jules rensch commented on We are a Principled Party 2017-08-08 22:42:28 -0400one word is missing in Washington DC…
the most powerful word leading to progress…
it is the word that best describes the Modern Whig Party…
it is the word of the most famous Whig in history……………..
it is the word of Henry Clay…………………………………………………
THE WORD IS: “C O M P R O M I S E”
Let’s do it Whigs….. Observer Jules
jules rensch commented on We are a Moderate Party 2017-08-08 22:36:36 -0400great piece John…proud I am, to be a part of what you feel…’
jules rensch commented on We are an Ambitious Party 2017-03-01 23:34:45 -0500As the news from Washington DC becomes more bleak, more divisive day by day….now is the time…the time to showcase the values, demonstrate the honesty and offer the real alternative to same old, same – old politics. The Modern Whig Party will step up to the plate and shine the way towards old fashioned liberty, justice and honesty in government!
Shout it from the rooftops…MWP…now!
jules rensch commented on We are a Humble Party 2017-02-11 14:49:40 -0500Great article, once again….yet, is there a possibility that America could morphing away from political parties all together?
While many seem to be saddened by recent developments in America, optimistically, could it be that our nation is in the process of morphing into something great, possibly, something really great…..or not ? You be the judge.
It might be prudent to look back into our revolutionary history for a glimpse of what seems be unfolding today:
The Colonists, dissatisfied with the rule of King George III chose armed rebellion….headed by a most capable General George Washington.
While the struggle was profound and costly, the final victory, was to be sweet and promising! A new nation is born!
Ultimately, General Washington became President.. a good one, yet as popular as he was, surprisingly at the end of his term, his wishes were to step down……. mission accomplished!
In an effort to keep Washington in power, astonishingly, the Colonists offered to make him “King” for life.
Washington declined, the rest is history.
Yes, while it may be difficult to believe, fledgling America, actually wanted a King, an Absolute Monarchy! Go figure.
The difference being, America wanted it’s own King….not an oppressive one from across the ocean.
The history of the last two centuries reveals the consequences
of Washington’s decision….constant partisan politics, and a great social divide that seems to be worsening, decade by decade.
Now, here’s where it becomes interesting….enter Kingmaker Carl Rove…a brilliant statistician who makes his mark by coaching a likable, albeit not very bright, George W. Bush to leadership…
Bush, armed with only a great family name, huge wealth, and an MBA (Business Degree) is elected to two terms as Governor of Texas, followed by two terms as President of these United States.
Wow, impressive, right?
Not so fast…
So it was, the Monarchy of King George Bush was destined to topple, his personal Waterloo, being the invasion of Iraq and a gut wrenching national debt. (remember that business degree)
His subjects wanted no more of that and sibling Jeb was to never, ever, become heir to the throne.
Fast forward to 2016….enter Steve Bannon, a smart, devious, manipulative, man behind the scenes…a Kingmaker, to be sure!
Bannon, a man with a mission…now directing, fine tuning a most uncouth, brash and incapable leader…. businessman, Donald Trump.
Trump, just as Bush, comes fully equipped with name recognition, huge wealth and an MBA (Business Degree) sans, any political experience….the perfect Figurehead King, right ?
Loving history, as I do, it was easy to connect the dots…in the cases of the Bush-Trump phenomenon.
While, there has been many Monarchs of limited ability and intelligence, even some who were total imbeciles….the prophetic truth is…. the coaching and manipulating behind the King is what truly matters!
So, the question begs an answer, is America on the road to becoming an Absolute Monarchy with a Figurehead King?
just wondering….Jules LOL
jules rensch commented on We Are a Practical Party 2017-02-03 23:47:51 -0500Great article….reminding us of what Henry Clay, as a Whig, did so beautifully those many years …..employing the art of Discussion, Deliberation and Compromise!
Given that Donald J. Trump is almost certainly our next president, I believe it's more important than ever for all moderates, centrists, reasonable liberals and sensible conservatives to join together in a loyal opposition. Because only by speaking with a loud and unified voice can we hope to blunt the damage this man--and I use the term loosely--could cause to our country and our world. To that end, I propose we start a discussion on the best way to build that opposition. I think at minimum we need a better communications platform to get our word out. We also need to work out some means for people to debate issues in a controlled fashion (like local debating societies or citizen assemblies) so that the people can find and build on common ground. I'm not sure blog posts are adequate for that purpose. This isn't about building a third party movement anymore. It's about the future of this Republic and its people. Trump cannot be allowed to govern unchallenged. With Congress in Republican hands, only an organized, active, and extremely vocal citizenry can provide that challenge.
