Connect with us

Conservatism

President Trump should dump all leftist advisers in his administration before 2020

Published

on

President Trump should dump all leftist advisers in his administration before 2020

Now is the time when bold conservatism can shine. As Democrats lurch precariously to the left and hope to drag the country down with them, we have an opportunity as a nation to allow true conservatism to shine through and fully correct the course we’ve been trekking down for decades.

President Trump needs to purge the White House of leftists while voters need to purge Capitol Hill of RINOs.

To do this, the American Conservative Movement should rise, whether through us or others. Frankly, I’m not picky. I’m not looking for credit or even to participate. All I want is to see our nation head in the right direction for once. That means taking on all the faux-conservatives on Capitol Hill, replacing them with actual conservatives in much the same way the Tea Party did in their few moments of success. Whatever form the conservative movement takes, it must be stalwart in its dedication to protecting the Constitution and defending the rights of Americans from those who desire to take away our liberties.

As for the President, it’s time to start cleaning house. Anyone in his administration who has a voice in his ear needs to be conservative. We’ve seen the results of leftists telling him how to handle things. These are the people who likely told him to wait before getting tough on the border wall. As a result, very little has been built and there’s a good chance very little will have been built at all by the time the elections come around. Had he gotten tough on the wall in his first two years instead of signing eleven spending bills that didn’t include wall funding, we might actually be there right now. Instead, he listened to the advice of those who are lukewarm at best on border security.

Had he listened to conservatives, the wall would be well on its way to being complete.

It will be hard for him to completely eliminate the leftists in his ear. After all, two of the biggest culprits are his daughter and son-in-law. If he must keep them around, it should be doing things that cannot harm the nation. Let them be symbolic. Let them handle menial tasks that have no bearing on the direction of the country. But the President needs to stop listening to them when it comes to actual policies.

America needs the type of bold conservatism we haven’t seen in its fullest form in the modern era. There are leftists in the administration holding the President back. It’s time to cut them loose and start listening to the people who helped elect him.

Is the nation ready to revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report editors use ExpressVPN

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