Sunday, July 30, 2017

Wasserman Schultz aide in Pakistan still liquidating assets in U.S.

Sanctuary city Portland released a monster deported 20 times. He then brutally raped a 65-year-old woman.

Cities have a right to ignore the federal government. There are times when this is a good thing. When ICE issues a detainer on an illegal immigrant with a criminal history who has been deported 20 times, it’s not the right time to invoke their “tolerance” and ignore the request.

Portland, which recently declared itself as a sanctuary city, decided that ignoring ICE and releasing Sergio Jose Martinez was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, he allegedly found a victim and brutally assaulted her before stealing her car.

As reported by KGW:

According to court documents filed in March 2017, Martinez has a history of illegal entry into the United States. He has been a transient in the Portland area for more than a year and has been deported 20 times.

Martinez has at least five probation violations for re-entering the United States. His most recent removal was in November 2016, according to the March court documents.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lodged an immigration detainer against Martinez, asking authorities to notify them before releasing Martinez to allow ICE to take him into custody. The Department of Homeland Security said a detainer was requested for Martinez in December 2016, but he was released into the community and authorities did not notify ICE.

It’s a cities responsibility to handle law enforcement for its people. Sometimes, that means ignoring the politically charged status of being a sanctuary city and putting the safety of American citizens above the feelings of criminal illegal immigrants. Portland and many other cities across the nation refuse to learn this lesson. Thankfully, people have the ability to leave. I’d strongly encourage doing so if you live in Portland.

The post Sanctuary city Portland released a monster deported 20 times. He then brutally raped a 65-year-old woman. appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2vb9wb0

Saturday, July 29, 2017

If you’re near the border, you can (and should) be asked about citizenship

There’s a problem at the border. People are coming across illegally. That’s not news. What may be new to people is that law enforcement can ask people within 100 miles of the border whether or not they’re here legally.

It sound Draconian and in many ways it is. “Show us your papers!” However, it’s not nearly as bad as it’s being played by the media, nor is it unreasonable. We are a sovereign nation (for now) and as such it’s important that law enforcement has the ability to at least ask the question.

Here’s the problem. We’ve come to the crossroads with law enforcement where people on both the right and the left have complaints about how the law is enforced. There are righteous complaints about certain practices by law enforcement (don’t get me started on civil asset forfeiture) but there are even more ridiculous complaints. This is where we get to a story in San Diego.

As reported by College Fix:

According to The San Diego Tribune, the English, art, and theater teacher told a BP officer that “she believed she did not have to answer their questions,” whereupon she was informed she had to answer the query about citizenship but not others.

One agent showed Parmely a card detailing immigration law and a US Supreme Court decision noting the BP can “operate checkpoints within 100 miles of the border and […] ask questions about citizenship without warrants.”

The key phrase here is “ask questions about citizenship without warrants.” People often get up in arms about warrants. Much of the angst is self-inflicted by law enforcement as there has been tremendous overreach over the last couple of decades with warrantless… well… everything. However, when it comes to asking questions necessary to ascertain a situation, the thought that law enforcement must present a warrant before being able to ask them is ridiculous.

This particular teacher was trying to make a statement against discrimination. While it’s almost certainly true there’s discrimination near the border and around the nation when it comes to people who have the potential based upon their appearance or accent of being an immigrant, the notion that law enforcement can’t even ask the question is ludicrous. This teacher made the wrong statement at the wrong time in the wrong way.

Here’s the video:

There’s a fine line between holding law enforcement accountable and attempting to obstruct their ability to enforce the law.

The post If you’re near the border, you can (and should) be asked about citizenship appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2uMv1g2

Friday, July 28, 2017

Why I defend religions… all of them

The Federalist Party is a firm believer in defending the 1st Amendment, an important portion of which is freedom of religion. How the party views religious influence is very similar to my personal beliefs. I want to keep government out of the church at all costs.

Let’s look at the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are two parts here. The first is currently not in jeopardy, though it would be foolish to believe the government would never overreach to the point of establishing “acceptable” religions. It’s far fetched to us today, but things change. The second portion is the part that’s directly relevant because it’s under attack.

We hear about it every few days. “Discrimination” has become the most powerful political word of our time. If you can label anything discriminatory, everything else is pushed aside. That’s why colleges are accelerating their progressive indoctrination. That’s why the media is quick to attack anything related to Judeo-Christian values (while simultaneously slow on the draw when there’s a chance other religious beliefs are in play).

It’s why bakers are forced to bake cakes that go against their religious beliefs. It’s why churches are being bullied into choosing to start performing services that don’t match their doctrine. There’s discrimination that exists. I’m not naive. However, the tide has turned and many sins of the past are being repaid tenfold against conservatives and Christians, most of whom do not practice true discrimination.

This is where it gets sticky. I’m a Christian. On the surface it may seem unfaithful to defend the rights of atheists or Muslims or Buddhists or Pastafarians. In reality, the only way to defend my rights as a Christian is to stand by the Constitution word-for-word and demand that Congress not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. My freedom to worship my God as I am commanded is too important to me to leave to the judgment of Congress or the Supreme Court.

When man’s judgment is at play, it will invariably be flawed in one way or another. The only solution is to take man’s judgment out of the equation, including my own. This wisdom from the founders helped them in their quest to not follow in England’s footsteps and it is just as relevant today.

In fact, it may be more so.

To do this, we must maintain a strict separation of church and state.  That’s not to say we need to suppress our beliefs when making political decisions, but we cannot allow the establishment of restrictions. Common sense restrictions for preexisting laws should be maintained; if a human sacrifice is performed in the name of some “religious” belief, it’s still murder. However, “cake laws” (any laws that demand services be rendered by private businesses or citizens that go against their beliefs) cannot be allowed to stand even when the ACLU or their cronies invoke “discrimination.” Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake unleavened bread for Passover? How about an atheist baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake proclaiming praise to God? As private business owners with their own religious beliefs, the government has no right to force or fine them. The community can apply pressure through the free market system or through their right to peaceably assemble for protest, but that’s on citizens, not the government.

While most would agree because they don’t want the church to influence the state, the concept works in both directions. We need to keep that separation as wide as possible if we have any hope of protecting our religious freedoms. As a Christian, I use my beliefs to reach people and make disciples of the nations as we are taught. As a Federalist, I realize the only way to prevent a conflict between my religion and the law is to keep government out of the church altogether.

The key to maintaining our religious freedoms is to keep government as far from the church as possible. The only way to do that is to keep government out of every church, even those who teach things against our own beliefs. Moreover, the freedom to practice religion as we’re instructed means we can change hearts and minds for our Lord. That makes this stance a win-win in my opinion.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uKEaFE

Monday, July 24, 2017

The only legitimate fountain of power…

James Madison is notable for many important quotes, but my personal favorite is this one:

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

If ever there was a quote made for the people of today, it’s this one. So many Americans are lost in the fog of false accountability. We rely too heavily on government because we assume they have the power. In some ways, they do, but it’s a power limited by the constraints of the Constitution. This is important to remember because too often it’s just assumed that what the government says or does is to be taken as the final word.

We have the power. It’s not just with our votes. We have the ability to rise up and work together to rein in the tremendous levels of overreach we’ve seen from Washington DC our whole lives. We don’t need to rise up in arms as our founding fathers did. Today, we still have enough law and order in America to be able to rely on proper political channels. This is why the growth of the Federalist Party is so vibrant and relevant. It’s time to reassert our interest and adherence to the Constitutional governance we have at our fingertips.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2vApdG8

Saturday, July 22, 2017

We want ideological alignment, not “moving on to” an agenda, Scaramucci

When the first round of cabinet picks and short list Supreme Court Justices were coming out, I was admittedly surprised. My worst nightmare was that the President would follow up his victory by bringing in moderates and even liberals into the White House. He did to some extent, but a good chunk of the people he picked were conservatives such as Mick Mulvaney, Scott Pruitt, and Neil Gorsuch.

Of course, he also brought in problematic people. Reince Priebus led the moderates. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner led the liberals. Steve Bannon led the alt-righters. Then, there were those who weren’t even on my radar for their politics. Among them was Sean Spicer.

Anthony Scaramucci is leading communications now and we should all be concerned. This is an odd strategic pick, but more importantly it’s a pick that brings with it the baggage of strong liberalism tempered by an alleged “fiscal conservatism” that thus far has not been made evident. The progressive views he has shared in the past are available for all to see.