jules rensch commented on We are a Respectful Party 2017-01-28 16:03:34 -0500Though perhaps our MWP Members should see how my Muslim Friends & Neighbors, here in Ohio, feel about President Trumps Muslim Ban Executive Order, signed yesterday:
Cleveland & Northern Ohio Chapter
RE: Important Information about the “Muslim Ban”
Dear community members and friends,
Like you, we only recently received the final, signed copies of President Trump’s Executive Orders targeting Muslims and refugees. And like you, we are appalled at this attempt to erode our American values by targeting individuals based on race, religion, and national origin. Please read the Executive Order (available HERE) and share this information broadly.
A complete analysis is underway, but we continue to hear from many of you, worried about what this means for your families and friends. PLEASE NOTE:
We have already started to receive reports of denials of travel and entry, even from people who are coming from Muslim-majority countries that are not on the current exclusion list. We have also heard reports of dual nationals also experiencing travel delays.
We are also receiving reports of green card holders being turned away at airports, OR being delayed for 8-10 hours, handcuffed and extensively searched before being permitted to enter.
Accordingly, we wanted to reach out and offer some preliminary guidance. We will send out more details as they become clear.
What you need to know right now:
Generally, non-citizens, including green card holders (lawful permanent residents), from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen will be restricted from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. Non-citizens from these countries who are presently in the U.S. should consult with an immigration attorney prior to any international travel.
However, if you are a green card holder (lawful permanent resident) outside of the U.S. please reach out to an immigration attorney before you travel back to the U.S.
If you do plan to travel back to the US, you should fill out a USCIS G-28 form first that officially appoints an attorney to represent you in immigration situations and have that completed form with you as you board your flight.
The refugee program is being halted immediately, for at least 120 days. This will mean that anyone, anywhere in the process, will not move forward. The effort to resettle Syrian refugees in the U.S. is being halted indefinitely.
What you should do to protect yourself:
If you are non-citizen, even green card holder (lawful permanent residents), from one of the seven countries named above, and you are ALREADY INSIDE the U.S., plan to DELAY all international travel for at least 90 days.
IF YOU LEAVE YOU ARE LIKELY TO BE DENIED RE-ENTRY.
If you are a non-citizen from one of the seven countries named above, and you are OUTSIDE of the U.S., you will face issues at the airport upon attempting to re-enter the US.
IF YOU ARE ASKED TO SIGN AN I-407 AT THE AIRPORT OR BORDER DO NOT SIGN IT, ASK FOR THE SUPERVISOR WHO HANDLES LPR ADMISSIONS. If you sign it, you will be giving up your green card.
Please keep looking for updates in the coming days to assess your travel options. If you are facing an emergency at the airport or are returning to the US in the coming days, please have our numbers on hand (Cleveland Office: 216.440.2247 or 216.830.2247; Columbus Office 614.451.3232 or CAIR National: 202.488.8787)
Whether you are a citizen or not, do not permit law enforcement to enter your home without a warrant. Even if they have a warrant, you should consult with an attorney before speaking to them. Get copies of business cards of all law enforcement officials.
What you can do to push back against this:
Call your members of Congress and the U.S. Senate at 202.224.3121 to ask them to speak out against anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant bigotry and oppose these Executive Orders.
Ask your mosque, school or civic group to invite CAIR to speak on the ‘Muslim Ban’. We will bring experienced immigration attorneys to explain the ramifications of this new Executive Order, as well as methods to mobilize community action against discrimination and Islamophobia.
Write an editorial, post, blog, and/or talk to people to keep spreading the fact that this executive order does nothing to actually make our country safer.
Cleveland & Northern Ohio
Note: This message does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.
CAIR-Ohio, Cleveland Chapter, 2999 Payne Avenue, Suite 220, Cleveland, OH 44114
MWP Member, Jules in Ohio
jules rensch commented on A Democratic Republic... 2017-01-27 15:55:27 -0500This quote, from a most famous American, led me to investigate the Modern Whig Party…..
“I have always been an old-line Henry Clay Whig” —Abraham Lincoln….
I like what I see, maybe you will too!
more info here: http://www.modernwhig.org/
jules rensch commented on We Are a Responsible Party 2017-01-26 16:30:11 -0500Great article…Thank you John for this synopsis of the what and the who of our Whig Party…
jules rensch commented on November Surprises 2017-01-29 04:09:18 -0500Thank you, Hank Thayer!
