The issues of the day may change at the speed of the news cycle, but conservative principles and priorities should not. Sadly, it seems like nearly all of our representatives in Washington DC work based on the news cycle as well; only a handful of politicians are focused on long term plans or long standing issues that need to be resolved.
For example, term limits are rarely a news cycle issue, which is why the infrequent attempts by some of our representatives to bring it to the forefront never get the attention they deserve. Americans overwhelmingly support term limits, but trying to get momentum in DC is practically impossible. This needs to change.
What are the other issues that need a continuous focus in order to establish tangible action?
As we continue to work towards building an American Conservative Movement, it’s imperative we do so with our core beliefs firmly established. We do not want to become another transient movement that follows the GOP around on their crusade of the day. We want to drive politicians and the people they represent down a proper conservative path that addresses the fundamental issues our country faces.
We will fail as an organization and fade as a sovereign nation if everyone continues to focus on whatever the news cycle dictates. This is why we must have clarity in our goals in these early days of the movement’s formation. It’s better to go in with a plan than to let it develop based on the whims of our growing ranks. It’s easy to be “generally conservative” and get support built up that goes in a million different directions. It’s harder to establish a roadmap from the start and stick to that roadmap through the growth periods. I’d rather lose some people up front who may not agree with a reduced and balanced budget rather than debate with them later when the topic comes to light, for example.
Experience has taught me there’s nothing worse than getting going in the wrong direction and trying to change course later. Thankfully, conservative principles shouldn’t need course corrections. If we’re having to make them, we were doing it wrong from the start.
If you’re interested in being kept in the loop as we begin forming the American Conservative Movement, please contact us below.
Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?
The state of conservative politics: Stick to our guns
The leftward lurch of the Democratic Party has opened up a lane for Republicans to take voters in the middle. This has been happening since the late Obama era and continued through to the 2016 election. Once President Trump won, it became crystal clear the unhinged and angry wing of the Democratic Party has become completely disenfranchised with the moderate Establishment Democrats and were ready to pull the party as close to socialism as they could muster.
Meanwhile, many Republicans have chosen to back down on their conservatism. They see avenues where they can be the “rational” moderates that the Democratic Party is in the process of abandoning. On the surface, this seems to make sense. In reality, it couldn’t be further from the truth.
We need to “stick to our guns” when it comes to proper American conservatism. That’s the beauty of conservatism. It takes what works and doesn’t seek solutions to problems that do not exist. But if we take advantage of the false opportunity sitting there in the middle, we lose the purity of our message and the effectiveness of our policies. By heading to the mushy middle, we can no longer fix the real problems in America using sound conservative doctrine.
I had the blessing of sitting with Jeff Dornik from The GK Podcast Network to discuss the state of conservative politics. It was a fun exchange, one that can hopefully shed light on the direction America needs to head.
Just because the Democrats are planting their flag in the progressive utopia of socialism doesn’t mean Republicans need to go to the mushy middle. We can stand our ground because we have the truth on our side.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kristy Swanson, Dean Cain receive death threats over Strzok-Page ‘FBI Lovebirds’ production
New Mexico county commissioners, sheriffs demand immediate action on border emergency
President gives AG Barr unilateral authority to declassify 2016 campaign spying documents
Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned
‘Star Trek: Picard’ looks like it’s going to be a social justice warrior’s take on the future
The state of conservative politics: Stick to our guns
The rise of citizen journalists
Strait is the gate and narrow is the way: Churches, stop pushing a ‘wide gate’ doctrine
Did Jesus die exactly 1000 years after King David died?
The sons of God in Genesis 6 were not the sons of Seth (and Nephilim were really giants)
2 Thessalonians 3:5 – ‘patient waiting for Christ’
Isaiah 5:11 – ‘wine inflame them’
Jeremiah 23:5 – ‘a King shall reign and prosper’
Jude 1:21 – ‘in the love of God’
Proverbs 4:18 – ‘path of the just’
Democrats1 day ago
Ilhan Omar goes after Ben Carson. Big mistake.
Culture and Religion2 days ago
NZ Hate Preachers
Culture and Religion1 day ago
Liz Wheeler to Catholic girls: ‘Stop pretending you’re a victim because you broke the rules and rolled up your skirt’
Culture and Religion2 days ago
Why ‘Unpopular The Movie’ is so unpopular: It calls out false Christianity
Healthcare2 days ago
Shocking NY Times headline calls evil good and good evil
Conservatism1 day ago
The complete fraud that is National Socialist Healthcare
Guns and Crime1 day ago
The 4 universal gun safety rules, plus 13 more you should follow
Culture and Religion18 hours ago
The biggest threat to Christians is the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture