Recent Updates Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 21:24:00 on 2017/10/13 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    What the Federalist Party needs to do to get to Washington DC 

    For the last three days, I’ve been traveling. The long flights between Southern California and Washington DC were worth it after a handful of very productive meetings. They gave us direction on the next steps necessary for the Federalist Party to make an impact sooner than expected.

    Read the rest on the Federalist website.

     
  • feedwordpress 07:21:23 on 2017/10/01 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , NOQ Report,   

    The best way to cover the news: NOQ Report 

    It’s no secret I’ve had many projects in the works lately. Between the Federalist Party, The New Americana, and expanding the family, my days have been loaded from the moment I wake up until the moment I pass out. Why start something else? It’s necessary.

    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:

    • News: Standard operating procedure for most conservative media sites is to take news from mainstream media and regurgitate it with a conservative spin. There are very few conservative news originators; most sites pull reports and then retell the story. We aren’t in a position (yet) to have a robust origination department, though we do have some strong writers out there looking for fresh news. Instead, NOQ aims to tell the WHOLE story with four basic sections to our news stories. The first part is standard – tell the basic story. The next section, Perspectives, pulls from hundreds of various sources and curates them for our readers. Then, we get Reactions pulled from social media. Lastly, we have our Final Thoughts to wrap it all up.
    • Opinions: The key to having a great opinions-section is great writers. We’ve got them. We didn’t stop there, though. Our opinions section is going to avoid the editorial narrative that’s associated with the vast majority of publications. Our writers have free reins.
    • Quotes: There are plenty of sites that highlight quotes of historical figures. We’ll focus on quotes from today. What are the players saying? How does it affect everyone? This will be a very important section because it gives readers plenty to share on social media.

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 17:21:08 on 2017/09/06 Permalink
    Tags: , DACA, , ,   

    If rescinding DACA is leverage for securing the border, I’m okay with that 

    Anyone who follows me knows I’ve been unapologetic about my stance that DACA should be rescinded and not replaced. It’s cruel that DREAMers will have their lives turned upside down which is why I was opposed to the notion from the moment President Obama signed it. Why give them false hope knowing it would be taken away by the next President or the Supreme Court, whoever got to it first?

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 23:54:55 on 2017/09/05 Permalink
    Tags: , Jim Bridenstein, NASA,   

    Why I’m rooting AGAINST Jim Bridenstine for NASA 

    I’m a huge fan of Oklahoma Congressman Jim Bridenstine. He’s a staunch conservative. He’s an Okie. He’s fearless in his battles against the Establishment. For these and many other reasons, I really hope he doesn’t join the Trump administration to lead NASA.

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 20:00:41 on 2017/08/16 Permalink
    Tags: , , ,   

    Stop cheering about business leaders leaving Trump’s councils 

    I’ll keep this very brief. There seems to be many who are opposed to the President’s weak remarks about the Charlottesville attack that are happy about business leaders leaving his councils as well as their subsequent dissolution. This is not a good thing. We WANT people from the private sector in his ear. This just pushes the President further away from connecting with the people he’s supposed to serve.

    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:

    Today, more names jumped on the dump-Trump bandwagon, prompting a new Tweet:

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 04:40:32 on 2017/08/12 Permalink
    Tags: , , ,   

    This is an unofficial Federalist site 

    As a co-founder of the Federalist Party, it’s apparently assumed that what I post here is an official representative of the party. It is not. The only official party posts go on the party’s website itself. What I post here as well as what I post via social media through the Soshable accounts have no direct affiliation with the party.

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 01:56:58 on 2017/07/29 Permalink
    Tags: , , First Amendment, ,   

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 08:43:56 on 2017/07/24 Permalink
    Tags: , , Governance, , Message, , ,   

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 00:24:16 on 2017/07/23 Permalink
    Tags: Anthony Scaramucci, , , , , , White House   

    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.

     
  • feedwordpress 02:33:14 on 2017/07/22 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    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?

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel