"New Federalists"? Yeah, Right.  

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

OK. I don't know who the knucklehead was that came up with this idea, but a little site on GeoCities is now calling itself the "Official Website of the New Federalist Party". Problem is, they do not represent the ideas set forth in the New Federalist Platform, found here . Instead, there's another platform, which has little or nothing to do with the ideas we New Federalists truly represent.

Created in 1787 by some of our nation's finest minds, the Federalist Party was instrumental in forging the new nation. Where they have left off, a new party has begun. In a time dominated by partisan politics and money interests the cry for a united government in which the voice of the people will not be drowned out is stronger than it has ever been. Though incorporating many of the views from both the Republicans and Democrats, the New Federalists are their own party fixed around a strong central government that holds the voice of the people close at heart.
True New Federalists agree with very little of the Democratic Party Platform, due to its emphasis on socialism and its blatant disrespect for the Constitution, so "incorporating many of the views from both the Republicans and Democrats" is nothing more than a cop-out. This "party" is nothing more than a bunch of "RINOs", "DINOs", and "moderates" trying to make themselves out as a viable alternative to the major parties, despite the fact that they aren't any different from them.
Begun as a small progressive movement in the Eastern United States, it is now gaining significant ground throughout the country, with the number of members growing exponentially. This is the official website of the New Federalist Party. We invite you to explore our views in our party platform and read about the old Federalists in the history section.
How would they know if their ideas were "gaining significant ground"? I would venture that most people calling themselves "New Federalists" would overwhelmingly be more along the lines of those of us following the concept supported by President Reagan and set forth in the New Federalist Platform. If someone says "yeah, I'm a Federalist" or "I'm a New Federalist", how do they know the person isn't talking about the Reagan movement, which is most likely considerably stronger than their little imaginary "party". Furthermore, the New Federalist movement is hardly "progressive" (translation: SOCIALIST). It is a return to the concept of Federalism as envisioned by our forefathers, with adjustments consistent with the acknowledgement that history has shown the Anti-federalists to have been largely correct in their assessment of the potential problems with the Constitution. Of course, these people's version of "New Federalism" is not even close to the real New Federalist platform.

The New Federalist believe the environment should be both preserved and used for the benefit of mankind. We can use our environment for enjoyment and raw materials, without damaging the ecosystem. We firmly support the Environmental Protection Agency. Current Issue: New Federalists are against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
New Federalists believe that it is not within the authority of the federal government to be involved in such matters. Believing that "the environment should be both preserved and used for the benefit of mankind," and that "we can use our environment for enjoyment and raw materials, without damaging the ecosystem," which most true New Federalists do, does NOT mean that putting the federal government in charge of this is either prudent or constitutional. No provisions for the EPA or, for that matter, something like ANWR, are made in the Constitution.
Power of Government

As the Federalist Party supported a strong central government, so do the New Federalists. Without a unifying, firm national government, our country couldn't survive.
The Federalist Party of 1787 supported what in its time would have been considered a strong central government, but this is a relative term. Prior to the Constitution, there was no central government at all. ALL of the Founders, whether their party affiliation ultimately wound up being Federalist or Democratic-Republican, sought to limit the size and scope of the federal government. The Constitution itself, along with the Bill of Rights, sets forth a system by which the federal government is the WEAKEST link in the chain of government, not the opposite. The Tenth Amendment clearly makes this case. These phony "New Federalists" are supporting a position more akin to Bill Clinton's "supreme" federal government.
Gun Control

"As the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first to be laid aside when those liberties are firmly established." -George Washington
The New Federalists agree with Washington and believe we only need stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, not any new ones.
Obviously one of those measures these people have taken from the Republicans, but is it conservative? No. Is it supported by the Constitution? No. True New Federalists believe that existing gun laws violate the Second Amendment, and should be repealed rather than enforced.

Graduated tax plan, where the wealthy pay a greater amount since they reap more benefits from the government. New Federalists support middle class tax cuts to aid the working class. New Federalists believe any national surplus would be utilized in paying off the national debt. New Federalists also advocate government aid and regulation to small businesses promoting competition and allowing American business to be controlled by Americans. We support NAFTA but want to regulate overseas trade through protective tariffs.
Wrong. New Federalists support doing away with the income tax, and getting the government out of the business of micromanaging the economy altogether. This platform position sounds a lot like a campaign speech from Al Gore.
Military Defense

The New Federalists support the status quo on military spending.
We also need to stop the testing of the ABM, which steps on the toes of our own foreign policy, destroying relations with both China and Russia.
My disagreement on the concept of keeping a strong professional military notwithstanding, the real New Federalist platform calls for a greater role of US citizens in the defense of our nation and less emphasis on the professional military we currently have. I personally couldn't give a shit about relations with Russia and China, as neither of those countries cares much about their relations with us. ABM is a legitimate defense mechanism, essential for defense against anyone who would seek to harm us with ballistic missile technology.
Foreign Policy

The New Federalists believe that the stronger the foundation, the stronger the nation. If our military is responsible for the devastation of a foriegn land, we must put a hand to rebuild it. That is why Nation Building is the key to progressive international relations.
Faulty premise. Our military has not devastated ANY foreign land. We have, since 2001, twice liberated countries from oppressive governments that just happened to be hostile to us and posed a legitimate threat. The effects of our military operations have been the end of the devastating effects of their prior governments, the elimination of the threats posed by those hostile governments, and the establishment of a more citizen-friendly form of government that will have more potential to take our side when called upon. Just because it hasn't been easy doesn't mean it's not ultimately a win-win situation.

The Federal Communications Commission has been seen as an infringement of the rights of all Americans. In many cases, this is not true. Television is regularly monitored by the FCC. It is because of this that your child will never be able to see nudity or hear profanity at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. The internet is a completely different story. At any time of day, anyone anywhere would be able to view a pornographic website with incredible ease. It is far easier to find such a site than it would be to find information on the planet Mars, Abraham Lincoln, World War I, etc. It isn't just pornography. There are websites that have gruesome footage of Daniel Pearl's slaying, instructions for pipe bombs, and many other evils . A controlled censorship would allow for the termination of these atrocities while still guaranteeing every man, woman, and child their God-given rights.
There is no provision in the Constitution for the FCC. Again the premise is faulty. The FCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that my child will not see nudity or profanity at 4 o'clock in the afternoon because I, as a parent, monitor their television habits. Furthermore, responsible communications companies wouldn't show that stuff at that time anyway, with or without the FCC. Why not? Because they are parents, too, and they wouldn't want THEIR kids watching that stuff, either. Irresponsible companies would cease to exist, because of the loss of money caused by people refusing to watch their programming. On the Internet, search engines routinely carry a "family filter" feature, which filters out most of these things (ain't capitalism great?). There are also many free applications available for download, which do a great job of filtering out what you don't want. These people are treating the availability of video of Daniel Pearl's slaying as if it were a greater atrocity than the slaying itself. Censoring something like that takes away the ability to see the enemy for what he is, and feeds these anti-war activist nutjobs who would rather face Pearl's fate than defeat those who inflicted it. Furthermore, censorship is illegal under the First Amendment.

Americans need to reduce their dependence on OPEC and eventually on oil all together. About 60% of the world's oil supply is produced by non-OPEC countries such as the United States, Mexico, Russia, China, Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom. A dependence on OPEC is a dependence on Middle East nations, and reducing that reliance would keep the United States free of regional conflicts.

Eventually our oil supply will dwindle, and when that time comes, alternative energy sources must be established. We promote solar power, hybrid cars, and eventually fusion power. The US Department of Energy must continue to research these areas, especially the potentials of fusing hydrogen atoms. Also, we must continue to fund the development of fuel cell technology.
You can have whatever position on energy you want. There is no room in the Constitution for the federal government to involve itself in such matters. Real New Federalists know and understand this. Somehow I get the idea these phony "New Federalists" haven't bothered to read the Constitution their forebearers crafted for the republic.

The New Federalists believe that life begins at conception. Because of this view, we favor the ban of all abortion. Only in cases of high-risk pregnancy will a termination of the fetus be permitted, and purely on command of the mother. In order to compensate for the larger population of infants that will be put up for adoption, the New Federalists propose that the government assume control of all adoption agencies. In the case of rape or incest, the baby may be put up for adoption at one such government agency. Because these centers are funded by the federal government, any increase of children will lead to a direct increase in funding, ensuring that these agencies will not deteriorate. To further curb the resulting higher birth rate, we propose an increase of education on abstenance and contraceptives.
This starts out sounding pretty conservative, with actual acknowledgement that life begins at conception, but read on. Only the mother can allow an abortion - the father is left out entirely (violation of equal protection clause). The federal government is put in charge of all adoption agencies (no constitutional provision). Advocating any "increase in education" means one thing: increasing federal spending on it (no constitutional provision). Again, there isn't much here that the Federalists of 1787 would have agreed with, and beyond the first sentence, the same goes for true New Federalists as well.

