It’s all the rage today for Antifa and “tolerance” groups to tear down monuments from our history that depict “known racists.” The majority of these actions have come against Confederate monuments, but even people like Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt have been mentioned as current or future targets.

If that’s the road they want to go down, there’s one more name to add to the list. Planned Parenthood in general and founder Margaret Sanger in particular should be their top target. Why? Because the abortion organization’s founder had a goal of advancing “the better racial elements in our society.”

Many on the right seem to know this. Apparently, Antifa and their cohorts are either ignorant or willfully accepting of an organization that has killed more minorities in recent years than the entire Confederate army.

Glenn Beck agrees:

Daniel Payne at The Federalist agrees:

The racist, eugenicist roots of Planned Parenthood are well-documented,as is the paranoid racial and eugenic visions of its founder, Margaret Sanger, who spoke of her desire to create “a new race with a racial soul” in the United States, once cheerfully spoke before a women’s Klan meetingdesired to “keep the doors of Immigration closed” to those “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and yearned to accentuate “the better racial elements in our society” so as to erase from the population “defective stocks—those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization.”

If the goal of Antifa is to take on fascism and racism, there’s a perfect living monument for them to try to tear down. I encourage them to join us in defunding this horrible organization.

The last article I posted was June 12. A few days later, I was in the hospital with my 8.5-month pregnant wife. The baby needed to come early, so “baby prep” week was replaced by “baby’s here” week.

As I discussed earlier this year, this particular baby wasn’t going to be a run-of-the-mill delivery. We had three separate teams of doctors and nurses positioned to handle different aspects of the delivery, immediate tests, and transportation directly to the NICCU.  His heart had challenges. There was a hole in the wall separating the ventricles. His aorta and pulmonary artery were transpositioned. We’ve known for months that he may not survive and even if he did, he would always have obstacles.

Our cardiologist was absolutely wonderful. She barely even mentioned abortion and after realizing very quickly that it wasn’t an option, she never mentioned it again. After doing some research, I learned that it’s not uncommon for people to have abortions when their preborn child is faced with the type of circumstance our child faced. Obviously, I’m very opposed to this notion. Who are we to determine whether another human, even a preborn child, should not be allowed to live a life, even a hard one?

The delivery was long and tedious, but once he finally made his appearance everything went into double-time. My wife saw him briefly before the baby and I were whisked away through an underground tunnel to Children’s Hospital of Orange County. He had to be monitored closely, tested profusely, and examined constantly. We needed to make decisions about his immediate future. There were several possible ways to address his heart.

The next day, an unexpected option became available. Dr. Vaughn A. Starnes, made famous for performing the life-saving operation on Jimmy Kimmel’s son, took a look at the test results and accepted our son to get the “all-in-one” operation (my term, as I don’t recall the names of the various procedures performed). This meant that the doctor could fix his valves, the hole in his heart, and switch the aorta and pulmonary artery in one operation. Not only would this allow fewer operations, but would give him the best chance of a relatively “normal” life.

There were major risks. To do the operation, his heart would be stopped, all of the blood would be drained, and his body temperature would need to be dropped to preservation levels. In essence, he would have to be made physically lifeless for hours while repairs were made. Then, he’d have a large hole in his chest that would remain open for a few days while swelling went down.

As a parent, it all sounded extremely terrifying. We discussed it, then prayed, then made our decision. Little Jacob was in a helicopter and on his way to Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles within the hour.

After a month living in East Hollywood tag-teaming it with my wife and the wonderful nursing staff there, we finally brought our son home. He’s like any normal newborn other than the large scar on his chest and an affinity for being held even more than most newborns. We couldn’t be more thankful.

We’re all faced with tough choices when our children are at risk. If they can be saved pain and challenges through abortion, many may see that as sad but better than the alternative. I can tell you from experience that being with little Jacob, watching him smile, and knowing he’s God’s creation affirms our decision. I couldn’t imagine life without him, now. I hope those in similar situations can experience the same blessings we’ve received.

Of all the topics surrounding President Trump, arguably the least important is how he handles himself on Twitter. On the other hand, a different argument could be made that it’s extremely important. I’m leaning towards the latter.

I’m not one of those who believes a President should be expressing himself from a policy perspective in 140-characters or less. Some will argue that it’s him being transparent, but it has proven to be little more than a place for him to vent and rally support occasionally. I can understand pushing for support; short tidbits are enough space to call for his base to react. However, the venting has been an issue at times.

One might hear all of this and assume that I don’t want him to Tweet more, but it’s the opposite. I don’t want him to Tweet at all, but if he’s not going to stop, he needs to do it more. Little bits of information here and there are worthless out of context or without explanation. That’s the point of using Twitter, of course. It allows him to express himself quickly and without the ability to elaborate. The press and public can interpret things the way they choose.

I’ve accepted that the President of these United States will not stop Tweeting. Therefore, I humbly request that he Tweets more. Tweet longer. Use Tweetstorms if he has to in order to get the message out. Don’t leave us hanging, guessing, and wondering what’s next. Just let it all out. Craft several Tweets in a row on a regular basis. He’s done this from time to time. He might as well do it all the time.

If we’re to accept that this is the President’s preferred method of communication, so be it. Let’s at least get more information from it. It’s not what I would prefer in an ideal world, but it’s the world we’re in so we might as well get the whole story.

In recent months I’ve held my tongue regarding President Trump’s upcoming proposal for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. While it goes against my firm beliefs in reining in the federal government and reducing budgets rather than increasing them, it’s premature to oppose it wholeheartedly. After all, his promise to make private investments the bulk of the funding may not turn out to be another “Mexico is going to pay for it” moment.

The Democrats aren’t waiting before condemning the initiative. They decided to double it with no pretense of shifting burden away from taxpayers. Their plan calls for $200 billion per year for a decade fully funded by the public.

Few would argue the infrastructure doesn’t need improvement and interstate travel falls squarely in line with the federal mandate which is why I’ve held my opposition to Trump’s proposal until we see it. With that said, I don’t need to see a single detail of the Democrats’ proposal beyond the price tag. $2 trillion is so far west of crazyville it’s insane more conservative blogs aren’t up in arms. Between the Paris accords and the London attack, it’s probably just so far down the news food chain. Besides, they couldn’t pull it off, could they?

Actually, yes. If the economy turns south in the next year, it’s very likely this proposal could become one of the rallying cries the Democrats use to gain control of the House and Senate. Dubbed the “21st Century New Deal for Jobs,” they hope to invoke the huge government expansion of FDR to drive support. Like President Obama’s stimulus, they’ll use it to promote the concept of “shovel-ready jobs” to help put Americans back to work.

Here’s the problem. Americans are going back to work already. The economy is looking so much stronger now than it did just a couple of years ago that the Democrats would have to hope for a near-collapse in order to make their case an important one for the 2018 elections. Granted, the economy isn’t as strong as public numbers show, but more people are working today than they were last year and if the GOP’s agenda pans out as expected, we can expect the jobs numbers to stay strong.

There are still many pitfalls the GOP needs to overcome in order to maintain their majorities. Obamacare repeal and tax reform are right there at the top. Jobs are the perennial concern, so if the GOP delivers, the Democrats will have to try to spook voters instead of winning them over with their New Deal. The further we can push away from FDR’s legacy of expansive government, the better.

What would Americans do if other countries and the United Nations told us our actual capital was Los Angeles? We can say it’s Washington DC all we want, but shouldn’t we just accept it if the international community decides they want Los Angeles to be the capital? Of course not.

This idea seems to be lost on those who refuse to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Now, President Trump can be counted as one of those people who, despite very clear campaign promises, has decided to do what every U.S. President has done for years. He’s proactively not moving the U.S. Embassy there.

It’s important to note that this is an active decision. If he had done nothing, it would have been on the State Department to make the move immediately or lose funding. Instead, the President waived a law requiring the move. This doesn’t jibe with a simple campaign promise.

“We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem,” he told an extremely excited crowd.

As Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, and others in his administration would note, any such move would do damage to America’s relationship with Muslim nations in the Middle East. They claim East Jerusalem as theirs, often claiming that it’s part of their religious history. What they won’t tell you is that it isn’t mentioned in the Quran. Not once. They also aren’t interested in the fact that it was claimed as the Jewish capital over a millennium-and-a-half before Islam was even established.

None of that’s important when feathers might be ruffled, right?

The notion that this is a temporary move is ridiculous. There’s never going to be a good time to keep this campaign promise. Never.

Some might throw up a silly argument that we don’t need to mess with international affairs, that Trump’s “America First” pledge supersedes all other promises. They might even say we can’t afford it (though we can somehow afford everything under the sun in the spending agreement DC just passed), but that’s even sillier. Trump could say, “We’re going to move the embassy to Jerusalem, and Israel’s going to pay for it.”

They would. In a heartbeat.

The list of broken promises is already piling up almost as quickly as President Obama’s did when he took office in 2009. The difference is that President Trump is passing on some of the easiest. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is a layup. Whether it’s his advisers, some backroom deals he made with Muslim countries, or influence from “the orb” that’s making him backtrack, this is not what we were promised when we put him in the White House.

Following a good showing on his first overseas trip, President Trump returned to the states and called for something that has some on the right scratching their heads. He’s wanting more dollars put towards health care.

One of the things that got the AHCA passed in the House was the decrease in spending on health care. The conservative Freedom Caucus pushed for several additions before voting for it, including the ability for states to opt-out of some of the more liberal points such as pre-existing conditions. However, the reason some gave for finally backing the bill is that it reduces overall spending on health care. What is the President asking for now?

Regardless of whether this was just a Tweet that can be disregarded as rhetoric in 140-characters-or-less or if its a sign that he really wants more money put into health care, the overarching theme is the same. Many in the GOP (and pretty much every Democrat), including the President, are missing the fundamental point that health care can only truly be fixed if the federal government systematically removes itself from the equation.

Obamacare isn’t failing because of subtle details or nuances. It’s failing because the concept behind government-mandated health care is fatally flawed. The differences between the ACA and the AHCA are so small that their cores are essentially the same. Both insert DC into an area where it simply doesn’t belong. By doing so, either will fail whether it has the letter (R) or (D) on its stamp of approval.

We don’t need more money plugged into health care. We need the massive amounts of money that are already pumped into health care focused by a consumer-driven free market. Businesses operate based upon the demands of three forces: government, consumers, and market conditions. Today, government has primacy in the equation by forcing the other two factors to be secondary. Consumers have very little impact in the equation because of mandates in both Obamacare and the current Trumpcare replacement being worked on in the Senate. As for market conditions, they are artificial because of government intervention. They will continue to be artificial if Obamacare is repealed and replaced with a variation of the AHCA.

Nearly everyone on Capitol Hill fears a full repeal for the same basic reason. They know that if it’s done right, it will work in the long term. The Democrats don’t want that because it exposes the long-con they’ve been working in DC for decades, the concept that more government is better. The Republicans don’t want that because they fear it won’t work quickly enough for them to retain power in the midterm elections. The AHCA isn’t designed to fix health care. It’s designed to pretend to fix it while mitigating fallout until election day.

As I stated in a different post:

If we systematically repeal Obamacare, we can have privatized health care once again. A replacement plan that tries to predict what will happen is foolish. Instead, we should repeal, then monitor and analyze the market. Over time, we’ll find the holes that need to be plugged. States, charities, and other organizations can fill most of these holes. Whatever is left, if anything, can fall to the federal government. This way, DC becomes the final safety net instead of being the first line of defense. That’s the way it should be in health care and a plethora of other areas.

The last thing this nation needs is more dollars redirected into health care. Those of us watching our premiums rise despite higher deductibles and worse coverage (which is a vast majority) know that there’s already “more dollars” in health care. It needs to be allocated properly through competition and the push for innovation. We can’t have the best health care in the world as the President hopes unless DC is willing to remove itself from the equation. Until then, the math will continue to fail miserably.

Can you name the Vice President of the United States? How about the two U.S. Senators in your state? All members of Congress (or at least your own district’s representative)? Governor? If you’re reading this, chances are good that you can easily answer these questions because you’re at least a little interested in politics.

How about your Mayor? Any or all city council members? School board members? County Auditor? Unfortunately, this is where many Americans start to fail the test. Admittedly, I would have failed the test a couple of years ago. Like many Americans, I voted for local elections based upon name recognition, party affiliation, or whether or not I’d received a flyer or received a knock on my door. I spoke to a woman the other day who said she voted for whoever had a sign in her next-door neighbor’s yard because “that lady keeps up with this stuff.”

Every American should keep up with this stuff. It’s THAT important.

When I started flirting with the idea of leaving the GOP last year, I explored several third parties. I sat on conference calls with leaders of one party, had an audience with the chair of another, and spoke directly to three third-party Presidential candidates. Invariably, the discussions were discouraging. It wasn’t that they didn’t have good ideas. It was that only one party could answer an important question: “What are you guys doing to win local elections?”

They were all sinking time, money, and energy into getting their Presidential candidate on ballots, but only one party was actively running in local elections. They made it clear that they weren’t actually giving much support to local candidates, but at least a few people were willing to use their party’s name a registration to run for office. I tracked back to see how many elections they’d won over the years. 13, including two in 2016. How could a party that was sinking all of their resources into a futile Presidential race think it was okay to put next to zero effort into local elections?

This is why I helped form the Federalist Party.

Local elections ARE important. They don’t get the press coverage. The people who win these offices can’t bomb Syria or impose tariffs on Canada. On the other hand, they make decisions that directly affect our lives. They choose the way many of our children receive their education. They set guidelines to either encourage or discourage business growth. Some bring communities together. Others divide communities further apart. It’s imperative that we all start paying closer attention to the races and leaders that live next door. That’s not to say the people in DC are not important, but they receive too much emphasis compared to the politicians in our own backyards.

As a party, we intend to focus on local elections from two perspectives. First, we want to identify principled candidates and win local races. Then, we want to localize decision-making as much as possible for the nation. There is currently way too much influence coming from DC in areas they’re simply not qualified or empowered to addressed.

There are areas in which the federal government should hold the power. These have been clearly enumerated. It’s time to return the rest of the power of government where it belongs: states, counties, cities, communities, and most importantly to individual Americans.

Today, President Trump had what a majority of Americans would consider to be a successful foreign policy day. His tone when speaking about terrorism to the core of the Muslim world in the Middle East was generally approved; the left liked that he didn’t go off the rails and the right witnessed a breath of fresh air after eight years of failure to even acknowledge the problem.

Not everyone was excited by his message, but conservatives should be able to agree that he sounded exponentially better than President Obama. He didn’t call it “radical Islamic terrorism” but he wasn’t making excuses for them, either. Most importantly, he urged Muslim countries themselves to take the lead on expelling and extinguishing the threat; there were no Neocon or Establishment hawk leanings towards police action by America.

Now, his and the world’s attentions turn to Israel where he has the greatest foreign policy opportunity as well as the biggest potential letdown for those of us who consider Israel to be our most important strategic ally. His trip to the Jewish state will set in motion his agenda in the Middle East. After success in Saudi Arabia, any failure from a diplomatic perspective will be magnified. There are already people on the right attacking his implicit support for Saudi Arabia’s most heinous activities. If he doesn’t follow that up with an equally strong (or stronger) level of support for Israel, the comparisons to Obama’s policies on the Middle East will grow louder.

Will he move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem? Preliminary reports tell us they won’t, but this is President Trump so you never know what will happen until it does.

Can he avoid public conflict over allegedly revealing sensitive Israeli intelligence to the Russians? We can assume any dismay from the Israelis or reassurances from the President will happen behind closed doors, so this is likely a non-topic during this trip as far as the public is concerned.

Pre-1967 borders have suddenly entered the equation since the White House released a video showing Israel without the “occupied” territories as part of their lands. This may be played off as an intern’s mistake or it may become an issue.

