Connect with us

Conservatism

Reviving the American conservative movement

Published

on

Reviving the American conservative movement

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.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Conservatism

Mark Levin on conservatives and tyranny

Published

on

Mark Levin on conservatives and tyranny

There are times when I really hate government. It’s not that I’m an anarchist or I believe there should be no laws or rules, but in recent years it seems as if government is the root cause for many of our problems. This is why it perplexes me so that people willingly ask the government to intervene in their affairs. For leftists, this is understandable as they are entitled to have the government solve all of their problems. But when I hear conservatives ask for government intervention on particular issues, I cringe.

Perhaps conservative commentator Mark Levin said it best to describe how I and many other conservatives feel. Those of us who appreciate the need for government to handle many issues such as national defense and infrastructure but who despise it when government gets involved in so many issues where it simply doesn’t belong can break our feelings down with this one line from Levin:

“The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it.”

The Constitution is not a document that grants us rights, despite what many claim. It’s a document that prevents government from trying to take away our rights bestowed on us by our Creator and affirmed by our free will.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Rewarding terrorism: Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control?

Published

on

By

Rewarding terrorism Why are we encouraging mass murder with more liberty control

Does it ever occur to the Left that depriving the people of the ability to defend themselves is exactly what the terrorists want?

Solving any type of problem begins with the proper determination of the cause of the problem. Mistakenly ascribing the wrong cause only serves to make the situation far worse because the wrong solutions are then applied.

The cause of the recent phenomena of mass murder attacks is a perverse desire for fame. This is why the miscreant in the recent tragedy in New Zealand posted a ‘manifesto’ and live streamed his horrific and cowardly actions. [Please note that we are not using his name or image]. This is also why he came out in favour of liberty [gun] control.

Rewarding behavior results in more of that behavior

Consider that the reprobates who perpetrate these attacks desperately want to make a name for themselves. Most people in this world want to do something positive to achieve fame. Some compete in athletic events, cure disease or work to solve societal problems. However, there are those who don’t have the ability or time to do this, so they decide to gain this by infamy instead. They choose to become infamous, shooting their way into the history books, with others helping them along the way by playing right into their hands with the notoriety by depriving others of their liberty.

They look at what mass murderers have done to achieve what they desperately crave. One way is to play into the hands of the Left looking to deprive the people of their right of self-defense. What better way to become infamous than to be the cause of a protracted battle over this fundamental human right?

Getting the reward of more media coverage by the cause of liberty [gun] control

The reprobate in the New Zealand attack made the entirely obvious point that many everyday items – including ordinary flour – can serve as explosives. As well as the fact that fuel mixtures can also be used for explosive or incendiary attacks, something the liberty grabber left doesn’t seem to understand is that these are also ‘weapons of war’. Alternatively there are other ordinary objects that can serve as weapons of mass murder ranging from blunt force, or edge weapons to vehicular attacks. He explicitly stated that he used firearms to attract more attention and have it be the cause of more leftist restrictions on freedom.

Even though they never discerned motive for the Las Vegas mass murder, court documents alluded to the idea that the reprobate in that crime had gun control as his cause celebre. Now in the case of the New Zealand attack, the miscreant was explicit about this in his rantings.

I chose firearms for the affect (sic) it would have on social discourse, the extra media coverage they would provide and the affect it could have on the politics of United states (sic) and thereby the political situation of the world. The US is torn into many factions by its second amendment, along state, social, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines.

[Our emphasis]
Note the words ‘the extra media coverage they would provide’ in reference to the use of firearms. It wasn’t just that he wanted the ‘media coverage’ from live streaming this horror with writing all over his weapons or posting a long screed where he claimed to be an ‘eco-fascist’ admiring Communist China. He wanted to have this abject horror show to be the cause of excessive media coverage resulting in the deprivation of everyone’s commonsense human and civil rights.

Most of these mass murderers don’t expect to survive these attacks, but they want to ‘live on’ in infamy by any means possible. Having the media cover their horrific crimes through their perennial hobbyhorse of gun confiscation means plenty of airtime trying to make the case for these freedom-ending measures.

Leftists don’t seem to understand that their much vaunted restrictions on liberty actually make it easier for these miscreants to carry out their horrific crimes. Most of these take place in ‘gun free’ zones because the victims cannot defend themselves, making everyone an easy target and upping the body count. Despite the denial of reality of the liberty grabbers, there have also been many cases of someone on the scene halting an attack, usually with a gun. Not to mention that these crimes are always stopped when armed authority arrives.

Should we encourage further attacks by giving the terrorists exactly what they want?

Studies have shown that the extensive coverage of these horrific crimes inspires further attacks. Thus, many have chosen to not publicize the crimes of these miscreants, granting them the infamy they crave. Shouldn’t we also apply the same rule to the policy agendas openly advocated by these reprobates?

Does it make any sense to punish the innocent for the horrific acts of a criminal? Punishments that encourage and even facilitate future attacks? Criminals and terrorists will always find ways to kill or get the weaponry to do so, as attacks in places of severe restrictions on Liberty prove this to be the case. In point of fact, these restrictions only serve to help these miscreants commit their crimes, does it make any sense to continue the practice?

The Takeaway

Mass murdering terrorists crave publicity for their horrific acts of cowardice. They also seek to change society by these acts. Knuckling under and playing along with what they want only serves to encourage further attacks. The innocent having the means to defend themselves is the practical and philosophical response to terror, no matter if it runs counter to the desires of the liberty grabber left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

It’s official: Sen. Mike Lee has come out of the closet

Published

on

Its official Sen Mike Lee has come out of the closet

In the Age of Trump, where Trumpservatism has replaced conservatism within the Republican party, many of those once heralded for their “strident” defense of conservative values have come out of the closet — politically speaking — to publicly admit their same-politics attraction to the Far-Left.

One such “conservative” is Gutless On Principles Hall of Shame enshrinee, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).

Over the past two years, Lee has developed a political infatuation with Ivanka Trump’s socialist feminist agenda and has worked to advance many of the same policies promoted by Hillary Clinton during her 2016 campaign.

Lee, along with Marco Rubio, were same-politics partners with Daddy’s precious to “help” working families by using so-called tax reform to increase their dependency on the federal government via the tax code.

A few months ago (Nov 2018), Lee was same-politics partners with Ivanka and Van Jones — yes, THAT Van Jones — to promote and eventually pass the First-Step Act, a law that Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz said gave drug traffickers and gun felons early release from prison, emasculated police and prosecutors, and made America less safe.

This brings us to Lee’s most recent out-of-the-closet moment.

In his 2018 State of the Union, Trump pushed a big-government agenda even Barack Obama would love, and his wish-list of progressive priorities included Hillary’s and Ivanka’s paid family leave. Following the SOTU, Lee, Rubio and Ivanka engaged in another political affaire de coeur to create a so-called “budget neutral” scheme that would allow individuals to borrow from their future Social Security benefits in order to take several paid weeks off work for the birth or adoption of a child.

Though temporarily put on the back burner until after the 2018 mid-terms, Trump again promoted paid family leave in his recent SOTU. And just as before, Mike Lee got to work to make it happen, this time with a new same-politics partner, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA).

Known as the CRADLE Act (Child Rearing and Development Leave Empowerment Act), Lee and Ernst have proposed a plan that will allow America to “catch up with other countries” by creating a cradle-to-grave welfare state sure to bring a smile to Ivanka’s face.

Conservatives know that creating a new entitlement is a bad idea for a host of reasons. But when you add the U.S. debt crisis, the unfunded liabilities of $123 trillion dollars and growing already on the books for entitlements, and the fact that Social Security is projected to be bankrupt in 15 years, Lee’s socialist-friendly proposal is epitome of out-of-control big government.

Mike Lee has officially come out of the closet to declare his same-politics attraction to the Far-Left. Meanwhile, the search for a “straight” conservative in Washington continues.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report