What worries me is that he’s not disavowing these views. Instead, he’s simply deleting them to remove the distraction and “moving on to” the President’s agenda.

Let’s set aside the fact that deleting Tweets before claiming transparency is laughable at best. What’s striking is that he’s not expressing any changes in his perspectives. This is a job and if his job is to communicate the President’s agenda, his perspectives won’t make it in, right? Wrong, and it’s an insult for them to think we’re that naive.

The Comms Director has a direct line to the President’s ear. The last thing we need is even more liberal perspectives swaying the President further to the left. I’m all for people changing their perspectives. Heck, I was in favor of the Iraq War over a decade ago. People can change their minds. The problem with Scaramucci is that he’s not claiming to change anything, whether it’s his leftist opinions on gun control, abortion, or the border wall.

Americans didn’t vote for Donald Trump because they wanted more liberals in the White House. They would have voted for Hillary Clinton if that was their goal and Scaramucci seems more ideologically aligned with the Democrats than Republicans. What does this say about an administration that has accomplished so little in its first six months and that has been embroiled in controversy after controversy?

It’s not too late for the President to put in a right-minded, ideologically aligned Communications Director on the job. Call it a mulligan. Say he was unaware of Scaramucci’s old views or that he fell for a sales pitch. Humble yourself, Mr. President, and get a conservative to handle the communications for your administration. Stop proving that my initial fears were justified.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uTIsNX

Friday, July 21, 2017

Stop telling me to wait on defunding Planned Parenthood

Every time I ask about when the GOP will use its majorities and control of the White House to defund Planned Parenthood, I’m met with a flurry of responses. The most common one has been that we have to wait until they’re able to repeal Obamacare because they can take care of Planned Parenthood in that particular piece of legislation. Well, it turns out they can’t. If the Senate bill passes, it will not defund Planned Parenthood.

As I’ve noted before, defunding Planned Parenthood will not prevent abortions. In fact, it would make this political organization (that claims to not be a political organization) even more powerful than it is today. The reason we must defund Planned Parenthood is because it’s a moral blight on our nation to directly fund murder. This, more than anything else, is why the organization must be forced to generate its own revenue by having people willingly contribute rather than forcing every tax-paying American to participate.

To those who have been telling me to wait, what am I waiting for now? It’s not going to be part of the health care bill. There’s not going to be a better time in the future to end the funding. What excuse do you have for me now that the pretend-pro-lifers in GOP leadership have at their disposal everything they need to make it happen?



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2uIRyg7

Maxine Waters running for President? Yes, please!

We’ve been very clear that we’re not impressed with the pseudo-conservatism practiced by President Trump or the majority of the Republican Party in DC, but we’ve also never been so naive as to believe the Democrats would be better. It’s for this reason that we really, really hope Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California acts upon her apparent willingness to run for President. That would be a slam dunk… for the GOP.

According to The Resurgent:

Since the 2016 elections, Waters has been an  unabashed critic of the Republican majority and President Trump. Concerning alleged Russian meddling, she believes Trump will either be impeached or criminally charged. Refusing to accept that American voters rejected her Party last November, Waters has even surmised that Trump’s election victory was not legitimate.

This has stoked speculation from both the Right and the Left that she may run in 2020. Just a few months ago, Salon published a piece listing five reasons why Waters should forge a run for the White House. She is a prominent member of the Congressional Black Caucus and many Civil Rights leaders have praised her work.

To add more substance to the story, HotAir points out:

Absolutely true, at least to many people outside of California’s 43rd Congressional district. Maxine Waters has been in the House for twenty-six years as one of its most extreme progressives, and has spent much of the past year agitating for Donald Trump’s impeachment. On the other hand, the 78-year-old Waters has gotten a surprising amount of buzz on the Left as a potential 2020 presidential candidate.

As a California native, I can tell you with absolute certainty that even Waters’ brand of crazy resonates here. Of course, there’s pretty much zero chance a Democrat would lose California at any point in the near future.

