I’m disappointed in myself for not seeing the play here with DACA. If what seems to be happening is allowed to move forward to its proper conclusion, then all of this was worth it. The play that’s materializing is a legislative replacement for DACA that allows DREAMers to stay in exchange for moves to secure the border. If that’s the play the GOP is calling, I can support it for now. There’s no way to know if its worthy or not until we see the end result, but I like the direction this is heading.

All things being equal, I’d love to see the GOP negotiate a deal that legalizes DACA in exchange for several border-securing initiatives. I’m probably asking for too much, but one can dream, right?

The reality of the situation is that DACA encourages illegal immigration. Therefore, if we’re to keep it in a legal manner, we must do so with the border properly secured. Democrats love to say getting rid of DACA will hurt 800,000 innocent people. They seem to gloss over the fact that our porous borders allowed 800,000 DACA-eligible children and their families to enter the United States illegally. That’s more than the entire population of 5 U.S. states.

We are a sovereign nation. That status can change faster than most realize if we don’t take the steps to secure our borders, fix legal immigration, and protect the freedoms that all Americans have. I’ll probably be called a white nationalist for thinking these things, which is funny because I’m actually an immigrant brought here as a child through proper legal means. The system can work if people would stop breaking it.

Pulling a strong federalism-minded conservative like Jim Bridenstine out of Congress to put him in charge of NASA is like when Michael Jordan quit basketball to play baseball. Sure, he could do it pretty well, but he could have a heck of a lot more impact on the floor.

I was okay with President Trump pulling Mick Mulvaney out of Congress because he was a great fit to build (or rather, unbuild) the budget, but Bridenstine can’t do a whole lot at NASA that will actually affect most Americans. His background fits; he was executive director for the Tulsa Air and Space Museum and was endorsed by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. Nevertheless, I want him in Congress.

All things being equal, I’ll accept it if he takes this “promotion.” It just seems like the Establishment will do whatever it takes to get small-government proponents out of Congress. Hopefully he can help defend the Constitution from Cape Canaveral.

In case you’re unaware, several members of Trump’s various civilian advisory councils quit after he essentially blamed multiple groups, not just white nationalists, for the Charlottesville attack. This prompted a Tweet yesterday:

For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2017

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

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2017

Here’s the thing. I realize most believe these councils were for show and couldn’t actually influence him, but we have to remember something very important about the President. He’s malleable. His perspectives ebb and flow based upon moon cycles, wind direction, and the voices in his ear. While I don’t think these councils could have made him a better President, I believe having voices of reason that he respected keeping him in touch with reality was a positive thing. Hey, it couldn’t hurt, right?

What I would have loved to have heard from these council members was strong opposition to Trump’s words and actions followed by a stated intention of keeping the President accountable by staying in the councils. It’s easy to say, “I disagree and I quit.” It’s much harder to say, “I disagree, but I’m willing to stick it out in order to guide a man who clearly needs guidance.”

The dissolution of these councils is not a good thing for Trump’s opponents. It’s great for the companies of the CEOs who left as they’ll get lauded by many. For America, this was counterproductive. They should have stayed the course, even if doing so meant dealing with someone they don’t respect.

One might wonder why I even post here at all if that’s the case. Why allow for confusion? The answer is something that applies to many people. To explain this, I’ll start with a quick story about an old boss. For months, I had a hard time convincing him that we could have remote employees at our company. I explained to him that since we were a technology company, we could broaden our talent pool by not forcing people to live in southern California. He disagreed.

After some prodding and using myself as an example of someone who could work just fine from a home office, I learned his reasoning. He couldn’t do it himself. In fact, he found that he was much less productive at home than he ever could be in the office. I told him he was the anomaly.

I was wrong. After we finally started hiring remote employees, I found that a little over half of them were not as productive as they should be. The gap was made up by those who were very productive; those who handled working remotely were even more productive than the in-office employees, but those who could not handle it were far less productive.

The moral of that particular story, for me, was that some people can separate work from life even if both happened in the same places and some people simply cannot. There’s really no way to tell which way a person will go based upon interview questions. I’ve experienced great and terrible remote employees for the last eight years and there doesn’t seem to be a universal signal. Some can. Some cannot.

All of this brings me to my point. Whether it’s in separating work from home life, professional from personal demeanor, or “thoughtful” writing versus “heart-felt” writing, people often need barriers. For me, the barrier divides how I write for Soshable from how I write for the party. Since pretty much all of my writing is either political or religious, it makes sense to keep both sites around. Sometimes I need to post direction or thoughts pertaining directly to the party or to a Federalist philosophy. Other times, I simply need to rant or express my personal perspectives as they pertain to federalism. Both are necessary for me as it’s what I’ve been immersed in for months. However, the things I post here are from “JD the Christian Federalist and conservative.” What I post on the party’s website comes from “JD the co-founder of the Federalist Party.”

I know I’ll be judged on both, but here I can denote personal perspectives that are not necessarily part of party doctrine. Personally, I’m against California attempting to install single-payer health care. Why? Because I live in California. As a party, we have to be willing to allow states to succeed… or fail. States are the laboratories from which other states can learn. If after repealing Obamacare (if that ever happens), California decides they want single-payer, they have that right. The people can vote out those who helped bankrupt the state if that is indeed what happens or they can vote with their feet. JD the father of four living in California would hate it, but JD the co-founder of a party bent on restoring states’ rights would accept it.

We all need barriers to partition different aspects of our lives. For me, Soshable is safe haven where I can let my heart do the writing.

Let’s look at the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There are two parts here. The first is currently not in jeopardy, though it would be foolish to believe the government would never overreach to the point of establishing “acceptable” religions. It’s far fetched to us today, but things change. The second portion is the part that’s directly relevant because it’s under attack.

We hear about it every few days. “Discrimination” has become the most powerful political word of our time. If you can label anything discriminatory, everything else is pushed aside. That’s why colleges are accelerating their progressive indoctrination. That’s why the media is quick to attack anything related to Judeo-Christian values (while simultaneously slow on the draw when there’s a chance other religious beliefs are in play).

It’s why bakers are forced to bake cakes that go against their religious beliefs. It’s why churches are being bullied into choosing to start performing services that don’t match their doctrine. There’s discrimination that exists. I’m not naive. However, the tide has turned and many sins of the past are being repaid tenfold against conservatives and Christians, most of whom do not practice true discrimination.

This is where it gets sticky. I’m a Christian. On the surface it may seem unfaithful to defend the rights of atheists or Muslims or Buddhists or Pastafarians. In reality, the only way to defend my rights as a Christian is to stand by the Constitution word-for-word and demand that Congress not make any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. My freedom to worship my God as I am commanded is too important to me to leave to the judgment of Congress or the Supreme Court.

When man’s judgment is at play, it will invariably be flawed in one way or another. The only solution is to take man’s judgment out of the equation, including my own. This wisdom from the founders helped them in their quest to not follow in England’s footsteps and it is just as relevant today.

In fact, it may be more so.

To do this, we must maintain a strict separation of church and state.  That’s not to say we need to suppress our beliefs when making political decisions, but we cannot allow the establishment of restrictions. Common sense restrictions for preexisting laws should be maintained; if a human sacrifice is performed in the name of some “religious” belief, it’s still murder. However, “cake laws” (any laws that demand services be rendered by private businesses or citizens that go against their beliefs) cannot be allowed to stand even when the ACLU or their cronies invoke “discrimination.” Should a Muslim baker be forced to bake unleavened bread for Passover? How about an atheist baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake proclaiming praise to God? As private business owners with their own religious beliefs, the government has no right to force or fine them. The community can apply pressure through the free market system or through their right to peaceably assemble for protest, but that’s on citizens, not the government.

While most would agree because they don’t want the church to influence the state, the concept works in both directions. We need to keep that separation as wide as possible if we have any hope of protecting our religious freedoms. As a Christian, I use my beliefs to reach people and make disciples of the nations as we are taught. As a Federalist, I realize the only way to prevent a conflict between my religion and the law is to keep government out of the church altogether.

The key to maintaining our religious freedoms is to keep government as far from the church as possible. The only way to do that is to keep government out of every church, even those who teach things against our own beliefs. Moreover, the freedom to practice religion as we’re instructed means we can change hearts and minds for our Lord. That makes this stance a win-win in my opinion.

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

If ever there was a quote made for the people of today, it’s this one. So many Americans are lost in the fog of false accountability. We rely too heavily on government because we assume they have the power. In some ways, they do, but it’s a power limited by the constraints of the Constitution. This is important to remember because too often it’s just assumed that what the government says or does is to be taken as the final word.

We have the power. It’s not just with our votes. We have the ability to rise up and work together to rein in the tremendous levels of overreach we’ve seen from Washington DC our whole lives. We don’t need to rise up in arms as our founding fathers did. Today, we still have enough law and order in America to be able to rely on proper political channels. This is why the growth of the Federalist Party is so vibrant and relevant. It’s time to reassert our interest and adherence to the Constitutional governance we have at our fingertips.

Of course, he also brought in problematic people. Reince Priebus led the moderates. Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner led the liberals. Steve Bannon led the alt-righters. Then, there were those who weren’t even on my radar for their politics. Among them was Sean Spicer.

Anthony Scaramucci is leading communications now and we should all be concerned. This is an odd strategic pick, but more importantly it’s a pick that brings with it the baggage of strong liberalism tempered by an alleged “fiscal conservatism” that thus far has not been made evident. The progressive views he has shared in the past are available for all to see.

What worries me is that he’s not disavowing these views. Instead, he’s simply deleting them to remove the distraction and “moving on to” the President’s agenda.

Full transparency: I'm deleting old tweets. Past views evolved & shouldn't be a distraction. I serve @POTUS agenda & that's all that matters

— Anthony Scaramucci (@Scaramucci) July 22, 2017

Let’s set aside the fact that deleting Tweets before claiming transparency is laughable at best. What’s striking is that he’s not expressing any changes in his perspectives. This is a job and if his job is to communicate the President’s agenda, his perspectives won’t make it in, right? Wrong, and it’s an insult for them to think we’re that naive.

