ObamaCare Failed

 

The Frustration is Justified: A Conservative Case for Patriotism Over Political Tribalism

Obamacare was the Democrats fault. The shutdown was the Democrats fault. ILLEGALS entering the country ILLEGALLY was the Democrats fault, and they blame Trump for cleaning up the S$@# they let. If you are still voting Democrat by now you either hate your country, in denial, or failed Civics ... AND HISTORY CLASS. Please, love the country more than you hate THE MAN BUILDING A BIG BEAUTIFUL BALLROOM!

The Frustration is Justified: A Conservative Case for Patriotism Over Political Tribalism

The social media post is raw, unfiltered, and dripping with the frustration felt by millions of Americans. It’s a sentiment that transcends a simple political disagreement; it speaks to a fundamental clash of visions for the nation. While its tone is sharp, the underlying argument points to a critical truth from a conservative perspective: a series of policy decisions by the Democratic Party has, in the view of many, actively weakened the United States, and the resistance to President Trump’s corrective actions feels less like principled opposition and more like a rejection of America’s foundational principles themselves.

To understand this frustration, one must first step back from the daily political skirmishes and examine the broader landscape. The post mentions several key issues, and from a conservative viewpoint, they are not isolated incidents but interconnected symptoms of a troubling ideology.

The Legacy of Obamacare: Government Coercion Over Individual Choice

The Affordable Care Act, or “Obamacare,” was not merely a flawed policy; it represented a fundamental expansion of federal power into the lives of individual citizens and the healthcare market. Conservatives did not oppose it out of a desire to see people suffer without insurance. The opposition was rooted in a belief in limited government, individual liberty, and free-market principles.

The law, passed by a Democratic supermajority without a single Republican vote, forced millions of Americans to purchase a product they may not have wanted, burdened small businesses with crippling regulations, and disrupted the doctor-patient relationship. It was built on a premise that Washington bureaucrats know better than individuals and their doctors. The subsequent years saw premiums and deductibles skyrocket for many middle-class families, precisely the opposite of what was promised. For conservatives, Obamacare was not an act of compassion but an act of governmental overreach that broke the healthcare system further in the name of fixing it. The frustration, therefore, isn't just about a policy's failure, but about the philosophical imposition it represented.

The Shutdown and the Breakdown of Governance

The post’s reference to government shutdowns, while often oversimplified, points to a deeper breakdown in the basic function of governance. From a conservative perspective, the federal budget is not an abstract concept; it is a moral document that reflects the nation’s priorities. For decades, both parties have been complicit in runaway spending, but the modern Democratic Party has fully embraced a philosophy of nearly limitless government expansion, funded by ever-increasing taxation.

When conservatives, particularly during the Trump administration, fought for fiscal restraint or for the allocation of funds to critical national priorities like border security, they were met with intransigence. Shutdowns occur when one side—in this view, the Democrats—refuses to negotiate or fund core functions of the state, such as protecting a sovereign border, while demanding funding for their own partisan priorities. It is seen as a form of political hostage-taking, where essential government services are threatened unless conservatives capitulate to a big-government agenda. This isn't responsible governance; it's political hardball, and it leaves citizens as the collateral damage.

The Crisis at the Border: Sovereignty and the Rule of Law

The most visceral point of contention, and the one that draws the most heated language in the post, is the issue of illegal immigration. To dismiss this as mere xenophobia is to profoundly miss the conservative argument. The issue is not about immigration itself—the United States is a nation of immigrants—but about *illegal* immigration and the principle of the rule of law.

A sovereign nation has not just the right, but the duty, to control its borders. The decades-long failure to secure the southern border, exacerbated by policies of catch-and-release and sanctuary cities, was a conscious political choice by Democrats. This choice, conservatives argue, was driven by a desire to create a new class of dependents and ultimately, new voters. It placed the desires of those who broke the law ahead of the safety and economic security of American citizens.

It led to tragic consequences: the opioid crisis fueled by drugs flowing across the border, the exploitation of human trafficking victims, and the strain on public resources in border communities. When President Trump moved to enforce existing law, build a physical barrier, and end destructive policies like catch-and-release, he was not creating a crisis; he was responding to one that had been festering for years. The fierce resistance to these efforts was seen by many as proof that the Democratic Party had abandoned its commitment to the rule of law and the security of the nation’s citizens in pursuit of political gain.

Loving the Country More Than You Hate the Man

This brings us to the post’s final, provocative charge: that to still vote Democrat is to “hate your country.” This is a harsh accusation, but from a conservative standpoint, it reflects a perceived logical conclusion. If one views the Democratic platform as:

*An assault on economic liberty through high taxes and regulation.

*A rejection of national sovereignty through open-border policies.

*An erosion of constitutional rights, particularly the Second Amendment.

*A campaign to undermine traditional values and institutions that have long been the nation’s social fabric.

*A relentless delegitimization of American history and its heroes.

Then, supporting that platform is, in effect, supporting the diminishment of the nation as it was founded. The "big beautiful ballroom" mentioned in the post is a metaphor—a symbol of national pride, strength, and prosperity. It represents a vision of an America that is confident, secure, and thriving. The conservative argument is that the policies of the left are designed not to build up that ballroom, but to dismantle it, brick by brick, in the name of a radical and untested egalitarianism.

Therefore, the call to “love the country more than you hate THE MAN” is a plea to prioritize the nation’s health and principles over a visceral, personal dislike for a controversial president. It asks voters to look past the tweets and the bombast and evaluate the results: a pre-pandemic economy that lifted all boats, a reshaped judiciary committed to originalism, a strengthened military, and peace deals in the Middle East. It asks whether the anger directed at one man is so potent that it justifies endorsing an agenda that, from this perspective, is fundamentally at odds with what has made America an exceptional nation.

The social media post is not a nuanced policy analysis. It is a cry from the heart of a political movement that feels its country is being intentionally unraveled. It reflects a belief that civics and history teach the value of sovereignty, the dangers of centralized power, and the preciousness of the liberties enshrined in the Constitution. To conservatives, the Democratic Party is failing those lessons, and to support them is, consciously or not, to turn away from the very foundations of the American experiment. The frustration is not with political opponents, but with those they see as willing to dismantle the "big beautiful ballroom" of America, simply because they despise the foreman currently in charge of its renovation.

