provide something so seemingly illusory as “power,” the public won’t care the name of the party. Once you realize who you’re trying to sell to, and what they want to buy, the rest is only a laborious study into the political and legal processes. After that, you only need apply technology to speed the outcome. But you must realize that the only way to join the ranks of major political parties is by subsuming the body politic already participating, subsuming the party membership itself. And to get away with that takes a whole different set of smarts.

        • Don McCullen

          October 12, 2017 at 11:25 am

          Alan, we can nit pic at this all day. I know the term “Body Poltic” as much as I know the term “Grass Roots.” I think we are on the same side, just think about things differently. I agree you have to do have more that just the voting booth. Much more.

          Right now final decisions being made for the “Body Poltic” who based on the benefits of large corporations and government bureaucrats and workers. I don’t speak for the Federalist Party as the editors and some of the writers of the NOQ Report do, but I can say that they are trying to get power back to the common people who we have termed Grass Roots.

          Yes their are those in the Body Poltic with different viewpoints and their is a division. Those who want more Liberty and Freedom and Limited Government, and those who think that the Government would do better by micromanaging our culture in hopes out of that we will get the best outcome.

          Problem with bigger government is that it usually is set up to benefit a few while many suffer. It was always this way…ever attempt to make equalize everyone through the government has failed.

          • Alan Levy

            October 12, 2017 at 12:18 pm

            What you’ve stated is true but are the usual generalities continually repeated over the last several decades. There’s no benefit to be had by complaining about government. And it provides no solution. I wasn’t arguing, only trying to provide a frame of reference for understanding the problem and recognizing where the solution could be found. I found it after a great deal of study. But having participated within the political and party processes for more than four decades, I had personal experience to call upon. Yes, we need a new party. But it takes more than dedication and resources to succeed. And generalities won’t attract the skills or constituency needed. After having talked with a number of third parties, I’ve yet to find one with the broad knowledge base necessary for success. And they all use the same words and promote the same processes found in the new Federalist Party presentation. My attraction, and willingness to take the time to respond, was only to discover whether there might be some meat on the bones. Something more than the usual grandiose pronouncements. That is to say, actual working solutions. And, although there are a somewhat complex series of steps that can be taken to succeed, I’ve yet to find anyone having already attained sufficient political experience achievement who would want to disrupt the current process. But thanks for the repartee.

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

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.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Why Principles Matter – 2nd Amendment Edition.




Ghost Guns prove that gun control can never work as promised

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.

Continue Reading


Vice says women shouldn’t have guns



On Friday, Vice’s Twitter account tweeted out a previous Vice article from June 14, 2016, entitled, “A Very Incomplete List of People Gun Rights Activists Think Should Be Armed.”

The brief article is a lamentation of the belief of Second Amendment advocates, specifically “the NRA and other right-wing groups,” that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

The tweet (below) reads, “The NRA wants to put guns in the hands of: Schoolteachers, Preachers, Anyone who goes into a nightclub, Women …just to name a few.”

According to author Harry Cheadle – who evidently believes that women shouldn’t be afforded Constitutional protections or exercise our God-given human rights – “the goal [of 2A advocates] is to make sure everyone is prepared to engage in a shootout at all times.”

“And by everyone, I mean everyone,” he emphasized.

So, just who, exactly, does Vice believe should be considered prohibited from exercising his/her Second Amendment rights?

“Here is a surely incomplete list of people that gun rights activists believe should be packing heat. Once all of these categories of Americans are all carrying guns on them at all times, presumably we will finally be safe…”

The listed include (as worded the article), but are not limited to:


-Gay people


-Holocaust victims

-Some people who commit domestic violence


-Every black person in America

-Pilots on planes

-People on the terrorist watch list

Yes, ladies, you read that right. A gun in the hand of a woman is as great a risk as possible terrorists. I can imagine Mr. Cheadle must be petrified at the sight of a woman behind the wheel of a car!


Yes, Mr. Cheadle is apparently quite fearful of women, Holocaust victims, and black Americans, among others.

Well, as you might expect, this didn’t go over too well on Twitter. Here are just a few of the (often snark-filled) reactions.

And, in case you are wondering about my own response to Vice’s tweet… I joined the NRA.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.