The BDS movement will be discussed. It’s an issue that should bring unification between the administration and Israeli leaders, particularly as he will undoubtedly point out how the movement hurts Muslims as much or more than it hurts Jews.

Lastly, will there be any talks of a two-state solution? If it happens during the Israel trip, it will push this portion of his agenda to the forefront and we can expect repercussions from many on the American right as well as an adversarial situation in Israel itself. This is unlikely, but again, it’s Trump so you never know.

If President Trump makes it out of Saudi Arabia and Israel with both allies feeling good about their relationship with America, Trump will be set up for success. If Israel turns south on the President, this could be the start of a foreign policy disaster that will likely spiral throughout his term(s).

I’ve never been a huge fan of Ann Coulter. While politically I am aligned with many of her perspectives, she struck me as more sensational for the sake of being a sensation than as a person truly interested in helping to solve America’s problems. When she did a 180 on many GOP Presidential candidates she once supported to be an early adopter of Donald Trump’s campaign, I realized my suspicions were correct. She embraces perceived boldness over solid policy.

This is why I was pleasantly surprised when she started calling out Trump recently. When a public figure puts so much political capital into someone, they are inclined to continue even when things turn south. The budget deal hit her hard and she lashed out against Trump. With all the hoopla surrounding the way the President may or may not have handled James Comey, Michael Flynn, Israeli intelligence with the Russians, and even potential tapes made of conversations, we’re seeing many people both public and private doing backflips to spin it as conspiracy theory or standard MSM manipulation.

Here’s the thing: there are conspiracy theories out there that are crazy and the mainstream media is going to manipulate things against the GOP. That doesn’t justify taking attention away from clear missteps and poor decisions by the administration. Nobody should be a willful puppet for anyone else, particularly a politician.

For full disclosure, I’m a founding member of the Federalist Party. I’m no longer the GOP-apologist that I may have been earlier in life. On the other hand, I’m not one who will attack from every angle just because it behooves me to do so for my party. I’ll call it like I see it. When the administration does well, I’ll cheer. When they do poorly, I’ll dissent. That’s just how I work.

I would strongly encourage other conservatives to operate in the same fashion. The left is going to exploit every situation to their advantage. It may be considered prudent for us to follow the same gameplan, but we’re supposed to be better than that. We have a higher road we can take. We defend the Constitution and we stand by our principles. Those are two things that should be strongly embedded in everyone who believes in a small-government, conservative, federalist philosophy.

President Trump is an icon to millions of Americans. Every president is and Trump adds a certain flair that encourages loyalty. Let’s not allow that loyalty to cloud our judgment. If we give the Constitution and conservative principles the primacy they deserve in our political perspectives, no politicians should be above reproach when they go off course. Call it like it is. Leave the spin to the left. It’s really their only tool.

I really like credit cards. Every card in my wallet has purposes based upon rewards, limits, and due dates. The dollar bills in my wallet are probably the same bills I’ve had in there for weeks because I use cards for everything. Controlling expenditures and making certain my family is covered when life events pop up make credit cards an important tool in my fiscal planning.

The reason I don’t run into trouble with credit cards is that I never buy anything I couldn’t comfortably buy with money in the bank and I always pay in full before the statement is released. In the last decade, I could probably count on two hands (maybe one) the number of times I paid interest on a credit card balance. This is how credit cards are supposed to be used, in my humble opinion.

Where millions of Americans get into trouble from time to time is when they overextend themselves with their credit cards. Some look at their available credit as available cash to spend. Others calculate their monthly bills based upon the minimum payments on their cards and can’t wait until they pay the balances down to a point where they can spend on them again. Many lack disciple. Others lack knowledge. This is why otherwise responsible people around the country end up filing bankruptcy or some other form of debt relief.

Americans who are in trouble with credit card debt are each microcosms of the fiscal status of the United States federal government. Washington DC has been paying off credit cards with other credit cards, transferring balances when it doesn’t make sense, and manufacturing more credit cards because their old ones are maxed out. The interest alone on our $20 trillion debt is more than many countries’ GDPs. This is untenable and unsustainable.

When an individual gets into major credit trouble, the first thing they should do is stop spending on anything that’s not absolutely necessary. While I’m not a proponent of literally cutting up credit cards, it’s important for those with debt issues to pretend like there’s no money that can be spent on anything other than essentials while they do everything they can to pay down their balances.

We’re well past the time for the U.S. government to take the same approach. They need to tighten the belt in a big way and take the necessary actions to embrace fiscal responsibility for the first time in decades.

There’s a challenge with this. One of the reasons not mentioned above that some people get into deep credit card debt is addiction. There are those who are simply addicted to spending, shopping, buying, whatever. Even when they know they’re drowning in debt, they continue to make it harder to swim by continuing to spend. This is the problem with both major parties right now. They have this belief that if they go down the fiscally responsible route and start slashing the budget, they’re going to lose elections as a result. They feel they need to essentially buy votes by continuing to fund programs that are unnecessary. They believe they’ll gain votes by spending more of our tax dollars on departments, agencies, programs, and subsidies that get people pumped up because they’re the direct benefactors. A cruel but accurate way of presenting the current mentality of most DC politicians is that they think we’re all too stupid to understand the mess they’re building and we’re so simple that if they give us things, we’ll vote for them.

Ted Cruz demonstrated that this isn’t necessarily the case when he won the Iowa Republican Caucus. Most pundits thought he was dead in the water when he said he intended to pull the ethanol subsidies that helped many farmers in Iowa. Donald Trump and just about every other candidate doubled down on keeping the funds flowing in abundance, but Cruz said no. What did everyone other than Cruz get wrong about Iowa? They all thought the only way to get votes was to buy them. Iowans demonstrated that many Americans aren’t as simple-minded as politicians often think.

Unfortunately, that lesson will be marked down as an anomaly by the two major parties. The Democrats will push even further to the left in an effort to bring real socialism and even communist principles of government control over everything. The Republicans will continue to redefine “conservatism” by telling us it’s okay to spend more as long as the expenditures are justified. Of course, justification is easy for the GOP to manufacturer on pretty much any topic. That’s why they don’t have to blink when they attempt to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare. It’s why they can proudly accept Chuck Schumer’s and Donald Trump’s trillion-dollar infrastructure dreams. It’s why they scream loudly when they cut some budget from the EPA while hiding the asterisk in small print at the bottom that admits the money “saved” is simply being redirected to fund other programs.

I don’t recommend for individuals with credit card debt to literally cut up their credit cards because the scale is usually manageable and bankruptcy is an option when the scale is too large. However, I definitely recommend cutting up as many of the U.S. government’s credit cards as possible. They have too many and have demonstrated a complete inability to control themselves. It’s an addiction. They’re beyond the ability to even make the minimum payments which is why we’ve needed “stimulus” packages for the last two Presidents and we may see another one from the current President in the not-too-distant future.

Republicans are right in one regard. It’s time to redefine conservatism, just not the way many of them are hoping. Steve Deace over at Conservative Review brought some points to light in his article earlier this week titled “Needed: A new conservatism.” One of the things he touched on was the Federalist Party, of which I am a part. Here’s what he said:

A wise man once said something about the foolishness of pouring new wine into old wineskins. After all, this country is a living example that once paradigms embrace corruption, independence from the corruption must be declared, whether it is the Pilgrims fleeing corruption on the Mayflower or the Founding Fathers loading their muskets to stand up to it. Therefore, as students of history, if we’re going to spend years changing the paradigm, choose the strategy history says has the best chance of success — something new. Besides, wasn’t the Republican Party itself originally founded by those who fled the corruption within its predecessor, the Whig Party? This is the rationale behind the effort to launch the Federalist Party.

With the GOP in full control in DC, one of two things needs to happen. Either they get their act together and start reining in the power, bureaucracy, and out-of-control budgets that have been growing incessantly for decades or they need to admit they’re no longer a party that embraces smaller government. Unless things turn around very quickly, the latter is the only viable possibility. We know they won’t admit it, but the real question is whether or not conservatives are going to call them out on it or continue to fall for the same tired sales pitch.