Your approach is both do-able & logical.
Everything you put forth depends on “valid compromise” an art form certainly missing in the past few years among the Republicans and Democrats.
I submit the following video as a way forward…it comes from an idea used within the World Baha’i Faith, enjoy:
MWP Supporter in Ohio
jules rensch commented on Why are Americans Searching for Third Parties 2016-10-27 19:19:09 -0400I like the Fair Tax…as used to achieve much success in some progressive nations…
jules rensch tagged Douglas Harvey's Career event for Vets in San Antonio with good 2016-06-03 09:37:27 -0400
Military MOJO will be hosting a career event for Veterans holding a degree on June 16th, 2016, in San Antonio, TX. Here's the link to their website: https://www.militarymojo.org/
jules rensch tagged Douglas Harvey's The following information regarding a scam targeting veterans was forwarded to me today... with good 2016-05-27 23:16:36 -0400
Zachary Becenti, a member of the Whig Veteran's Committee out of Texas just sent me a link to information regarding a scam targeting veterans. I've included the link at the end of this post. Please pass this information on to every veteran or serving military member that you may know. Here's the link: http://www.kens5.com/news/local/veteran-warning-other-vets-about-scam/216743856
jules rensch commented on Contact Us 2017-08-06 09:30:36 -0400Hello from Jules…
Has any progress been made is producing a hand-out piece of literature describing the various aspects of the MWP?
While the Modern Whig Party bumper sticker on my Ford is attracting attention and a bit of dialogue…it sure would be great to be able to hand out more info. Any thoughts?
Jules in Ohio
Questions? Comments? Constructive criticism? Please feel free to use the contact form here to get in touch with us directly.
One of our dedicated Modern Whig volunteers will respond to your inquiries as quickly as possible. We hope to connect with you soon.Submit
jules rensch commented on Public Libraries, the Patron Institute of the Modern Whig Party? 2016-07-27 14:14:05 -0400Great ideas…thank you James Lucky.
In exploring all avenues for promotion … we found MeetUp to be a great source of helpful info.
It worked wonders with our Libertarian Group and also some Spiritual groups , as well.
Generally, we selected a certain day of the month…posted the meeting on MeetUp.
Our groups met at Starbucks, a completely safe and quite non-threatening environment.
Good conversation, good coffee. Perfect!
We began with 3 members and ended with close to 100.
Venues can be changed…we even had some at the local park (weather permitting!
as ever, Observer Jules
jules rensch commented on Houston Opportunities? 2016-05-26 22:59:36 -0400Good luck Evan…Texas should be quite ready to accept the Modern Whig Party….noting the huge victory that Sen Ted Cruz accomplished over Donald Trump.
Wishing you well, respectfully, Observer Jules
jules rensch tagged Dylan Brown's A Historical Consideration of Significant Eras in the Supreme Court of the United States with good 2016-04-29 00:14:32 -0400
Throughout the history of the judicial system of the United States, different Supreme Court Justices have taken a different approach to the functions and abilities of our government. Over the 226 years of the Supreme Court’s existence there has been a multitude of different approaches to government which have been illustrated via their decisions on significant Supreme Court cases. These rulings can determine an immense amount about a justice’s political preferences, affiliation, and beliefs as a public officer in a critical office. One such example is our current Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts. In many respects, although Roberts is a Republican, he embodies many key attributes of a liberal and has, in the past, sided with many liberal policies. One example of Roberts more liberal side is his ruling in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in 2012. John Roberts’ decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act was absolutely pivotal in establishing his tendency and ability to side with pro-left and more liberal policy that have given him a more liberal appearance to many politicians over the last 4 years. Additionally, although Roberts has identified himself as a conservative Republican in the past, the modern Chief Justice has been approving plans that, by his fellow Republicans’ standards, have been relatively liberal. Although not all of Robert’ decisions have been liberal, his more pro-liberal stance in his conventional and expected rulings have lead many to hail him as a powerful moderate (and by some perceptions a possible emerging liberal). For example, Roberts’ ruling in the cases of Morse v. Frederick in 2007 and United States v. Stevens in 2010 were demonstrations of the moderate and liberal approach Roberts’ tends to take in his political rulings. This case specifically deals with the First Amendment and its applicability into messages that portray illegal activity or even violence. Contrary to Roberts’ claimed conservative stance, he makes a more moderate and liberal decision that such areas of speech are not conclusively protected by the First Amendment and this type of speech can be can be stopped and limited, a critical step in the evolution of jurisprudence of the modern Supreme Court. Another critical justice of the Supreme Court was Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren was pivotal in implementing several levels of liberalism in the Supreme Court of the 1950’s through 1960’s. Specifically, Warren’s career was marked by massive reform in the United States including the transition of African-American Civil Rights which witnessed the desegregation of public schools. This institution of desegregation is critical to the history of the nation and the ke court case that illustrated the liberality of Warren and his fellow justices was the Gideon v. Wainwright of 1963 and the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. Warren’s decision in the latter case was considered extremely liberal during its time and it encompassed the wider reforms made by the “Warren Court” under Warren’s office of Chief Justice. Another case that has made Warren a historically renowned liberal is his ruling in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp in 1963. This historically vital case centered around the constitutionality of bible readings in public schools, a common practice in america prior to the case. Warren’s decision, which concluded the case, made this action unconstitutional on the basis of its violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In this specific case the clause was used to explain that have school-sponsored religious practices is tantamount to forcing a religious ideology on a child and that it is not in anyway the right or responsibility of the school system to make any form of prayer and have children recite it in the school. According to the Cornell University Law School’s account of the case, Chief Justice Warren declared that “the First Amendment, in its final form, did not simply bar a congressional enactment establishing a church; it forbade all laws respecting an establishment of religion. Thus, this Court has given the Amendment a broad interpretation . . . in the light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress” The significance of Warren’s opinion in this case is the solidification of his liberal perspective on American law and the American judicial system. Moreover, Warren’s perspective on this religious topic reaffirms his predisposition to support secular liberalism, a position that believes in the firm separation of public affairs from the authority of spirituality and the church, during his time as Chief Justice. Along with Warren, another important and influential Chief Justice of the 20th century was William Rehnquist. Rehnquist was influential in his time for being a powerful Chief Justice and a conservative. Throughout his life as a Chief Justice, Rehnquist made several conservative and controversial rulings on cases along with holding relatively conservative views on religion and its necessity and implementation in the public. One of the most crucial examples of this was in Rehnquist’s fervent belief during his time as Justice in the constitutional division of authority between the states and the administrative national government, a concept also known as federalism. Throughout Rehnquist’s time as Associate then Chief Justice on the Supreme Court he advocated for politically pro-conservative policies. As a conservative Rehnquist fervently advocated, during his time on the Supreme Court, for the restitution of prayers in school after it had been taken away and revoked by his predecessor, Earl Warren. Rehnquist also made massive advocations and defences for the separation of government from certain issue; moreover, as a conservative Rehnquist fervently opposed overbearing national policies, and, as is typical of a conservative, advocated for less national regulation on many issues and comparatively smaller government. This sentiment was expressed in several landmark Supreme Court Cases. One such case was the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade. In this case, Rehnquist then an associate justice dissented the majority decision of on abortion law and claimed in his dissent that the United States and its law simply had no business in determining the life or death of a mother’s unborn child. To the conservative Rehnquist this was a flagrant violation of U.S. Constitutional protocol. Another similar dilemma, dealt with in the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, which identified the role the Supreme Court would play in analyzing cases in the future. To briefly summarize the impact of the case, the case was able to set an example upon which future case decision were predicated. Specifically, Rehnquist’s conservative opinions about the limitations of Supreme Court jurisdiction over issues stayed true through his time in office as an Associate Justice to his time as a Chief Justice. Another crucial Rehnquist case was the 1981 case of Rostker v. Goldberg. This case showed Rehnquist's conservatism in greater depth that other cases. The case was specifically based on the Rehnquist’s interpretation of the Constitution in concern to the fifth amendment of the United States. Specifically, it dealt with the ethics of having only men apply for selective service, which, in 1981, was a significant dilemma for the Supreme Court. By Rehnquist's (and the court’s) decision the selective service’s policy of only including men for potential service was within its rightful constitutional guidelines. In Rehnquist’s own words, “The Constitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” These words have resonated with the nation for over thirty years now and Rehnquist’s impact via his opinions and conservative predispositions has left an indelible precedent on the Supreme Court along with a lasting memory of Chief Justice Rehnquist. In the history of the U.S. Supreme Court there has also been a significant amount of strong and able Chief Justices during the 19th century as well. One prime example of this was Chief Justice John Marshall. Marshall, in his career on the Supreme Court, is often viewed as a conservative for the time in which he was a Chief Justice. A main point that supports this position is Marshall's strict and austere perspective on the use, utilization, and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In his words, Marshall declared in 1803, when ruling on Marbury v. Madison that “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” This perspective on the contents of the 1803 landmark Supreme Court case establishes the firm and relentless fervor of of John Marshall to uphold and interpret the Constitution in a strictly constructionist sense. Moreover, John Marshall’s ability to establish judicial review in the Supreme Court and uphold it throughout other court decisions was critical to the fledgling American judicial system. For example, Marshall’s court ruling in the 1824 case of Gibbons v. Ogden demonstrated the supremacy of the Constitution and the superiority of the Supreme Court in comparison to other laws established in lower courts. A similar assertion is made in the decision of the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case specifically, the concept of legal superiority and state superiority in law was heavily scrutinized. Under Marshall’s court, the ruling was in favor of the nation entity, the Second Bank of the United States and the ultimate verdict cited the Necessary and Proper (Elastic) Clause of the Constitution, effectively reiterating the supremacy of the highest law in the land being interpreted and viewed by the highest court in the land. This view of jurisprudence was central to Marshall’s core conservative and constitutional beliefs as Chief Justice that established his policies of abiding by the Constitution. The concepts of judicial review, constitutional interpretation, and austere promotion of constitutional law instituted by Marshall was able to set a firm judicial and legal precedent that is crucial in the establishment of American jurisprudence to this day. In addition to the name of John Marshall, Chief Justice Roger Taney was also a critical force in the U.S. Supreme Court during the 19th century. Most of Taney’s decisions in office revolved around the institution of slavery, which became a highly controversial subject during Taney’s time in office. From the perspective of political alignment, Taney is widely considered to be a conservative. Although Taney was, by political affiliation, a Democrat, the party ideals of the time were very different than what they are now and there is a massive difference between modern “liberal” Democrats and the quite conservative Democrats of the early 19th Century. In Taney’s career, as previously mentioned, many of his decision revolved around the highly controversial institution of slavery and the legal ramifications and liberties a slave had in the U.S. One of Taney’s most famous and important cases, the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford was a critical suit that was pivotal in lighting the flames that fomented a civil war. Moreover, this case demonstrated Taney’s conservatism, for like his predecessor Marshall, Taney based the majority of his controversial decisions off of the document that had been used consistently to guide American jurisprudence, the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, Taney ultimately sided against the case of Dred Scott and decided in 1863 that the black populace and their descendents in bondage possessed “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Many people in the modern-era of liberalism and freedom for the African-American race have referred to Taney as the “Leviathan of Slavery”, however, it was not his stubbornness to keep slavery, but rather his adherence to a constitution that did not disallow slavery or offer any equality to races that caused him to make such rulings as in the case of Dred Scott. Another important Taney decision made on the subject of slavery was the Prigg v. Pennsylvania of 1842. This case was extremely critical, firstly in its solidification and affirmation of the powers of the government over states and secondly, the ability of men to be taken from lands of freedom and returned to slavery and bondage. This case and issue specifically has fueled much historical debate over the ethics of the fugitive slave laws which were the main concern of the case.Similar, yet less known than the Dred Scott and Prigg cases was the 1837 case of Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge in which Taney analyzed a clause of Article I of the Constitution the Contract Clause. In the case the validity of a charter to build a bridge came under intense scrutiny by officials in the city of Boston. Taney, who ultimately ruled on the case, referred to the U.S. Constitution to formulate his verdict and took a textualized approach, citing direct information from the document to validate his court. Therefore, Taney as a Chief Justice was a relatively conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who used an extremely textualized interpretation of the Constitution to decide his cases, essentially drawing conclusions “by the book”. Therefore, throughout U.S. history there has been many trends in liberalism and conservatism in the Supreme Court. Each individual preference and fluctuation in political alignment has fascinatingly left its own unique legacy, precedent, and impact on the nation.
jules rensch commented on Next Road Trip... 2016-04-29 00:04:00 -0400face to face, always the best way to iron out problems,,,,
jules rensch commented on Donation Webpage 2016-04-08 11:35:32 -0400I found it easy and quick…thanks
jules rensch commented on Proposals for the Future of Public Health from a Modern Kansan Whig's Perspective. 2016-04-07 22:29:50 -0400Thank you for this most informative and enlightening take on Health concerns. Of course there are many facets to the challege before us.
Interestungly, the recent and very serious incident of contaminated water in Michigan comes to mind.
The poisoning of Americans as a direct result of poor government should be of paramount concern to the Modern Whig Party.
America first, Americans foremost, could be our newly found mantra.