#Obamacare #Obama #Healthcare #BigBeautifulBill

The Overlooked Legacy of the Obama Drone Wars and the Selective Outrage of the Left

 

When Obama entered office we were fighting in two countries. When he left we were fighting in 7 countries. No one talks about that [Intercept Magazine - The Drone Wars]. However the people that don't wanna talk about THAT are pulling their hair out over a Whitehouse Ballroom - Paid for with PRIVATE MONEY ... They can't handle the concept of PRIVATE MONEY.

Those people are a JOKE!!!

The Overlooked Legacy of the Obama Drone Wars and the Selective Outrage of the Left

A recent social media post has resurfaced a critical, yet often overlooked, aspect of recent American history: the dramatic expansion of the nation’s military footprint under President Barack Obama. While the current political landscape is saturated with heated, and often trivial, debates, it is essential to examine the substantive issues of war, peace, and executive power with a clear and consistent moral framework.

The post correctly identifies that when President Obama took office in 2009, the United States was engaged in active, large-scale combat operations in two nations: Iraq and Afghanistan. These were inherited conflicts, authorized by Congress, with a clear (if challenging) military mission to stabilize both countries and combat insurgencies.

However, as the post notes, by the end of his second term, the scope of American military engagement had significantly widened to include operations in at least five additional countries: Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. This expansion was not primarily through the deployment of large-scale ground troops, but through a relentless and secretive drone warfare program.

The Human Cost of the Drone Wars

As reported by outlets like The Intercept in their seminal "Drone Wars" investigation, this strategy came with a staggering human cost. The claim that a significant majority—up to 85% in some reports—of those killed were not the intended terrorist targets, but innocent civilians, is a grave allegation that deserves serious national reflection.

From a conservative viewpoint, this raises profound questions about the exercise of executive power. The Obama administration pioneered a method of warfare that operated in a legal and ethical gray zone, often with minimal congressional oversight. While the goal of targeting terrorists is unequivocally necessary for national security, the means employed—which resulted in high civilian casualties—should give every American pause. Conservatism values life, accountability, and a healthy skepticism of centralized power. A process that allows a president to unilaterally place individuals, including American citizens, on "kill lists" and execute them without due process stands in stark contrast to these principles.

This is not a partisan point-scoring exercise; it is a matter of constitutional principle. Where was the liberal outcry over this expansion of presidential war powers? The same voices who now express apoplexy over political theater were largely silent as a president from their own party presided over a shadow war with devastating consequences for innocent life abroad.

The Military-Industrial Complex and Political Enrichment

The post also raises a pointed question about the financial enrichment of President Obama post-presidency. The conservative perspective has long been wary of the "revolving door" between high government office and lucrative private sector positions, particularly those connected to industries a leader once regulated or directed.

The assertion that former President Obama is now worth nearly a billion dollars is a topic for public scrutiny. While it is true that massive book and media deals with Netflix and Penguin Random House form the public-facing explanation for his wealth, conservatives rightly question the full picture. The military-industrial complex is a vast network of contractors, consultants, and investment firms. The notion that a former Commander-in-Chief, who oversaw a massive defense budget and a global expansion of military engagements, could be entirely insulated from the financial allure of that world strains credulity.

This is not to allege illegality, but to highlight a systemic issue. There is an undeniable culture in Washington where public service becomes a springboard for private enrichment, often through connections and influence peddling. This "swamp" culture, which conservatives have long sought to drain, benefits both parties and undermines public trust. The spectacle of a former president amassing a fortune while the policies and connections from his tenure remain opaque is a legitimate subject for public discourse and underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability for all public officials.

Conclusion: A Call for Consistent Principles

The central thesis of the original post holds weight: there is a jarring and hypocritical disconnect in the political discourse. The expansion of a drone war that killed countless civilians, the consolidation of unchecked executive power, and the subsequent personal enrichment of a former president are matters of profound national importance.

Yet, these issues are often ignored or downplayed by a media and political class that prefers to focus on sensationalist, but ultimately less consequential, cultural fights. True conservatism calls for a consistent application of principle—a commitment to life, a limited government that is transparent and accountable, and a robust national defense that operates within the bounds of law and morality.

It is time to move beyond selective outrage and demand a serious conversation about the real legacy of power, its costs, and its consequences. The American people deserve a discourse focused on substance, not just a circus of distractions.

#Obama #Obamacare #DroneWars #MiddleEast #DroneStrikes #Netflix #MilitaryIndustrialComplex 

A Reckoning Arrives: The Unraveling of Obamacare and the Democratic Legacy of a "Disaster"

 

A Reckoning Arrives: The Unraveling of Obamacare and the Democratic Legacy of a "Disaster"

Now all of a sudden DEMOCRATS can't even agree on why they shut down the Government. Half of them are saying it was just to go against Trump. BTW, Obamacare is gonna get shaved OFF. The Insurance Companies Gravy train is stopped.

Obamacare was the Democrats' greatest achievement, according to them, in the past 50 years, and it was, is, and will go down as a disaster. It just took 15 years to show what it was. This is a Democrat problem. Not a single Republican voted for it.

A Reckoning Arrives: The Unraveling of Obamacare and the Democratic Legacy of a "Disaster"

For years, the political left and its allies in the media spoke of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, in hushed, reverent tones. It was touted as their crowning domestic achievement of the last half-century, a landmark of progressive compassion and governmental benevolence. They brushed aside the concerns of conservatives who warned of skyrocketing costs, diminished choice, and government overreach. They rammed the 2,000-page bill through Congress on a strictly partisan vote, not a single Republican siding with them, in a display of raw political power that dismissed half the country’s representatives.

Now, fifteen years later, the chickens are coming home to roost. The veneer has cracked, the promises have crumbled, and the American people are left holding the bill for a fundamentally flawed system. The recent spectacle of a government shutdown, where Democrats themselves couldn't agree on a coherent rationale—with some even admitting it was merely an act of pique against President Trump—is a perfect metaphor for the chaos their signature policy has wrought upon the healthcare system.