The post Maxine Waters running for President? Yes, please! appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2uRz2CB

$2M government training program helps people land jobs… 17 of them

There is little doubt among conservatives that government waste is rampant. It seems like the majority of programs that are intended to help people end up doing more harm than good when the whole picture is examined. Then, there are programs like the one in Kentucky launched in part by the Obama administration in 2015 that doesn’t need much examining to determine its failures. For $2M, they were able to help precisely 17 people get jobs.

17 people. $2M dollars. To put that into perspective, they could have just given 40 people $50,000 and told them to improve their own situations with the direct handout.

Daily Signal did an in-depth review of the debacle:

The job training program, budgeted for a total of $4.5 million, was supposed to last through 2019 and train up to 400 people  from an economically depressed region of Kentucky for middle- to high-skill careers in information technology.

As in nearly every circumstance outside of military and a handful of other issues, the government would do best to just stay out of the way instead of trying to get involved. History has demonstrated that private industry and the will of individuals yield far better results than the machinations of bureaucrats.

The post $2M government training program helps people land jobs… 17 of them appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2tPgjCF

Who saved me from getting a $300 ticket for being way too cute? This girl. Laguna Niguel police officer even gave her this traffic safety brochure in lieu of a speeding ticket.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/2uHEQy7

Thursday, July 20, 2017

President Trump’s attack on Jeff Sessions is troubling

If you haven’t heard the audio, start here. Once you’re done, sit back and try to understand what just happened. A sitting President of the United States took one of his early supporters in the Senate and tossed him under the bus for purely petty reasons. What’s worse is that Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russian investigation to protect himself AND the President.

It’s been a while since I’ve been critical of President Trump, but the time has come to call him out again. This is ridiculous. I’m not a fan of Sessions for multiple reasons, but it was the right move for himself and the administration to not participate in the Russian investigation since he did not disclose his own contact with Russians. Had he not recused himself, the investigation itself would be pronounced a sham and debacle by people on both sides of the aisle.

The fact that this is new information is what’s most troubling. We didn’t hear complaints when he recused himself. That it comes out now demonstrates this has been lingering in his mind for a while. It seems as if the President is operating at a maturity level far below what one would want in any political figure, let alone President of the United States. He’s holding fealty in the highest regard and dismissing proper presidential characteristics like honor and honesty.

The first response by most Trump supporters will be that President Obama and candidate Clinton were just as bad if not worse. That’s not a high enough bar to put forth for this or any President. There is plenty that can be said about the liberal duo who hampered our standing on the international stage for eight years, but President Trump (or any other President) should be raising the bar, not swinging for par on the integrity scale.

Every time I think the media and the Democrats are acting worse than their nemesis, he pulls stunts like these that remind just how inadequate he really is. This is the same script being played over and over again: the victim card. He just can’t help himself. Everything’s unfair. Everyone’s being mean to him. Even his own people are out to get him. It makes me anxious for better people to find their way into Washington DC. Waiting through this is the hard part.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2tJhZhd

Toronto man proves self-governance works. Toronto proves their politicians are morons.

When a park in Toronto was in desperate need of a set of stairs, two things happened. The city jumped through the standard bureaucratic hoops and concluded they needed a city project estimated at $65,000-$150,000 cost to taxpayers. Meanwhile, a private citizen employed a homeless man to help him build the necessary stairs for $550.

You probably already know where this is going. Instead of thanking the man for saving taxpayers money, Toronto is going to tear down the stairs for not being built to their regulatory standards.

CTV News reports:

Retired mechanic Adi Astl says he took it upon himself to build the stairs after several neighbours fell down the steep path to a community garden in Tom Riley Park, in Etobicoke, Ont. Astl says his neighbours chipped in on the project, which only ended up costing $550 – a far cry from the $65,000-$150,000 price tag the city had estimated for the job.

As radio personality Vince Coakley noted, this is self governance in action being shut down by bureaucratic idiocy.

This is a microcosm of the very problems facing both America and Canada. Liberal ideologies do not react kindly to conservative principles in action, particularly when they work.

The post Toronto man proves self-governance works. Toronto proves their politicians are morons. appeared first on Conservative Haven.



via Conservative Haven http://ift.tt/2gMvxqK

Wednesday, July 19, 2017

A caretaker’s role in politics

Over the past year, I’ve worked towards helping to build a new political party. What started as a hobby and a dream has turned into a full-time endeavor; last month I sold my half of the company I’ve been building for three years in order to support my family from now until retirement. The need to make drastic changes in this country is too great for me to sit back and wait for others.

