In 2016, I abandoned the label, “conservative.” I didn’t like how it was being represented by those who were claiming its mantle. Ideas that were the exact opposite of what most true conservatives would consider to be conservative were being thrown around by so-called conservatives as being tenets of conservatism. If that last sentence didn’t make much sense, you now know how I felt in 2016.
My mindset changed after the 2016 Republican National Convention. I wanted to do something to redefine conservatism the way I knew it to truly be. I called for the formation of a new conservative party and the response was overwhelming. Over the course of the following several months, things changed. The people I worked with and a majority of those who had responded with interest in a new party chose “Federalist” as the proper moniker. It made sense to me, as proper limited-government federalism that kept powers split properly between the individual, states, and national government was one of the most important components of conservatism. In fact, it’s essentially the foundation of what was once called conservatism.
I made lots of mistakes along the way as we built the “Federalist Party.” Perhaps the biggest mistake was building a party in the first place. Attempting to do in years what others have failed to do with significance over decades was ambitious and possibly a bit foolhardy. But what I didn’t want to happen was to build another faux-party like the Tea Party which empowered a few people to make a lot of money off the angst conservatives were feeling towards a president they hated and representatives who weren’t doing enough to stop him.
This shouldn’t be viewed as a condemnation of the Federalist Party or the Tea Party. Both were built with good intentions and the passion to make things happen, but both were also flawed in their base premise. Building an actual political party takes too long, and in a society that has grown accustomed to having everything on-demand, it’s hard to set goals like running a valid Presidential candidate by 2040. As for the Tea Party, there was no real mission. It was a movement with a direction but no actual destination. Technically, it wasn’t even an “it” – the various iterations and variations were diverse and often competed with each other for attention.
After going from the Republican Party to the Tea Party to the Federalist Party to no party, I now have a much clearer understanding of what the people and the nation really need. We need a revival, one not unlike the church revivals many of us went to in the past. A revival of the American conservative movement may be the only way to pull Republicans back from their happy place in the mushy middle and to guide Libertarians in the direction of consistency within their own ideology. It may be the way for Independents who are sick of the two-party duopoly to have their voices heard instead of being preached at with a sales pitch from both sides. Most importantly, it may be the only path through which the people can establish a playbook that empowers the individual ahead of the city, the city ahead of the state, and the state ahead of the nation in regards to political power.
The people are the power of American government in a Constitutional republic. The representatives who work for us are there to make sure the Constitution is upheld and the people they represent have their interests driving the policies enacted by government bodies.
I am still a Federalist at heart. I am a Tea Party supporter. I even like a few Republicans. None of those things have changed. But now is the time to bring focus to the equation before the 2020 election, and more importantly AFTER the 2020 election. To do this, it’s imperative that we come up with a plan to revive a coordinated, consistent, and Constitution-driven conservative movement that represents what Americans and America needs.
I’ve been talking to several people over the last couple of weeks, hammering out ideas and working towards building a conservative movement that learns from the mistakes of our past and establishes a path forward. If you’re interested in learning more as it comes out, please let me know.
The myth of overturning Roe v Wade
Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.
Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.
The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.
The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.
A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.
What if it fails
I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.
When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.
Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism
Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.
Today, they don’t exist.
Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.
Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.
But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.
To those arguing with me over the Alabama ban, I am NOT saying life doesn’t matter I am asking you if you honestly think an all-out ban is going to stop abortion. Do you think government is the answer? Do you think it’s effective? Or does this ban just make you feel better?
— Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) May 19, 2019
Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.
Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.
If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.
Conservative Media, we need to blacklist Trump-Russia story and move on
To The Daily Wire, One America News, Washington Times, Blaze Media, and all others to the right of Fox News,
There was no collusion and no obstruction. It took over two years for this narrative to search under every stone and exhaust millions of dollars to, in the end, find nothing. The leftist media will not make many concessions, especially as it relates to obstruction for a crime that was not committed. We cannot as conservatives prove beyond an unreasonable doubt that Trump did not collude or obstruct. As Democrats in Congress keep the narrative on life support, the Conservative media needs to pull the plug.
The average American is fatigued by the Trump-Russia collusion/obstruction narrative. Meanwhile our effort is playing defense against a leftist narrative rather than reporting on issues both our base and the politically uninvolved care far more about. When the economy is strong and the border crisis is pressing, why is so much of our attention directed towards the soap opera clown show that takes place? Instead of countering this narrative, conservative media should starve the narrative of as much attention as possible.
An area which Conservatives have long failed, but have made great improvements towards, is controlling the narrative, the language and Overton Window of society. If we continue to counter the leftist narrative of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory, we will continue to feed their power in controlling the narrative in the American political and cultural arena. Instead, let us make an effort to not only counter the narrative but set the narrative.
In our friendly rivalry as Conservative outlets, let us come together and collectively move on from the Trump-Russia story, discarding it as if it were a flat-earth conspiracy and move on.
Why Game of Thrones felt rushed
Graham Ledger: Democrats, mainstream media panicking over William Barr’s upcoming investigations
Carlson vs. Shapiro: A way forward
Sanctuary policies fail 14-year-old Ariana Funes-Diaz again as her suspected MS-13 murderers released a second time
Love is often a one-way street between Evangelical Christians and Jews (and that’s okay)
The rise of citizen journalists
Strait is the gate and narrow is the way: Churches, stop pushing a ‘wide gate’ doctrine
Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?
The sons of God in Genesis 6 were not the sons of Seth (and Nephilim were really giants)
True inclusion is narrow and pure as Matthew 7 teaches
Jeremiah 23:5 – ‘a King shall reign and prosper’
Jude 1:21 – ‘in the love of God’
Proverbs 4:18 – ‘path of the just’
Exodus 20:8 – ‘the sabbath day’
Luke 5:31-32 – ‘sinners to repentance’
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Top 5 ‘assault weapon’ technologies that existed BEFORE the Constitution was written
Culture and Religion2 days ago
7 life lessons we can learn from Daniel’s example
Conspiracy Theory2 days ago
What does San Francisco Mayor London Breed have to hide about Jeff Adachi’s death?
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Naeem Fazal: Is Allah the same as Yahweh?
Culture and Religion2 days ago
We’re losing our culture because faux conservatives aren’t fighting for it!
Democrats2 days ago
Trump hits Biden on China connections
Democrats1 day ago
4 Retweets in an hour: Bill de Blasio’s campaign failed to materialize
Democrats21 hours ago
Democrats imperiled whether they impeach or not