Connect with us

Everything

Big government at the cost of freedom

Published

on

Freedom is the underlying principle that our nation was founded upon. It is what defines us as citizens of the United States of America, and is clearly spelled out in our country’s founding documents – the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Under those documents we are free from tyranny, free to choose a religion, free to not choose a religion, free to pursue life and happiness, free to openly disagree with and protest our government officials, and we are even free to defend ourselves from a corrupt government with violence if necessary. Sadly these freedoms are slowly disappearing from our nation, and they aren’t being taken – they are being surrendered – by us, the People. Consider the following.

You are at the mall, and you find some guy with his hand in your pocket in an attempt to pull out your wallet. This is how the conversation goes.

You: “Whoa! What are you doing?”

Guy: “I am just going to safeguard your wallet for you. There are a lot of pick-pockets in this mall, and I don’t want you to become a victim. Don’t worry. I will go wherever you go, keeping your wallet safe with me.”

You: “Oh, Ok. Thank God someone is looking out for me – wait! Why are you taking out that $1 bill?”

Guy: “I’m thirsty. If I am going to walk with you all day I need something to drink.”

You: “Yeah, I suppose that’s fair. While we are headed to the food court I could use something to eat – wait! What is that $20 bill for?”

Guy: “I gotta eat too. Did you forget that I am looking after the money? I can leave.”

You: “No, no. Don’t do that.”

*You walk to the food counter*

You: “I would like the Reuben sandw-“

Guy: “You will have the salad.”

You: “What!? Why?”

Guy: “A Reuben? Seriously?”

You: “Fine. Can I at least get a cookie?”

You’re an adult. It’s your own money and you just asked permission to buy a cookie with it.

The reality is the Guy represents our government, and the wallet is healthcare, retirement, education, parenting, marriage, etc. Our government can’t seem to keep its hands out of our own pockets in an attempt to gain more and more control, and the confused electorate in our nation keeps handing over our God-given rights to a corrupt, power-hungry political system all in the name of security.

Consider Social Security. We pay into the system our entire working lives. It is our money, we work for it, and we let the government take it only to tell us when we can use it. Control of our own retirement was surrendered. It was birthed out of complex issues, which makes unraveling it even more complex, therefore the alternative option requires much greater sacrifice now than it would have without Social Security. That alternative option being you invest your own money, however and with whoever you choose, at the rate you choose, and use it as you choose – you decide, not the government. Currently, our government allows us to receive Social Security benefits between ages 62 and 67. Any earlier age would require seeking permission through our Federal legislature. Furthermore, there is a growing deficit within this program which significantly threatens its continuity, ironically putting our social security in danger.

In spite of this glaring case-study we are now actively engaged in political battle over government control of healthcare. Several years ago, we surrendered our right to choose health insurance coverage, and the government gave us everything we should have expected – higher premiums and lower levels of care. However, I do find comfort in knowing that if I become pregnant (I’m a guy) I am covered because it is built into my insurance premium as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Fortunately, things could be much worse, for now. At least we aren’t the UK.

Not only does the United Kingdom have a single-payer healthcare system, effectively stripping its citizens of even more decision making power (a.k.a. – freedom) than here in the US, it also regularly intrudes on parents’ sovereignty as decision makers for their children. Combine those two issues and you get the Charlie Gard debacle – a truly despicable case involving a terminally ill infant with experimental treatment as his only chance at life. At least experimental treatment is an option though, right? Sorry, but that is not correct. UK courts decided not to allow the parents to transport the child to the US for such treatment, and ordered that he remain in the UK where no treatment is available. He was effectively sentenced to death, supposedly sparing him from further discomfort. His parents asked for permission, and were denied.

And for all of you social justice warriors out there (look away fellow evangelicals), we shouldn’t have to obtain the government’s permission to get married either. Heterosexual or not, why do we need a license to commit to a person we love for the rest of our lives? But if a certificate of marriage is important to you, and it should be, churches and other private organizations would be just as capable of issuing such certificates, sans government permission.

These are all clear examples of overreach by over-sized governments, and the correlation should be obvious – the bigger and more powerful the government the less freedom its citizens enjoy. The founding fathers of our nation did not determine that our freedoms were elective. Rather they knew our freedoms are God-given and endowed by our creator – and if creation isn’t your thing then they are endowed by your own human existence – which is why they went to such great lengths to preserve those freedoms in writing when our country was formed.

Don’t get me wrong. We need the government as an entity. We need it to maintain law and order by protecting the freedoms of its people, and punishing those who subvert them. We also need government to provide national security. But every time you advocate for the government to intervene or control social and personal issues you voluntarily surrender your own freedom for it to do so. Furthermore, private organizations and the free-market are far more powerful tools, and are far better suited to tackle those issues.

We are intelligent, full-grown adults capable of making decisions for ourselves. We don’t need big-brother government telling us how to live our lives any more than we need a chaperone at the mall. Our government is out of control, but it is not too late. We are the People. We elect our officials. We engage in political discussion. We can all be activists working to shrink our government to the size it was originally intended to be. The simple fact is government has no business meddling with certain issues, and you shouldn’t want it to.

Advertisement

0

Democrats

There will be no climate change debate because the DNC is scared of what would be said

Published

on

There will be no climate change debate because the DNC is scared of what would be said

Climate change activists were extremely vocal at the annual summer for the Democratic National Committee. They’re upset that climate change is effectively missing from the first two debates and have demanded a single-issue debate focused on the environment. But DNC leaders haven’t budged after declaring there would be no such debate.

This isn’t surprising. Conservatives may look at progressives and assume everyone in the Democratic Party is a flaming tree-hugger, but the reality is climate change ranks very low on the list of real concerns for actual voters. If it weren’t for the loud but small group of radical progressives who have been driving the agenda for the Democratic Party since President Trump was elected, climate change would still be an issue of passing importance on the periphery that it has been for decades.

It’s not that climate change isn’t a concern. It’s that it’s not a primary concern to most voters. Democrats are worried about it as they’re flooded with propaganda by progressive media, but compared to putting food on the table or paying for their kid’s braces, climate change is a distant concern.

Nevertheless, it’s an issue that’s important enough to talk about for Democrats because their party holds the edge on the matter in the eyes of anyone who believes it’s an issue at all. The ranks of Americans who believe man-made climate change is a real concern are growing. Polls show a majority of Americans who think it’s something that deserves attention are high even among Republicans. Considering the GOP stance on climate change ranges from mild interest to outright denial, one would think the Democrats would take advantage of this.

They won’t. They can’t. Today’s candidates aren’t Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton calling for incremental action to address climate change over the next three decades. Today’s leading candidates, especially Bernie “Green New Deal” Sanders and Elizabeth “Bold Action” Warren, are speaking of radical changes when they’re talking to their base. And lower ranked candidates are even more expressive of their concerns in hopes the environmentalist crowd can help propel them to the upper tier in the race for the nomination.

Candidates can’t speak boldly on a topic to their base and then give more moderate responses to a national audience. In today’s social-media-driven society, major contradictions are captured. They go viral. Then candidates have to answer for their reversals. Therefore, whatever the candidate tell radical progressives in small gatherings about their climate change plans must be the same thing they say during a nationally televised debate.

The DNC realizes this would be the kiss of death for their White House ambitions. If mainstream moderate American voters, who often receive their only exposure of candidates during televised debates, were to hear the insane ideas most of the candidates are proposing, they will quickly warm to the idea of reelecting President Trump.

The moment a candidate talks about limiting air travel, they’ve lost 2020.

The first Democrat to say we need to be driving electric cars exclusively by 2030 will get demolished in the general election.

Some may point out these policy proposals are available to the public already, but availability does not highlight the issue to the vast majority of Americans. But on the debate stage where consistency must be maintained, they’re done the moment they announce their real perspectives on the issue.

If moderates and independents heard the things Democratic candidates were proposing to tackle climate change, any hope of beating President Trump would be lost. The DNC won’t risk letting the radical truth come out in a debate.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Tucker Carlson: Moderates aren’t welcome in the Democratic Party anymore

Published

on

Tucker Carlson Moderates arent welcome in the Democratic Party anymore

It’s true. If you’re a moderate, your ideas are anathema to the Democratic Party. Oh, there are still moderate Democratic voters out there. Otherwise, Joe Biden wouldn’t be leading the polls, though even Biden has taken several pages out of the hyper-leftist policy playbook since announcing his candidacy in April. But the radical progressive wing of the party is taking over and many Democratic voters are following their lead.

This is why, as Tucker Carlson put it, this is a two-person race. Which radical will emerge at the end, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? Warren has had the upper hand since the debates, but Sanders hopes his more-radical Green New Deal proposal will resonate with the far left enough that they’ll give him back his mantle as the socialist of choice.

Noteworthy in Carlson’s commentary is the fact that the DNC declined having a climate change debate. Why? Because the last thing they want is for their candidates to be spouting off radical proposals to deal with climate change on national television. They don’t mind it when candidates are talking to the base, but considering many Americans have their only exposure to the candidates during the ultra-hyped televised debates, the DNC doesn’t want the candidates scaring moderates towards the Republicans.

Conservatives were so concerned about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and rightfully so. But this new batch of Democratic presidential candidates are completely detached from reality. It’s radical progressivism or hit the road for today’s Democrats.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

CNN hits rock bottom as highest rated show ranks 27th in cable news rankings

Published

on

CNN hits rock bottom as highest rated show ranks 27th in cable news rankings

The business of promoting Democrats and bashing on President Trump, also known as progressive legacy media, has achieved new levels of failure for CNN. Their highest rated show on cable news rankings was Cuomo Prime Time. It ranked 27th.

Also included on CNN’s resume of shame is the fact that the bottom 12 of the 52 shows rated belonged to them.

Fox News lead the way with eight of the top ten. MSNBC scored the #4 ranking with The Rachel Maddow Show and #6 with The Last Word with Larry O’Donnell. For Fox News, Hannity, Tucker Carlson Tonight, and The Five were #1, #2, and #3 respectively.

The President chimed in on CNN’s continued woes:

What makes this funnier is Cuomo’s show is CNN’s top rated, but only because of time slot. He still has half the audience of Maddow, whose audience is lower than Hannity’s. Even CNN’s one bright spot is an epic failure.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending