Connect with us

Conservatism

How conservatives should move forward once Ilhan Omar is officially let off the hook

Published

on

How conservatives should move forward once Ilhan Omar is officially let off the hook

The writing is very clearly on the wall. Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is not going to face any repercussions after multiple antisemitic Tweets and statements, including two recent sets of Tweets that clearly expressed her dismay towards the nation of Israel as well as those in American who support them. When the Democratic majority in the House finally unleashes their “rebuke” against Omar, which we assume will be nothing, what’s the path forward for conservatives in addressing the issue?

To answer that question, we need to look at the overarching situation. The Democratic Party is being yanked to the left by this new breed of hyper-leftists who seem to have more control over what’s going on in the party than Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is “the boss,” in her words, and Omar is her faithful lieutenant. That leaves the Democratic establishment in a lurch because if they have no control over the left wing of their party, the wing that guides primary voters and makes the most noise on the streets, then they have two choices. They can either go along with the radical progressives or risk splintering the party itself.

Knowing Pelosi and the Democratic establishment, they’ll cautiously ease towards appeasement. Remember, they crave power more than principles, so they have no problem supporting ideas they know won’t work if doing so will keep them in power. That means the Democratic establishment will continue their leftward lurch and embrace the tenets of socialism. That die is already cast.

The conservative response should be very similar to how it’s been since Senator Bernie Sanders hit the presidential election stage in 2015. We must be in stark opposition to socialism, but we need to do two very important things in the coming months to make sure the leftward lurch of the Democrats won’t prompt a continued lurch to the middle for Republicans. First and foremost, we must state clear conservative alternatives to everything the socialists propose. We can’t do as we’ve done in the past and say, “that’s socialistic and it won’t work.” We need to have a conservative counter to everything on the socialists’ agenda.

Second, we need to keep our thumbs on the backs of Republicans to hold their ground and fight the urge to go towards the mushy middle. Democrats continue to leave a void in the middle where many Independents dwell. The natural response for Republicans is to seem more moderate in hopes of catching these valuable votes. This would be a tremendous mistake. President Trump didn’t win because he said we should ban bump stocks or work on criminal justice reform. He won because he said he was going to build a wall. Republican leaders like the middle, which is why conservatives need to keep them very much focused on moving to the right.

Omar’s non-rebuke will set the stage for a Democratic Party shift. This shift has already been happening, of course, but by not condemning Omar’s antisemitism, leaders of the Democratic Party will have crossed the point of no return. They’re showing who’s in charge of the party, and by doing so they’re establishing which direction they must lean on all issues. This Omar situation is about more than just antisemitism. It’s about the soul of the Democratic Party, and unless something unforeseen happens soon, they are officially selling their soul to the radical progressives, the hyper-leftists, and the socialist “fringe” of the party.

The fringe is now in command of the Democratic Party. By being bullied out of rebuking Omar, the Democrats have committed themselves down the path of hyper-leftism. There’s no returning from this dark path any time soon.

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Conservatism

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

Published

on

By

The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare

The home state of Mr. ‘Medifail for All’ tried National Socialist healthcare and it didn’t work. What is the point of ever trying it again?

One would think that the operation of a socialist health care system in the home of Bernie ‘Medifail for all’ Sanders would be touted until the bovines hit the barn. Well, one would be wrong in that assumption since it never worked as advertised.

The Washington Post recently profiled the rise and spectacular fall of ‘Green Mountain Care’ from the fantastic promises at its inception to its inevitable crash as is the case with every socialist system. The Vermont rendition of single payer – a state version of National Socialist Healthcare – came onto the scene with great promise and fanfare. The problem is that states are forbidden to counterfeit [oops! ‘print’] currency, so they quickly ran out of other people’s money and the whole rotten edifice collapsed.

Why Vermont’s single-payer effort failed and what Democrats can learn from it
Three and a half years after then-Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont signed into law a vision for the nation’s first single-payer health system, his small team was still struggling to find a way to pay for it.

Two days later, on Dec. 17, 2014, Shumlin, a Democrat who had swept into office promising a health-care system that left no one uninsured, announced he was giving up.

The trajectory of Green Mountain Care, as Vermont’s health system was to be known — from the euphoric spring of 2011 to its crash landing in late 2014 — offers sobering lessons for the current crop of Democrats running for president, including Vermont’s own Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), most of whom embrace Medicare-for-all or other aspirations for universal insurance coverage.

[Our Emphasis]
Oddly enough, the local socialist Senator rarely mentions this when trying to sell everyone else on this statist snake oil. Those with a modicum of intelligence tend to learn from the colossal mistakes of others, implementing what works while rejecting that which does not. Then there are those on the Left who insanely insist on repeating those mistakes, hoping for a counterintuitive outcome.

This is no academic exercise, born of the Platonic dialogs from 2,400 years ago on the ‘Ideal state’. This is a deadly serious matter with millions of people’s lives at stake. Not to mention that as reported by the Associated-Press that ‘Medicare for all’ was projected to cost $32.6 trillion.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for all” plan would boost government health spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, requiring historic tax hikes, says a study released Monday by a university-based libertarian policy center.

That’s trillion with a “T.”

Optimal conditions – and single payer still failed

One couldn’t ask for better conditions for this failed experiment in state socialist health care. The same report from the Washington post on this failed experiment noted that:

It has some of the nation’s healthiest residents, with some of the lowest rates of uninsured. It is small and homogeneous. It shares a border with Canada, putting an existing single-payer system within sight. And it has just one main insurer, the nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont, repeatedly ranked the most efficient Blue Cross Blue Shield plan in the nation.

It was supposed to lower costs, insure more people while eliminating waste, fraud and abuse [Stop us if you’ve heard this joke before]. Unsurprisingly, it failed to do this. Nevertheless, the hometown senator of this communist catastrophe still touts the same ‘features’ in trying to sell his $32.6 trillion pipe dream.

Unfortunately for the purveyors of these plans presumably fueled by pixie dust and allusions to brand new ‘rights’ conjured up out of thin air the author of the piece failed to offer a solution aside from ‘controlling costs’ [read: death panels] or counterfeiting.. er.. ‘printing’ more money to endlessly throw into the bottomless pit that is the government.

It ran into all manner of problems, including what to do with people coming in over the border for all the free goodies [Stop us if you’ve also heard this one before]. Ever increasing tax rates hobbling the economy, ending with the fact that the costs of a bloated bureaucracy would mean less coverage that what the people already had.

Ironically enough, when the whole system died an inglorious death, Bernie Sanders was in Iowa testing the presidential waters, never mentioning the failure of single payer in his home state, the very idea that he incessantly touts. Why bother with facts and logic when one can just invoke counterfeit civil rights, paid for with other people’s money?

Meanwhile, the ‘objective’ media cheerleads for socialistic slavery

Still, this hasn’t stopped the ever ‘objective’ national socialist media from writing ‘News’ stories on the subject, such as this sickening saccharine piece from the Associated-Press ‘Medicare for All’s’ rich benefits ‘leapfrog’ other nations.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Generous benefits. No copays. No need for private policies. The “Medicare for All” plan advocated by leading 2020 Democrats appears more lavish than what’s offered in other advanced countries, compounding the cost but also potentially broadening its popular appeal.

Reading that infomercial for socialism, one can almost imagine the rise of a superhero in the guise of a later-day superman. The virtual embodiment of every wonderful feature of ‘Medifail for all’ vanquishing every cost overrun, taking down the ever evil private health insurance monster, providing free healthcare for all while dispensing Mocha Lattes on the side.

Faster than a speeding cost overrun. More powerful than free enterprise. Able to heap benefits to all in a single bound.

Look! Up in the sky! It’s a bird. It’s a plane It’s Single payer socialism! Here to save the day…. Until it implodes the economy.

After which, no one is helped.  How is that compassion?

