Our party platform has three key philosophies compared to a traditional campaign agenda. First, we believe that the party system in Washington is broken. Second, we believe in a foundational return to the spiritual heritage of our country. Third, we believe it is time government act selfless and not selfish with the future of this country.
We have great passion to be part of a larger movement under God of real change in this country. Enjoy the site and let’s MOVE! Learn why all individuals who interviewed Todd of the York County GOP leadership committee endorsed Todd Watson for US Senate.
This site is designed to give you the information you need quickly while yet thorough enough to move the dialogue of the debate to “How” from “What”. “Todd’s Stances” has quick positional stances (read the bold if you have no time). Second, we have three Philosophies with quick excerpts to learn more about our beliefs. Finally, we thoroughly blog on any given topic to give those passionate about a subject details they can depend on. The details in these blogs gives you a roadmap to solving problems and details on specific views. You will rarely find disclosure of this level of detail as well as belief structures. Campaigns want to be general to appeal to the most voters. We fundamentally believe in giving specific guidance to move the debate forward and show we are serious about solving problems–not being popular.
Thanks for your support!
The Watson Campaign Team
September 26, 2015
It is time! One establishment steward (Speaker Boehner) is retiring!
The following is my favorite quote conservatives (especially Republican Conservatives) in Nebraska need to digest from this article.
“Boehner lost the ability to bully conservatives because outside conservative groups started making those guys heroes and household names for standing up to Boehner. Conservatives built themselves infrastructure to fundraise for themselves when Boehner shut off K Street spigots.”
Two observations –
1. This article written by a “Die-Hard” Republican site claimed Boehner was not conservative.
2. Speaker Boehner turned off K-Street Spigots (Large Lobbying Money Funding Campaigns) from conservatives.
What does observation #2 made by a GOP loyalist tell you about Nebraskan Republican candidates with K-Street spigot money still turned on? If Speaker Boehner (and Senator McConnell) turned off the K-Street money from “Conservatives” … what are the identities of our candidates with a continued flow of these funds?
How conservative is their actual agenda to be able to receive these funds? FYI, the K-Street agenda is not conservative (Planned Parenthood funding is nice!)
Is this the reason for Nebraska candidates failing to introduce conservative legislation to match their pledges they made to the Nebraska people?
How loyal are Nebraska candidates to the agenda of the money? (Show me actual conservative legislation pledged and less “Yea” votes on donor interests)
There is a reason “No Comment” is the consistent answer when asked about their large amounts of “K-Street” money in their campaigns!
Why are TRUE Nebraska conservative citizens, who are Republican, unable to put 2 & 2 together? The sources/agenda of the K-Street donors leads to a lack of conservative change.
True conservative Republicans like Bobby Jindal called the Congress out for their failure to pass bills in 2015 on important conservative issues after winning a majority in 2014. (PS–Don’t blame Obama for failing to send him a bill).
I’m thankful a similar message is now being spoken by true conservatives (who are Republicans) who have better access to non greed money to spread the message WITHOUT COMPROMISE. Well done Carson, Jindal, and Trump!
Moving on…today is a day to celebrate! One more K-Street loyalist is leaving power. I’d likely still be a Republican if the K-Street crew did not control the party by holding their leadership hostage.
Maybe this “Control” is changing? I wish K-Street control would leave Nebraska. This achievement will take Nebraska wising up to the money and ignoring the rhetoric and ads K-Street pays for to promote candidates that have pledged loyalty.
K-street promotes anti-conservative values and unconstitutional policies through their candidates.
Nebraska should be the last place pushing for “Establishment” candidates that are bought and paid for. Most Republicans (especially Social Conservative Evangelicals) are blind to the world system and world causes K-Street pays for. An awakening needs to occur. True conservative politicians need to quit fighting for donors on the wrong side of important issues.
At the end of the day, I don’t want to be another social media troll. The disagreements with Speaker Boehner or Senator McConnell are not personal…it is about principle. The simple fact is these GOP “leaders” frequently compromise principle and seldom compromise donors.
A conservative revolution needs to compromise “Greed” donors and not compromise on principle. Furthermore, conservatives need to learn to compromise for progress WHEN PRINCIPLES ARE NOT AT PLAY.
(Let’s not compromise on spending cuts but be ok when EVERY cut doesn’t go our way).
This is a big day for non establishment conservatives like me. Furthermore, we finally have a non establishment conservative in the Republican base open to talking about God. I never thought I would see the day when a GOP (Carson) candidate would not be afraid to openly talk about God. Overcoming the funding gaps the “World System Establishment” can buy is an amzing accomplishment by Ben.
Furthermore, I never thought I’d see the day when a GOP politician takes on political correctness (Trump is single handedly destroying “PC”) and the supression of free speech.
