What Is a Principled Voter to Do?

The answer seems easy, right? If you’re a principled voter, you. . . vote your principles. Duh.

Well, some in the GOP would have principled voters abandon their principles for pragmatism. They would argue that any principles that do not meet their pragmatic criteria and get their guy elected are actually a lack of principle. Why? Because the only principle worth having is winning. Take Reince Priebus for example.

This past Sunday on Face the Nation, the GOP Chairman sought to villainize principled Republicans. In the age of Populist Republicanism, there is no room for the Republican governed by anything other than other Republicans. The narrative argues that any Republicans not towing the line are completely devoid of virtue.

2016 Primary Candidates

There are several candidates from the GOP primaries who still have not bowed the knee and kissed the ring of Herr Trump. Priebus argues, “Those people need to get on board. And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, you know, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process of the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.” He later says he is not making a threat, but his words are pretty plain.

He also uses the tired argument that these candidates pledged their support for the eventual candidate and must honor the pledge. He neglects to mention the fact that Trump was the only candidate in the first debate to refuse to pledge his support for the eventual candidate. Only as the North Carolina primary drew near, a primary in which support for the eventual candidate is mandated under a draconian rule, did Trump finally pledge his support. Of course, after he won that primary, he retracted his pledge only to publicly shame others for retracting theirs.

In short Priebus, and other brown shirts, want to shame candidates who are not bound in any way to the current GOP ticket into being more virtuous than the man at the top of the ticket. This is hypocrisy at its height. Want to win principled voters? This is not the way to do it.

The Voters Themselves

Of course, there’s the issue of the voters themselves. There is plenty of shame to go around. Why heap it only on the primary candidates who have the gumption to stand when everyone else is kneeling. The assumption is that the conservative voters’ votes are the rightful property of the GOP candidate until they are robbed of it by. . . well, the evil conservative voters. Yeah. #Logic right? Consider this video from Alfonzo Rachel:

Having convinced themselves that principle is not all that important in the grand scheme of things. Therefore, we must vote for a Democrat calling himself a Republican to stop the Democrat actually being honest about being a Democrat. Don’t get it twisted; principled conservatives don’t want Hillary. However, given the choice between four years of Hillary with an emboldened, unified conservatism to counter her in 2020 and eight years of Trump and the death of conservatism as we know it, some are compelled to pull that lever. That’s not me.

Then, there’s the issue of what’s happening to the Republican Party. When no one is willing or (apparently) able to make the case for Trump to principled conservatives, and the default tactic is to shame them into voting for him and demonize the candidates they championed in the primaries right before their eyes, principled conservatives justifiably believe themselves to be abandoned by the GOP. In fact, many Millennial and Gen X conservatives are not all that sure the GOP ever cared for them to be in the tent to begin with.

For those of us familiar with history, we recognize that shaming is not merely a Leftist tactic. It’s a fascist tactic. Thus, when major figures like Priebus, Hannity, and others start shaming people into getting in line, it only solidifies our resolve to not join up with the rising regime. There are precious few Sophie Scholls left in the world, but principled conservatives in present day America are up for the challenge. We are not at all inspired to support Trump’s new brand of National Socialism (Nazism) over Clinton’s equally evil Global Socialism (Communism).


Wanted: 2016 Presidential Candidate

Requirements –

  • Willing to relocate.
  • Willing to travel.
  • Willing and able to work evenings and weekends.
  • Extensive leadership skills and experience.
  • Understands how to handle classified, secret, and top secret information without compromising national security.
  • Can demonstrate a thorough understanding of the United States Constitution and, specifically, the rolls and limitations of the Executive Branch.
  • Must enforce the laws currently on the books.
  • Transparency a must.
  • Will not use the power and influence of the office to target political opposition.
  • Will not use the power and influence of the office to empower political allies.
  • Name-recognition a plus.
  • Willing to have character assassinated by media outlets all along the political spectrum.
  • Willing to fire lots of people and eliminate entire departments.
  • Convinced, and able to argue on a national stage, that the two major parties’ nominees both represent national suicide for America, both domestically and on the world stage.
  • Able to make the case for classic, American conservatism to a wide spectrum of undecided, disaffected, and / or otherwise apathetic voters.
  • Willing to declare independence from America’s two-party political system and make the case for voters to do the same.
  • Must not be boring, a jerk, a pacifist, effeminate, a social deviant, a narcissist, afraid of guns, a career politician, or a conspiracy theorist.
  • Preferably a man (we have to be realistic).
  • Young, polished, charismatic, bilingual minorities get preference (again, just keeping it real).


Job Description –

A sane, conservative demographic of voters is presently seeking a Presidential Candidate for the 2016 election cycle. An eligible candidate will champion conservative social values and work both to deregulate the private sector and to eliminate all government subsidies. The candidate will also be expected to encourage lower taxes, veto new spending, and make it a priority to work with congress to balance the budget and eliminate the national debt. Our candidate will also nominate only Supreme Court Justices who interpret the Constitution according to its authors’ intent, enforce America’s immigration laws, empower our nation’s military, and stand with our allies abroad.


Job Facts –

Type                    Full-time Public Servant

Industry             Representative Government

Experience        Experience in a related field (law, business, government office, military, etc.) preferred

Education          Bachelor Degree or higher, or comparable experience

Hazards              Assassination, impeachment or, if you are lucky, retirement in relative obscurity

Benefits              Lifelong medical, dental, life insurance, Secret Service detail, and you get to serve your country


Conditioned for Trump

Ever wondered why many “Christians” never seem to be all that concerned when their false prophets’ prophecies don’t come to pass? Seems these false prophets are coated with spiritual teflon. Well, I’m not here going to try to explain people’s spiritual deception. There’s something much greater and deeply spiritual going on there that stems from the judgment of God or perhaps even a temporary blinding. Lately, though, I’ve been wrestling with a different enigma. Why is it that Americans never seem to be all that concerned about the lies and flip flops of Trump, even during the primaries when we had better options? In pondering these two questions, I can’t help but wonder if perhaps more than two centuries of false prophets in America might not have conditioned the American mind for Donald Trump. At the same time, I can’t help but wonder if Trump hasn’t been watching these spiritual snake oil salesmen and taking notes.

40 trump

America needs to wake up before November. If false prophets are a judgment on the church, what does that make Trump and Clinton for the nation?

#NeverTrump, or Why Young Conservatives Feel Betrayed

The general logic four years ago in the GOP primary was the same as it was eight years ago and, sadly, it’s the same today. What logic do I mean? The logic that says: “Whoever the nominee turns out to be, young conservatives must do ‘what’s best for the Party’ and vote for him.” There are a couple of poison pill presuppositions that go into this assertion. By poison pill, I mean that this statement has the exact opposite effect intended by those who make it. Here are a couple of items for consideration.

Young Conservatives Are Beholden to Principles, Not Party Loyalty

Embedded in the above assertion is the idea of party loyalty. The assumption is that young conservatives are primarily beholden to the Republican Party, and that they should (and will) vote for whoever the party puts forward. This is logic that may have worked in generations past, but Gen Xrs and Millennials find the assumption to be insulting.

First, they are not convinced that the Republican Party has, in their lifetime, done anything to court their vote. They have simply assumed they automatically deserve it. Second, it assumes that young conservatives will simply abandon principles for a party that has not even attempted to demonstrate in any substantive way that they care to work for their vote. Instead, the Republican Party has a history spanning the entire lifetime of all Millennials and most Gen Xrs of fighting tooth-and-nail against true conservative candidates (1976, 1980, and 2016), nominating moderates who push the party left at nearly every turn (1988, 1996, 2000, 2008, and 2012), and corrupting conservative congressmen the moment they step foot in D.C.

Last night my family and I watched the classic Capra film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and something occurred to me. Gen Xrs and Millennials are not looking to elect Taylors (Trump) or Paines (Rubio). They want to send a Jefferson Smith (Cruz) to Washington, someone who has stood on the Senate floor and, against his best interest, called out the liars and exposed them for who they really are, even within his own party. They want a man who will not abandon principle in the face of total opposition, but will fight for the people who put him in office.  And young conservatives are increasingly convinced that the GOP machine will stop at nothing to refuse them what they want so desperately.

