| United States National Debt | |
| United States National Debt Per Person | |
| United States National Debt Per Household | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities | |
| Social Security Unfunded Liability | |
| Medicare Unfunded Liability | |
| Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability | |
| National Healthcare Unfunded Liability | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person | |
| Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household | |
| United States Population |
(last updated 2024-08-09/Close of previous day debt was $35123327978028.47 )
Gas Light: From Democrats and Voting ... WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY:
I hate to beat a dead horse. However, everytime I hear a Democrat say the word 'DEMOCRACY' or 'Our DEMOCRACY is at stake' I want to go 'AAARRRRGGGHHH'. We don't live in a DEMOCRACY. We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC by design.
When they say DEMOCRACY that is code for POPULAR VOTE. Even though Trump won the POPULAR VOTE in 2024 they are fighting to keep ILLEGALS in the country and fighting against the SAFE ACT. They want the future votes from the anchor babies. They also are pushing for ILLEGALS to vote in National elections, as they are already allowed to vote in Municipal elections. I saw it in Los Angeles County. I remember when they passed that Legislation.
They hate the ELECTORAL COLLEGE. If they can remove it's Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Seattle, Portland, and Detroit would decide every Presidential election. Those are the POPULATION BIG CITY BLUE CITIES. If we just used the POPULAR VOTE Republicans would probably never win the Whitehouse again. States like Wyoming, North Dakota, or South Dakota, and the like would never have a say In a Presidential election again. They don't have enough people to have a voice. You don't want BLUE CITIES running AMERICA.
The Reason The Forefathers Added The ELECTORAL COLLEGE:
The Forefathers added the ELECTORAL COLLEGE because they were afraid VIRGINIA would or could decided every Presidential election (In a 13 State country at the time.) Virginia was the most populous State at that time. Virginia had enough people to drown out all of the other States. And they weren't having that.
Thank God the Forefathers, although some were slave owners, were smarter than the MODERN DAY DEMOCRATS. However, remember, DEMOCRATS were the Party of Slavery. Go after THEM for your REPARATIONS CHECK.
#ElectoralCollege #Democracy #Voting #Forefathers #ConstitutionalRepublic #Constitution
Parallel Law and the Retreat from Integration: The Sharia Court Dilemma in Britain
The United Kingdom's relationship with Islamic law has reached a critical juncture. Official government responses continue to insist that "there are no sharia law courts" operating in the country. Yet this technical denial collapses under scrutiny. Estimates suggest approximately 85 Sharia councils currently operate across Britain bodies that frequently refer to themselves as "courts" on their own websites and issue binding religious rulings on marriage and family life. For conservatives concerned with national cohesion, equal treatment under law, and the preservation of Western liberal values, this parallel quasi-legal system represents a troubling abdication of the state's duty to uphold a single standard of justice for all citizens.
The existence of these tribunals is not a sign of healthy multiculturalism. Rather, it reflects a failure of integration policy and a naive, bureaucratic accommodation of practices that often conflict fundamentally with British common law and the principle of equality before the law.
What Sharia Law Actually Means
To understand the gravity of this situation, one must first define Sharia. It is not merely a set of spiritual guidelines or optional religious rituals; it is a comprehensive legal-moral framework derived from two primary sources: the Qur'an (the holy text of Islam) and the Sunnah (the teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad).
In orthodox Islamic jurisprudence, Sharia is considered divine, eternal, and immutable. Its reach extends far beyond the private sphere of worship (ibadat) to govern civil transactions, criminal punishments (hudud), family relations, and even dietary restrictions. Crucially, Sharia is not a codified system like British statutory law. It is interpreted by jurists through a process called ijtihad (independent reasoning) and is subject to different schools of thought (madhahib), leading to significant variation in rulings .
However, despite this variation, core tenets of classical Sharia stand in stark opposition to foundational Western principles:
Gender Inequality:
In matters of inheritance, a daughter typically receives half the share of a son. In legal testimony, the witness of two women is often equated to that of one man .
Marital Dissolution:
Within many Sharia councils in the UK, men can unilaterally dissolve a marriage through talaq (triple repudiation), while women must navigate a complex, often humiliating, process of khula to obtain a religious divorce.
Criminal Justice:
While not implemented in Britain, the classical Sharia framework includes hudud punishments fixed penalties for offenses like theft (amputation) or adultery (stoning) which are anathema to modern concepts of human dignity and proportionality in sentencing .
It is this legal framework that British authorities have allowed to metastasize in the shadows of civil society.
The Myth of "Voluntary Arbitration"
Defenders of the Sharia council system, including the UK Government, argue that these bodies are simply arbitration tribunals whose rulings are only binding if both parties consent. They frame it as a matter of religious freedom a private agreement akin to a Jewish Beth Din or a Christian conciliation service.
This analogy is dangerously misleading. As critics note, Sharia councils routinely handle cases that are not merely contractual but involve status specifically whether a woman is still married according to God. For a devout Muslim woman, a civil divorce granted by a British court is insufficient to remarry within her faith community. She must obtain a religious divorce from the Sharia council.
This creates a coercive dynamic. A woman trapped in an abusive marriage may face a "get-out" fee demanded by the council or be pressured into returning to a violent spouse because the community and the parallel law they follow does not recognize the state's protection. This is not voluntary arbitration; it is a separate, theocratic jurisdiction operating with the implicit threat of social ostracism and communal excommunication. It creates precisely the "two-tier" justice system that conservatives have long warned against .
The Flawed Premise: Why Arabs and Muslims Are Not Assimilating
This brings us to the second, more uncomfortable, question raised by the original article: Why are Arabs and Muslim communities in the West, particularly in Britain, not assimilating in the way previous waves of immigrants did? The answer lies in the intersection of postmodern Western guilt and a strain of Islamic theology that is actively hostile to secular integration.
Glenn Loury's analysis in UnHerd touches on this dilemma, arguing that the demand for "assimilation" is often seen by progressives as a form of cultural erasure or coercion. He suggests that societies require a "shared civic order" and "mutual trust" to function, and that pluralism without convergence inevitably creates friction. This friction is evident in Britain's towns and cities.
From a conservative perspective, assimilation is not about forcing individuals to eat pork or abandon prayer. It is about primacy of allegiance. It is the acceptance that the laws, customs, and democratic traditions of the host nation supersede the tribal or religious codes of the land of origin.
Yet, the very existence of Sharia councils is a *demand* to not assimilate. It is a statement that the laws of England are not good enough for the regulation of Muslim family life. When the state actively advertises roles for Sharia law graduates to assess Islamic councils, it sends a signal that the government views its own common law as optional a toolkit from which one can pick and choose based on faith .
The course catalog description from a Western university highlights that the social and political inclusion of Muslim immigrants is "contentious" because the experiences are often defined by a "particular set of discourses on Islam" rather than a shared British narrative. This is a self-inflicted wound. Multiculturalism as a state ideology has emphasized retention of difference rather than acquisition of commonality. Instead of telling new arrivals, "You are now British, and these are the rights and responsibilities that come with it," the British establishment has said, "Stay in your community, govern yourselves, and we will adjust our laws to accommodate your sensibilities."
Conclusion
The proliferation of Sharia councils in Britain is not a benign exercise of religious freedom. It is a symbol of the West's loss of confidence in its own cultural and legal heritage. No conservative denies the right of individuals to worship as they see fit. But when a parallel system of law emerges that systematically disadvantages women and undermines the authority of the state, it is not bigotry to object it is a duty to the principles of the Enlightenment.
The answer to the assimilation question is not complex: it requires a reassertion of national sovereignty and legal uniformity. The government must stop hiding behind semantic distinctions between "courts" and "councils." If these bodies act like courts, issue rulings, and rely on community pressure for enforcement, they should be subject to the same oversight and equality legislation as any other British institution. A nation that tolerates two systems of law is a nation on the path to fragmentation. The only way to heal that divide is to insist that there is one law for all, and that British justice is not up for negotiation.
#Sharia #ShariaLaw #Muslims #GreatBritain England
OBAMACARE Was and Is a DISASTER:
Premiums went up 400%. We have 50% less Doctors. We have 50% less hospitals. We have 50% less nurses. We have half as many Medical Insurance Companies. And the DEMOCRATS are blaming Republicans for the failed plan. NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR OBAMACARE. Why us it Republicans fault??? DON'T LET THE GAS GO UP YOUR ASS ... And Be GASLIT ...
OBAMACARE: The Broken Promise Disaster And Why Republicans Aren’t the Ones to Blame
In the long, sordid history of American political overreach, few domestic policy experiments have proven as costly, as disingenuous, or as structurally devastating as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act known colloquially as Obamacare. The law, rammed through Congress on a strictly partisan basis in 2010, was sold to the American people on a foundation of specific, verifiable lies. We were told it would bend the cost curve down. We were told we could keep what we cherished. We were told our wallets would get fatter. Over a decade later, the data is in, and the verdict from a conservative, free-market perspective is irrefutable: Obamacare was and remains a bureaucratic disaster of the highest order.
Yet, in the peculiar theater of Washington, D.C., the very architects of this collapse the Democratic Party have spent the last several years pointing a trembling, accusatory finger at Republicans. It is a case of political gaslighting so brazen it demands a thorough, cold-eyed examination of the ledger. We must revisit the promises made on the altar of "hope and change" and contrast them with the grim reality of skyrocketing premiums, industry consolidation, and diminished access to care.
The Foundational Lie: "If You Like It, You Can Keep It"
Let us begin with the statement that will forever be etched on President Obama's legacy, a phrase so infamous it was awarded PolitiFact’s "Lie of the Year."
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period."
This was not a gaffe; it was a deliberate, tactical deception required to calm a nervous public. The architects of the law knew full well that in order to force the "guaranteed issue" and "community rating" mandates—which force insurers to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions at similar prices—they would have to blow up the existing individual market.
The Real Story is one of mass cancellations. By the fall of 2013, millions of Americans opened their mailboxes to find letters informing them that their individual health plans were being terminated because they did not comply with the new federal mandates. These were not junk plans; these were policies that real families had carefully selected and budgeted for. They were replaced by federally mandated, one-size-fits-all plans that carried deductibles so high they rendered the insurance effectively useless for anyone not facing catastrophic illness.
The Democratic response to this tidal wave of cancellations was, and remains, the height of elitist arrogance. The White House pivoted to saying, "If you like your plan, you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed." That was a distinction without a difference, a legal loophole designed to let politicians escape accountability while families saw their networks shrink and their out-of-pocket exposure explode.
The $2,500 Premium Reduction That Never Was
The second pillar of the Obamacare sales pitch was pure fiscal fantasy. Candidate Obama promised the nation that his plan would "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year."
The Real Story is not a reduction; it is a financial avalanche. While exact figures vary by state and demographics, the trend is uniform and brutal. According to data from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Kaiser Family Foundation, average premiums for individual market coverage more than doubled in the first five years of the law's full implementation.
But it is the claim of a "400% increase" in certain sectors that conservatives rightly highlight as the rule, not the exception. For the middle-class family making $100,000 a year those who earn too much to qualify for lavish subsidies but not enough to absorb endless premium hikes the situation is untenable. They are the ones who have seen premiums go from $300 a month to $1,200 or $1,500 a month, with deductibles soaring north of $10,000. This is not health insurance; it is a prepaid coupon book for a system you cannot afford to use.
The $2,500 promise was a political slogan. The reality is a $2,500 deductible before a single dollar of care is covered.
The Shrinking of American Healthcare Infrastructure
Perhaps the most underreported aspect of the Obamacare disaster and the one that should terrify every American is the severe contraction of the healthcare supply chain. The law's regulatory weight and reimbursement policies have done more to consolidate medicine into massive, soulless hospital conglomerates than any free-market force ever could.
Consider the conservative claim that we now have "50% less Doctors, Hospitals, and Nurses." While the raw headcount of licensed professionals hasn't been halved, the availability and independence of care certainly has. Here is the nuance that proves the conservative case:
The Death of The Private Practice:
Obamacare mandated the use of Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and imposed massive reporting requirements on physicians. A solo practitioner or a small independent group simply cannot afford the compliance army required to navigate CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) bureaucracy. Consequently, over the last decade, private practice ownership has plummeted. Nearly 70% of physicians are now employees of hospital systems or private equity-backed mega-groups. You didn't lose the doctor; you lost the choice of doctor, and you lost the personalized care that came with a small, independent office.
Hospital Closures in Rural America:
The law changed Medicare reimbursement formulas, penalizing hospitals for readmissions and pushing toward "value-based care." While well-intentioned in a PowerPoint slide, this has been a death sentence for small, rural hospitals that operate on razor-thin margins. We have witnessed a wave of closures in the heartland. When the nearest emergency room is now 45 minutes away instead of 10 minutes, access to care has been functionally cut by far more than half.
The Real Story is that Obamacare accelerated the creation of healthcare deserts, and the Democrats who designed those payment rules are blaming Republicans for the consequences.
Nurse Burnout and Staffing Shortages:
The administrative burden exploded. Nurses now spend more time staring at a computer screen documenting for federal compliance than they do holding a patient's hand. This is the direct result of a law that prioritizes federal data collection over bedside care. The exodus from the nursing profession is a direct consequence of the burnout created by the Obamacare regulatory regime.
The Great Insurance Cartel Consolidation
Finally, we must address the lie of "competition." Obamacare advocates crowed that state "exchanges" would create a vibrant marketplace where consumers could shop. Instead, they created a federally protected cartel for the largest insurers.
Real Story: We have half as many Medical Insurance Companies.
This is not hyperbole; it is market reality. The law's Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rules capped administrative costs and profits, which sounds good on paper but made it impossible for smaller, nimble insurers to operate. The risk corridors and the unpredictability of the individual mandate penalty drove dozens of co-ops and smaller carriers into bankruptcy. We are left with a landscape dominated by the Big Five: UnitedHealth, Anthem, Aetna (CVS), Cigna, and Humana. In many counties across America, there is literally one insurance option on the exchange.
How do Democrats explain this? They tout "stability." Free market conservatives call it what it is: monopoly power enabled by government fiat. When there is no competition, there is no incentive to lower prices or improve service. The consumer loses. The insurer wins. And the Democrat gets a campaign donation from the insurer's PAC. It is a rot at the core of the system.
The Final Gaslight: Why Is This the GOP's Fault?
Here we arrive at the central, maddening irony of the current political discourse. The Democratic Party and their allies in the legacy media are relentlessly framing the current state of healthcare as a Republican failure.
We must state the historical record clearly and loudly: NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
Zero. Not one. The bill passed the House 219-212 with 34 Democrats joining every single Republican in opposition. In the Senate, it passed 60-39 strictly along party lines using the controversial budget reconciliation process after Ted Kennedy's death.
How can a party that was locked out of the room, denied a seat at the drafting table, and unanimously opposed to the final product be blamed for the product's failure? The answer is that blame-shifting is the only political strategy Democrats have left. They cannot defend the premium spikes. They cannot defend the lost doctors. They cannot defend the $2,500 lie. So they must invent a boogeyman.
"Republicans sabotaged it!"
"Republicans won't fund the risk corridors!"
"Republicans repealed the individual mandate penalty!"
This is the gas being shoved up the collective posterior of the American taxpayer. The individual mandate tax which the Supreme Court only allowed because Chief Justice Roberts redefined it as a tax was the most unpopular part of the law. When Republicans repealed that penalty to zero, they were giving relief to millions of low- and middle-income families who would rather pay for food and rent than pay a fine to the IRS. If the entire Obamacare system collapses because you remove a punitive fine on people who can't afford the product, the system was always a failure.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The conservative perspective on Obamacare is not merely oppositional; it is diagnostic. We saw this disaster coming from miles away because we understand the laws of economics and the limits of central planning. You cannot mandate coverage of every procedure, force everyone into the same risk pool regardless of health status, impose thousands of pages of new regulations, and then act surprised when costs explode and choices vanish.
The Democratic Party owns this failure. They fluffed it. They lied about it. They passed it on a party-line vote. And now, they are gaslighting the American public by blaming the people who stood athwart history yelling "Stop."
The only way out of this mess is a return to patient-centered, market-driven principles: allowing insurance sales across state lines, expanding Health Savings Accounts, promoting transparency in pricing, and restoring the doctor-patient relationship free from the suffocating hand of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Until that day comes, let us remember the truth. Obamacare was a disaster. The Democrats built it. And no amount of rhetorical gaslighting will make the American people forget the promises that were broken or the premiums they can no longer afford.
.png)
