It never ceases to amaze me… the value the Left places on those who have done little to nothing to earn their way in the world, and the utter lack of regard for those who work hard and struggle because of government interference. The only time liberals adore success is when it comes from a Hollywood Leftist who hasn’t had to struggle to pay bills in years.
This issue manifested itself in the last week as Jimmy Kimmel, the mediocre comedian and late-night talk show host decided he didn’t like the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill. Many, if not most, true conservatives don’t like the bill either, as it leaves massive taxation in the hands of the federal government.
As JD Rucker, co-founder of the Federalist Party said:
“We’re working on a Federalist plan for healthcare for two reasons. First, the Graham-Cassidy debacle is pseudo-federalism. It only gives a little more say to individuals, businesses, and states when they should have all the say. Second, we won’t make the same mistake the GOP made: being granted control by the people, then squandering it by not having a plan ready from the beginning.”
Well, it’s nice to know SOMEONE has a plan for taking control out of the hands of the inept federal government, because it sure isn’t the GOP and it certainly isn’t the Democrats.
That aside, it’s amazing how Kimmel is adored by the Left for his statements solely because his child needed open heart surgery. Many people’s children need expensive surgeries and other medical treatments, and most of them are in nowhere near as good a position financially as Kimmel is financially to pay for those surgeries out of pocket.
Rucker’s son, Jacob, had a condition much like Kimmel’s son. Here’s what he had to say:
“My son had a similar situation as Kimmel’s. He needed open heart surgery a week after he was born. He was treated by the same doctor in the same hospital. What Kimmel won’t tell you because he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care is that this private hospital funded by private donations has always helped people who can’t pay for procedures. Obamacare didn’t change that. Repealing it won’t change that, either.
“America doesn’t need federal health insurance meddling to protect the most vulnerable. It needs families, communities, and states to work together on solutions that don’t include unelected DC bureaucrats declaring who gets treatment, what treatment they’re allowed to get, and who has to pay for it.”
Health insurance has long been costly, but that’s because the United States has been at the forefront of cutting edge medicine for decades. You get what you pay for, and the American health care system is second to none.
Further, if there is an emergency, no one is denied care thanks to laws already in place and the generosity of Americans, just as Rucker pointed out. The liberal narrative of people dying in the streets is simply not true. I certainly don’t remember finding dead people in the streets prior to the enactment of Obamacare, but I sure know plenty of people who are in despair over being able to pay their healthcare bills since Obamacare became law.
Stories have abounded for years since the Affordable Care Act’s passage that people could no longer afford the health care plans that used to sustain their families. Even if they could, the plans were often found to be “unacceptable” under the terms of the ACA. This of course put the lie to President Obama’s “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” statement which was repeated ad nauseum. Most reporters for most of the major media outlets have glossed over what may be the most blatant lie in modern political history, despite the plethora of stories available that demonstrate Obama’s claim to have been a lie.
The news media and the rest of the liberal intelligencia continually give credence to the distorted views of people like Kimmel, whose stances are in no way based in reality, while ignoring hard working Americans struggling to make it, the very people who have suffered under Obamacare. The reason for this is obvious… The whole debate isn’t really about providing healthcare, nor is it even about who pays for healthcare, which is a separate, but more relevant issue to the healthcare discussion. It’s about what every debate between the Left and their teammates, and the neocons in the Republican party verses actual conservatives is about: it is about control verses freedom. It’s about the government deciding what is best for the individual verses the individual deciding what is best for his or her family.
The Democrats want single-payer healthcare. I don’t think this is a secret. If we can all just accept this basic premise, it will allow for more honest debate. The question is WHY they want single-payer.
Those pushing single-payer will tell you that they do so because they want healthcare to be free for everyone, and for everyone to have equal access to it. The people who push this narrative fall into one of two categories: 1) people who are ignorant and don’t understand how horrible single-payer has been everywhere it has been tried or 2) those who know this, but are deliberately lying.
Single-payer means that the government pays for everything, but because the government is the only one paying, the government also decides what healthcare is worth funding, plus what the patients are worth funding. Many doctors already won’t accept Medicaid because it pays so little. Many doctors do accept Tricare, the military’s insurance, but only out of a sense of patriotism, as it’s often not cost effective to do so. Medicare is equally as problematic as Tricare, but Medicare lacks the patriotism factor to back it up.