Young Conservatives Are Principled, Not Pragmatic

The word “principled” has become a kind of slur in the realm of politics. In an America mortally infected with pragmatism, it can be hard to understand why someone would hold so strongly to his or her principles. Regardless of the merits or demerits of idealism, the fact is that the vast majority Americans would prefer to be seen as idealists, not pragmatists.

The Democratic Party gets this, and that’s why they win. Let that soak in. Think about it. There are literally hundreds of positions held, and held strongly, by the Democratic voter block. The Democratic Party is the party of environment worshippers, baby killers, race baiters, gender baiters, sexual revolutionaries, communists, and anyone else with an agenda to numb the collective conscience of America and centralize power for the sake of massive government overreach.

Each one of these voters is convinced that their party must die on their hill. The DNC understands this about their voters, and their candidates fight hard for each one of these issues. ‘But Billy, people shouldn’t be single-issue voters.’ What people should or shouldn’t be does not matter here. The only thing that does matter is what people are, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are single-issue voters.

So, are young conservatives any different? On the issues? Yes. By-and-large, they don’t favor killing babies. In regard to “single-issue”? No. Most young conservatives have one, two, or three issues that are their major issues. Young conservatives want small government, they want to preserve human life at all stages of life, they want to be less hawkish in our foreign policy, they want free market economics, they want strong borders, they want religious liberty, they want to keep their guns, and they want the federal government to honor the 10th Amendment.

Not all young conservatives care about all of these issues the same, though. Some care more about the unborn, some care more about the border, some care more about the free market, etc. Four years ago, the GOP lost because Mitt Romney’s handlers told him, “Only talk about the economy. Don’t talk about anything else.” GOP voters felt cheated. They were told, in a general election, that their issue did not matter unless their issue was the economy. Whether the GOP likes it or not, most Americans are single-issue voters, and young conservatives especially are people of principle on these issues, not party loyalty.

Young Conservatives Are Threatened by Trump

Another element has crept in. Donald Trump is the quintessential Baby Boomer candidate. In the eyes of young conservatives, the hippie generation has long since abandoned their principles in favor of party loyalty. Now that even the older Republicans are feeling abandoned by the party, they are gravitating toward what they know. What do they know, though? They know that they’ve spent much of their adult life watching Trump win (or pretending to win, at least). They know that they love game shows and glamor, and Trump is the only cultishly glamorous game show host running right now. They know they like familiarity, and they don’t know who some of these other candidates are.

Young conservatives not only feel as though they have been abandoned by the Republican Party. They see this abandonment as indicative of an overall societal abandonment. Let’s get really real, here. When young conservatives consider the hippie generation that raised them, they see a generation that was raised by parents that looked out for them. They see a generation that was generally taught great values, received a decent education, and inherited great prosperity. However, they also see a generation that has squandered its inheritance in pursuit of leftist policies in both parties.

Young conservatives not only see the Baby Boomer generation as a generation that has squandered its inheritance, but also as a generation that is robbing Gen Xrs and Millennials of any hope of an inheritance. The Baby Boomer generation is the ultimate “Me” generation, all about self-preservation and political compromise, and Donald Trump is their perfect poster child. Put this all together, and you have the #NeverTrump movement. The #NeverTrump movement is ultimately a movement against all pragmatic, compromising, Baby Boomer self-preservationists.

Young conservatives are not looking to preserve their parents’ generation, their own, or even their kids’. They want the preservation of all of America, and they know that a Trump presidency, just like a Romney presidency or a McCain presidency, would only work to slow the ultimate demise of America. These pseudo-conservative candidates are selling slow death. They are selling temporary preservation of the hippie generation, but a big fat middle finger to their children and grandchildren.

