Connect with us

Healthcare

Can Marsha Blackburn finally do what Republicans have been promising for three years?

Published

on

Can Marsha Blackburn finally do what Republicans have been promising for three years

Defunding Planned Parenthood‘s abortion business has been a top priority for conservatives ever since undercover videos were released of them and their cronies selling body parts from aborted fetuses. But very little progress has been made on Capitol Hill to accomplish this goal despite having control over the House, Senate, and White House for two years.

Now, a freshman Senator is taking a shot at getting it done. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced her first bill, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. It will strip federal funding of all on-demand abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood.

My Take

I admire what Blackburn is trying to do, but it’s still so disappointing that this was a campaign priority for years without being a real priority for Republicans. They barely even attempted to get it done when they had the chance. Now, they face the uphill battle of getting it done with Democrats in charge of the House.

In other words, it’s more symbolic than anything else. Chances of its House counterpart even receiving a vote are slim and likely would only happen to get future candidates on record for, you guessed it, campaign purposes.

Even those who are not adamantly opposed to abortion on-demand should realize the hypocrisy of receiving government funding for their services. Lest we forget, Planned Parenthood is a Democratic donor juggernaut, which means tax dollars are used to subsidize their business while profits are used to get more Democrats elected. It’s a joke.

Stopping abortion will require a long legislative and judicial battle, but at least we can stop giving taxpayer dollars to those who empower the murder of preborn babies. Marsha Blackburn is doing what she promised. If more politicians were like her, we could get somewhere.

Advertisement

0

Healthcare

Funny numbers: California projections show taxpayers will only pay $99 per month per illegal immigrant covered

Published

on

Funny numbers California projections show taxpayers will only pay 99 per month per illegal immigrant

Healthcare is very expensive. It was expensive before Obamacare. It was made much more expensive as a result of Obamacare. But apparently it’s not expensive for adult illegal immigrants in California under the age of 25. For them, it apparently only costs $1,100 per year.

According to Fox News:

Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif., signed a bill into law on Tuesday making young illegal immigrants eligible for the Medicaid program in California, making it the first state to offer such taxpayer-funded health benefits to low-income adults age 25 and younger regardless of their immigration status.

State officials said they expected the plan to cover about 90,000 people and cost taxpayers $98 million. California already covered children 18 and younger regardless of immigration status.

[Emphasis added]

Those of us who buy health insurance realize there’s no chance of getting even basic healthcare for $1,100 per year ($1,088.88, to be exact) or $99 per month. If there is, then someone has some major explaining to do about how our costs are so much higher than those of illegal immigrants. Are the just getting sick less? Do their drugs cost less than our drugs? What gives, California?

I’ll go ahead and call BS on this one. If Californians believe Democrats when they say it will only cost $1,100 a year for each illegal immigrant given free health insurance, then they deserve the wool that’s over their eyes.

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

Culture and Religion

My Dog My Choice

Published

on

My Dog My Choice

Perhaps you have purchased or adopted a dog, rescued a dog even. That dog is yours. If someone harms your dog, they have wronged you and can be taken to court to pay, perhaps even face criminal charges. The dog is your property, and an injustice took place. Under the ideas of John Locke, the state exists to navigate and interpret the injustices that take place. The state is therefore equipped to handle, to whatever capacity the individual state employs, the injustice that takes place. What greater injustice is there than the loss of innocent human life?

Humanization of Animals

If we were to assemble a hierarchy of the value of each animals, dogs would likely rank near the top. After all, the relationship to mankind, through domestication, is the most developed and serves the most functions out of any animal. The trainability of dogs has led to the increase of their value and capacity for humans to have an emotional connection to them. The value we therefore place on our dogs is disproportionately higher than that of other animals.

Our society has humanized animals, most specifically dogs, to rather disturbing levels. Now you do you, for your dog is your property. But the value of a dog is subjectively higher than the value of other items that are also property. For instance, numerous states have laws voiding the liability of someone who rescues a dog from a hotbox car on a hot summer day. You can damage someone’s property to save their property and face no charges.

What if the dog’s owner valued their car window above their own dog? What gives you the right to intervene? What gives the government the right to strip the dog owner the right to sue for damages? What gives the government the right to prosecute animal abuse, if animals are the property of their owners? The anarchist-capitalist crowd has no convincing answer for how animal cruelty can be addressed as they can provide with other crimes. However, the establishment of the state allows the state to address injustices which otherwise could not be interpreted well in a stateless community. Animals are property, but animal cruelty is the result of people abusing their own property for no other cause than cruelty and neglect.

What is the argument for abortion?

The main, remaining, argument for abortion is autonomy. My body my choice. The argument equates abortion to an elective surgery. After all, if they say an unborn fetus is not a person, terminating it is equivalent to Kim Kardashian-West’s butt implants. But the Left can’t describe what “it” is. If it’s not a person, what is it? Rick Santorum got silence in response when he asked this question. Pro abortionist often have not taken their beliefs to their logical conclusion.

Despite science, humans have declared something can be a separate human but not a person until increasingly arbitrary standards such as viability or now birth have been met. But even if a scientifically separate human being is not a moral person, what then is that separate human being? And more importantly, what value does a human being that’s not a person have? My body, my choice. My dog, my choice. Surely a human life is more than a dog’s life even if that human is not the moral equivalent of a person. For mankind is separated from animals, by means of divine creation or the process of evolution; these are two answers to the obvious distinction between man and beast.