The conservative perspective has been vindicated, not through partisan rhetoric, but through the cold, hard reality of experience. We warned that you cannot craft a more affordable, higher-quality healthcare system by adding layers of bureaucracy and government mandates. We argued that you cannot improve choice by restricting it. We predicted that forcing healthy, young Americans to purchase comprehensive insurance they didn't need would create a distorted market. On every front, these warnings have proven prophetic.

The Broken Promises: A Legacy of Unaffordable "Affordable Care"

Recall the grand promises. Families would save $2,500 a year on their premiums. You could keep your doctor if you liked him. You could keep your health plan, period. These were not minor miscalculations; they were foundational selling points that proved to be utterly false.

Instead of falling, premiums and deductibles soared. For millions of middle-class Americans who do not receive subsidies, the "Affordable" Care Act has been anything but. They face annual premium hikes and deductibles so high that their insurance becomes little more than a catastrophic safety net, unusable for everyday medical needs. The "choice" offered on the exchanges often dwindled to a single, expensive option, as insurance companies, crushed by the law’s unworkable regulations, fled the marketplace. This is not the free market at work; it is the inevitable result of a government attempting to dictate terms to an industry, disrupting the delicate balance of risk and cost.

The claim that Obamacare was the Democrats' "greatest achievement" is telling. It reveals a worldview where the scale of government intervention is the measure of success, not the tangible outcomes for citizens. From a conservative standpoint, a true achievement would be a system that empowers individuals, fosters competition, and drives down costs through innovation—not one that swells the federal budget and places bureaucrats between patients and their doctors.

The Insurance Company "Gravy Train" and the Individual Mandate

The post’s mention of the "insurance companies gravy train" is a curious point, often misused by the left. It is true that the major insurance companies initially acquiesced to Obamacare. Why wouldn't they? The law delivered them millions of new, government-subsidized customers through the individual mandate—the now-repealed requirement that every American must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty.

From a conservative view, this mandate was an unprecedented and unconstitutional overreach by the federal government, a principle the Supreme Court upheld. It forced citizens to buy a private product as a condition of mere existence. This partnership between big government and big business is the antithesis of free-market conservatism. It created a cronyist system where the government provided the customers and the insurance companies played by the government’s rules. The "gravy train" was powered by the coercion of the American taxpayer. Stopping this train wasn't an attack on the free market; it was an attack on a state-sanctioned monopoly that limited genuine competition and choice.

A Partisan Legacy, A National Problem

The fact that "not a single Republican voted for it" is not a trivial piece of political trivia. It is central to understanding why the law has been so troubled. Major social and economic reforms, to be durable and successful, require a broad consensus. Social Security and Medicare, for all their flaws, had significant bipartisan support. Obamacare did not. It was a purely ideological project, conceived and executed by one party, which chose to ignore the alternative solutions offered by the other.

This partisan origins created a policy that was brittle. It has been the subject of constant legal challenges, legislative tweaks, and political warfare since its inception. A system so large and so personal as healthcare cannot survive such perpetual instability. The Democrats own this creation entirely—the initial rush of pride and every subsequent failure. They own the cancelled plans, the narrowing networks, and the rising costs that have burdened countless American families.

The post is correct: this is a Democrat problem. They built a complex Rube Goldberg machine of a healthcare system and are now shocked that it is breaking down. The recent infighting over the government shutdown is a symptom of the same political hubris. A party that cannot even agree on why it is holding the government hostage clearly lacks the sober, responsible governance required to manage one-sixth of the American economy.

The Path Forward: Conservative Principles for Real Reform

As Obamacare continues to be "shaved off" through legislative and administrative actions, the question becomes: what comes next? The conservative answer is not simply to return to the pre-2009 status quo, but to move forward toward a system grounded in time-tested principles.

This means empowering patients, not insurance companies or government agencies. It means expanding Health Savings Accounts so individuals can control their healthcare dollars. It means allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines to foster genuine competition. It means enacting meaningful tort reform to reduce the cost of defensive medicine. It means providing support for state-level high-risk pools to care for those with pre-existing conditions without forcing everyone else into a one-size-fits-all plan that drives up costs.

The unraveling of Obamacare is not a cause for conservative celebration, but for sober reflection. It is a stark lesson in the limits of government power and the folly of ignoring market principles. The American people deserve a healthcare system that is affordable, accessible, and innovative—one that respects their freedom to choose. The great Obamacare experiment has proven, once and for all, that such a system will never be built by government fiat, but will only flourish when the ingenuity of the American people is unleashed from the shackles of a poorly conceived and partisan law. The disaster is indeed theirs, but the responsibility to build something better belongs to all of us.

#Obamacare #ACA #Healthcare #AffordableCareAct 

People Are Voting For An Ideology We Were Trained Keep Out of America

 

During Basic Training Reagan was telling Gorbachev to 'Tear Down That Wall'. We were trained to hate and kill Communists. Now people we were trained to fight for are voting for Communists. Reagan also said we are only one election away from losing it all.

The image is seared into the memory of a generation: President Ronald Reagan, standing before the Brandenburg Gate, the Berlin Wall a stark, concrete scar behind him. His voice, firm and clear, carried a challenge that was both a moral judgment and a prophecy of freedom: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

For those of us who served during that era, or who simply believed in the cause of American liberty, that moment was a clarion call. It was the culmination of a decades-long struggle against a sinister ideology. In Basic Training, we weren't taught to merely dislike communism; we were taught to understand it as a existential threat to everything America represents. We learned to see the Wall not just as a barrier of concrete and rebar, but as a symbol of a system so bankrupt, so fearful of its own people, that it had to imprison them to maintain power. We were trained to fight, and if necessary, to kill, to defend our Constitution against the agents of that totalitarian ideology.

Now, look upon the modern political landscape and behold the profound and disorienting paradox. The very political movement that today styles itself as "progressive" actively downplays the evils of communism and, in some alarming quarters, openly flirts with its tenets. We see individuals, raised in the unparalleled prosperity and freedom secured by the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation and the resolve of leaders like Reagan, casting votes for politicians who speak of "democratic socialism" with a soft-focus nostalgia, utterly divorced from its brutal, real-world application. Reagan’s warning that we are “only one generation away from losing it all” feels less like a rhetorical flourish and more like a chillingly accurate diagnosis of our current cultural amnesia.