Young Conservatives Feel Betrayed by the GOP

Where does that leave the GOP? Well, the GOP is clearly beholden to the pragmatic, self-interested hippie generation. They tell young conservatives, “If we can’t get our candidate, we will certainly make sure you don’t get yours and, if you dare vote third party, we will shame you as traitors.” This is a leftist tactic. They might as well call us Uncle Toms, like black Democrats do to black Republicans. This accusation assumes (falsely) that young conservatives consider themselves Republicans. We don’t. We vote for principles, not for parties. We can’t betray a party with whom we don’t feel any binding allegiance.

In fact, we can’t betray a party that has already betrayed us. There is a deafening hypocrisy pervasive in the notion of a political party that demonstrates no loyalty to a voting block from whom it demands blind loyalty.  Were there a more conservative third party on the ballot in all states, regardless of its likelihood of winning against the Baby Boomer GOP, I am convinced that young conservatives would flock to it. Seeing as there is no such party, many will simply stay home.


I doubt I’ve convinced blind loyalists in the GOP of anything with this article. However, I do hope I’ve given you something to consider. If (when) the DNC candidate wins in November, my stance will be (as it was in 2008 and 2012) that it was the GOP that betrayed America, not young conservatives who stayed home and kept their honor. We have seen the tenacity with which the Baby Boomer GOP pulls out all stops to assassinate Jefferson Smiths like Ted Cruz.

Understand that these Jefferson Smiths will not back down and they will not bend on their principles for the sake of pragmatism. Not all Jefferson Smiths will be able to stand on the Senate floor and call Mitch McConnell a liar to his face, but they can stand in the voting booth and check none-of-the-above. They did it in 2008. They did it in 2012. They will do it again in 2016, if the GOP doesn’t abandon its slow, steady drift left.

Big Ethanol, or Why African Americans Should Vote Cruz

Sorry, guys. Seems all I talk about anymore is politics. I do think about other things, and you should see many more posts from me on non-political stuff in the months to come. I just had to get this one off my chest. Here goes.

Subsidies Anyone?

While campaigning in Iowa, Ted Cruz caught some heat for not supporting ethanol subsidies. He was on record having said that he would do away with ethanol subsidies, and that kind of message just doesn’t go over well in a corn state. At least, that’s what the major media wanted us to believe. At one point, a genuinely concerned corn farmer approached Cruz and asked him why he did not support ethanol. The following exchange happened:

Many don’t realize that Cruz’s answer is not merely an answer made up off the fly. Rather, the answer he gives this farmer—that the government should not be picking winners and losers, but that it should lift restrictions that keep farmers from being able to compete globally—is an argument based on deep principles. The principle Cruz is employing in the video is a principle known as the “equal protection under the law” principle, based on the 14th Amendment, which was passed on behalf of African Americans after the Civil War.

A Competitive Market Is Good for Everyone

The idea is that every American should get a fair shake from the government. This means that the government should interfere in business neither to help nor to harm them. Rather, the government’s role in business is to make sure that all job creators have unhindered access to trade and commerce in today’s competitive market. This approach to business encourages innovation and job growth, and it attracts corporations from abroad to bring their money and their jobs to the United States. Why? Because people are attracted to freedom.

This is the model that Texas has been employing for the last decade, and it has served us well. Since we have decreased regulations, lowered corporate income tax, and fostered an environment of competition and opportunity, companies have been relocating plants and headquarters to Texas left and right. It’s why Texas is #1 in job growth, and still improving. This is the model that Ted Cruz wants to bring to Washington.

How Does This Relate to African Americans?

This “equal protection under the law” model is not only good for business, though. Recently, a PJ Media article began the push for the GOP to make its case to the African American community. It specifically singles out the man the author clearly believes will be the eventual nominee: Donald Trump, and it suggests that he offer tax breaks to minority communities in order to give them a hand up, so-to-speak. This clearly would not be “equal treatment under the law.” Rather, it would be pandering, and it would be yet another instance of the government “picking the winners and the losers.”