Both candidates are believable because they are not paid for puppets by the largest entities of greed. It is a good to witness measured progress.
Finally, I don’t want to demonize Speaker Boehner. Deep down…I think he cares for the American people and children. His unabashed emotion shows he cares. “Why” these politicians serve is not in question. “How” they go about serving is the problem. They will not achieve the “Why” with compromised principle to the entities of greed.
This is why IT IS time to move on from K-Street candidates.
Let’s continue this revolution! It is time to take our government back to the principles of the Constitution! It is time to give “Control” back to the American people. It is time for “PC” to be kicked to the back seat! It is time to recognize our spiritual heritage is critical to the welfare of this country!
Progress is being made…..let’s keep it going!
September 7, 2015
Independent Thought On ISIS (A Commentary Around the Insights of Benedetta Berti)
The conflict with the Islamic State (IS) is yet another problem that needs a fresh look from an Independent angle. Benedetta Berti offers insights in this Ted Talk that I believe will aid in building a “Complete” approach that will keep the enemy from (re)gaining steam.
Clarification #1: My Formal Approach for FUTURE International Engagements
For those newly exposed to my train of thought, I’m a Constitutionalist. I believe we are charged by our Founders to focus on providing the common DEFENSE and insuring the DOMESTIC tranquility. My emphasis is securing this land and not the world. That said, I realize there is SOME interplay in providing our defense through International involvement. If I was in charge, I would aim to keep that international exposure limited.
George Washington (Independent) did not try to settle the differences between the French and English. This foreign policy worked well for our founding and would work well today.
That said, I believe in a very strong DEFENSE.
You CAN be for a “Limited Focus” and a “Strong Defense” in the same sentence.
Clarification #2: The Logical Argument for Keeping a Domestic Focus
The vacuum we leave behind after we remove an “Evil Dictator” overseas is ripe for more evil then what existed before. Saddam was one bad man. However, is he worse than the IS terrorists that were created by the absence of a strong dictator? Are we better off without a strong check on Iran that Iraq historically provided?
Khadaffi was one bad man. Is he worse than the Islamic terrorists organizing in North Africa that are executing Christians on North Africa beaches?
The government seems hell bent to use that military machine whenever possible to show who is boss to “Evil Dictators”. However, the questions we ask must change.
A question we need to answer is, ‘Who will likely control the situation when the dictator is removed?’ We need to ask, ‘Will common defense and domestic tranquility be enhanced by our actions?’ We need to determine, ‘What will the balance of power be in the region after the decrease of political power from the removal of the existing regime?’
We need more depth from our political leaders (especially Senators) in approaching international conflict.
I find most conservatives put our style of Democracy as beneficial to the rest of the world. (Clarification: We are a Republic and not a Democracy for the vast majority who are confused).
This is a very prideful approach that fails to account for what works for different cultures and people. What works for Sweeden works for Sweeden. What works for Saudi Arabia works for Saudi Arabia. What works for the USA works for the USA. Do I agree with their approaches? No. However, is their approach to their domestic issues any of my business? No.
I realize for the strength of my own country, I need to leave them alone if they don’t pose a threat to the GENERAL WELFARE of WE THE PEOPLE.
Democrats need to quit trying to make a Swedish approach work for America. Republicans should quit trying to make an American approach work for the Middle East. Let’s focus on a CONSTITUTIONAL American way for America.
The Mentality of Citizens from Authoritarian Regimes
Citizens in authoritarian regimes are oftentimes accustomed to being provided for. They often have a hard time transitioning to a Capitalistic/Western approach. Benedetta picks up this point well. She cites the lack of “providing” as key fuel/opportunities for regimes.
Most conservatives approach problems with a Founding Father mentality (A very good thing for America). To paraphrase the mentality: “Take out the bad guys, and let the people fill in the needs.” This works for those who possess character AND love Liberty/Democracy. Surprisingly, this “Take out the bad guys and leave” has been Obama’s approach as well.
Unfortunately, when you are raised under dictatorship, communism, socialism, etc., the assumptions are different on what one should be providing for themselves. More times than not, subjects formerly underneath these regimes don’t step up and fill needs. They think these needs should be provided by those in power. This is a product of human conditioning.
The reality today is terrorists are filling the needs of people “Left Behind”. They are used to being provided for by former regimes.
If a terrorist is providing vital healthcare for your child and the other half of power provides nothing for your child—who are you going to be loyal to when you do not/cannot solve a problem yourself?
Parties Claims Against Each Other
Both parties’ claims against the other party are correct.
America should not have intervened in Iraq in the first place. A valid claim by Democrats (even though the vast majority voted FOR it) against the Republicans.