Do you think our “best and brightest” will continue to become doctors if they are paid a pittance? Of course they won’t. The greatest healthcare system in the world will no longer exist as we now know it should doctor pay be controlled by the Federal government. Right now, those with means to do so in single-payer countries come here to America to receive medical treatment. Why is that? Because it takes too long to get the treatment they need in their own countries, and because any treatment which is received in their home countries is typically substandard.
The Left embraces the arguments of the Jimmy Kimmels of the world and rejects those of the JD Ruckers of the world for one reason: one argument fits their narrative, the other doesn’t. One argument leads to control over our lives and even our deaths, the other doesn’t.
Hey, Mr. Kimmel- How about a solution where WE control our fates, not the Federal government? Or, at minimum, how about all of the people who have never given a “fig” about WE the people just stay out of our lives? Wouldn’t THAT be a novel idea? Eh, Jimmy?
Still, that would take a miracle: a miracle where the majority of Americans want to do things for themselves, not expecting someone else to do it for them. Far too many feel entitled, and they’re the ones that fall into the first category I spoke above. They are the ones who have called for a soothing lie they so wish to believe, and they’ve done so out of ignorance. Graham-Cassidy IS bad for our country, but not for the reasons Jimmy Kimmel says, and Obamacare is equally as bad. What we need is for the federal government to limit themselves to the powers vested to it in the Constitution. Healthcare is nowhere even close to being a Constitutional power of the Federal government.
Speaking with my father, principled man if there ever was one (I have an upcoming article about that), while I was writing this article, he told me that he didn’t think we could go back to what we had before Obamacare. Or, can we?” If his initial thought is true, then we are on a road with no turns, and full-blown socialism is in our near future… and I see that future. I don’t like it. It looks like Venezuela. Don’t believe me? Wait a few years. You know who you’ll have to thank for that paradise? Media types like Jimmy Kimmel, living happily in their mansions while we the peasants starve. Hardworking businessmen like Rucker who have been through the same situation will have had their warnings ignored.
In Lieu of what is Right – An Interview with Dr. Ken Wright
One of the most vapid and reliably anti-Constitutionalist members of Congress is known to anyone who takes to Twitter, Ted Lieu, of the California 33rd Congressional District, suddenly has a staunch conservative to square off against. I got to sit down for about an hour over the phone with Dr. Ken Wright, who was one of the most interesting interviews I’ve done this year (and after Erin Cruz, Austin Petersen, Shane Hazel, and Hunter Hill, that is saying something).
Dr. Wright is a renowned pediatric ophthalmologist who is invited to teach all over the world. For that reason (sorry doc) I thought he might have the demeanor of a college professor. Analytical without a lot of passion. I was right about the analytical part. I was dead wrong about the lack of passion. This is a man who in no way needs to run for Congress, but instead sees it as a public service that he is willing to take on to make the world better for his family and for all of ours as well. It’s probably worth noting that one of the most respected and freedom-oriented members of the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul, is also an ophthalmologist. I also have an acquaintance here in my home town who is a Constitutionalist and an ophthalmologist. There seems to be a pattern here.
I found Dr. Wright to be authentic, passionate about Constitutional freedoms, and a man who will not be bullied by anyone. He supports much of what President Trump is trying to do, however I have no trouble believing he would stand up to the President should he go off the rails. The people of the California 33rd would do well to put a man of such integrity into office, and with him get rid of one of the most staunchly anti-freedom members of the US House of Representatives, Ted Lieu.
BW: What specific experience and education make you feel makes you the most qualified to be a Congressman?
KW: With the present state of our representatives I think as long as you have a pulse you could do a better job. They’re bought. The special interest lobbyists are running the show. Any good, ethical citizen could do a better job and do what is right for the people.
**I needed to take a moment to stop laughing at this answer. It was funny because it’s true.**
I’m a pediatric ophthalmologist. I know people all over the world since I travel for teaching in my field. I was awarded a service medal from the President of Panama after Noriega was ousted due to the work I was doing there. I’m a doctor, and doctors use data and facts to make decisions. We don’t put a Band-Aid on an infection and expect it to go away. Dems in inner cities have made people dependent for more than 50 years with no way out and they end up in gangs or living on welfare. Let’s get factories into the inner-cities. Let’s get them jobs instead of food stamps and a few bucks. I want to actually solve problems instead of creating a never-ending cycle of dependency.
BW: What specific issues will be your main focus if elected?
KW: Immigration is a huge problem right now. President Trump gave Congress the job to put together a real plan for DACA and they’ve done nothing. We need a clear policy regarding immigration. To my mind we need to secure the border. Without that we have open borders. We need a wall for at least part of the southern border. It worked in Israel. Then you can think about what to do with 13 million illegals.
Whether they were invited by the government or not, many illegals came here because we wanted people to come here; we wanted them to do certain jobs like pick crops or be a housekeeper, and it would be wrong to send them all home after so many years. That said, criminals with so much as a DUI have to go. This is my problem with sanctuary cities; they allow criminal illegals to roam free and harm our citizens. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but rather an American problem.
The largely law abiding that we choose to let stay can get in line behind everyone else and perhaps pay some fines and do some service, but they shouldn’t be able to get to the head of the line like so many Democrats want, and they certainly shouldn’t be given blanket amnesty.
Healthcare is a big issue, mostly because the Democrats have made it that way with Obamacare. Despite what the Democrats say, there were never bodies lying in the street before Obamacare. No one is turned away from any emergency room. Everyone can get care. Not everyone needs health insurance. If you’re a 20 year old on your first job and in good health, perhaps you don’t need to spend money on health insurance, and it’s wrong for the government to force you to subsidize health insurance for others. We need to repeal McCarron-Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from most federal regulation including anti-trust laws. That would allow real free-market competition back.
BW: What failures do you feel have been made on the part of Ted Lieu?
**Note: I asked Dr. Wright to please try to keep this to a top 5 list… I know I could write an article just on this question**
KW: When the Syrian war was really going on he wanted to bring 200K refugees from Iraq and Syria and voted against the SAFE Act. That’s dangerous for America.
He doesn’t protect America first. He wants open borders. He’s for sanctuary cities. He votes against Kate’s Law every time it comes up. He has sponsored legislation for no-money bail, saying bail is unfair to the poor, yet judges can take that into consideration. He wants to take the discretion away from the judges.
He’s a hypocrite. On his web site the number one issue he talks about is climate change. And yet, when he was a state senator he accepted $13K from real estate developers who wanted to build a new stadium, and then he co-sponsors a bill to exempt the real estate developers from environmental regulations. He’s a career politician and has never had a real job in his life. I’ve had a real job. I’ve run a business and put people to work.
BW: What political challenges do you face and how do you plan to overcome them?
Well, District 33 is only 24% Republicans, which has discouraged the GOP and the GOP wasn’t even going to run someone in 2016. However, there’s almost 30% here with no party preference. I was able to take 37% in 2016 and I didn’t have a real organization. I have a whole organization this time and I think winning this district is doable.
BW: With the current debate over gun-control, what are your thoughts?
KW: Well this isn’t an easy issue. I think we all, or at least most, agree a civilian doesn’t need to own a surface-to-air missile. At the same time, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about being able to resist a tyrannical government. We need to find a balance. I think for certain weapons perhaps some form of mental evaluation might be in order. The problem is the Democrats always want to take it too far. Instead of making things simple and wanting to implement legislation that might actually save lives they are intent on disarming the population.
BW: There has been a lot of debate over President Trump’s tariffs. How do you feel about them.
KW: Great question. Would you agree that it is equally wrong for one to hire someone to commit murder as it is to commit murder yourself?
KW: Well by the same token, if it’s wrong for us to use slave labor to make our products, it’s equally wrong for us to allow China and other countries to use slave labor without any kind of penalty. The Chinese have a miles long factory where people were crammed into tiny rooms to live and work. It was so miserable that people were jumping to their deaths. Know what the Chinese government did? They put up nets outside the building so that people couldn’t even kill themselves to get away. It’s that miserable and yet we are profiting from it in the form of cheaper goods. You’ll notice that the President isn’t imposing these tariffs on Europe or Canada or other nations that play by the rule of civilized behavior.
BW: I’m personally very much against tariffs, but I have to admit that I never thought about it that way.
KW: Most people don’t.
BW: I ask this of all California candidates since your state pretty much has been the leader on this issue: What about legalization of Marijuana?
The half-life of marijuana is 3-4 days. If you smoke 2 or 3 times a week then the half life becomes about 2-3 weeks. Alcohol is metabolized much faster. I think it should be available but through a pharmacy, and not in smoking form. Physicians were encouraged to give more opioids for pain management and they found it to be profitable. This has led toward a lax attitude toward drugs. Marijuana should be available to those who need it, but we can’t be so careless with how it’s used.
BW: What do you want the people of the California 33rd to know about you?
KW: Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that we are Americans first. Vote for someone who has the moral fiber to do what is right. Don’t vote for someone just because they might be at your end of the ideological spectrum.
You can learn more about Dr. Ken Wright by clicking here.
Kamala Harris: “Stop slaughtering babies! Abortions OK”
You may have missed it amid the wall-to-wall coverage of the Parkland shooting and the CNN Town Hall, but Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) has become pro-life — she just hasn’t realized it yet.
Two days after the massacre, Senator Harris told MSNBC, “We cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.” This just two weeks after she helped defeat a 20-week abortion ban in the Senate.
Apparently, Senator Harris, a staunch pro-abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood donation recipient, couldn’t hear the cognitive dissonance, referring to deceased teenagers as “babies,” while almost one million actual babies are literally being slaughtered every year.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the United States saw 926,200 abortions in 2014, of which Planned Parenthood claims 323,999 — about one-third. In the same year, total gun homicides (including gang and drug related, all age groups, and the tiny fraction that is mass shootings) totalled only 11,000.
926,200 to 11,000 — even 323,999 to 11,000 — is not even a close contest. Babies are being slaughtered, Kamala, but not the ones you care about.
Harris’s appeals to deceased children contributed to increasing cries for a boycott of the NRA, but pro-lifers on Twitter such as Steven Crowder and Devin Sena were quick to point out the irony of supporting a murder mill that receives over $540 million in taxpayer funding while berating a much less influential group whose purpose lies in defending basic constitutional rights and has never killed a single human being.
But let’s take Senator Harris at her word; in the aforementioned interview, she insisted, “When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding, this cannot be a political issue. We have to be practical.”
All right then, let’s look at what happens to a baby when it’s aborted.
Below there are diagrams of abortion procedures, but no actual photographs, as even I can hardly stomach looking at that horror or putting it on my website. Here’s one in an article on partial-birth abortions, and I’m sure you can find othersfairly easily if you really want to “shock some people into understanding.”
Let’s start with partial-birth abortions, also known as “dilation and extraction,” wherein the baby (read: living human child with its own DNA) is partially delivered through the birth canal until its head gets in the way, at which stage the abortionist stabs the baby through the back of the head, vacuums out the child’s brains, causes the skull to collapse, and removes the baby-shaped tumor, deeming the operation a success.
Next up is dilation and evacuation, a slight variant of the previous process, whereby the clump-of-cells-with-a-unique-heartbeat-and-pain-receptors is arbitrarily snipped to pieces by an abortionist with a toothy clamp and the leech’s body parts are ripped from the womb one at a time until he (or most likely “she” in many cultures) has fully exited the birth canal.
You may notice that I employed varying levels of sarcasm throughout that discussion, as this is and ought to be an intensely difficult topic to discuss. It’s disturbing, horrifying, and disheartening.
But Senator Harris is right, even if in the wrong way. We cannot just stand by as babies are being slaughtered, and if takes brutally direct language and agonizing photographs to “shock some people into understanding,” then so be it.
Almost one million babies are murdered in the United States every year. If that fact is less viscerally disgusting to me than seeing a picture of a premature child, then that’s a problem I need to work on.
The Guardian: Pro-lifers are “pro-death”
Today, on the 45th anniversary of Roe Vs. Wade, The Guardian published an article entitled, “Let’s call pro-lifers what they are: pro-death.”
