Read the rest on the Federalist website.
Two weeks ago, we did a soft launch on NOQ Report. This has been percolating for a while between me and Steve Berman, the managing editor for both TNA and NOQ. Conservative media has become a parody of itself in many ways. Most sites are very spammy. Some of them are so loaded with advertisements it’s hard to read the news without closing popups, popunders, popsideways, all the while ignoring semi-pornographc ads plastered everywhere.
Then, there’s the identity crisis that’s been happening in conservative media. Some sites are very pro-Trump. Others are very pro-GOP. Most get confused between the two, not sure which direction to point since it seems like neither Trump nor the GOP itself are heading in a conservative direction on most issues. Throw in the rise of the alt-right and the confusing distinctions between nationalism and white nationalism and it’s easy to see the conservative media crisis that wasn’t prepared to do anything other than oppose Barack Obama. With the enemy out of the way, most conservative media sites are floundering.
NOQ Report is designed to fix that, but it’s more than just making conservative media better. We wanted to try a modern way to present the news itself. NOQ stands for News, Opinions, and Quotes. Here’s what we came up with to improve conservative media through NOQ Report:
Things don’t always go as planned. NOQ was supposed to get started next year, but a DDoS attack on The New Americana forced us to move things up. We needed money to get it going. We still need money to keep it rolling (hint, hint). So far, it’s working out nicely.
Conservative media is in need of an upgrade. NOQ Report will deliver that. Check it out, subscribe, and spread the word. America needs it.
I’m disappointed in myself for not seeing the play here with DACA. If what seems to be happening is allowed to move forward to its proper conclusion, then all of this was worth it. The play that’s materializing is a legislative replacement for DACA that allows DREAMers to stay in exchange for moves to secure the border. If that’s the play the GOP is calling, I can support it for now. There’s no way to know if its worthy or not until we see the end result, but I like the direction this is heading.
All things being equal, I’d love to see the GOP negotiate a deal that legalizes DACA in exchange for several border-securing initiatives. I’m probably asking for too much, but one can dream, right?
The reality of the situation is that DACA encourages illegal immigration. Therefore, if we’re to keep it in a legal manner, we must do so with the border properly secured. Democrats love to say getting rid of DACA will hurt 800,000 innocent people. They seem to gloss over the fact that our porous borders allowed 800,000 DACA-eligible children and their families to enter the United States illegally. That’s more than the entire population of 5 U.S. states.
We are a sovereign nation. That status can change faster than most realize if we don’t take the steps to secure our borders, fix legal immigration, and protect the freedoms that all Americans have. I’ll probably be called a white nationalist for thinking these things, which is funny because I’m actually an immigrant brought here as a child through proper legal means. The system can work if people would stop breaking it.
Pulling a strong federalism-minded conservative like Jim Bridenstine out of Congress to put him in charge of NASA is like when Michael Jordan quit basketball to play baseball. Sure, he could do it pretty well, but he could have a heck of a lot more impact on the floor.
I was okay with President Trump pulling Mick Mulvaney out of Congress because he was a great fit to build (or rather, unbuild) the budget, but Bridenstine can’t do a whole lot at NASA that will actually affect most Americans. His background fits; he was executive director for the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and was endorsed by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. Nevertheless, I want him in Congress.
All things being equal, I’ll accept it if he takes this “promotion.” It just seems like the Establishment will do whatever it takes to get small-government proponents out of Congress. Hopefully he can help defend the Constitution from Cape Canaveral.
In case you’re unaware, several members of Trump’s various civilian advisory councils quit after he essentially blamed multiple groups, not just white nationalists, for the Charlottesville attack. This prompted a Tweet yesterday:
For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2017
Today, more names jumped on the dump-Trump bandwagon, prompting a new Tweet:
Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017
Here’s the thing. I realize most believe these councils were for show and couldn’t actually influence him, but we have to remember something very important about the President. He’s malleable. His perspectives ebb and flow based upon moon cycles, wind direction, and the voices in his ear. While I don’t think these councils could have made him a better President, I believe having voices of reason that he respected keeping him in touch with reality was a positive thing. Hey, it couldn’t hurt, right?
What I would have loved to have heard from these council members was strong opposition to Trump’s words and actions followed by a stated intention of keeping the President accountable by staying in the councils. It’s easy to say, “I disagree and I quit.” It’s much harder to say, “I disagree, but I’m willing to stick it out in order to guide a man who clearly needs guidance.”