America should not have vacated the region in the second place. A valid claim by the Republicans against the Democrats.
Both parties fumbled the ball in Iraq. It is time to move on from the blame game and solve the problem. Unfortunately, bipartisan solutions are not a Democrat or Republican thing.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of Each Party in Foreign Conflict – My Opinion
The Democrats are soft in my opinion in leading the military. They tend to be more prone to mercy then justice. I strongly desire a justice oriented person to lead a force and execute. Our Congress needs to step up and declare a war. We have political cowards in our Legislative Branch. They continue to defer to our weak President instead of owning the direction of engagements around the world.
Furthermore, we need a Commander-In-Chief to see through the mission Congress authorizes (when that day comes). We do not get this decisive leadership with Obama or Hillary. They get manhandled at the negotiating table (take your pick from hostage negotiation to Iran). They cannot accurately define the enemy. They do not lead with decisiveness, strength, or responsibility.
Yet, when the fighting is done, the needs of citizens under authoritarian regimes surface and are left unresolved. Republicans are horrible in answering “needs” of base level citizens familiar with life under authoritarian regimes. Obama, unlike most Democrats, couldn’t solve a legitimate human need if he wanted to. In general, I’m usually looking to Democrats and not Republicans when mercy is on the line at an International level.
America seldom has sufficient plans to meet individual needs affected by war. This comes back to bite us when we have not provided the infrastructure for people prone to a “King”.
Answering those needs often determines whether we will experience regional progress or a vacuum that will create the next world problem.
Ultimately, International conflict is a problem Democrats and Republicans could solve if they worked together. This takes coordination of efforts between people more prone to either justice or mercy. This would take a maturity that different people offer different strengths. Unfortunately, we have both parties that think they are good at everything. Rebuilding an entire society where leadership is removed of people who are used to being controlled takes all talents and mentalities.
Todd—You advocate meeting important needs in Iraq. Why not America?
Let’s be clear. We should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Unfortunately, America created instability. America is going to have to be a part of the solution.
Second, America has a better way to solve domestic problems with a population well versed in “Filling the Gap.” This is where the thinking of what works in Sweden/Saudi Arabia does not work for America. More importantly, this violates the Constitutional charge of “Promoting” (not providing) the General Welfare. This “Providing” the General Welfare has created the biggest financial disaster at the government level that should not have occurred in the first place.
The societal problems at home are what Democrats pound the table to solve. They have identified big problems, but offer poor solutions. Republicans have unfortunately turned their back on problems for the sake of donors and continually fail at drafting a solution (seen a “Replace” plan for Obamacare yet?).
Furthermore, one of the biggest reasons I’m an Independent Conservative and not a Republican is that we need to tackle healthcare, income inequality, and economic progress in a flat, non partial, Constitutional approach designed by our founders. People expressed fear when I ran because I’m a “Populist”. Business professionals like Greenspan (Chief Representative of the Establishment) always matched “Redistribution” with populism. The reality is there is a Constitutional design that does not redistribute but tackles healthcare, income inequality, etc. with a Constitutional approach. This takes adjustments in our monetary approach of which the majority of the GOP base will not tackle due to their donors who provide hoards of cash to the party based on the benefits of drifting from Constitutional design. We can solve these issues for the benefit of all the people in a Constitutional and conservative approach. Favoritism for donors cannot be a part of the process.
We will solve the problem when government AND business elites do not set law over the people. Corporate fascism and Socialism are both inferior outcomes to a liberty oriented Republic crafted by citizens with character. This is why we spiral down with either party in control. This is why we spiral down as an American society without a backbone of conviction. Our government needs to return to creating frameworks and not playing favorites. Our people need to rebuild their moral fiber.
Read James 2 if you think Partiality is “Just the Way it Is” and what America should settle for in legislation dependent on lobbyists who get their way with paid for candidates. Partiality is a sin if you read the “Good” book.
Developing the “Final Plan” for IS
The next Commander In Chief needs to have a frame of reference of what is being asked if Congress wants to engage in conflict. The next Congress needs to fund a “Complete Plan WITH Societal Rebuild” if we want to undertake another war in a land conditioned to an authoritarian/socialistic/communistic bend. I DO NOT recommend this course of action.
Destroying the Islamic State is not a FULL answer. I want to hear a “Complete” plan that understands what has to be built to avoid the next “Vacuum” IS will fill. Until the mission is clearly defined….we are wasting our time, money, and worse yet……blood. It is time to define the mission and enemy.
