Connect with us

Federalists

Third parties done wrong, and done right

Published

on

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

http://noqreport.com/2017/09/30/two-party-power-politics-led-creeping-socialism/Believe 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).

Background

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.

Analysis

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
Advertisement
5 Comments

5 Comments

  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 *

Federalists

Hazel picks up key endorsement

Published

on

With just a couple of weeks to go before the Georgia primaries, insurgent candidate Shane Hazel has picked up a  key endorsement in his bid to unseat liberal Republican Rob Woodall in the Georgia 7th Congressional District.

Hazel, the former Marine Force Reconnaissance member and proven businessman, has picked up the endorsement of the Republican Liberty Caucus. The RLC, also known as “the conscience of the party” endorsed Hazel should come as little surprise. The RLC has a long history of focusing on endorsing liberty-minded candidates, rather than establishment members who have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to conservative issues.

The RLC earlier this year likewise endorsed MO Senate Candidate Austin Petersen.

The outpouring of support for insurgent candidates is clear as supporters take to social media to voice their displeasure at the lack of follow through from lawmakers like Woodall during their time in control of both houses of Congress and with Donald Trump in the Oval Office. The failure to repeal Obamacare as well as passage of a massive $1.3 Trillion omnibus bill have angered most voters on the right, resulting in the realization that giving the GOP control of Washington is not enough, they must, in fact, cull the GOP Congressional roster of those who make conservative promises, but vote like leftists.

As my readers have noted I’ve followed several insurgent races across the country. Hazel’s may be the best example of a truly grassroots movement of ordinary citizens fed up with “business as usual” in Washington, and instead want to see real change with a return to Constitutional principles.

In a past article I noted that Hazel and others were not garnering any support from many of the major lobbying groups. In the latest of their disappointing moves, the National Rifle Association chose to endorse Woodall, telling Hazel they preferred to stick with “the devil we know.” Well, the problem with dealing with a devil is sooner or later he’ll betray you. Woodall had bragged previously that he has the lowest score from the NRA of all Republicans in Georgia, and that he was proud of it.

Always a class act, instead of complaining about the NRA’s rather typical move in endorsing establishment candidates, he told me “I will never vote for any legislation that puts people, especially veterans, on a no-buy list without due process. Woodall has voted repeatedly for Feinstein gun control, Fix NICS, against national reciprocity, and for Obama’a 4660 that has put 200,000 veteran on a list denying them their right to bear arms, without due process. Shall not be infringed means exactly that.”

The NRA’s hierarchy can say what they like, but we rank-and-file gun 2nd Amendment advocates don’t vote the NRA line, and I think we’re smart enough to vote for a man who truly cares about liberty, not a man who has proven he doesn’t.

You can learn more about Shane at www.shanehazel.com

Continue Reading

Federalists

Dear Illinois Conservatives, what is the Repubican Party accomplishing for you?

Published

on

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 CruzShastina 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?

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum

Published

on

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

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.