The dissolution of these councils is not a good thing for Trump’s opponents. It’s great for the companies of the CEOs who left as they’ll get lauded by many. For America, this was counterproductive. They should have stayed the course, even if doing so meant dealing with someone they don’t respect.
One might wonder why I even post here at all if that’s the case. Why allow for confusion? The answer is something that applies to many people. To explain this, I’ll start with a quick story about an old boss. For months, I had a hard time convincing him that we could have remote employees at our company. I explained to him that since we were a technology company, we could broaden our talent pool by not forcing people to live in southern California. He disagreed.
After some prodding and using myself as an example of someone who could work just fine from a home office, I learned his reasoning. He couldn’t do it himself. In fact, he found that he was much less productive at home than he ever could be in the office. I told him he was the anomaly.
I was wrong. After we finally started hiring remote employees, I found that a little over half of them were not as productive as they should be. The gap was made up by those who were very productive; those who handled working remotely were even more productive than the in-office employees, but those who could not handle it were far less productive.
The moral of that particular story, for me, was that some people can separate work from life even if both happened in the same places and some people simply cannot. There’s really no way to tell which way a person will go based upon interview questions. I’ve experienced great and terrible remote employees for the last eight years and there doesn’t seem to be a universal signal. Some can. Some cannot.
All of this brings me to my point. Whether it’s in separating work from home life, professional from personal demeanor, or “thoughtful” writing versus “heart-felt” writing, people often need barriers. For me, the barrier divides how I write for Soshable from how I write for the party. Since pretty much all of my writing is either political or religious, it makes sense to keep both sites around. Sometimes I need to post direction or thoughts pertaining directly to the party or to a Federalist philosophy. Other times, I simply need to rant or express my personal perspectives as they pertain to federalism. Both are necessary for me as it’s what I’ve been immersed in for months. However, the things I post here are from “JD the Christian Federalist and conservative.” What I post on the party’s website comes from “JD the co-founder of the Federalist Party.”
I know I’ll be judged on both, but here I can denote personal perspectives that are not necessarily part of party doctrine. Personally, I’m against California attempting to install single-payer health care. Why? Because I live in California. As a party, we have to be willing to allow states to succeed… or fail. States are the laboratories from which other states can learn. If after repealing Obamacare (if that ever happens), California decides they want single-payer, they have that right. The people can vote out those who helped bankrupt the state if that is indeed what happens or they can vote with their feet. JD the father of four living in California would hate it, but JD the co-founder of a party bent on restoring states’ rights would accept it.
We all need barriers to partition different aspects of our lives. For me, Soshable is safe haven where I can let my heart do the writing.
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.
“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.
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.
Full transparency: I'm deleting old tweets. Past views evolved & shouldn't be a distraction. I serve @POTUS agenda & that's all that matters
— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) July 22, 2017
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
They ask this question because I’m heavily embedded in the formation of the Federalist Party, which means they want to know what political chops I bring to the table. It’s important for me as well as the party that I never allow delusions of grandeur to creep into my psyche. I truly am nobody, or more accurately, I’m just like hundreds of millions of Americans who are disenfranchised with the way government intrudes on our lives. I’m among those who realize small government, the type that can fit within the boundaries of the Constitution, is the only way to go. The only difference between me and so many is that I’m no longer willing to wait. I tried the GOP, then tried to help fix the GOP through the Tea Party. I’ve looked at third parties, and while some have great ideas they lack in strategy; they simply don’t know how to win.
I needed to do something about it and found that there are a ton more people like me. Every day, people are raising their hands and declaring they’re Federalists. It’s been wonderful.
The last couple of weeks have been a bit of a whirlwind. As I write this, I’m watching over my son who was born less than two weeks ago. He was born with a long list of challenges with his heart. His aorta and pulmonary artery were switched. There was a hole in the wall between his ventricles. His aortic arch was off. The poor little guy had problems. By the grace of God, we were led to a wonderful doctor and hospital and the prognosis is great. Lord willing, he’ll be in great shape and ready to go home in the next few weeks.
While all of this was happening, I sold my half of my company to my partner. He knew my situation and the fact that I’d need to dedicate a ton of time to family and politics so he made me a fair offer and released me. It happened at the exact right moment as medical bills were on the verge of breaking us.
Meanwhile, The New Americana, my other project in conjunction with the Federalist Party, has accepted new editorial leadership. Again, the timing couldn’t have been better. Steve Berman came on board and has been running the day-to-day since Jacob was born. Amazing how the timing has worked so perfectly thus far. Praise God!
