his section is for what are known

Why a new political party now?
We believe that the current major political parties, The Republicans and Democrats, have lost their way. No longer do they represent major differences of political opinion and thought, and neither represents a Constitutionalist approach to government. Both parties have, over the last one hundred years, embraced an extreme level of Federalism that has stripped Constitutional authority from The States and The People, and they have in addition refused to enforce the letter of both The Constitution and The Law as written.

Why not support and build one of the existing third parties instead?
Bluntly, there isn't one that is focused on what we believe the essential elements of a political party in the current environment must be: Freedom and The return of our nation to its Constitutional form of government, in which most functions are held by The States or The People, respectively.

Why the online focus?
The world has changed. Our nation was formed with county governments with the intention that the seat of government - and its machinery - would never be more than one day's ride (on horseback!) from any citizen. Today, we can cross the entire nation in hours, but at considerable cost. We are both more mobile and yet more constrained, especially for those who are not wealthy. Political organizations have historically focused on the "upper crust", while we maintain that government is for the people, by the people, and with the consent of the governed. Virtually everyone now has access to The Internet, even if they don't have a computer, through their local public library system.

We believe that you should not need to be able to travel halfway across the nation or spend thousands of dollars to be part of the political debate - to have your voice heard. The best way to accomplish this in today's world is to use online resources to make politics accessible to everyone.

What is your position on trade?
We support the ability of The Federal Government, as granted in The Constitution, to levy tariffs and otherwise constrain trade between nations. It is our position that nations that effectively enslave their people as a source of labor or otherwise engage in unfair practices (such as currency manipulation) should not be granted "free trade" or "most favored nation" status with The United States. For nations that have a reasonable correspondence with The United States in terms of the rights of their citizens in political and labor matters, and who do not provide unlawful subsidies to domestic manufacturing, we believe that free trade with those nations is in our national interest.

Are The Federationists a supporter of the movement to "Ban The Fed"?
No. Our position is that focusing on the presence of The Federal Reserve misses the point and is diversionary. Our current economic issues have resulted from an excess of credit in the system, not from an excess of money. Further, the worst abuses of The Federal Reserve are already unlawful under the black-letter law of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913; Congress has refused to enforce the law. Lawbreaking does not demand more law, it demands enforcement of existing law.

Are The Federationists a supporter of a return to "hard money"?
Not necessarily. Fiat currency is, as noted above, not the cause of our present economic problems. Those who argue for a return to "hard money" (gold and silver based currency) must square their opinion with the Depressions of both the 1930s and 1873; both occurred while The United States was on a "hard money" system. There are serious problems with basing currency on "hard money" with the most sensitive of them being building yet another dependence on foreign sources of raw materials, especially Gold, in order to grow the monetary base.

Why the emphasis on The Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment stands as the final check and balance on tyranny, not only within a nation but from without. As recently as fifty years ago Japan recognized that, in their words, "behind every blade of grass is a rifle", making an attempted invasion futile. Further, The Second Amendment guarantees and maintains the proper balance of power between government and the people; Thomas Jefferson said, "When the government fears the people, there is Liberty." Since we are a Constitutional Republic and in The Declaration of Independence it is made clear that as a nation we believe that government exists solely with the consent of the governed, this is the proper and only means to maintain that balance.

Are The Federationists a supporter of Christian values?
We believe in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights, including The First Amendment. We therefore believe that you are free to worship as you see fit, including the freedom from worship if that is what you choose. Your choice of religion (if any) is between you and your creator and is nobody else's business, including especially the Government's. That our legal code flows from Judeo-Christian values is a historical fact; that our Constitution protects your right to worship as you see fit is a matter of black-letter law.

But The Founders were Christians!
Most of the founders were Deists, which is not the same thing as Christians. In fact most of the people who originally came to this nation did so as a direct consequence of religious persecution with an aim of escaping same. Religious persecution is no more right today than it was 250 years ago.

You make reference to The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist, and your site answers to "http://anti-federalist.org". Why?
Because those two books are the seminal works containing the writings of the Founding Fathers as they debated and deliberated over the formation of our nation. Virtually every Constitutional question in terms of the founder's intent can be answered through careful study of these works. All citizens should read and understand them, for they are the very foundation of our country.

You state that social programs do not belong at the Federal level. Why?
There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to establish a taxation system for the purpose of providing social welfare. Further, the closer the taxation and provision of such programs are to the people who both pay for and benefit from them, the more efficient they are. The States should operate such programs as Social Security, Medicare and Welfare.

But Social Security is important for millions of Americans!
Indeed. One should, however, have a look at Galveston Texas' history in this regard. Galveston opted out of Social Security in 1981. Since then their program has put together an average annual return of 6.5%, is self-funding, and by law has not been "raided" to pay for other programs. Social Security, on the other hand, has in fact had all of its income co-mingled with general Federal revenues; there is in fact nothing there to earn interest; we have instead replaced your Payroll Taxes with "IOUs" - debt!

So why don't we pressure The States to do what Galveston did?
The Federal Government passed a law after Galveston "opted out" to make that illegal. This is one of the many laws that violate the Constitution and which we oppose.