The article states that the pro-life movement has, by adopting its very name, caused “the battle over reproductive rights” to take on “an apocalyptic tone.” This rhetoric, the article states, “turns every clash between the two sides [pro-life vs. pro-abortion] into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil.”
It is only by using debunked and “mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide,” the article claims, pro-lifers claim that they are protecting the lives of both the unborn and the mothers. The article does not acknowledge “academic studies dating back to the 1950s show that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer,” as were noted last year in the highly respected journal First Things, nor does the Guardian article acknowledge what psychologists have termed Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS).
“We should take back the mantle of life.”
Using a 2015 article from NPR, the Guardian claims that “the US now bears the ghastly distinction of having the highest maternal mortality rate of all the world’s wealthy democracies.” The Guardian article maligns the maternal mortality rate in the United States, linking the mortality rate with laws imposing abortion restrictions.
Contrary to the article’s claim that maternal mortality rate is directly related to restrictions on abortions, however, the CIA World Factbook shows multiple countries which, having more restrictions on abortion than the US, have lower maternal mortality rates. These countries include Norway, Denmark, Poland, Sweden, Austria, and Germany, to name just a few.
The authors proceed to list various circumstances that may lead to the death of the mother. For example:
“Take the not-at-all-hypothetical case of a woman who wants an abortion because of a pre-existing health condition, like diabetes, that could lead to problems with pregnancy…”
The article concludes with the following exhortation.
“And surely the time has come to raise the charge that the “pro-life” movement is, in effect, pro-death.”
Ever since the anti-abortion movement claimed the “pro-life” label in the 1970s, the battle over reproductive rights has taken an apocalyptic tone. If the anti-abortion side is pro-life, then the other side – the millions of women who rally every January to keep abortion legal and safe – must be composed of the gaunt, gray-winged handmaidens of death.
This polarizing rhetoric turns every clash between the two sides into a prelude to Armageddon, the final showdown between life and death, good and evil. When charged with caring only for life in its fetal form, the anti-abortion side hoists its mythological claim that abortion is a risk factor for breast cancer, lifelong depression and suicide. Thus they can say that they do not only save fetal lives, but the lives of the women who carry these fetuses.
If I had to sum up a pro-lifer’s response to this article in one word, it would be celebration.
The pro-life movement is the only movement dominated, run, and lead by women; the only movement dedicated solely to saving lives and caring for women. The “pro-lifers” have earned their name with righteous labor and a glorious mission.
This is a battle “between life and death, good and evil.”
The fact the pro-abortion advocates are now attempting to re-frame “pro-lifers” as being “pro-death” shows the world precisely how effective the pro-life movement has been.
Make no mistake: this effort towards re-branding is nothing other than a sign of weakness.
This, I believe, is worth celebrating!
NOQ Report Daily
Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control
The AAF is the NFL’s newest worry
An open letter to MAGA – Read it all
Dear Illinois Conservatives, what is the Repubican Party accomplishing for you?
Breaking: survivors are experts on everything
Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?
Video: We are fighting the Left, not Liberals – Dennis Prager.
Steven Crowder: Male privilege is a myth
PragerU Video: Why I Left the Left
Video: What is Socialism (and why It’s closely tied to Gun Confiscation)
Mike Pence defends President Trump’s comments
President Trump on Roe v. Wade
Rich Lowry on Dick Durbin’s desire to make a DACA deal work
Thomas Homan on California becoming a ‘sanctuary state’
Leon H. Wolf on both major parties growing government and budgets
Democrats1 day ago
The Money Pit: California’s not-so-high-speed rail
Guns and Crime1 day ago
My city is conducting covert taxation by shaking us down. I bet yours is too!
Democrats11 hours ago
Breaking: survivors are experts on everything
Politics2 days ago
Michigan’s Tenth Amendment defiance of Trump and the GOP
Federalists11 hours ago
Dear Illinois Conservatives, what is the Repubican Party accomplishing for you?
Everything10 hours ago
An open letter to MAGA – Read it all
Culture and Religion4 hours ago
Sheepdogs, Guardians and Liberty control
Entertainment and Sports7 hours ago
The AAF is the NFL’s newest worry