Now that everything seems to be heading in the right direction, I’m working my way back into the mix with the party. Things are moving so quickly on all fronts in the political world that every moment counts. The team has been very supportive and all have filled the gap from my absence nicely. Now, it’s time to hit the ground running once again.
My requests: pray for Jacob, help support the party, and help support The New Americana. Steve’s going to be doing this full-time as soon as I’m able to pay him.
Thank you all for your patience. I can’t wait to get even more involved in everything as time goes on.
“Wait for the facts.”
“Don’t assume it’s terrorism.”
“Stop jumping to conclusions.”
Let’s put aside the fact that the vast majority of these incidents turn out to be terrorist attacks. Let’s also ignore (for now) the fact that the vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists. Even if we take away these facts, there’s still a very valid reason to jump to conclusions first and fix the record later.
It’s better to be safe than sorry.
Tonight’s attacks in London were the latest in a rash of “Ramadan incidents.” It’s not a coincidence that the Islamic State and other organizations have been calling for attacks on western targets during their holy month. It’s also not bigoted to point that out. The terrorists don’t play the politically correct game. They aren’t worried about how the world will view them if they’re associated with Islam. They’re proud that they’re representing what they believe to be the true fulfillment of their religious beliefs.
That’s not to say that Islam is to blame or Muslims are bad, but we have to address the issue with our eyes open.
The media and everyone playing the politically correct game are quick to crank up the rhetoric. They either willfully ignore the facts or are too blind to see that it’s no coincidence the vast majority of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by people claiming the mantle of Islam. If one out of every 10,000 Muslims are potential terrorists, that’s still nearly 200,000 people worldwide. This can’t be brushed away as politically inconvenient to the left’s narrative.
We need to handle every situation like this as if it’s a terrorist attack. There’s a difference between a drunk driver swerving into a group of people and what took place on London Bridge. When it appears that an attack is willful, we need to put our guard up. There’s no harm that comes from doing so if we’re wrong. On the other hand, if we “wait for the facts” before taking on a defensive posture, the results can be deadly.
The left is so worried about hate speech. Such speech should not be condoned whether there’s a terrorist attack or not. However, we cannot let fear of hate speech prevent us from being aware and diligent. The terrorists want to kill or subjugate all of us. Their greatest ally is a weakness propped up by fear. We cannot give them that.
This will be hard for many to read, but it’s important to be clear about something. Defunding Planned Parenthood will most likely NOT save lives. In fact, it will strengthen the organization. To understand this, we have to look at the situation with clarity.
When we’re able to defund Planned Parenthood, they will not see a single penny less. They will see more money. Why? Because they will use their defunding to build the most powerful liberal fundraising apparatus the nation has ever seen. They will raise more liberal dollars than anyone other than the Democratic nominee for President. Defunding them will give them more money and power than they have today.
This is indisputable by anyone who knows how these things work.
If this is the case, why must we defund them? Wouldn’t it make more sense to not empower them through defunding? No. We must look at the two important elements from a moral perspective and one important element from a strategic perspective.
Morally, it is wrong for the nation to allow abortion to be funded by taxpayers. Some would argue that it is therefore wrong to fund the military for similar moral reasons; killing is killing, right? No. The national government has within its enumerated powers the necessity for national defense. It does not have the power over health care (despite what we’ve seen with Obamacare and Trumpcare). Since it’s the left’s argument that abortion is a health care issue, it doesn’t make sense for the federal government to participate at all in the matter.
The second moral reason comes down to choice. As Americans, we are forced to pay taxes. We can get into a discussion about whether or not that should be acceptable, but for today’s argument let’s assume that we all have to pay. When those tax dollars go to pay for something that could easily be paid for through choice (donations to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers) it is wrong for tax dollars to be redirected when the private sector could fund it better. If people choose to fund it, so be it. Those of us who would choose not to fund it deserve to keep our tax dollars from going in their direction.
From a strategic perspective, any dollar given by the left to Planned Parenthood is a dollar that may have gone to fund other projects or candidates. By defunding and pushing them to fully fund themselves through donations and other means, we’re preventing those dollars from going elsewhere.
My point isn’t to bring up some moral debate or ethical quandary about whether it makes sense to continue to fund Planned Parenthood. It’s important that we recognize the stakes of the fight. In the end, the political and cultural battles against abortion have very little to do with Planned Parenthood. When we recognize this, we can discern how to focus our efforts in the real battle.
Anonymous sources that don’t really exist overheard this conversation last night in the White House following the President’s odd stray Tweet that seemed to cut off at the word “covfefe.”
Reince Priebus: Should we wake him?
Jared Kushner: I don’t know. I just don’t know.
Ivanka Trump: It’s pretty bad. I mean, he sounds like a bigger idiot than normal.
Kushner: People are going to think he had a stroke or something.
Priebus: We should wake him.
Ivanka: Go ahead.
Priebus: No way. You’re his daughter. He told me never to wake him unless Bannon says it’s okay.
Kushner: Well, Bannon’s not in charge anymore. Somebody’s got to make the call.
Ivanka: Go ahead.
Kushner: He’s already mad at me and Reince. It should be you.
Priebus: Agreed.
Ivanka: Forget that. The last time I tried to wake him up was awkward.
Kushner: What hap…
Ivanka: I don’t want to talk about it. Someone call Kellyanne.
Priebus: She’s not really up for this anymore.
Kushner: Try Spicer. He’s already getting canned soon. What does he have to lose?
Ivanka: Where’s Steve?
Priebus: Bannon? Haha, nope. The last thing he’d do is get involved with this crap.
Ivanka: Well, we have to do something. We can’t just leave it up on Twitter overnight. He’s going to ask why the heck we didn’t wake him up.
Kushner: And if we tell him it’s because he said never wake him up, he’s going to freak.
Ivanka: If we wake him up, he’ll freak.
Priebus: Rock and a hard place. I’ve been here before. It doesn’t end well.
Corey Lewandowski walks in: Hey guys, did you read that…
Priebus, Kushner, and Ivanka: Yes
Lewandowski: So, wake him up.
Priebus: It should be you who wakes him up, Corey.
Kushner: You’ve already felt his wrath. You’re used to it.
Lewandowski: I just worked my way back in.
Ivanka: Yes, as crisis management. Well, this is a crisis.
Lewandowski: This isn’t a crisis. It’s a cluster. I’ve never dealt with this sort of thing before. Nobody has. What the heck’s a covfefe anyway?
Steve Bannon walks in: Hey guys, did you read that…
Priebus, Kushner, Ivanka, and Lewandowski: Yes
Bannon: Let me guess. You’re all trying to convince each other that they should be the one to wake him up.
Kushner: Actually, we decided that you should be the one.
Bannon: No need. Let it be. Tell him that it has over 100K retweets and the people love it. They’re really digging it. Everybody’s saying it. Somebody even bought the URL and turned it into a covfefe store.
Kushner: Can we trademark it?
Bannon: Probably.
After some thought, the group agrees. Let’s make America covfefe again.
No, the real reason I refuse to go there is because it’s counterproductive. My cause is for America and the way that I’m giving to this cause is through the Federalist Party. It may behoove us politically to point out every misstep, idiotic idea, or destructive policy the Republicans and Democrats give us, but we have to look at it through the lens of productivity.
In other words, we can’t waste our time complaining about things without consequence.
The latest example is the President’s call to change Senate rules and eliminate the legislative filibuster:
The U.S. Senate should switch to 51 votes, immediately, and get Healthcare and TAX CUTS approved, fast and easy. Dems would do it, no doubt!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2017
My first reaction was to instantly hop on the party’s website and write up a piece about how horrible this idea would be both short-term and long-term. The importance of keeping the House and Senate separate in form and function shouldn’t need to be stated. The consequences of allowing for pure single-party rule to hasten action would be disastrous. I could even point out the idiocy of a President who apparently doesn’t realize the path of budget reconciliation the GOP is currently taking with the AHCA; they can repeal and replace (well, technically, tweak and rebrand) Obamacare with a majority.
Before diving into this endeavor, I decided to see if this silly Tweet would have consequences. Then, I recalled earlier in the month when Mitch McConnell said he wouldn’t be ending the legislative filibuster. I’m not so naive as to believe much of what McConnell says, but in this particular case I believe it’s credible. Ending the filibuster would spark enough panic and give so much fodder for the Democrats that it would ensure a reversal of fortunes for the GOP in Congress as early as 2018.
In a world with Trump as the President of the United States, we can’t jump on every Tweet. It’s a waste of time and effort. Let Trump do Trump things and attempt to discern what will actually happen based upon all factors. Otherwise, most journalists will find themselves going insane before the end of his term.
Here’s a great one that highlights the way many Americans feel today. It’s challenging when, on one hand, we love our country immensely but on the other hand we feel our leaders have failed us. The betrayals from the Democratic-Republicans in recent years have made the formation of the Federalist Party necessary.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”