Where personhood defines the value of a human being as inherently more than that of an animal, what is the value of a human being that is not a person? Just because a fetus, the pro-abortionists have declared, is not a person, does not mean that the human life does not have value. For if human beings are above animals should that also mean that human life regardless of personhood holds a superior value to animal life? So what then gives you the right to poison this human life? What then gives you the right to inject this human being with a drug that kills it? What then gives you the right to drain the amniotic fluid and dismember the human being as you rip it from the uterus?

Autonomy. That is the answer of the pro-abortion crowd.

Autonomous Tyranny

Initially I wanted to refer to this as privatized tyranny, but autonomous tyranny is a far better, far more applicable to the realms of animals and slavery. The idea that you can do whatever you want to that which is in your domain, even to the point of tyranny, is autonomous tyranny. Where else do we as a society allow autonomous tyranny to exist? The divine right of parents has long been extinguished. There are limits to parental powers and the need to mitigate the abuse of children necessitates these limits for an injustice has occurred when children are abused. The concept of owning a fellow human being has been eradicated, placing yet another limit on autonomous tyranny. So what remains?

Puppies and unborn babies. No! Because puppies have protections, we prosecute people who abuse puppies. But people who murder unborn babies have committed a far more egregious offense, for the value of human life is greater than that of a puppy whether you accept personhood when human life begins or at some arbitrary, less logically defendable point in development. Yet the argument of autonomy is the only defense these actions have in the face of the injustice committed. But because an injustice has been committed, the duty of the state is to navigate how we deal with the injustice that took place. The duty of the state is not to bankroll these injustices under the guise of healthcare. The state does not exist to accelerate injustices, for in propagating injustice, the state is elevating its own state of existence to one where it can declare what is just or unjust, rewriting the works of nature and natural law.

It is, however, the duty of the state to interpret how society deals with injustice. Among the most difficult are injustices stemming from autonomous tyranny.

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

Trump leads ‘a socialist’ candidate by 6% in latest ABC-WaPo poll

Published

on

Trump leads a socialist candidate by 6 in latest ABC-WaPo poll

For the record, polls at this stage and just about any other stage in the election cycle are absolutely meaningless when it comes to picking winners and losers. One needs only look at the polls leading up to the 2016 election to know this to be true. But we can glean trends and sentiment from them, and the latest poll conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post points to a reality the RNC (and most of America) has known for a while: Socialism sucks.

Against individual candidates among registered voters, the President is in a virtual tie with all but Joe Biden. But against a candidate the voters believe to be “a socialist,” President Trump leads by 6%. Considering two of the top five Democratic candidates are declared socialists and two others have demonstrated clear socialist leanings, it may be confusing to see the discrepancy. The reason is a lack of understanding among some voters who are not aware Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are unabashed by their socialist tendencies while Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg are toeing the line between being socialists and capitalists.

The radical turn by the Democratic Party’s base over the last three years has been shocking to many as policies continue to be rewritten to match the hyper-leftist approach of the radical progressives in the caucus. They started jumping on the Bernie bandwagon shortly after this election loss in 2016, especially after Hillary Clinton failed to defeat President Trump. Now, many socialists are seeing an opportunity in the changing sentiment of the party plus the perceived weakness of the incumbent as reasons to press their far-left agenda.

As of today, the GOP would be wise to make the socialist label sink into the candidates as they approach their nomination process. But even as frontrunner Biden slips in the polls while attempting to retain his status as the only non-socialist with a shot at this point, criticism from the left have made him appear unsure of his perspectives. He’s been claiming to be a progressive since before he announced his candidacy, but he has recently taken to calling out the far-left since his abysmal debate performance. The numbers seem to support this strategy, but it’s a Catch-22.

If he stays a moderate throughout the nomination process, he has a better chance of winning the general election but a lower chance of securing the nomination. The Justice Democrats have made sure the check-boxes required by presidential candidates include all of the most radical proposals floating around such as open borders, the Green New Deal, and Medicare-for-All.

Speaking of healthcare, there was a fact I didn’t know about single-payer that the poll demonstrated. Support for single-payer health insurance was at 62% in 2003. Today, it’s at 52%.

But here’s the truly interesting part. Once people are informed that Medicare-for-All means forcing Medicare to be the sole option for ALL (as the name suggests), support drops even further. I’m still a bit confused why so many Americans are confused by the words “single” in single-payer of “all” in Medicare-for-All. Then again, I still sometimes watch videos of people when they find out Obamacare didn’t mean they got free healthcare. The level of understanding of policies in American is embarrassingly low. Too many people rely on the information supplied to them by their tribe instead of actually trying to understand what’s being proposed.

Once we throw in the border, we seem to have the three vital talking points to hammer into voters for 2020. Socialism is, indeed, awful and the Democrats are pushing it. Single-payer and Medicare-for-All are hated when understood. Lastly, the border… well, we talk enough about the border crisis on this site so readers are very well aware of the potency of that topic come election day.

The strategy by the RNC and White House to slap the “socialist” label on Democrats shouldn’t be difficult. Some Democrats are openly embracing it and others can’t help but push for it in their policies. More Americans need to know this truth.

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