Connect with us

Federalists

JD Rucker on Obamacare replacement bill and federalism

Published

on

JD Rucker on Obamacare replacement bill and federalism

EIC JD Rucker took a different approach than normal while making his point about the Graham-Cassidy Obamacare replacement bill. He compared recent announcements by members of the GOP that the bill was “federalism” with a false claim that undercooked chicken is medium rare.

When steak is medium rare, it’s edible (and delicious to some). When chicken is “medium rare,” it’s actually still just undercooked chicken that shouldn’t be ingested because it’s dangerous.

If Graham-Cassidy is federalism, undercooked chicken is medium rare.

Take a peek at the story over on the Federalist Party website:

If Graham-Cassidy is federalism, undercooked chicken is medium rare | JD Rucker, Federalist Party

http://thefederalistparty.org/2017/09/19/graham-cassidy-federalism-undercooked-chicken-medium-rare/America needs a plan that removes the economic burden of Obamacare as well as DC’s socialist-leanings on healthcare. We need a bill that says federal-operated healthcare doesn’t work and we’re going to remove DC from the equation altogether over the next X years. DC-run healthcare will lead to single-payer. Calls for it will increase faster than insurance premiums (which will rise quickly). We need DC out of the healthcare business and Graham-Cassidy does the exact opposite. It plants DC in the middle of healthcare indefinitely.

 

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

Published

on

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

When Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) hadn’t been in Washington DC for very long when he said this amazing quote. At the time, many weren’t paying much attention. After all, many Republicans say similar things when they get to DC, but over time they become jaded, corrupted, or start to get used to being in the DC Country Club.

Amash is different. He has remained consistent with his message and views throughout his career. Now, it’s time for other Republicans to remember what they were sent to Washington DC to do in the first place. Defense of the Constitution is their top priority as it’s the best protection against a government that wants desperately to control every aspect of our lives. From healthcare to the internet to how we use our energy, government intervention has become so commonplace, it’s often hard to see the fabric of our nation behind all the layers of bureaucracy that has been placed on top of it.

“I follow a set of principles, I follow the Constitution. And that’s what I base my votes on. Limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty.”

If more Republicans followed the same principles and didn’t just use them in campaign speeches, we may actually be able to return liberties that have been taken and remove layers of government that have been formed unnecessarily.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Federalists

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Published

on

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Vice President Mike Pence has been a strong proponent for federalism throughout his political and radio careers. While he may have had to push his federalist leanings aside while in the White House as his boss feels the need to expand DC power, but at his core I believe he’s still a federalist.

DC power is out of control. States, cities, and most importantly individual Americans need to do whatever we can to rein in the federal government. They believe they know best despite clear evidence they don’t.

“Our founders insisted that protecting the states’ power to govern themselves was vital to limit the power of Washington and preserve freedom.”

Continue Reading

Federalists

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

Published

on

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

There’s a false narrative circulating that claims sanctuary cities are an example of the proper use of federalism that keeps law enforcement powers in the hands local, city, county, and state governments as it pertains to illegal immigrant sanctuary status. On the surface, this argument may actually make sense to some. Dig a little deeper and it’s clearly not what federalists should embrace.

Briefly, federalism is the belief that powers should be shared between all levels of government starting with the individual and family unit at the top of the pyramid and working its way down to the bottom level, the federal government. When it was first pushed by the founding father federalists such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, they fought to make sure the federal government had enough power to be relevant, as their opposition basically wanted states to have all the power. Today federalist tenets have had to refocus on taking powers away from a bloated federal government and return them to the states, counties, cities, communities, and, of course, the individual.

Proponents of sanctuary areas say they’re simply following the principles of limited government federalism by choosing to ignore federal-initiated holds for illegal immigrants who are detained by local jurisdictions. This is false federalism because it suffers from one major flaw.

For states-rights to kick in, one very important criteria must be met. The actions of one location cannot be allowed to have a major detrimental effect on another location. The federal government should only get involved in states’ affairs when their actions influence other states. Such is the case with sanctuary cities and states. Criminal illegal immigrants are not stuck in the city that ignored the federal hold orders. When they release a criminal illegal immigrant, they’re allowing them to roam free across the nation. That means the actions of a state like California can cause harm to residence of neighboring states.

We’re not talking about residents in a state without legal marijuana crossing into another state to buy a joint. We’re talking about people who have entered the country illegally, broken our right to sovereignty, and who pose a clear and present danger to American citizens.

Moreover, it creates an atmosphere of unfairness. As a legal immigrant to the United States, I receive no sanctuary in California. If I have a federal warrant against me and I’m detained for, say, drunk driving in California, they’re not going to release me so I can avoid my federal warrant. If I were an illegal immigrant instead, they would. How backwards is it that my rights as an American citizen are lower than the rights of an illegal immigrant?

Let’s not confuse the real issue, here. This is all about power. The sentiment towards illegal immigrants is both backwards and illogical in cities and states that offer sanctuary to them. Yet politicians know many will continue to vote for them in states like California because to most leftists, hurt feelings are more powerful than actual facts.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report