With that said, I’m very well aware of my limitations. I’m not rich. I’m not a politician nor will I ever be one. My resume wouldn’t land me the job as a campaign manager for a city council candidate. Still, there are things I bring to the table that have helped the party grow. When the time comes, I’m eager to take a backseat to those who are smarter, more experienced, and better versed on how to get things done. Until then, I’m here.

Looking back, I’ve made mistakes. I supported Newt Gingrich in 2012. Today I wouldn’t want him anywhere near public office. I once wrote an article (2, if I recall) about not believing in the electoral college. Today, I believe wholeheartedly in the electoral college. Heck, I even jumped on the “take out Saddam” bandwagon with George W. Bush. That turned out to be a huge political mistake. Thankfully, I’m not the one who’s going to be making these decisions.

I’m a caretaker. With nobody doing what it takes to build a true small-government movement, I’ve taken it on myself the last year to read the Federalist Papers (twice), learn as much as I can as a layman about Constitutional law, and follow every piece of major legislature at both national and state levels. I speak daily to patriots who are sick of what’s happening to the nation and I learn much more from them than I could ever teach. That’s the beauty of being a caretaker. My role is simply to connect the right people to the right ideology and do what I can to raise awareness.

It’s important that the party is never judged by the actions of any one individual. I supported Ted Cruz for President, but he’s demonstrated more than once in the last couple of years that he can be driven by politics just as anyone else can. We’ve seen people like Rand Paul and Mike Lee shine at times and fade at other times. Just as Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer were on the opposite side of the political spectrum as they are today, so too can any person learn and (hopefully) grow through their political lives.

In a world with a “conservative” President who once supported partial birth abortion and gun bans, allowing my past support for the Iraq War or eliminating the electoral college to taint the party is nonsense. If a caretaker isn’t allowed to make mistakes, then nobody should be worthy of a vote unless they’re 100% ideologically aligned for their entire adult lives.

 



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2tHQowH

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

Saturday, July 8, 2017

Decadence.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/2u5zvkj

Thursday, July 6, 2017

My not-so-hot take on the Illinois tax debacle

Government cannot spend its way out of trouble. That’s an absolute truth that has been clearly demonstrated time and again, yet we see politicians at every level from local to national continuing to push untenable budgets and asinine tax hikes on the people. The latest example is Illinois and this time it’s more than the usual suspects behind the debacle.

Republican lawmakers jumped ship and backed an override of their own party’s governor’s veto of the latest budget that calls for increased taxes. This lack of backbone has become a calling card for the modern GOP as so many today seem willing to break from the old school ideology of smaller government in order to play along with their liberal counterparts. The fear of government shutdowns, credit failures, and election day repercussions have pushed the GOP away from conservative and Federalist fundamentals.

Instead of giving into the Democratic majority’s demands for more government, these Republicans should have backed their governor’s play. He wasn’t asking for much, just term limits and a handful of other responsible actions included in the extremely liberal and oppressive budget plan. They should have forced further turmoil and continued to offer real solutions instead of backing down from fear of another budget-free fiscal year. That’s the problem with the modern Republican Party. They don’t play within their alleged ideologies. Instead, they’re constantly attempting in vain to mitigate damage both real and political.

In the vast majority of situations, the best solution is to reduce taxes, dramatically cut budgets, and put emphasis on supporting the private sector to solve problems. We the People are more capable than government entities to solve our own problems, but the Democratic-Republicans of modern day America seem bent on convincing us otherwise.

Here’s the biggest problem: it’s working. More Americans are becoming dependent on government rather than being reliant on self-governance. Fewer Americans are attempting to solve problems and are instead spending their time demanding action from politicians. This more than anything else is why the Federalist Party must rise. We’re losing the battle of independence by pushing off our responsibilities to people and entities who have no business participating in finding the right solutions. The indoctrination and propaganda machines of the left have infiltrated many politicians on the right. Today’s Republicans are looking more like mid-90s Democrats than the party that once believed in shrinking government.