I am convinced that Trump would be your best bet if this is the type of hand out you’re looking for. If you’re looking to get subsidized for the color of your skin, go with Trump. He’s all for pandering to the cronies. He quickly got in bed with Big Ethanol the moment he stepped foot in Iowa. No doubt, he’d hand out a bunch of goodies to the elites in the African American community, too, if it meant he could secure a few more votes. That’s precisely what he offered Big Ethanol in Iowa.

Cruz Sticks to Principle

Cruz, on the other hand, did not cave to the pressure. When pressed on the issue by corn farmers, rather than pandering, he made his case for “equal treatment under the law.” Likewise, when pressed in the Senate to side with emotional appeals from some in the African American community in order to repeal “stand your ground laws,” Cruz did not cave. Instead, he demonstrated very cogently how “stand your ground laws” have historically worked in the favor of African Americans, and were even championed by an IL State Senator in 2004 by the name of Barak Obama.

Cruz does not pander, but he is not heartless either. On the contrary, he stands on his principles and makes his case. He recognizes that principles that benefit the whole necessarily benefit the part. If all Americans benefit from a particular policy—if a policy gives all Americans an equal starting point—that policy benefits African Americans, by americas-racial-dividedefault.

Divided We Fall

Policies that benefit the whole have another effect, as well. When the whole community benefits from the same principles, rather than just fractured segments of the community, those principles work to unite communities once divided. Ask yourself, “Since President Obama has taken office, and since he has started picking winners and losers in regard to race relations, the economy, religious liberty, etc., have we become a more united America or a more divided America?” The answer is clear: we are more divided than we have been since the Civil Rights movement.

So, President Obama’s method of picking winners and losers has really served to further divide the nation, not just along racial lines, but also along economic lines, generational lines, political lines, religious lines, etc. Interestingly, the two DNC hopefuls are offering much of the same. As we’ve already demonstrated, Donald Trump would also offer more of the same. The only way we move forward is if we can put forward a man who seeks equal justice for all. The only man currently out there running on that platform is Senator Ted Cruz.

The narrative to which this nation has grown accustomed is the narrative of picking winners and losers. That’s the only way a person can demonstrate that they really care for a demographic of people anymore. Minorities, the working class, women, etc. If you want to show me you care for me, tell me how you’re going to help me win. That’s the narrative, and it’s a divisive, destructive narrative. That’s the narrative we’ve been operating on for the past 8 years and, if we continue to operate on it, we will effectively destroy this nation for our kids and our grandkids.

The Solution

What’s the solution, then? The solution is not picking winners and losers. Rather, the solution is picking a set of circumstances that fosters the greatest potential for success for all interested parties. In other words, everyone must have an equal starting point. That means that we must elect the guy that is most concerned with uniting the nation on principle rather than dividing the nation between the haves and the have nots, so he can watch them go at each other’s throats before picking the winner himself.

The Perfect Party Platform (Part Three)

Over the past couple days, I’ve been publishing a three part series. This series is just me musing about what I would desire in a political party platform. I have given the party a name (The Founders Party) for utilitarian reasons. You may call this party whatever you like. This is primarily meant to function as a conversation starter. Seeing as I’ve received a couple “likes,” some new traffic on the site, and no nasty comments, I’m going to assume we’re all in agreement on the first two posts. Part Three will focus on National Security.


Three Pillars

  • National Security


III. National Security


A. The Second Amendment

The first line of defense for the people of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is our right to bear arms. As such, The Founders Party is opposed to any restrictions of law-abiding citizens’ right to bear arms. The right for a citizen to bear arms should only be taken away by court order as a result of a either felony conviction or a ruling of incapacity.

B. Immigration and the Border

The next line of defense is a strong immigration policy, which starts with gaining control of America’s national borders. Border control does not mean shutting down the immigration process, but it does mean that America has complete control over who enters our nation and how long they stay. In order to ensure this control, a wall must be built along our national borders with checkpoints to process immigrants entering the nation. An efficient E-Verify system must also be in place to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.

C. An Efficient, Effective, Elite Military

Out of control military spending need not be tolerated to ensure America has the most effective, elite military in the world. The U.S. military must be freed to develop innovations for improving its effectiveness and its elite status while at the same time ensuring an unmatched efficiency in budgetary practices. The Founders Party will work with the military to ensure that Americans’ tax-dollars are being put to the most efficient use possible while building the strongest, most competent military the world has ever known.

D. Strong and Principled Alliances

America’s military and economy must be such that we attract the strongest and most principled allies. Our allies must see the benefit in an alliance with America, not only militarily and economically, but also strategically. As such, America’s leaders must be among the most principled of human beings. Therefore, The Founders Party is committed to promoting rational, constitutional, and virtuous statesmen. Our leaders will only be chosen from among the most travelled, most widely read humanitarians in the nation. It is time that America’s leaders once again understand the world and understand America’s unique role in it.

E. Reduced Presence Abroad

In these technologically advanced times, America’s military should be freed up and encouraged to discover new and innovative ways to decrease our presence abroad while maintaining the strategic advantage that comes from having a widespread foreign presence. The size of the military does not necessarily need to be reduced. Rather, the troops that are currently stationed in foreign lands can be redeployed to our border states to aid in our national defense.

F. Reduced Domestic Presence

A truly free people should be encouraged to responsibly exercise their freedom in a society free of Big Brother. National, state, and local law enforcement agencies should be freed up and encouraged to discover new and innovative ways to decrease their presence in our communities while increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of crime prevention and law enforcement. Strides must also be taken to ensure that communities are made aware that local and state law enforcement exists to protect and serve them, not to oppress them.

G. National Sovereignty

America should only participate in NATO, the UN, and any similar coalition of nations in an advisory role. Where these foreign entities seek to assert themselves over our national sovereignty, America must assert herself as a sovereign state that will not take orders. America’s leaders must be cordial with the international community, taking pains to understand and deal prudently with foreign powers. However, our leaders must also assume the responsibility of asserting America’s unique role in that international community with tact and with confidence.

The Perfect Party Platform (Part Two)

Yesterday, I started a three part series. This series is just me musing about what I would desire in a political party platform. I have given the party a name (The Founders Party) for utilitarian reasons. You may call this party whatever you like. This is primarily meant to function as a conversation starter. Part Two, the shortest of the three, will focus on Social Policy.


Three Pillars

  • Social Policy


II. Social Policy


A. Marriage and Family

Marriage, between one man and one woman, was given by our Creator to provide a solid foundation for civilization. A major function of this lifelong union within society is to propagate, sustain, nourish, and promote life. The distortion of marriage will inevitably lead to the increase of fatherlessness, domestic violence, divorce, suicide, violent and sociopathic crimes, and the general breakdown of specific communities and, eventually, society as a whole. One role of the government is to promote the welfare of the society as a whole (see Establishing and Maintaining Trade Routes). As such, lifelong marriage between one man and one woman should be promoted by the state, and all distortions of it should be discouraged and go unrecognized.

B. Life and Personhood

Among the rights endowed by our Creator is the universal right to life. Many in our day have succeeded in promoting, trafficking in, and even legalizing the destruction of human life. All life is precious, from the womb to the tomb. The Founders Party believes that the murder of any human being from the moment of conception to the last breath should be outlawed nationwide. How these murders are to be prosecuted and punished should be left up to each state and local municipality, but murder should nonetheless be recognized as murder nationwide.

The Founders Party further supports any state’s decision to punish capital offenses with the utmost severity up to the death penalty. To treat capital crimes too lightly is to devalue life. If one person takes the life of another person, if the person’s state of residence so determines, that person’s life is to likewise be taken. A capital crime against the nation (e.g. treason, espionage, desertion, etc.) should be punished by death.

C. The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights outlines a series of rights with which all of humanity are endowed by their Creator. Recently, these rights have come under attack, from the threat of gun seizure to the restricting of individuals’ religious freedom. The Bill of Rights is not up for debate. No new considerations or changes in social policy give the government the right to encroach upon the rights outlined therein. The official position of The Founders Party is that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are to be neither restricted nor stricken.


In the final post in this series, I will offer what I believe to be the ideal stances on national security.