(Side note: I want Lyndsey Graham on the stage for the next GOP debate. I’m not for Senator Graham but he adds to the debate. His tone is bland but his positions on the Middle East are bold. He takes a strong position for a ground war with ISIS. I want the opinions on the subject drawn out from the other candidates. He offers a decisive position. The other candidates are too indecisive and need a more evolved on the record strategy as Commander-In-Chief.)
Thanks for your time. I hope you enjoy this TED talk. I think she has great material and insights to add to the discussion of a complete strategy.
PS—Here is another helpful TED talk in understanding how organizations of crime/terror support themselves. I think some of the great “Western” insights into these groups come from Italy with stronger historical ties to organized crime.
September 7, 2015
America Has the Intelligence Gathering/Privacy Debate Wrong
Should the United States government collect/monitor our data to protect us from threats foreign and domestic? Should we adhere to strict privacy for individuals and observe the 4th amendment? The error of the first question lies in the assumption being presented by party politicians. More on this later….
An Example of the ‘Fight’ between both sides of the debate
The best example of this poorly defined debate was on stage in Cleveland when Governor Chris Christie and Senator Rand Paul had an intense argument over this issue. The reality is they both have fair points to support their views. Watch the debate if you are unfamiliar with the “Main Stream” arguments.
The Pro NSA Republicans Never Articulate a Constitutional Argument
Governor Christie, like many Republicans who are pro NSA, offer decent points but orate a negligible Constitutional argument. NSA proponents frame a logical argument that phone data must be monitored to protect us from terrorists. NSA proponents continue to fail at arguing a Constitutional standard Senator Paul can strongly articulate.
What pro NSA Republicans should articulate on a CONSTITUTIONAL basis is, “We need the NSA to do our Constitutional Role of Insuring the Domestic Tranquility and Providing the Common Defense.”
How we Insure the Domestic Tranquility, Provide the Common Defense, and Observe the 4th Amendment should be a robust American debate. All 3 are important elements to our founding documents. We should settle the issue with a transparent law to the American people based on an accurate understanding of the situation. Understanding has not yet happened (Read On).
Furthermore, we should consider a Constitutional amendment on the issue to make sure our laws do not conflict with the Constitution. Clarity, consistency, and dependability of our founding document is very important.
My Revelations from Continued Exploration
I’ve continued to explore the merits of both arguments. What I have found is the American people are very passionate (both ways) on the issue. However, I have determined most Americans are debating the question under a false assumption. The failed assumption is that the two competing interests are the US government monitoring our data and individual privacy of their information. This failed assumption is based on a failed understanding of telecommunication devices and a clueless media narrative provided to the public. This TED talk video will help you understand telecommunications infrastructure and the capabilities of all entities with current cell phone specifications. This video helped me frame two new questions that I believe are more pertinent to the “NSA/Individual Privacy” debate.
Are you in favor of WORLD governments (Including US), terrorists, organizations or other citizens being able to gather data/spy on your calls?
Are you in favor of the government dictating the architectural standards of how companies build their communication devices?
Christopher Soghoian is a telecommunications expert. I believe this TED talk will enlighten the ‘Average Joe’ on how telecom works and will be useful to my followers who enjoy Independent discussion to find a better answer.
He makes two strong points that I believe most Americans have not considered.
More entities (Not just the US government) will have access to gather data on you if you diminish individual security of devices.
Modern day technology would have to be built to a new standard dictated by government to enable easier monitoring.
Would Pro NSA individuals be for monitoring if they knew the Chinese (they seem to be more successful in 21st century data gathering) were the ones monitoring your phone?
Would Pro NSA individuals be for dictating the architecture private companies use to build their devices to enable a government to monitor phone calls?
These are questions/statements that I think change the perspective of the average American engaging the quesiton.
American representatives should not duck the question and leave this unsettled in a structured Democracy. We are settling this issue. Unfortunately, the issue is being settled on a false understanding of the choices. Let’s pick the path as a nation (Congressional vote), accept the consequences, and move forward together known a vigorous debate was had and a decision was settled upon by a democratic process. Finally, let’s continue to strive to meet all 3 Constitutional goals and realize this is a very sticky issue.
Some Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, Christopher is for individual privacy. He makes a very strong argument for his position in a respectful manner (he acknowledges the threats).
I have yet to find the complete answer that protects privacy (4th amendment), Insures the Domestic Tranquility, and Provides the Common Defense. This maybe an unrealistic goal on this issue.
My hope is intelligent debate based on an accurate understanding of the choices may lead to breakthroughs in achieving all 3 Constitutional goals. I hope this blog will further the understanding of the choices at hand.
Christopher is one more expert (not party boss/not donor) I choose to listen to for the benefit of the people. I hope you find his presentation helpful in understanding the situation at a deeper level. Let’s have a robust and respectful debate on the topic WITH AN ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING of the choices we are making!