Connect with us

Democrats

Bernie’s insane disconnect from economic realities and the way Americans view them

Published

on

Bernies insane disconnect with economic realities and the way Americans view them

Senator Bernie Sanders is detached from reality. I didn’t realize it until today when I learned he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that a lot of people would be “delighted” to pay more in taxes if it meant free healthcare.

Here’s the full quote:

“Yeah, but I suspect that a lot of people in the country would be delighted to pay more in taxes if they had comprehensive health care as a human right. I live 50 miles away from the Canadian border. You go to the doctor any time you want. You don’t take out your wallet. You have heart surgery, you have a heart transplant and you come out of the hospital and it costs you nothing.”

Let’s break that down. Bear with me, as there’s a lot to cover.

First, no human alive, regardless of how they feel about government programs, is delighted when forced to pay more in taxes. Nobody gets their tax bill and says, “Oh, my lucky stars! I got to pay more taxes than I did before. This is wonderful! I’m delighted!”

Next, we get to the qualifying caveat, “if they had comprehensive health care as a human right.”

As caveats go, it’s one that can seem appealing on the surface. It has the two important phrases used by progressives across the board now: “comprehensive health care” and “human right.” There has been an indoctrination that has spread throughout a large portion of the population from progressives to moderates to conservatives. This indoctrination has made people believe they do not have comprehensive health care and it’s somehow their right to have it as a human.

Today, we have that right. Whether through the state, their employer, or paying as an individual, every American has access to comprehensive health care. It is too expensive for some, but again the state has inserted itself into the equation already with Obamacare. The horror stories of people losing their access to health care are overblown and oftentimes demonstrably false.

As far as it all being a right, that’s debatable. Many conservatives like to point out it’s a commodity and that emergency care is already guaranteed to everyone. But I do not believe that’s the right approach to argue against the current push for programs like Medicare-for-All. Those who choose to not pay for their health coverage and who refuse to go through the steps to get their health coverage given to them by the state are making a concerted effort to deny their own access to health insurance. It’s not something we go out and buy on a whim, so labeling it as a commodity is misleading. It is a commodity by definition, but as we try to win the narrative battle, ignoring the inherent differences between health coverage and gold or orange juice is a mistake.

Rather than view it as a right, it should be viewed as a privilege made available in varying degrees to every American, even those who cannot afford to pay for it. That just makes more sense in winning hearts and minds than calling it a commodity.

Now, we get to the juicy fallacies in the Senator’s argument. He lives close to Canada. Great! That means he likely gets to see Canadians in his neck of the woods coming to America to have procedures done. Why? Because of the demonstrably false claim that “you go to the doctor any time you want.” No, Senator. They don’t. They are extremely limited in when they can go to the doctor, how much time they can spend with their doctor, and what their doctor can offer them at that moment. They don’t have the same luxury we have of wanting to have procedures like elective knee surgery without being forced to suffer through the pain for months or years before they can get on the operating table.

That’s one reason so many from Canada, the United Kingdom, and other “single-payer utopias” are coming here. They don’t want to wait. The other reason is they’re learning the quality of care is deteriorating as it is wont to do whenever government pushes aside the free market to make everything they touch mediocre.

The last part is the one that would make most conservatives chuckle if we weren’t so worried about it becoming a reality. He said Americans would get all sorts of health care from checkups to major operations and it wouldn’t cost us anything. Actually, Senator, that’s not true. It would cost us everything.

What Bernie Sanders fails to realize is his plans would reduce quality of care, increase overall costs through taxation, and drive our problematic healthcare system to the edge of collapse. Then again, maybe he does realize this.

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

Advertisement

0

Democrats

America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020

Published

on

America desperately needs the biggest red wave ever in 2020

I supported a Democrat once in high school. Oklahoma’s David Boren believed in lowering taxes and reducing government intervention in business and individuals’ lives. He was once praised by conservative stalwart Barry Goldwater as someone who should be President of the United States. But he retired before I had the opportunity to vote for him. The best I could do was support his campaign from high school. That was 1990. Democrats were different then.

Today’s Democratic Party is a dumpster fire. It’s a phrase that’s often used, perhaps too often, but I personally use it only when referring to the most egregious examples of chaos and dysfunction. The Democratic Party of 2019 and 2020 qualifies.  It’s not just their lack of unity or the disestablishment of clear leadership. That will come once they nominate a presidential candidate. But there are only a few sane candidates in the mix, and none of them are actually in the mix based on polls. All of the frontrunners and anyone within striking distance is worse than any candidate the Democrats have put forth in modern history. Yes, that includes Joe Biden, who is not the “common sense” Democrat many seem to believe he is. He’s just as unhinged, much more malleable, and clearly more clueless than any of the others. And that’s saying a lot.

When Barack Obama was elected President, a lot of Republicans thought it was the end of the world. I saw him as a risk to the cultural stability of the nation, and I was right. I saw Obamacare as a stepping stone to single-payer because it was bound to fail miserably, and I was right. What I didn’t see was how he would leave the progressive wing of the party feeling unfulfilled. He didn’t meet the promises they imposed on him of transforming America towards their version of “justice.” He made strides. That much is clear. But he wasn’t the existential threat to American society that they wanted so desperately.

In other words, I saw President Obama as someone who would damage the country, but not beyond mitigation. We’re seeing this to be true as President Trump reverses policies and fixes many of the challenges President Obama imposed on this nation. I didn’t buy into the slogan that he would “Make America Great Again” during the election, but I was wrong. I expected him to be above average, staving off the judicial tyranny Hillary Clinton would have brought upon us. But he has far exceeded my expectations. He really is doing many of the things this country needs. When I’m right, I’ll say it. When I’m wrong, I’ll admit it.

There have been mistakes. Arguably the biggest was allowing his advisers to keep him from pressing for the wall and shutting down the government if necessary long before the 2018 election. They said they’d get it done afterwards. Big mistake. The ensuing battles following the mini-blue-wave of the midterm elections that lost the House for the GOP were damaging to the President and counteracted progress made at the border. In effect, the lack of GOP action reversed progress and opened up the floodgates of illegal immigration.

President Trump’s second term is necessary, but there is a big difference between a second term with GOP control of the House and Senate and a second term fighting Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, or both. It’s not a slight difference. It’s not a big difference. It’s a gigantic difference. If Democrats retain control of the House, gain control of the Senate, or both, President Trump’s 2nd term will be legislative stalemate and constant battles with the judiciary over his attempts to do something by executive order. If the GOP can retain control of the Senate and take back control of the House, his second term can be monumental.

But it’s more than just promoting the Trump agenda. 2020 needs to be a referendum against the Democratic Party for bowing to their radical progressive wing. Nancy Pelosi may be Speaker of the House, but “The Squad” has increasingly been given attention to speak on behalf of the House. And Democratic leadership doesn’t see it. They sit in their committee meetings or caucus gatherings and think “The Squad” is a minor thorn in their side. But in real America outside of the beltway, Democrats are becoming disciples of the Green New Deal. They’re becoming vocal proponents of Medicare-for-All. They’re protesting ICE and calling for open borders. They’re joining Antifa in calls for socialism.

2020 must be a purge of the radicals in DC who are bent on destroying America. The Democratic Party must suffer cataclysmic losses at the ballot box, not just for President but for as many elected offices as possible.

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

We don’t need ‘red flag’ gun confiscation laws. The solution to the problem is already in place.

Published

on

By

We dont need red flag gun confiscation laws The solution to the problem is already in place

Laws for Civil Commitment procedures that also protect due process are in place in every state -‘crisis’ solved QED.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left keeps on insisting that there is a ‘serious crisis’ and that Gun Confiscation SWATing laws are desperately needed before anyone can rationally think through their true implications of destroying due process and the presumption of innocence.

The problem for the Left is that there really isn’t a ‘crisis’ since there are laws on the books to handle situations where someone may be a danger to themselves. We have already proven this here, therefore, there is no reason to implement these draconian measures that will serve to eviscerate multiple parts of the bill of rights in one fell swoop. Thus the solution to this problem should be pretty straightforward, point this out to everyone and move on to other issues of greater importance.

Solving the problem by simply pointing out that the solution already exists.

We supposedly need to discuss this issue immediately, without any delay. Fine, it is just a matter of having President Trump or Senate Majority Leader McConnell schedule a formal announcement on this allegedly intractable issue. This announcement would simply reiterate that laws for Civil Commitment are already on the books, so there is no reason to waste precious time in debating a non-issue. We also have the added bonus that these laws also protect civil Liberties, something of primary importance for those of us on the pro-Liberty Right.