This shift is not an accident. It is the bitter fruit of a long-standing project by the academic and cultural left to systematically dismantle the American narrative and, with it, the moral clarity that once guided our foreign and domestic policy.

The Erosion of Patriotism and the Rewriting of History

The first front in this battle was our own understanding of history. For decades, conservative voices have warned against an educational trajectory that replaces patriotic

reverence with a narrative of perpetual national shame. Instead of teaching American history as the extraordinary, if imperfect, story of a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, we are now presented with a "critical" lens that frames every institution, every founding father, and every national triumph through the prism of oppression, racism, and exploitation.

When a young person is taught that their country is fundamentally corrupt and that its founding principles are a lie, they become alienated from the very identity that once united us against external threats like communism. If America is not a force for good in the world, then perhaps the Cold War wasn't a struggle between freedom and tyranny, but merely an imperialist competition between two rival powers. This moral relativism is a poison. It strips the Berlin Wall of its meaning. It was not a monument to socialist worker’s paradise, but a prison wall. To forget this is to betray the millions who suffered behind the Iron Curtain and the brave souls who died trying to cross from East to West.

The Siren Song of "Democratic Socialism"

The second front is the calculated rebranding of a failed ideology. Today’s activists are savvy enough to avoid the blood-stained banners of the Soviet Union or Maoist China. Instead, they offer a sanitized, Scandinavian-fied version called "democratic socialism." They point to Nordic countries' robust social safety nets, conveniently ignoring that these nations are, in fact, market-based economies with strong property rights and a history of fiscal responsibility—far closer to a regulated capitalist model than to the centrally-planned economies that conservatives rightly opposed.

This is a bait-and-switch. The policies promoted by the modern American left—the calls for nationalized industries, the vilification of private enterprise, the demands for massive government control over healthcare, energy, and education—are not the policies of Denmark. They are the first steps toward the kind of centralized state power that has historically, and inevitably, led to a loss of personal freedom. When you train the population to look to the government as the source of all provision, you create dependency. And a dependent populace is far easier to control. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is the basic mechanics of state power that conservatives have always understood and resisted.

The men and women trained to fight communists understood that the core of the conflict was not merely geopolitical, but philosophical. Communism, in all its forms, subordinates the individual to the collective. It grants the state ultimate authority over economic life, and eventually, over every other aspect of human existence. It is the antithesis of the American ideal of individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise. To see Americans now vote for politicians who espouse this collectivist ideology is to witness a nation turning its back on its own founding principles.

The Fulfillment of Reagan's Warning

This brings us to the profound truth of Reagan’s warning. He was not just speaking of a single election, but of the perpetual struggle to conserve the fragile ecosystem of liberty. Freedom is not self-sustaining. It requires each generation to learn its value, understand its prerequisites, and be willing to defend it against encroachment, both foreign and domestic.

We are losing that fight not on a battlefield, but in the classrooms, in the media, and in the culture. We are losing it because we have failed to pass on the stark, unvarnished lessons of the 20th century. We have allowed the horrors of the Gulag, the Killing Fields, and the Great Leap Forward to be softened by time and obscured by revisionist history. We have permitted the language of freedom to be co-opted by those who would use it to advance the cause of state control.

The soldier who trained to face down a Soviet tank did so with the conviction that he was defending a nation that believed in the God-given right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He would be bewildered to see that the contemporary battle is no longer at the wall, but within the walls of our own institutions. The call to "tear down this wall" was a demand to dismantle the physical manifestation of a tyrannical idea. The tragedy of our time is that the same idea, repackaged and marketed to a generation ignorant of its consequences, is now being invited in through the front door.

The conservative perspective on this is not one of mere nostalgia, but of urgent vigilance. The mission remains the same: to defend American liberty. The enemy is no longer a foreign army with a distinct uniform, but an insidious ideology that has found fertile ground in a nation that has forgotten what it once knew. The task before us is to rebuild, not a wall of concrete, but a wall of resolve—to educate, to persuade, and to ensure that the next generation understands the price of freedom and the seductive, deadly cost of trading it for the false promise of security offered by the siren song of communism. Our generation must be the one that remembers, lest we become the one that loses it all.

#Reagan #Gorbachev #Russia #BerlinWall 

'Socialism is a snake eating it's tail and then bragging about his hunting skills.'

 

'Socialism is a snake eating it's tail and then bragging about his hunting skills.'

Of all the metaphors used to describe the failings of socialism, few are as vividly apt as the recent quip that has been circulating: “Socialism is a snake eating its tail and then bragging about his hunting skills.” This deceptively simple image captures the entire tragic cycle of this ideology—its self-cannibalizing nature, its perpetual state of crisis, and its unshakable hubris in claiming these very failures as victories. From a conservative perspective, this is not merely a witty remark but a profound summary of a century of economic and human disaster.

The first part of the metaphor, “a snake eating its tail,” perfectly illustrates the fundamental economic contradiction at socialism’s core. A system that purports to be about production and prosperity is, in reality, a machine for consumption and eventual collapse. The snake, or Ouroboros of ancient symbology, represents a cycle of self-destruction, and this is precisely what socialist policy enacts upon a nation’s economy.

Socialism operates by seizing the engines of production—through nationalization, punitive taxation, and suffocating regulation. It attacks the very “tails” of private enterprise and individual capital that generate the wealth it seeks to redistribute. The entrepreneur who risks his savings to open a factory is told his profits are illegitimate. The doctor who spends decades in education and training is told her high income is a social ill. The family that has scrimped and saved to build a nest egg is told their capital must be “put to better use” by the state. This is the snake taking its first bite.

The immediate consequence is a short-lived illusion of bounty. The state, having confiscated private wealth, can fund massive social programs, distribute benefits, and create a temporary sense of communal prosperity. This is the snake swallowing, feeling sated. But the digestive process is where the doom lies. By punishing success and confiscating capital, socialism annihilates the incentive to produce. Why innovate if your patents will be seized? Why expand a business if the profits are taxed at 90%? Why study for a demanding career if the financial reward is stripped away?

The result is economic stagnation. The pool of wealth that the state is feasting upon begins to shrink. Investment dries up, innovation flees to freer shores, and the productive class is hollowed out. The state, now facing a revenue crisis but burdened with unsustainable entitlement promises, is forced to seek new “tails” to consume. It raises taxes further, prints money to cover its debts, or expropriates what little private property remains. This is the snake, having consumed its tail to the midpoint, now turning on its own body, devouring its torso in a desperate bid to survive. It creates a vicious cycle where the solution to every government-created problem is more government, and the cure for every economic ailment caused by socialism is a stronger dose of socialism. The system literally consumes the foundations of its own existence, leaving behind the economic and social equivalent of a hollow circle.

Yet, the metaphor’s brilliance does not end with the act of self-cannibalization. It is the second clause—“and then bragging about his hunting skills”—that captures the indispensable political and psychological component of socialism. For the system to persist despite its evident failures, it must not only destroy the economy but also control the narrative. It must reframe collapse as progress and desperation as virtue.

This “bragging” manifests in several key ways. First, there is the perpetual blame-shifting. When shelves go empty in Venezuela, when lights go out in South Africa, or when inflation skyrockets in woke capitalist nations flirting with socialist policies, the cause is never the system itself. It is always “sabotage” by the wealthy, “foreign interference” by the United States, the lingering “legacy of colonialism,” or the latest crisis—be it a pandemic or a war—that is wielded as an all-purpose excuse for systemic failure. The snake, having nearly consumed itself, points to the shrinking world around it and declares, “See how I have subdued my enemies?”

Second, socialism brags by redefining dependency as liberation. A citizenry made wholly reliant on the state for housing, food, and healthcare is not seen as a tragic loss of autonomy but as a triumph of “guaranteed rights.” The ability to stand on your own two feet, to provide for your family through your own labor, is recast as a precarious and exploitative condition. True freedom, they claim, is freedom *from* the burden of responsibility. The snake, now immobile and consuming its own neck, boasts that it has finally achieved a perfect, self-contained equilibrium, free from the messy struggles of the hunt.

This bravado is most evident in the modern Western left, which has learned to repackage the old, failed ideas of socialism in the language of social justice. They point to the very crises they create—the soaring cost of living driven by green energy mandates, the collapse of urban centers under the weight of bureaucratic bloat, the breakdown of social trust through identity politics—and present themselves as the only ones with the solution. They create a problem, offer a “fix” that expands their own power and further impoverishes the people, and then present themselves as heroic saviors. The snake has now eaten its own head, and its last dying signal is a boast about its magnificent hunting prowess.

The conservative alternative to this suicidal cycle is not a heartless, dog-eat-dog world. It is the philosophy of the cultivator, not the consumer. It is the belief in building, growing, and stewarding. Conservatism understands that a society’s wealth is not a static pie to be divided, but a dynamic, living entity that must be nurtured. It is the fruit of a thousand invisible actions: the farmer tending his fields, the small business owner balancing her books at midnight, the parent saving for a child’s education, the scientist toiling in a lab.

Our role, as conservatives, is to protect the garden from the snake. This means upholding the principles that allow prosperity to flourish: the rule of law, which protects property rights and ensures contracts are honored; limited government, which gets out of the way of innovation and industry; and a culture that celebrates merit, hard work, and personal responsibility. It means understanding that true compassion is not measured by the size of a welfare check, but by the number of people lifted out of poverty through opportunity and the dignity of work.

The snake eating its tail is an ancient symbol of infinity, but in the context of human society, it represents a finite and fatal path. Socialism’s promise of a utopian end-state is a mirage; the only destination on its track is the point of consumption, where the head finally meets the tail and the entire entity vanishes. The conservative vision, by contrast, is one of a lasting and open-ended prosperity, built not on the envy of what others have, but on the boundless potential of what free men and women can create. The task before us is to clearly and consistently articulate this choice: between the self-congratulatory death spiral of the snake, and the enduring, generative work of the cultivator.

#Socialism #SnakeEatingItsTail #Mamdani

 

Woke radio host shares photo of herself proudly kissing the feet of firebrand Democrat congresswoman Jasmine Crockett

#JasmineCrockett #Democrats #Congress #StephanieMiller

Former FBI Director James Comey Indicted

#FBI #Comey #JamesComey

Ex-FBI boss James Comey tries to stop feds from using previously seized docs at his trial

James Comey prosecution legit, not ‘vindictive’ extension of Trump’s grudges, feds say

When Desert Shield Became Desert Storm

  

When Desert Shield Became Desert Storm:

President Herbert Walker Bush (41) gave Saddam Hussain until January 15, 1991 to get out of Kuwait. We had 500K troops on hand. I was on a compound @ 40 minutes north of Kobar. Every night 2 fighter jets would fly over head going north then fly back south 30 minutes later. This occured every night around 2230 to 2300, (10:30pm to 11pm) It wouldn't have concerned me if they were far to the east or far to the west. They flew over my right shoulder. So, I asked an NCO what were they doing. I was told they are taking surveillance photos of troop movement, radar sites, and aircraft artillery. I figured that works for me. So every night I watched the flights.

On January 15th Saddam Hussain didn't leave Kuwait. On January 16th we were told war is gonna happen,  but we didn't know what time. So on January 16th we were told to be in MOPP Level 2. The MOPP Suit consists of a jacket, pants, boots, mask, and gloves to wear over your uniform to protect you from NBC, -Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological warfare. MOPP level 1 is the suit. MOPP Level 2 is the suit and boots. MOPP Level 2 is the suit and boots. MOPP Level 3 is the suit, boots, and mask. MOPP Level 4 is the suit, boot, masks, and gloves. 

So on January 16, 1991 we were in MOPP Level 2. I was outside as always and my roommate, a fellow Lieutenant from Maine was on his cot inside. We had Armed Forces radio on the wall.

I heard this sound. It sounded like a train was coming. We didn't have train tracks close by, but I looked anyway. Then the sounded became a roar. I looked up and saw 30 to 40 planes of different sizes and configurations. And I thought "That’s not the normal patrol". So, the mind thinks stupid crap when you know you are in deep s***. So, I thought, go inside and rest because tomorrow will be a long day. 

We had the radio on Armed Forces Radio. When I walked inside the radio went silent. I thought, "Did they bomb the radio station?" I didn't know where AFR broadcasted from. 5 to 6 seconds later a voice comes on and says "We have hostilities in the Persian Gulf."

The next morning a fellow Lieutenant was standing there and talking to her fiancee. He was an E6/Staff Seargent Special Forces. He was wearing the regular green BDU's, not the Desert Class uniforms we were wearing. He had his shoulder holster on with his sidearm. He had already done his job. He had destroyed the facilities in Iraq so those planes could go into Iraq and do damage unimpeded.

Those fighter jets were collecting information to pass to the SF to take out what would prevent those planes from succeeding.

That was when Desert Shield became Desert Storm.

#DesertStorm #DesertShield #War #MiddleEast

The Pilgrims Tried Socialism

 

The Pilgrims tried Socialism. It didn't work. The lazy were lazy, and the hard workers were resentful. It all led to low harvest and starvation. It finally led to PRIVATE PROPERTY  and families worked SEPARATELY. It led to higher production. MAN is not meant to be in a COLLECTIVE.

The Pilgrims figured it out, Mamdani hasn't  ... YET.

We knew Socialism didn't work before the first THANKSGIVING!!!

The First Thanksgiving’s Forgotten Lesson: How Private Property Saved a Colony and Forged a Nation

As families across America gather this Thanksgiving, they will partake in a tradition rooted in a harvest feast shared between the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony and the Wampanoag people in 1621. The story of perseverance, divine providement, and cross-cultural cooperation is rightly celebrated. But often lost in the familiar narrative of buckled hats and shared venison is a profound, foundational lesson in economics and human nature—a lesson the Pilgrims learned through bitter failure and near-starvation. It is a lesson that conservatives understand in their bones: that the impulse toward collectivism runs contrary to the God-given drive for self-determination, and that the institution of private property is not a mere legal construct, but a cornerstone of prosperity and freedom.

The popular memory of the Pilgrims often begins with the Mayflower Compact, a remarkable document establishing self-government, and ends with the first Thanksgiving. What is glossed over is the calamitous experiment in socialism that nearly doomed the colony before it could ever celebrate its first bounty.

Upon their arrival, the Pilgrims were bound by the terms of their financing from the London-based Merchant Adventurers. Their charter mandated that all colonists would work the land in common, and all the fruits of their labor would be deposited into a common storehouse. From this common store, each person would then receive an equal allotment of food and supplies, regardless of their individual contribution. This was, in practice, an early form of socialism: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The results were catastrophic. As Governor William Bradford’s own account, *Of Plymouth Plantation*, meticulously documents, this system bred what conservatives today would immediately recognize as the inevitable consequences of divorcing effort from reward. The most hardworking and able-bodied men resented that they were forced to labor for the benefit of others who did not pull their weight. Why should they work themselves to exhaustion when their rations would be no different from those who idled away the day?

Conversely, the “lazy” and less capable, as Bradford termed them, had no incentive to improve their efforts. They could rely on the toil of their more diligent neighbors with no personal cost. This “communality,” Bradford wrote, was found to “breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.” The collective farm, far from fostering unity, bred resentment, sloth, and a profound sense of injustice. The human spirit, when stripped of the right to enjoy the fruits of its own labor, withers.

The consequence of this failed experiment was not merely discontent, but starvation. The harvests were meager, failing to produce enough to sustain the colony. Sickness and death swept through Plymouth. Within the first winter, nearly half of the colonists perished. The community was on the brink of collapse, not because the land was barren, but because their economic system was.

Facing extinction, the Pilgrims’ leadership made a radical decision. In the spring of 1623, Bradford and his advisors abandoned the communal model. They assigned every family a private plot of land, entrusting them to work it for their own direct benefit. What they grew would be theirs to keep, to trade, or to use to provide for their families. The link between effort and reward was restored overnight.

The transformation was immediate and dramatic. Bradford recorded that the women, who had previously been excused from field work under the communal system, now went “willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.” The men, now working for their own wives and children, labored with an energy and ingenuity that had been utterly absent before. No longer was it a question of working for an abstract “common good”; it was now a matter of providing for one’s own hearth and home.

The result was an abundance that the colony had never known. As Bradford triumphantly wrote, “Instead of famine, now God gave them plenty,” and the colony “had no want.” The harvest was so bountiful that they were able to trade their surplus with the Native Americans. This success, born of individual enterprise and private property, provided the actual plenty that was celebrated in the harvest feasts that became the origin of our Thanksgiving tradition.

This historical episode is not a quaint anecdote; it is a powerful allegory for the conservative worldview. It affirms several core principles that stand in stark opposition to the modern progressive agenda.

First, it affirms that human nature is immutable. We are not blank slates to be molded by social engineers. We are endowed by our Creator with a drive for self-preservation, a desire to provide for our families, and a fundamental understanding of justice that recoils at being forced to carry the load for those who will not carry their own. Any system that ignores this reality is doomed to fail, no matter how noble its intentions may sound.

Second, it demonstrates that private property is the bedrock of both prosperity and liberty. The right to own, to control, and to benefit from one’s property is not greed; it is the material manifestation of personal responsibility and freedom. It is what allows a family to be secure, a community to be stable, and a nation to be strong. The Pilgrims did not become prosperous because the government redistributed resources; they flourished when government got out of the way and empowered individuals.

Finally, the Pilgrims’ story underscores that true compassion is not achieved through forced collectivization. The common store led to shared misery. It was the shift to a system of individual responsibility that created such a surplus that the colonists could then be genuinely charitable, helping the truly needy from a position of strength, rather than mandated poverty.

Today, as we hear calls for a radical restructuring of our economy, for the Green New Deal, for the expansion of the state into every facet of our lives, we would do well to remember the lesson of Plymouth Rock. The Pilgrims “figured it out” over 400 years ago. They discovered that the path to abundance is not through the collective, but through the industry of free individuals, bound by faith and family, working on their own property, for their own benefit, and in doing so, building a commonwealth that benefits all. This Thanksgiving, let us give thanks not only for the plenty on our tables, but for the system of liberty that made it possible—a system whose first seeds in American soil were sown by Pilgrims who learned the hard way that man was not meant to be in a collective.