The Comms Director has a direct line to the President’s ear. The last thing we need is even more liberal perspectives swaying the President further to the left. I’m all for people changing their perspectives. Heck, I was in favor of the Iraq War over a decade ago. People can change their minds. The problem with Scaramucci is that he’s not claiming to change anything, whether it’s his leftist opinions on gun control, abortion, or the border wall.

Americans didn’t vote for Donald Trump because they wanted more liberals in the White House. They would have voted for Hillary Clinton if that was their goal and Scaramucci seems more ideologically aligned with the Democrats than Republicans. What does this say about an administration that has accomplished so little in its first six months and that has been embroiled in controversy after controversy?

It’s not too late for the President to put in a right-minded, ideologically aligned Communications Director on the job. Call it a mulligan. Say he was unaware of Scaramucci’s old views or that he fell for a sales pitch. Humble yourself, Mr. President, and get a conservative to handle the communications for your administration. Stop proving that my initial fears were justified.

As I’ve noted before, defunding Planned Parenthood will not prevent abortions. In fact, it would make this political organization (that claims to not be a political organization) even more powerful than it is today. The reason we must defund Planned Parenthood is because it’s a moral blight on our nation to directly fund murder. This, more than anything else, is why the organization must be forced to generate its own revenue by having people willingly contribute rather than forcing every tax-paying American to participate.

To those who have been telling me to wait, what am I waiting for now? It’s not going to be part of the health care bill. There’s not going to be a better time in the future to end the funding. What excuse do you have for me now that the pretend-pro-lifers in GOP leadership have at their disposal everything they need to make it happen?

It’s been a while since I’ve been critical of President Trump, but the time has come to call him out again. This is ridiculous. After appreciating him for years, my opinion of Sessions has sunk in recent months for multiple reasons, but it was the right move for himself and the administration to not participate in the Russian investigation since he did not disclose his own contact with Russians. Had he not recused himself, the investigation itself would be pronounced a sham and debacle by people on both sides of the aisle.

The fact that this is new information is what’s most troubling. We didn’t hear complaints when he recused himself. That it comes out now demonstrates this has been lingering in his mind for a while. It seems as if the President is operating at a maturity level far below what one would want in any political figure, let alone President of the United States. He’s holding fealty in the highest regard and dismissing proper presidential characteristics like honor and honesty.

Another Conservative who went to the mat for Trump … only to be thrown under the bus. Shame https://t.co/G503cagaWJ

— ShannonJoy (@ShannonJoyRadio) July 20, 2017

The first response by most Trump supporters will be that President Obama and candidate Clinton were just as bad if not worse. That’s not a high enough bar to put forth for this or any President. There is plenty that can be said about the liberal duo who hampered our standing on the international stage for eight years, but President Trump (or any other President) should be raising the bar, not swinging for par on the integrity scale.

Every time I think the media and the Democrats are acting worse than their nemesis, he pulls stunts like these that remind just how inadequate he really is. This is the same script being played over and over again: the victim card. He just can’t help himself. Everything’s unfair. Everyone’s being mean to him. Even his own people are out to get him. It makes me anxious for better people to find their way into Washington DC. Waiting through this is the hard part.

With that said, I’m very well aware of my limitations. I’m not rich. I’m not a politician nor will I ever be one. My resume wouldn’t land me the job as a campaign manager for a city council candidate. Still, there are things I bring to the table that have helped the party grow. When the time comes, I’m eager to take a backseat to those who are smarter, more experienced, and better versed on how to get things done. Until then, I’m here.

Looking back, I’ve made mistakes. I supported Newt Gingrich in 2012. Today I wouldn’t want him anywhere near public office. I once wrote an article (2, if I recall) about not believing in the electoral college. Today, I believe wholeheartedly in the electoral college. Heck, I even jumped on the “take out Saddam” bandwagon with George W. Bush. That turned out to be a huge political mistake. Thankfully, I’m not the one who’s going to be making these decisions.

I’m a caretaker. With nobody doing what it takes to build a true small-government movement, I’ve taken it on myself the last year to read the Federalist Papers (twice), learn as much as I can as a layman about Constitutional law, and follow every piece of major legislature at both national and state levels. I speak daily to patriots who are sick of what’s happening to the nation and I learn much more from them than I could ever teach. That’s the beauty of being a caretaker. My role is simply to connect the right people to the right ideology and do what I can to raise awareness.

It’s important that the party is never judged by the actions of any one individual. I supported Ted Cruz for President, but he’s demonstrated more than once in the last couple of years that he can be driven by politics just as anyone else can. We’ve seen people like Rand Paul and Mike Lee shine at times and fade at other times. Just as Thomas Sowell and Charles Krauthammer were on the opposite side of the political spectrum as they are today, so too can any person learn and (hopefully) grow through their political lives.

In a world with a “conservative” President who once supported partial birth abortion and gun bans, allowing my past support for the Iraq War or eliminating the electoral college to taint the party is nonsense. If a caretaker isn’t allowed to make mistakes, then nobody should be worthy of a vote unless they’re 100% ideologically aligned for their entire adult lives.