It will be a formal announcement that there is absolutely no reason for these laws, followed with a press kit detailing Civil Commitment procedures in every state. Then it will be logical to ask why the authoritarian Left keeps on demanding news laws for a problem that has already been solved. Please note that they are essentially doing that on the Intergalactic Background Check issue, since these also already exist, but that’s a separate issue.

Consider the reasons why the politicians should accept this elegant solution to the problem:

  • It wouldn’t require any new laws.
  • It wouldn’t take any political wrangling.
  • It would solve the problem immediately.
  • It would protect the bill of rights –specifically the 2nd, 4th, 5 and 6th amendments.
  • It will resolve the situation with minimum trouble.

Why aren’t the politicians already calling for this perfect solution to the problem?

There are only two reasons why this perfect solution has not been brought forward by the legislators on either side. Either they don’t know the law – which is absurd – or they want the power they would attain from ‘Red Flag’ Gun Confiscation.

Legislators really have only one job – to understand and perfect the law. They should have already known about this solution. This means they only have one reason to push for Gun Confiscation SWATing laws. These politicians would clearly like to expand their own power, even now, Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris is salivating at confiscating the guns of those merely accused of ‘thought Crime’.
Who know what clever ways they will develop for their new-found power? We’ve already shown that these laws don’t work as advertised, that they have caused more problems than they have solved and they are a civil rights nightmare. Why are they being imposed by the government to solve a problem that has been already addressed?

The Bottom-Line.

This editorial could have been just two lines – the headline and the subhead – summarizing the whole point. Solving the problem that gun Confiscation SWATing is supposed to address is simply a matter of following existing law. The same could be said for liberticidal Leftist power grabs – Intergalactic Background Checks, the ‘Assault Weapon’ scam.. er ban and most everything else. It’s already illegal for felons and others to possess firearms. Thus, these measures are like making things double secret, illegal, in the vain hope that people who don’t follow the law [hence the term ‘lawbreaker’] will suddenly do so because of the magic of a new law on the books.

In the specific example here, the laws already exist and they protect due process. Politicians on both sides of the aisle simply need to step up and use them instead of trying to use the latest ‘serious crisis’ to grab even more power for themselves.

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

False premises: Gun control push after mass shootings is like the Iraq War after 9/11

Published

on

False premises Gun control push after mass shootings is like the Iraq War after 911

Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, so let’s invade Iraq. Most Americans fell for this false logic before President George W. Bush embarked the American military on indefinite actions in the Middle East. It was false and they knew it, but they found intelligence speculating about weapons of mass destruction and ran with it. This was an emotional response to a problem, a response that did not offer a solution to the triggering event.

Today, Democrats have taken on the mantle of establishing false premises to promote seemingly related parts of their agenda. Just as Americans were conned into thinking invading Iraq was somehow going to prevent the next 9/11, Democrats are trying to con us again into believing their legislation is going to stop the next mass shooter. But the facts don’t jibe with their claims. The legislation many Democrats are pushing through is for universal background checks. They’re playing on American ignorance to get their agenda done.

Representative Veronica Escobar’s constituents are the ones affected by the El Paso shooter. This is why she’s being looked to by her caucus to lead the charge to push Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to bring their legislation to the Senate floor. But instead of representing the people of El Paso, she’s using their suffering to guilt Republicans into falling in line with their legislation.

Here’s an inconvenient fact: Had the legislation been in place before the shooting, it would have had zero effect on the outcome. The alleged shooter passed a background check. Why didn’t it stop him? Because in most situations like these, background checks do not work. The purpose of background checks is to prevent criminals and known mentally ill individuals from acquiring firearms. They’re already in place. The legislation to make them “universal” will only harm private sellers and add a new layer of bureaucracy to the mix.

But that fact isn’t stopping Escobar from misleading the people of El Paso into thinking the legislation would have helped them. She knows it wouldn’t and she hopes her constituents are too stupid to realize this.

If we want to slow gun violence, there are ways without gun control. If anything, laws should be looser, not stricter. But Democrats continue to lie to promote their agenda. Their reason: You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

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