#Thanksgiving #Pilgrims #Socialism

The Obamacare Subsidies

Opinion/Analysis

Yo, the Obamacare Subsidies do NOT go to the Insured to pay their premium. The Subsidies go straight to the Insurance Companies ... that way the REAL cost of Obamacare isn't seen by you. Now that the money pot has dried up they are saying that cost is now on YOUR back in order to Gaslite you in not seeing it. So, if the Subsidies aren't there YOU are left on the hook. If there is no money for the insurance companies you are assed out.

DON'T YOU SEE???

When COVID hit the Insurance Companies eyes got big, they jacked up the premiums claiming it was temporary, the government went along with it and call the Subsidies temporary  ... and now they want the money to continue.

NO!!!

The Great Obamacare Deception: How Hidden Subsidies Masked the True Cost and Set You Up for the Fall

For years, conservatives have sounded the alarm on the fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. While the law was sold to the American people on promises of lower costs and increased accessibility, its architects employed a clever—and ultimately unsustainable—accounting trick to hide its true price tag. A recent and pointed observation from a frustrated citizen cuts to the heart of the issue: “Yo, the Obamacare Subsidies do NOT go to the Insured to pay their premium. The Subsidies go straight to the Insurance Companies.”

This is not a minor technicality; it is the core mechanism of a grand political illusion. Understanding this process reveals why we are now facing a fiscal cliff and why insurance companies are demanding more money, leaving everyday Americans holding the bag.

The Illusion of Affordability: A Shell Game with Your Money

When you purchase a health insurance plan on the Obamacare exchange, you may see a discounted monthly premium. The government, you are told, is providing a “subsidy” to make it affordable. This framing is intentional and misleading. It creates the perception that you are receiving a direct benefit, a helping hand from a benevolent government.

In reality, the vast majority of these subsidies—specifically, the Advanced Premium Tax Credits (APTCs)—are wired directly from the U.S. Treasury to the insurance company’s bank account. You, the insured, never see the money. You only see the artificially lowered price.

Why does this matter? It creates a dangerous disconnect between the consumer and the true cost of their healthcare. This was a feature, not a bug. By hiding the real price, the government could claim it was making healthcare “affordable” without the average person realizing just how astronomically expensive the underlying product had become. The *real* cost of Obamacare was masked, buried in the federal budget, and financed by deficit spending and taxes on the productive sectors of the economy.

This system is the antithesis of a true free market. In a functioning market, the consumer sees a price, pays for a service, and holds the provider accountable for its value. Obamacare shattered this relationship. It made the federal government the primary payer and the insurance companies the dependent clients, all while making the citizen a passive participant in a system they were told was built for their benefit.

The COVID Cash Grab and the Inevitable Fiscal Cliff

The post accurately identifies the COVID-19 pandemic as a pivotal moment that exposed the fragility of this scheme. The system was already strained, but the pandemic provided the perfect pretext for a massive expansion. Insurance companies, facing uncertainty, did what any business in a distorted, government-managed market would do: they lobbied for more guarantees.

The government’s response was not to introduce market-based solutions or increase competition. Instead, it doubled down on the flawed model. Through the so-called “American Rescue Plan” and subsequent legislation, temporary subsidies were massively expanded. More money was funneled directly to insurance companies, and eligibility was widened to include higher-income individuals who had never before qualified for government assistance.

This was sold as necessary relief. In truth, it was a life-support system for a failing law and a windfall for the insurance industry. Premiums were artificially suppressed to an even greater degree, further obscuring the true cost. But as the post correctly notes, these subsidies were always billed as “temporary.” The pot of money was not infinite.

Now, the bill has come due. The “temporary” money is drying up, and insurance companies, having grown accustomed to this river of federal cash, are facing a reckoning. Their solution? Not to become more efficient or competitive, but to demand that the subsidies be made permanent. If Congress refuses, they will have no choice but to jack up premiums—dramatically.

And who will be blamed? Not the architects of this unstable system, and certainly not the insurance companies acting within its perverse incentives. The resulting price hikes will be presented as a market failure, a reason to demand even more government intervention, potentially including a full-throated push for a single-payer system. This is the “gaslighting” the post refers to—the attempt to make you believe that the consequences of a government-managed disaster are actually the failures of capitalism itself.

A Conservative Path Forward: Restoring Markets and Personal Responsibility

The current crisis is a painful but teachable moment. It proves that you cannot subsidize your way to affordability. You can only hide costs, distort markets, and create dependencies that eventually collapse under their own weight.

The conservative solution is not to tinker at the edges of this broken system but to fundamentally change its orientation away from government control and back toward individual autonomy. This requires:

1.  Transparency in Pricing: We must demand a system where consumers see the *real* price of care and have the power to shop for value. This means promoting Price Transparency tools and encouraging the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which empower patients, not bureaucrats or insurance executives.

2.  Restoring True Insurance: Health insurance should return to its purpose of protecting against catastrophic, unforeseen costs, rather than being a pre-paid plan for every check-up and minor procedure. This would make core insurance policies significantly more affordable.

3.  Unleashing Competition: We must break down the regulatory barriers that prevent insurance companies from selling policies across state lines. Allowing individuals and associations to pool together to purchase insurance would create larger, more powerful risk pools and drive down costs through genuine competition.

4.  Rejecting the Bailout: Congress must have the courage to say “NO” to the insurance industry’s demands for permanent subsidies. Continuing this spending spree is fiscally irresponsible and only delays the inevitable collapse while adding to our nation’s crushing debt.

The Obamacare experiment has been a masterclass in the failure of big-government liberalism. It hid costs, created perverse incentives, and is now attempting to blame you for its own collapse. The path forward is not to prop up this decaying system with more of your tax dollars, but to finally embrace the principles of free markets, transparency, and individual liberty that have always been the source of true American prosperity.

#Obamacare #Subsidies #Healthcare

Politicians Lie

 

The Unlikely Promise Keeper: How Trump's Outsider Status Forged a New Brand of Accountability

For generations, the American political landscape has been a graveyard for campaign promises. The cycle is as predictable as it is disheartening: a candidate, full of fire and conviction, stands before the electorate and makes solemn pledges. They vow to fight for the forgotten man, to cut spending, to secure the borders, or to reshape the judiciary. Then, upon arriving in the hallowed halls of Washington, a strange alchemy occurs. The fiery rhetoric cools. The bold promises are diluted by "political reality." The urgent priorities are delayed by "bipartisan compromise." What was once a clear pledge becomes a vague aspiration, then a forgotten footnote, buried under a mountain of excuses about parliamentary procedure and the art of the possible.

From a conservative perspective, this betrayal is not merely a matter of individual character failure; it is the inevitable product of a permanent political class that has become utterly disconnected from the people it is supposed to serve. These career politicians are not leaders first; they are climbers. Their primary goal is not to enact a principled agenda but to secure re-election, gain committee chairmanships, and cement their status within the D.C. ecosystem. Promises are the currency they use to get elected, but governing is the process of breaking those promises to maintain their place within the establishment.

This long-standing betrayal makes the presidency of Donald J. Trump not just a political shift, but a profound systemic shock. Love him or loathe him, one undeniable fact stands out: Donald Trump has been, by a significant margin, the most promise-keeping president in modern memory. His ability to translate campaign rhetoric into concrete action is a key pillar of his enduring connection with his base and a constant source of frustration for his opponents. The reason for this divergence is rooted in a single, transformative detail: Trump is the first president since George Washington to have never run for or held any other public office before entering the White House.

The Career Politician’s Playbook: The Promise as a Tool

For the career politician, a campaign is a performance. It is a carefully stage-managed effort to build a coalition, often by telling different groups what they want to hear. The conservative base hears vows to defund Planned Parenthood and stand up to globalism. The moderates hear whispers of pragmatism and fiscal responsibility. The promises are often contradictory, but that is of little consequence. The goal is to win.

Once in office, the machinery of Washington immediately begins to assimilate the newcomer. The new president or legislator is surrounded by seasoned staffers, lobbyists, and bureaucrats—all products of the D.C. swamp. They are told, in soothing, reasonable tones, that their campaign ideas were "simplistic," that the system is more complex than they realized, and that "governing is different from campaigning." This is the process of normalization. It is how a firebrand becomes just another member of the club.

The excuses for breaking promises are then rolled out with practiced ease:

*   "The filibuster made it impossible."

*   "We didn't have the votes in our own party."

*   "The lawyers advised against it."

*   "We have to focus on the next election."

From a conservative viewpoint, this is more than mere failure; it is a form of gaslighting. Voters are told their desires are unrealistic, their priorities are unachievable, and their anger is misplaced. The result is a deep and justified cynicism. It creates the perception that both parties are fundamentally the same—two wings of the same bird, flying in circles over the Washington Monument, ultimately landing in the same swamp.

The Washington Precedent: An Outsider’s Mandate

Donald Trump’s entry onto the political stage shattered this model. He was not a member of the club. He had no desire to be assimilated. He had not spent decades learning the unspoken rules of promise-breaking. He was a businessman and a celebrity, accustomed to setting a goal and driving toward it, not to endless deliberation and compromise. His relationship with voters was not based on political loyalty, but on a transactional pact: "I will tell you what I am going to do, and if you elect me, I will do it."

This outsider status, shared only with George Washington, was his greatest strength. He was not beholden to the D.C. establishment because he was not of it. He did not fear the editorial board of *The Washington Post* or the cocktail party circuit because his self-worth was not derived from their approval. His constituency was not the political class, but the millions of Americans who felt abandoned by that very class.

Consequently, when President Trump made a promise, he treated it as a to-do list. His supporters recognized this, and his detractors were stunned by it.

The Promise-Keeper’s Report Card: Rhetoric into Action

The evidence of this unique commitment is etched into the policy landscape of his presidency.

1.  The Judiciary: He promised to appoint conservative, originalist judges. He did not just appoint a few; he transformed the federal judiciary with a historic 234 appointments, including three Supreme Court justices who were explicitly vetted by the Federalist Society for their fidelity to the Constitution. This was a promise not just kept, but exceeded.

2.  Tax Cuts: He promised major tax cuts, and against unified opposition from the media and Democrats, he delivered the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, providing significant relief for American families and businesses.

3.  Deregulation: He promised to cut two existing regulations for every new one introduced. His administration didn't just meet that goal; it unleashed a historic deregulatory effort, cutting nearly eight regulations for every new one, unleashing economic energy that had been stifled for years.

4.  Border Security: He promised to build a wall on the southern border and enforce immigration law. Despite relentless legal, political, and media opposition, his administration built over 450 miles of new border wall and implemented transformative policies like the Remain in Mexico policy, which dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and ended the disastrous policy of "catch and release."

5.  Foreign Policy: He promised to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, a promise made by multiple presidents over decades. He did it. He promised to get tough on China and renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA. He launched a trade confrontation with Beijing and replaced NAFTA with the USMCA.

The pattern is clear. For each major pledge, there was a concerted, often messy, but ultimately effective effort to fulfill it. There was no "pivot" to the center. There was no apology for pursuing the agenda he was elected to enact. The chaos that often surrounded his administration was frequently the sound of an outsider smashing through the gates that had for so long protected the status quo.

A Lesson in Accountability

The contrast between Donald Trump and the career politicians who preceded him offers a powerful lesson for conservatives. It proves that the "swamp" is not an immutable fact of nature but a man-made construct that can be drained. It demonstrates that the excuses for inaction are just that—excuses. Political will, when coupled with a leader who is unafraid of the establishment's scorn, can produce tangible results.

Donald Trump’s legacy, in the eyes of his supporters, is not one of perfect policy or polished rhetoric. It is a legacy of accountability. He showed that it is possible for a leader to look the American people in the eye, make a promise, and then, against all odds, fight like hell to keep it. In a political era defined by betrayal, being a promise-keeper is the most radical act of all. He proved that the only qualification needed to disrupt a broken system is a refusal to play by its corrupt rules, a lesson first taught by George Washington and, two centuries later, rediscovered by a political outsider from New York.

#Policy #Politics #Politicians