The New Federalist Party condemns vouchers. Removing money from the public education system will do nothing to improve it. Vouchers make it easier for the wealthy to attend private schools while leaving the rest behind.

We need to segregate students with special needs. By allowing students to follow their own academic track, all students will be given the attention they need. If it comes to a teacher giving more time to one student, then this is neglecting the nineteen others in the class.

The federal government needs to improve funding and make the teacher occupation more favorable. The education field is no longer competitive in reference to salary with other fields. The bottomline is we must not give up on public education.
New Federalists (the real ones, not these phonies) recognize that federal infringement on states' rights such as taking over the education system is the problem, not the solution. It is a joke to suggest that vouchers (at the state level where they belong) would have the effect suggested. Where they have been implemented, they have actually been quite successful. Besides, why shouldn't people be able to choose where their children go to school? For that matter, why shoulnd't people who have worked hard and made smart decisions have an advantage in any market? The fact that I pissed most of my money away in my lifetime SHOULD put me at a disadvantage. It's only right. Those who have made better decisions should have better opportunities. It's called a reward. Get over it.

People have a right to look at pornography as much as they do to read the morning newspaper. The New Federalists however seek to stymie the growth of this morally objectionable industry by increasing federal taxes on pornography. This will decrease viewership and discourage growth in the industry, while government revenues will be increased. This increased revenue will be used to fight child pornography and fund expenses related to Amber's Law.
If you don't like pornography, don't look at it. If you don't want your kids to see it, don't let them. The private sector provides more than ample opportunity to do this without the government violating the First Amendment. The taxes these people support will have little, if any, effect on viewership or the growth of the industry, and laws that represent a violation of the First Amendment should be repealed, not funded. New Federalists these people are not.
Gay Rights

Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Therefore the New Federalists are strongly against any attempt to legalize gay marriage. Civil unions are an attempt to do the same thingt under a different name, so the party stands against them as well. However, New Federalists stand against sodomy laws as we feel the government has no control over a person's bedroom.
Now here's a place I agree with these people - 100%. But notice the change in tone from their other positions. Here, it's all about getting the government out, and keeping it that way. Restoring limitations on the federal government is what the New Federalism is all about.

New Federalists support restricting immigration by limiting the total number of immigrants based on the number of immigrants granted citizenship in a previous year. This year is based on census data and chosen by Congress and the Chair of the Federal Reserve. For example, if the government decided to base the number on census data from 1985, the total number of immigrants admitted would be 570,009. This number can be chosen on a yearly basis as the economy warrants. Qualification for immigration would be based on skills, political refugee status and family unification. Unrestricted immigration leads to a large amount of unskilled labor depressing the economy. This problem will be corrected with a proactive limit to immigration. The New Federalist also support more funding toward INS and border patrol in order to reduce illegal immigration.
New Federalists do not support restricting immigration. We support immigration limited only by the ability of people to legally enter the country and naturalize. We would agree that the Constitution authorizes border patrols to keep illegal aliens out, but we are all either immigrants ourselves, or descended from immigrants. Real Federalists, like those of the 18th Century, recognize the importance of people wanting to assimilate into our culture, as most, if not all, who come here legally seek to do. We welcome these people and their contributions with open arms. Illegal aliens typically want nothing of the sort, and their unlawful behavior, especially given the magnitude of the problem, is a blight on our country and its ideals.

Well, folks, that's their platform. Another big-government idea with nothing new to bring to the table. Everything in their platform is directly taken from some Donk policy position or some liberal Republican position that needs to be done away with. In reality, these people are nothing more than pro-life Democrats who support marriage and secure borders.

The only common ground these phony New Federalists have with us real ones is on the concept of life beginning at conception and gay "rights". A better name for this party would be the "Republicrats", since instead of seeking new ideas and new ways to rein in a government that has grown so far out of bounds it resembles the Soviet government more than it does the Federalist government of the Eighteenth Century, they merely looked over positions taken by those two parties and picked out the common ground they had with both. Nothing at all about even trying to limit government and return power to its rightful place (the people and the states). They also are much closer to the Democrats than they are the Republicans. These people have hijacked a name and tried to make it sound noble, but in reality they are the same big government liberals America is trying to rid herself of.