Illinois, as with so many Democrat-run states, is crumbling under the weight of its own failed fiscal policies. They don’t need a bailout. They shouldn’t be raising taxes. They need to cut, cut, and cut some more. They need fewer programs, lower taxes, and an elimination of the overreach that has plagued them for decades if they hope to recover. Instead, the Democratic-Republicans are going against their fiscally responsible governor in order to push more of the same tired leftist agenda.

The only real solution is less government and Illinois is a clear example of a state that has proven this to be true by failing miserably with big government. Will they learn the lesson in time? We are actively recruiting a strong leadership team in Illinois to bring the battle to Springfield. Email us at smallgov@thefederalistparty.org if you’re interested.



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2tXxwyp

Tuesday, July 4, 2017

Little baby toes. Gets me every time.


via Facebook http://ift.tt/2tGJLPl

Monday, July 3, 2017

Happy 4th. Time to get to work.

For most Americans, Independence Day is a holiday away from work. Sure, there are those who continue their normal duties; having a child in the hospital is a reminder for me that some industries don’t have the luxury of taking a day completely off. A majority of businesses are closed. One in particular is not.

The Federalist Party, to which I am committed wholeheartedly, is not taking the 4th of July off. In fact, many of us are going to be working harder today than other days for two reasons. First, since we’re made up completely of volunteers, there are many who are taking the opportunity away from work to apply more effort to the party. Second, the spirit of the holiday itself is one that has deep ties to our own goals. Just as the Declaration of Independence was intended to let Americans and our British overlords know we were done with oppression, so too do Federalists want to break away from the two-party system that has yielded big-government-loving politicians for decades.

We expect this from the Democrats. In recent years, we’ve learned to accept it from most Republican politicians as well.

This particular Independence Day is special to me because it marks the first one for as long as I can remember when I’m not part of the GOP. Before I really understood politics, I had a fondness for the words of Ronald Reagan. Though he wasn’t the best champion for small government Federalism that he could have been, his words and intentions were definitely aligned with reining in federal overreach and returning power to both the states as well as to individual citizens. He and others convinced me at an early age that the GOP would fight to shrink government.

The reality, as I learned later in life, is that Reagan and the GOP that followed his legacy didn’t really reduce government. They simply slowed down its growth… for a while. Today’s variation of the party doesn’t even do that. They’ve become almost indistinguishable from the Democrats they allegedly oppose. We see every day as concepts get rebranded rather than eliminated. The most glaring recent example is Trumpcare versus Obamacare. While the two parties fight over the details, the reality of the situation is that both are pushing for different versions of the same big government concept. Both parties want DC to mandate health coverage. Both parties want the federal government to have way too much say about how, where, and when we get health insurance.

This isn’t the only example, but I’m not going to start off my (or your) Independence Day by talking about policies. This is about a celebration of something special and a hope that we return to the fundamentals that made this nation special. We’re not here to discuss “making America great again” because we’re not interested in slogans with no teeth. Instead, let’s talk about why we declared independence from England in the first place. The founders realized that they were being oppressed by a distant government and that the oppression was growing. They felt they had no representation yet the taxes kept growing. Prosperity was fading. Freedoms were minimal.

Today, we’re faced with a similar trend. DC doesn’t rule over us like the British did, but their overreach is clear and growing. We have more freedoms than our forefathers had, but those freedoms are under attack. There’s a potential that taxes could be reduced if the GOP is able to keep its agenda intact before being forced out of office, but the cuts they’re proposing are minuscule compared to where they should be. With all this, there’s very little talk about cutting budgets or tackling the national debt.

The battle we fight today is different from what they had to fight in the 18th century, but the parallels are striking. We aren’t fighting with guns or cannons but with words and passion. We’re not fighting for freedoms we don’t have. We’re fighting for freedoms that are being taken away. We’re not faced with an oppressive government across the sea, but we’re faced with an expanding government that in many ways is more ideologically divergent from the American people than what our forefathers had to face with England. The founders had to declare their independence. Today, we have to remind the people of the independence so many seem willing to forego.

It’s a day off for many. It’s not a day off for me. I encourage anyone who’s sick of what’s happening in America to take a close look at the Federalist Party. We need all the help we can get.

Image credit: Etsy



via Soshable http://ift.tt/2sGTXTe