Single payer can never work

Sadly, the author of the Washington post piece failed to cite how to get the bloated edifice off the ground. This is because there is no way to get it to fly.

The proper way to address this problem is to try a different direction, away from authoritarian socialism and towards economic Liberty. Conjuring up new civil rights does little to pay for all the freebies. As way experienced with a single payer experiment under ideal conditions, the end result was worse than what already existed.

There is no point in trying something that is doomed to failure, single payer [or whatever it’s called] can never work as advertised.

The Takeaway

It should be obvious that a governmental solution to the problem does not exist. Thus, it only makes sense to try a different approach. This won’t empower the Socialist-Left, but they claim to only have everyone’s best interests at heart. Let them show that is the case with a system based on economic Liberty instead of socialistic slavery.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Published

on

The myth of overturning Roe v Wade

Many on the right are skeptical about opening up Roe v Wade insisting that overturning Roe v Wade will not serve Pro-Life causes because it will force the issue back on the states. In such scenarios, Alabama will be the safe haven for the unborn while New York becomes the importer for people who want to kill their babies. Even if this is the case, it is still a giant win for the pro-life side to enable entire states to ban abortion. But this is merely a literal overturn of Roe v Wade, not a practical one.

Take Brown v BOE as an example of a Supreme Court case that overturned a predecessor: Plessy v Ferguson. The Ferguson ruling maintain the theoretical notion that separate accommodations could be equal; therefore, private businesses must comply with the state’s discrimination policies. It’s a pretty bad ruling, comparable to Roe v Wade, which conjured out of nowhere a Constitutional right to an abortion. But Plessy v Ferguson was overturned by demonstrating that the black schools were inherently inferior to the white schools. So Plessy v Ferguson, was overturned by the parameters of its own ruling.

The Alabama bill defines an abortion as a murder by the practitioner. This is a different animal than what the Supreme Court has ruled on before. In this case we have multiple issues. The chief issue at play is when does personhood begin? The Supreme Court, in order to strike down the Alabama law would have to rule that an unborn child is not a person, again. Evidence has changed since the Casey ruling in biologically proving that an unborn is a human being, not a clump of cells. The pro-abortion arguments against moral personhood have gotten more extreme than viability. Arguing that a fetus is not a person is a losing argument as conception/implantation are the most logically defensible points of the transfer of moral personhood.

The next issue is who has the power to define personhood? Should the Supreme Court strike down the Alabama or the Georgia law, the Supreme Court, out of their own superfluous arrogance would, once again, assert their own jurisdiction in the realm of life. If the Supreme Court rules that a state can define where life begins, they will be denying the self-evident. But what if the Supreme Court rules that inalienable rights, in our founding documents, plainly recognize life begins at creation. In such ruling the Supreme Court would be taking a hint from the Divine, and could issue a sweeping ruling denouncing abortion everywhere.

A third issue at play: does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? The state’s ability to write criminal law is on the line in this court case to come. Alabama has placed steep penalties on the mob doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, in upholding infanticide, would essentially be placing limits on the state’s ability to write criminal law as it relates to homicide. The anti-Constitutional implications of this is yet another power reserved to the states impressed upon, subject to overseeing by the federal government. This ruling would enable people who kill an unborn child and the mother to only be charged with one homicide, not two. Essentially, the law in New York will be the law of the land in a worst case scenario.

What if it fails

I would advocate that Alabama and Georgia ignore the Supreme Court, instead choosing to enforce the law which they pass. The Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce their rulings, by design. So let them try. If they do not recognize when life begins or recognize when life begins and still decree that Alabama must sanction murder, then the Supreme Court is not worth obeying.

Final Thoughts

When does personhood begin? Who has the power to define personhood? Does a state have the power to write homicide statutes? These three questions need answers, and a sweeping ruling is almost certain.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism

Published

on

Why Tomi Lahrens abortion view harms American conservatism

Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.

Today, they don’t exist.

Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.

Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.

But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.

Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.

Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.

If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending