We just went through the longest Government Shutdown in history. I want a T-Shirt!!!

 

The Shutdown We Deserved: Why the Longest Standoff Was a Necessary Battle for Sovereignty

The Shutdown Standoff: Why Principle in the Face of Political Theater is Worth a T-Shirt

We just endured the longest government shutdown in American history. For 35 days, the gears of the federal machinery ground to a halt, national parks piled high with trash, and hundreds of thousands of dedicated federal workers wondered when their next paycheck would arrive. It was a period of high political drama, finger-pointing on cable news, and genuine anxiety for many. And yet, emerging from this fray, a sentiment captures a feeling that resonated with millions: “I want a T-Shirt!!!” This isn’t a cry of celebration for hardship, but a defiant badge of honor—a recognition that sometimes, standing on principle against the relentless tide of political posturing is a fight worth having, even when it’s messy, even when it’s hard, and even when the media narrative is stacked against you.

The shutdown was not, as it was so often framed, a tantrum thrown by a president unwilling to compromise. It was the inevitable collision of two diametrically opposed worldviews on a fundamental question of national sovereignty: the security of our border. On one side stood a president who had made a concrete, specific campaign promise to the American people—to secure the southern border through the construction of a physical barrier. This was not a hidden agenda; it was the central plank of his platform, for which millions of Americans voted. On the other side stood a Democratic Party that had, in previous years, voted for and championed the very concept of physical fencing, but now found itself in the grip of a resistance mentality that deemed any concession to this president a political defeat. Their position shifted from “we need a smarter barrier” to “we will not fund one dollar for a wall,” a stark refusal to negotiate that forced the standoff.

For conservatives, the shutdown was a painful but necessary demonstration of how our constitutional system is supposed to function, albeit in its most strained form. The Founders designed a government of competing factions, believing that the friction between the executive and legislative branches would prevent the concentration of power. A shutdown is the ultimate manifestation of that friction. It occurs when the two branches cannot agree on how to fund the government they collectively oversee. While never desirable, it is a tool—a dramatic one, to be sure—that underscores the seriousness of a political impasse. It is the legislative equivalent of a circuit breaker tripping to prevent a larger fire. To consistently cave to demands for a “clean” continuing resolution whenever a shutdown looms is to neuter one of the few meaningful leverage points a president or Congress has to enforce their policy priorities.

The media narrative, of course, portrayed this as a crisis of President Trump’s making. Every news broadcast led with the plight of furloughed workers, a real and sympathetic human story. Yet, this coverage was profoundly one-sided. Rarely did it delve into the plight of American families who have lost loved ones to crimes committed by illegal immigrants who crossed that unsecured border. There were no prime-time specials on the communities strained by the costs of illegal immigration, from overwhelmed school systems to overburdened hospital emergency rooms. The “victims” of the shutdown were visible and their stories easily told. The victims of an open border are often invisible, their stories scattered and ignored by a press corps that has abandoned objectivity for activism. The T-shirt sentiment is, in part, a pushback against this curated narrative—a way of saying, “I see through the theatrics, and I stand with the principle you’re trying to obscure.”

Furthermore, the shutdown exposed the hollow core of the Democratic Party’s position. For years, prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Chuck Schumer, had spoken passionately about the need for border security and even physical barriers. Their sudden, unanimous opposition was not based on a newfound, data-driven analysis that walls are immoral and ineffective. It was based solely on the identity of the president proposing them. This is the very definition of putting politics before people, of placing the desire to deny a political rival a victory ahead of the nation’s security interests. The shutdown forced this hypocrisy into the open. It revealed that for the modern left, there is no issue so important that it transcends the imperative of resisting Donald J. Trump.

From a conservative perspective, the fight for the wall was about something far more profound than concrete and steel. It was about the very concept of a nation-state. A country without a secure, defined border is not a country at all; it is merely a territory. The ability to control who enters is a fundamental attribute of sovereignty. By refusing to uphold this basic principle, the Democratic Party is embracing a radical, borderless worldview that conservatives fundamentally reject. We believe in a nation of laws, and those laws must be enforced at the border first and foremost. The shutdown was a brutal, public battle over whether the United States would remain a sovereign nation or continue down a path toward de facto open borders. For conservatives, that is a hill worth dying on, even if it means a 35-day shutdown.

This is not to dismiss the real pain felt by federal workers. They are patriotic Americans who simply want to do their jobs and provide for their families. However, it is worth remembering that they were ultimately made pawns in a political game. They received full backpay at the conclusion of the shutdown. The same cannot be said for the small business owners near national parks who lost a season’s revenue, or the taxpayers who will ultimately foot the bill for the paused projects and lost productivity. The focus solely on federal employees was a deliberate strategy to maximize political pressure, not a holistic concern for all Americans affected by the impasse.

So, what does the T-shirt represent? It is not a garment of gloating. It is a symbol of resilience and resolve. It says that we understand that restoring this republic to its founding principles will not be easy or clean. It will require fights that are inconvenient, messy, and vilified by the cultural elite. It acknowledges that in the face of a media machine that operates as the public relations arm of the resistance, and a political opposition that has abandoned all pretense of good-faith negotiation, sometimes the only thing you can do is laugh, stand your ground, and order the T-shirt.

The longest government shutdown was a test of wills. It was a moment that clarified the political battle lines of our time not as left versus right, but as nationalism versus globalism, sovereignty versus surrender, and the rule of law versus the rule of feelings. While a temporary resolution was reached, the fundamental conflict remains. The fight for a secure border is not over. The need for a physical barrier, as one component of a layered security strategy, is as pressing as ever. And the necessity of having leaders willing to engage in these difficult fights, despite the certain demagoguery and demonization that will follow, is paramount. The conservative who wears that hypothetical T-shirt does so not because they enjoyed the shutdown, but because they respect the fortitude it took to stare down the political establishment and fight for a promise made to the American people. In the long war of ideas, sometimes you have to dig in for a long, ugly battle. And when you do, you might as well get the merchandise.

#Shutdown #Government 

Biden Gave At Least 9 Million ILLEGALS Social Security Numbers

 

The Biden Administration issued SSN's to 9 Million ILLEGALS. 

[A small number of a big number leads to a large PROBLEM]

How many migrants are receiving Social Security numbers?

The Great American Surrender: Granting Social Security to Millions of Illegal Immigrants

In a move that strikes at the very heart of national sovereignty and the rule of law, the Biden Administration has undertaken a policy that effectively rewards lawbreaking on an unprecedented scale. While the precise figure is debated, the administration’s own actions confirm a massive effort to provide Social Security numbers and other federal benefits to millions of individuals who have entered the country illegally. Whether the number is nine million or several million, the principle remains the same: the United States government is actively erasing the distinction between citizen and illegal alien, prioritizing the needs of those who broke our laws over the rights and resources of those who are here legally. This is not merely a failure of border security; it is a deliberate, ideological project to transform the nation by blurring the lines of citizenship and overwhelming the systems designed to serve the American people.

The mechanism for this transformation is as bureaucratic as it is brazen. Through a series of executive actions, parole programs, and directives to agencies like USCIS, the administration has created pathways for illegal immigrants to receive work permits and, consequently, Social Security numbers. This is often framed in the language of “streamlining” and “humane processing,” but the effect is a fundamental betrayal of the American social contract. A Social Security number is not just a tax identifier; it is the key to the American kingdom. It unlocks not only legal employment but a host of other benefits and privileges, from state driver’s licenses to access to the financial system. By distributing these numbers to millions of illegal immigrants, the administration is not solving a problem; it is institutionalizing a crisis.

Proponents of this policy argue that it brings people “out of the shadows” and ensures they pay taxes. This is a facile argument that ignores the overwhelming fiscal burden these individuals represent. While some may pay payroll taxes, they become eligible for a range of benefits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, and ultimately, their contributions to Social Security will be far outstripped by what they draw out upon retirement. They are also eligible for a vast array of state and local benefits, from Medicaid to subsidized housing and education. The cost of this is not borne by some abstract federal treasury; it is paid for by the American taxpayer, who sees their own services diluted and their tax dollars redirected to support a population that should not be here. This is a massive transfer of wealth from American citizens to a newly created, government-dependent class.

Furthermore, this policy represents a catastrophic insult to every immigrant who followed the rules. Millions of people around the world wait for years, sometimes decades, to come to the United States legally. They fill out paperwork, pay fees, undergo background checks, and wait in line. The Biden Administration’s policy tells them that their patience and their respect for American law were a fool’s errand. It declares that the path to American benefits is not through legal immigration, but through illegal entry and subsequent amnesty by executive fiat. This demoralizes legal immigrants and sends a message to the world that American laws are mere suggestions, to be ignored by those who can simply force their way in and wait for a sympathetic administration to grant them legitimacy.

The most damaging impact, however, is on the American citizen. Granting Social Security numbers to millions of illegal immigrants places immense strain on the very social safety nets that were created to protect Americans in their old age or in times of need. Social Security is already on a path to insolvency. Adding millions of new claimants to the system, many of whom may have worked in the underground economy and contributed little, accelerates that timeline dramatically. It also creates fierce competition for limited resources like affordable housing and places an unimaginable burden on public schools and hospital emergency rooms, which are legally obligated to serve all comers. The citizens who are struggling to make ends meet—the working poor, the fixed-income elderly, the single parents—are the ones who will feel this competition most acutely. Their government has chosen to prioritize the needs of illegal immigrants over their own.

This policy is the cornerstone of a larger electoral strategy. By creating a massive new class of government-dependent individuals, the left is building a permanent political constituency. The calculus is cold and simple: people who receive government benefits are more likely to vote for the party that provided them. While illegal immigrants cannot vote in federal elections, the left is tirelessly working to change that at the local and state levels, and through relentless advocacy for amnesty and a path to citizenship that would instantly create millions of new voters. This is not about compassion; it is about raw political power. It is about changing the electorate to ensure that the party of big government never loses another national election.

A conservative response to this crisis must be rooted in principle, pragmatism, and a profound respect for the rule of law. First and foremost, we must secure the border. This is not a rhetorical point; it is a prerequisite for any sane national policy. This means completing the physical barrier where effective, reinstating Remain in Mexico and Title 42 expulsions, and empowering Border Patrol to do their job without being transformed into a processing agency for a wave of illegal migration.

Second, we must end the incentives. This requires dismantling the Biden Administration’s parole and catch-and-release programs. Every illegal immigrant who is released into the interior is a magnet for more. We must also pass and enforce laws that mandate E-Verify for all employers, making it impossible for those here illegally to work legally. Without the prospect of a job, the magnet weakens considerably.

Third, we must undertake a concerted effort to roll back this administrative amnesty. This means halting the issuance of Social Security numbers and work permits to those who entered illegally, and conducting a thorough audit of those who have already received them under questionable circumstances. We must also end the practice of “sanctuary cities” and require all local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE.

Finally, we must return to a system of legal immigration that serves the national interest. This means moving away from chain migration and toward a merit-based system that prioritizes high-skilled immigrants who can contribute to our economy, assimilate into our culture, and uphold our values. We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive; they are inextricably linked.

The decision to grant Social Security numbers to millions of illegal immigrants is more than a policy failure. It is an act of national self-sabotage. It cheapens the value of American citizenship, burdens the American taxpayer, and betrays every person who has ever sought to come to this country the right way. It is a declaration that the laws passed by Congress and the will of the American people are subordinate to the ideological whims of a transient administration. To remain a sovereign nation, we must reaffirm the fundamental principle that entry into the American community must be through the front door, with permission, and with respect for the law. The future of the Republic depends on it.

#SocialSecurity #ILLEGALS #Migrants

New York City Real Estate and Private Property Rights Under Mamdani

 

New York City Real Estate and Private Property Rights Under Mamdani

Apartment Buildings in New York City that were valued at 5 Million now are valued at 2.5 Million. The plan is for NGO's to swoop in and buy them, turn them into GOVERNMENT HOUSING with GOVERNMENT GRANTS that pay the rent. You are seeing the beginning of the Socialist takeover of private property.

The Great American Giveaway: How Progressive Policy is Engineing a Socialist Takeover of Private Property.

A quiet, deliberate revolution is underway in the heart of America’s most iconic city. It is not being waged with bullets and barricades, but with zoning regulations, tax assessments, and non-profit intermediaries. In New York City, a alarming phenomenon is unfolding: apartment buildings once valued at $5 million are now being appraised at half that. This is not a simple market correction. It is the opening salvo in a calculated campaign to transfer the ownership of private property from individuals to the state, using non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as the vehicle for a soft nationalization. This is the beginning of a socialist takeover of private property, and it is a blueprint destined for cities across the nation if left unchecked.

The playbook is as insidious as it is effective. Progressive city governments, like the one in New York, have spent years enacting a web of regulations that strangle the life out of private landlords. Rent control and stabilization laws, while sold as protections for tenants, have proven economically catastrophic. They artificially suppress rental income, preventing property owners from covering rising maintenance costs, property taxes, and necessary capital improvements. The recent, disastrous “Good Cause Eviction” law further erodes property rights, making it nearly impossible to remove problematic tenants or reclaim a unit for personal use.

The result is a financial vise. On one side, income is capped by the state. On the other, expenses—from inflation-driven costs for repairs to city-mandated upgrades for carbon emission reductions—continue to soar. This state-engineered crisis deliberately creates a class of distressed assets. Buildings that were once valuable, income-producing properties are systematically devalued into financial liabilities. The owner, hamstrung by regulations and facing mounting losses, is left with no choice but to sell. This is not the creative destruction of a free market; it is the deliberate destruction of the free market by government design.

This is where the “non-profit” sector swoops in to complete the socialist circuit. As the post accurately notes, NGOs, often funded by progressive philanthropies and ideologically aligned with the city government, are positioned to purchase these devalued properties. The purchase is not made with private capital at fair market value, but is facilitated by government grants, low-interest public loans, and tax credits. The property is then converted into permanently affordable, government-subsidized housing. The rent for these units is paid directly by Section 8 vouchers or other housing assistance programs, making the federal and city government the ultimate payer.

The outcome is a perfect, and terrifying, trifecta for the left:

1.  The Eradication of Private Property: The transfer of a privately-owned building to a state-aligned NGO effectively removes it from the private market forever. This is not a one-time transaction; it is a permanent shift in ownership structure from the individual to the collective, as managed by the state and its proxies.

2.  The Creation of a Permanent Dependent Class: Tenants in these buildings are no longer customers in a transactional relationship with a landlord. They are clients of the state. Their housing is contingent not on their own economic productivity, but on their continued eligibility for a government program. This creates a powerful, and loyal, voting bloc that is dependent on the very politicians who expanded the program.

3.  The Consolidation of Political Power: Every building acquired is a new fiefdom for the progressive machine. It increases the number of citizens directly reliant on government for their most basic needs, thereby consolidating political power and ensuring the perpetual election of the politicians who promise to maintain and expand this system of dependency.

This model is the very essence of corporatism, a key feature of fascist and socialist economies alike, where the state directs the economy through controlled, non-governmental entities. The NGO is not a truly private actor; it is a government-sponsored enterprise, executing public policy while wearing the mask of private benevolence. This is not philanthropy; it is a hostile takeover of the housing market, funded by the very taxpayers who are witnessing the erosion of their own property rights.

The conservative philosophy stands in stark opposition to this engineered decline. Conservatives believe that the right to own, use, and dispose of private property is the bedrock of a free society. It is the foundation of individual liberty, economic prosperity, and personal responsibility. When a citizen owns property, they have a tangible stake in the community. They are invested in its safety, its schools, and its future. They are independent. When the state becomes the landlord, that stake vanishes, replaced by a relationship of dependency. The citizen becomes a subject, and the community’s vitality is sapped.

The solution to New York City’s housing crisis is not less capitalism, but more. The city needs to unshackle the housing market from the regulatory chains that are crushing it. This means:

Phasing Out Rent Control: These laws are decades of economic malpractice. They discourage new construction, lead to the decay of existing housing stock, and create perverse incentives for both tenants and landlords. The market must be allowed to set rents, which will signal to developers to build more supply—the only true cure for high prices.

Streamlining Bureaucracy: The byzantine permitting process and land-use restrictions that make building new housing in New York a multi-year, multi-million dollar odyssey must be dismantled.

Lowering Property Taxes: Punitive property taxes on landlords are simply passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents. A sane tax policy would encourage investment and improvement, not punish it.

The spectacle in New York is a warning to the entire nation. The progressive left has learned that outright seizure of property is politically unpalatable. So, they have devised a more subtle, but no less destructive, method: regulate private owners into submission, devalue their assets through government fiat, and then have state-funded allies acquire them at a discount. It is a slow-motion confiscation, funded by taxpayer dollars and justified by the language of social justice.

This is not merely a New York problem. It is a test case. If this model is allowed to stand and proliferate, it will be coming to every major city where progressive governments hold power. The dream of a nation of homeowners and independent citizens is being replaced by a vision of a nation of tenants and dependents. The fight for private property rights is the fight for the soul of American liberty itself. We must recognize the New York City real estate takeover for what it is: the beginning of the end of private property, and we must demand a return to the principles of free markets, individual ownership, and limited government before the foreclosure notice is served on the American Dream.

Fascism: Why we need it now in regards to the Healthcare Industry ... Just Kidding ...

 

The Right Cure: Why Free Market Choice, Not Fascism or Federal Control, Is the Answer for Healthcare

Fascism: Why we need it now in regards to the Healthcare Industry ...

Fascism - [Short Version] Means you own it and the Government tells you how to run it. Obamacare told the Medical Industry how to run it the way Clinton told the Banking industry how to do mortgages. As you see they both 

F$%^ the Housing and Medical Systems. [2 other reasons I don't vote Democrat].

We need Fascism to tell the the Medical Insurance Industrial Complex to go SUCK! Give every the subsidy money to the people and let them have CHOICE!!!

The Right Cure: Why Free Market Choice, Not Fascism or Federal Control, Is the Answer for Healthcare

A provocative sentiment is bubbling up from a place of genuine and understandable frustration with the American healthcare system. It’s a feeling that the system is broken, that insurance companies are predatory, and that government intervention has only made things worse. This frustration has led to a startling conclusion for some: “We need Fascism to tell the Medical Insurance Industrial Complex to go SUCK! Give [everyone] the subsidy money to the people and let them have CHOICE!!!” While the anger is justified, the prescribed remedy is a dangerous misdiagnosis that fundamentally misunderstands both the problem and the proposed solution. The American healthcare system does not need a heavy-handed “fascist” model, where you own your practice but the state dictates its operation; it needs a decisive return to the conservative principles of genuine free-market competition, individual choice, and patient empowerment.

First, it is critical to dismantle the dangerous conflation of terms. The poster’s short definition of fascism—“you own it and the Government tells you how to run it”—is not a prescription for liberty, but a blueprint for corporatism, which is indeed a hallmark of fascist economies. This is not a conservative ideal; it is the antithesis of one. Conservatism is built upon the pillars of individual liberty, limited government, and free enterprise. A system where the government dictates how private entities must operate, from the medical treatments they can offer to the prices they can charge, is not freedom. It is the very essence of top-down control that conservatives have always opposed. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which the post rightly criticizes, is a perfect example of this corporatist model. It did not create a free market; it created an alliance between big government and big insurance, forcing millions to purchase a product from a private company under terms heavily regulated by the state. This is not free-market capitalism; it is a managed, cronyist system that benefits the powerful at the expense of the individual.

The poster’s instinct to tell the “Medical Insurance Industrial Complex to go SUCK!” is one shared by millions of Americans who feel trapped by a system that seems designed to maximize profits while minimizing service. However, the solution is not to replace one form of control with another. The call to “Give everybody the subsidy money to the people and let them have CHOICE!!!” is, in fact, a profoundly conservative idea—it just isn’t fascism. This is the core of the free-market alternative to both the Obamacare model and a single-payer system. It’s about decentralizing power and putting the consumer in the driver’s seat.

The current system is broken precisely because it has insulated the consumer from the true cost of care. When your employer chooses your plan, and a distant insurance company negotiates with hospitals and pays the bills, you are a passive participant. There is no incentive to shop for value, no competition on price, and no transparency. This is what happens when third-party payers dominate the landscape. The conservative solution is to reintroduce the power of the consumer. This means expanding the use and flexibility of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which allow individuals to use pre-tax dollars to pay for routine medical expenses. When you are spending your own money from an HSA, you have a direct incentive to ask, “How much does an MRI cost?” and to shop around. This creates downward pressure on prices that no government price control can ever achieve.

Furthermore, true choice requires real competition. Conservatives advocate for policies that break down the artificial barriers that protect the existing insurance cartel. This includes allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines. Why should a consumer in New Jersey be limited to the expensive, heavily mandated plans offered in their state, when a more affordable, tailored plan is available in Pennsylvania? Allowing cross-state purchasing would unleash a wave of competition, forcing insurers to compete on price, quality, and customer service for the first time. Additionally, we must scale back the thousands of state-level “mandates” that force insurance plans to cover everything from acupuncture to hair prostheses, which drive up the cost of basic coverage and make it unaffordable for many.

The call for “subsidy money” to be given directly to the people is also a sound conservative principle, if implemented correctly. Instead of the government subsidizing insurance companies through massive payments for Obamacare plans, we should transition to a system of means-tested, refundable tax credits that individuals can use to purchase any health insurance plan that fits their needs. This would sever the link between government and the insurance industry, turning patients into powerful customers. An insurance company would then have to earn your business by providing a quality product at a competitive price, rather than earning it by lobbying the federal government for favorable regulations and subsidies.

This stands in stark contrast to the Democratic vision for healthcare, which consistently moves toward more government control, not less. The logical endpoint of their ideology is a single-payer, “Medicare for All” system. This is not “fascism” in the historical sense, but it is a form of democratic socialism that represents the ultimate in government control. It would mean the end of private health insurance, the nationalization of one-sixth of the American economy, and the establishment of the federal government as the sole payer for all medical services. The results would be catastrophic: rationing of care, staggering wait times, the stifling of medical innovation, and a catastrophic loss of patient-doctor autonomy. It is the polar opposite of choice.

The frustration that leads someone to use the word “fascism” is a symptom of a system that offers no good options. On one side, they see the cronyist corporatism of Obamacare, which empowers both government and large corporations. On the other, they see the creeping socialism of the progressive left, which would eliminate private choice altogether. What is missing from this dichotomy is the robust, principled alternative of free-market healthcare.

A conservative, patient-centered system would be built on four pillars: Choice, Competition, Transparency, and Responsibility. It would look like this:

Choice: You choose your own health plan from a wide, competitive national market. You own it, and it is portable, not tied to your employer.

Competition: Insurance companies and healthcare providers must compete for your business, leading to lower prices, better quality, and more innovation.

Transparency: Hospitals and doctors must publicly post their prices, allowing you to shop for value and making the market function like any other.

Responsibility: With the tools of HSAs and catastrophic coverage, you are empowered and responsible for your routine healthcare spending, making you a active participant in controlling costs.

We do not need fascism. We do not need socialism. What we need is the courage to apply the timeless principles of American liberty and free enterprise to the healthcare system. The goal is not to have the government tell insurance companies what to do; the goal is to empower individual Americans to do it for themselves, by voting with their dollars and making the system work for them. The path forward is not through state control, but through individual sovereignty. It’s time to reject the false choices of corporatism and socialism and embrace the true cure: freedom.

#Fascism #Healthcare Obamacare #Politics #Shutdown 

We would have a better country if Democrats would stop trying to change the rules when they lose elections.

 

We would have a better country if Democrats would stop trying to change the rules when they lose elections.

#Democrats #Politics

A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Left’s Endless Campaign to Change the Rules

The story of American democracy has always been one of spirited competition. For over two centuries, the nation has weathered political storms, trusting in the enduring strength of its constitutional framework and the shared commitment to a peaceful transfer of power. At the heart of this system is a simple, foundational concept: when you lose an election, you accept the result, you refine your arguments, and you work harder to win next time. Yet, a disturbing and increasingly prevalent trend threatens this compact. As the sentiment rightly observes, “We would have a better country if Democrats would stop trying to change the rules when they lose elections.” This is not mere partisan grievance; it is a diagnosis of a profound crisis in our political culture, where one side has abandoned the principle of good-faith competition in favor of a perpetual campaign to alter the very mechanisms of our republic to secure permanent power.

This strategy did not begin or end with the 2016 election, though that contest served as a powerful catalyst. The reaction to Donald Trump’s victory was not simply one of disappointment; it was an outright refusal to legitimize the outcome. The narrative of “collusion with Russia” was not a genuine investigation—it was a politically manufactured pretext, fueled by an opposition party and a compliant media, to undermine a duly elected president from his first day in office. For years, the American public was subjected to a spectacle that suggested winning an election through the votes of the American people was somehow illegitimate. When the multi-million-dollar Mueller investigation concluded without finding evidence of collusion, the goal had already been achieved: to cast a pall over an administration and erode public trust in the electoral system itself. The rule change here was not formal, but cultural: the establishment of a precedent that it is acceptable to use the intelligence and judicial apparatus as a political weapon against a victorious opponent.

Having failed to overturn the 2016 result through investigation, the playbook shifted to a direct assault on the institutions of governance. The partisan impeachment of President Trump, first over a phone call with the Ukrainian president and later in the aftermath of the January 6th riot, represented another attempt to change the rules. Impeachment was designed by the Founders as a tool for addressing “high crimes and misdemeanors”—acts of grave public misconduct. It has been debased into a mere political cudgel, a mechanism for a legislative minority to nullify the will of the electorate. This tactic sends a clear message: if you cannot beat your opponent at the ballot box, you can attempt to remove them from office through a purely partisan process, thereby disenfranchising the millions who voted for them.

Perhaps the most damaging and sustained campaign to change the rules, however, has been the concerted effort to federalize and fundamentally alter the nation’s election laws. Following the 2020 election, which was conducted under a patchwork of emergency pandemic measures, Democrats have pushed for a permanent revolution in how America votes. Under the banner of “voting rights,” legislation like H.R. 1 proposed a breathtaking federal takeover of elections—a power expressly reserved for the states under Article I of the Constitution.

Their proposals consistently follow a pattern that weakens electoral integrity while cementing their own advantage. The push for universal mail-in voting, sent automatically to every registered voter, opens the door to fraud and ballot harvesting by eliminating the crucial chain of custody. The advocacy for eradicating voter ID laws, a commonsense measure required for everything from boarding a plane to purchasing cold medicine, is framed as a fight against “suppression,” while in reality, it is a fight against verification. The move to allow same-day registration and extend voting periods for weeks dilutes the sanctity of Election Day and makes accurate voter roll maintenance nearly impossible. Each of these “reforms” is designed not to make elections more secure, but to make them easier to manipulate. It is a classic strategy: if you believe your voters are less likely to seek out a polling place, possess an ID, or vote on a single Tuesday, you simply change the rules to accommodate them, all while branding any concern for security as racism.

This relentless effort extends to the very structure of our government. The left’s newfound enthusiasm for packing the Supreme Court, a move once condemned by figures like the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a terrible idea, is a transparent power grab. Having lost the battle of ideas in the political arena, they now seek to change the rules of the judiciary, expanding the court to install a permanent majority that would rubber-stamp a progressive agenda that they cannot pass through Congress. Similarly, the talk of granting statehood to Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico is a thinly veiled political calculation to add four reliably Democratic senators, permanently altering the balance of power in the upper chamber. This is not about representation; it is about rigging the system.

The conservative vision for America stands in stark opposition to this power-at-any-cost mentality. It is a vision rooted in the wisdom of the Constitution and a profound belief in federalism. Conservatives understand that the 50 states are meant to be “laboratories of democracy,” each able to craft election laws that reflect the values and needs of their citizens. What works for a densely populated urban center may not be appropriate for a sprawling rural state. This decentralized system is a feature, not a bug; it makes nationwide fraud more difficult and allows for diverse approaches to governance. The conservative agenda is not about making it harder to vote; it is about making it harder to cheat. It is about ensuring that every legal vote is counted, and that every counted vote is legal.

Ultimately, this is about more than political tactics. It is about the long-term health of the American republic. A political system cannot survive if one side refuses to accept loss. The Democratic Party’s relentless campaign to change the rules—from weaponizing impeachment to undermining election integrity to threatening the structure of the judiciary—breeds cynicism, deepens division, and erodes the shared faith in our institutions that binds the nation together. It teaches citizens that the system is irredeemably corrupt and that their votes don’t matter, because the game is fixed.

A better country is indeed possible. It is a country where both parties compete vigorously on a level playing field, confident in the integrity of the process. It is a country where the losers of an election graciously concede, then roll up their sleeves and work to persuade their fellow Americans why they deserve to win next time. It is a country that trusts the wisdom of its people and the time-tested structure of its founding documents. We can have that country, but only if we demand a return to the old rules—the rules of fair play, constitutional order, and the humble acceptance of electoral defeat. The survival of the republic that Benjamin Franklin entrusted to us depends on it.

#Democrats  #Propaganda #Democrats Lie

Democrats Like Being Lied To

The Great Derangement: How Trump Hatred Exposes the Left's Flight from Reality

Democrats Like Being Lied To

Democrats would rather stay Dumb, Stupid, Lied To, and Uninformed because they have TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME. Never in my life would I thought to see people praying for a life long Democrat/Politician to save them. Trump is the first President since George Washington to have NEVER ran for any other public office. The same people that think the MASK would save them are the same people who worship lifelong politicians like Biden and Harris.

In the grand theater of American politics, a peculiar and pathological phenomenon has taken root, one so pervasive it has earned its own clinical-sounding name: Trump Derangement Syndrome. It is more than mere political disagreement; it is a collective psychosis, a fever dream of outrage that has caused a significant portion of the electorate, and the Democratic party that represents them, to abandon reason, tradition, and even basic common sense. As the sentiment goes, they would rather stay "Dumb, Stupid, Lied To, and Uninformed" than break free from the hypnotic grip of their hatred for the 45th president. This derangement is not just a political strategy; it is a cultural sickness that has led to the abandonment of American principles and the worship of a failed, lifelong political class.

At its core, Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is the inability to process reality when it conflicts with a deeply held narrative of villainy. It is the reason why a booming pre-pandemic economy was relentlessly reported as a catastrophe-in-waiting. It is why a president who brokered historic peace deals in the Middle East was branded a warmonger, and why a leader who was never convicted of a single crime is still relentlessly pursued as a criminal mastermind. This syndrome demands that every action, no matter how positive, be viewed through a lens of malevolent intent. For the sufferer of TDS, the stock market cannot simply be up; it must be “the rich getting richer.” Border walls cannot be a legitimate security measure; they must be a symbol of racism. This is not skepticism; it is a willful blindness, a conscious choice to embrace a curated dystopia over a complex, and often successful, reality.

This flight from reality reached its zenith during the COVID-19 pandemic. The same populace that placed an almost theological faith in a small piece of cloth over their face—despite shifting guidance and mixed evidence on its efficacy—is the same group that places its faith in the eternal promises of lifelong politicians like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. The mask became more than a public health tool; it became a virtue signal, a litmus test for compliance and moral righteousness. This blind faith in a simple, government-recommended solution mirrors the blind faith in a political class that has presided over every major national crisis of the last half-century, from the stagflation of the 1970s to the financial collapse of 2008, and has consistently offered more of the same failed solutions. They trust the mask to stop a virus and the politician to save the nation, with the same uncritical, childlike devotion.

This brings us to the most glaring irony of the modern left: their worship of the career politician. For decades, conservatives have warned of the rise of a permanent political class, an insulated aristocracy of bureaucrats and elected officials who live by a different set of rules and are utterly disconnected from the lives of the people they govern. Figures like Biden and Harris are the epitome of this class. They have never held a significant job outside the halls of government. Their entire worldview has been formed within the bubble of political power. They are professional politicians, a concept the Founding Fathers would have viewed with deep suspicion. Their entire careers are a testament to the art of gaining and maintaining power, not to the practice of building, creating, or producing anything of tangible value.

In stark contrast stands Donald Trump. Love him or loathe him, his entry onto the political stage was a direct repudiation of this professional political class. As the observation notes, he was the first president since George Washington to have never before run for any other public office. He was not a product of the machine. He was an outsider, a disruptor who built a career in the real world of high-stakes development and global business. This is precisely why the establishment, in both parties, reacted with such unhinged fury. He was not one of them. He did not speak their language or respect their unspoken rules. He represented a threat to their very existence, a testament to the idea that perhaps you don’t need a 50-year political resume to lead a nation; perhaps you need competence, force of will, and a genuine love for your country.

The Democratic party and its media allies cannot allow this idea to take root, for it is an existential threat to their power. If a political outsider can win the presidency and, by many objective measures, succeed, it invalidates the entire premise of their professional political project. It proves that the “smart people” in Washington aren’t so smart after all. This is why the derangement is so intense. It is not just about one man; it is about defending a system that provides them with status, power, and influence. To acknowledge any of Trump’s successes—from the Abraham Accords to energy independence to deregulation that fueled a historic economy—is to crack the foundation of their own identity. It is far easier to label him a racist, a fascist, and an idiot, even when such labels defy all logic and evidence.

This derangement has tangible, damaging consequences for the nation. It has poisoned public discourse, making bipartisan compromise on any issue nearly impossible. How can you negotiate with someone you genuinely believe is the embodiment of evil? It has eroded trust in every pillar of society, from the intelligence agencies and the Justice Department to the medical establishment and the free press, as these institutions have been weaponized in the political war against the outsider. It has created a citizenry that is, as the post accurately states, “Dumb, Stupid, Lied To, and Uninformed,” not because they lack access to information, but because they have been conditioned to reject any information that conflicts with the approved narrative.

The conservative perspective offers a return to sanity. It is a perspective built on principles, not personalities. It believes in the wisdom of the Founders, who envisioned a citizen-government, not a ruling class. It values individual achievement and real-world success over political tenure. It trusts in the common sense of the American people—the people who build businesses, raise families, and form the backbone of the nation—over the condescending lectures of a coastal elite that has never met a payroll. It is a philosophy that judges policies by their results, not their intentions, and holds leaders accountable for their actions, not their party affiliation.

#Democrats  #Politics #Shutdown

The choice before the American people has never been clearer. On one side is the party of derangement, a movement defined by its hatred, its reliance on a permanent political class, and its flight from reality. It is a movement that prays for a lifelong politician to save them from the consequences of their own policies. On the other side is a philosophy of national renewal, one that believes in the potential of the American citizen, the power of the free market, and the enduring strength of the nation’s founding principles. The 2024 election will not merely be a contest between two candidates. It will be a referendum on reality itself—a choice between a future built on the solid ground of truth and accomplishment, or one lost in the fever swamp of derangement.

Domestic Violence Calls Are The Worst Calls

 

Domestic Violence Calls Are The Worst Calls

I spent 2.5 years in Law Enforcement. The most intense call were 'Domestic' Situations. I was sitting in the passenger seat of the patrol car. We entered a culdesack. A guy runs out of the house and the Senior Officer in the Driver seat said "Get him Duncan!" I exited the cruiser  and the guy through a cat at me! I was mad! A CAT?!?! [[Kitty Kitty] I chased him down and strong armed him to the ground. I didn't wanna get dirty!!!

The Thin Blue Line in the Heart of Darkness: Why Domestic Calls Expose Our Fractured Society

To the average citizen, the world of law enforcement is often viewed through the lens of television drama: high-speed chases, dramatic shootouts, and the intellectual pursuit of cunning criminals. But for those who have actually worn the badge and carried the weight of the uniform, the reality is far different, and far more morally complex. The most dangerous, the most volatile, and the most psychologically taxing calls are not the ones that make for glamorous prime-time entertainment. They are the domestic disturbance calls. They are, as any honest officer will tell you, the worst.

The visceral account from a former officer—the call to a cul-de-sac, the frantic suspect, the surreal and jarring moment of having a cat hurled at him—is more than just a wild war story. It is a perfect, albeit bizarre, microcosm of the chaos that defines these situations. The humor in the telling, the cathartic “HAHAAAAAA,” is a classic coping mechanism, a necessary shield against the profound dysfunction and darkness that police officers are asked to confront daily. This story, and the thousands like it that never get told, reveal a deeper truth that conservatives understand: the collapse of the family unit and the erosion of personal responsibility are not abstract social theories. They are crises that land squarely on the shoulders of the first responder, who is increasingly asked to be a warrior, a therapist, a social worker, and a substitute for the civilizing institutions that are failing.

There is no more unpredictable or dangerous environment for an officer than a domestic dispute. Unlike a traffic stop or a robbery in progress, a domestic call is a pressure cooker that has been simmering for hours, days, or years. You are not walking into a crime; you are walking into the raw, unfiltered epicenter of a broken relationship. Emotions are at a volcanic peak, fueled by a history known only to the people in the room, and often exacerbated by substance abuse. As the officer’s story illustrates, the situation is inherently insane. A man throwing a family pet is an act of pure, unhinged desperation. There is no protocol for that. There is only instinct, training, and the imperative to gain control of a scene that is teetering on the edge of violence.

This is where the conservative principle of a strong, well-funded, and respected police force is not a political platitude, but a matter of life and death. Officers entering these heart-of-darkness scenarios need the best training, the clearest legal backing, and the unequivocal support of their community and political leaders. They are the thin blue line not just between order and chaos, but between life and death in the very homes where people should feel safest. The liberal narrative that often seeks to demonize police and paint them as aggressors is not just wrong; it is dangerously naive. It fails to comprehend that the officer running toward the sound of screaming, not knowing if the next thing coming at him will be a cat, a knife, or a bullet, is the only thing standing between a domestic dispute and a domestic homicide.

But the physical danger is only half the battle. The deeper, more insidious toll is

the psychological one. Officers are forced to witness the absolute underbelly of society. They see the children hiding in closets, their eyes wide with a trauma that will shape their entire lives. They see the bruised and broken victim who, out of fear, financial dependence, or a twisted sense of love, refuses to press charges or leave their abuser. This is where the conservative emphasis on personal responsibility and strong families collides with a painful reality. The state, in the form of a police officer, cannot force people to make good choices. An officer can make an arrest, but they cannot heal a broken soul or mend a shattered family. They are left to deal with the symptoms of a cultural sickness they are powerless to cure.

This leads to the frustrating cycle of futility that saps the morale of even the most dedicated officers. It is not uncommon to respond to the same address, for the same people, multiple times in a single month. Each time, the same promises are made, the same resources are offered, and the same legal motions are gone through. And yet, so often, the victim returns to the abuser. This cycle breeds a unique form of cynicism and compassion fatigue. It is the embodiment of the old adage about leading a horse to water. The state can provide the water of safety and resources, but it cannot make the victim drink. This reality underscores the conservative belief that government action is a poor substitute for individual character, strong community bonds, and the moral framework that strong families and faith institutions provide.

Furthermore, the modern expectation that police can solve these deeply rooted social ills is a catastrophic mission creep. The officer in our story was trained to “get him” and “strong arm him to the ground.” He was not trained, nor was it his role, to be a long-term couples counselor, a substance abuse specialist, or a housing advocate. The progressive push to “defund the police” and replace them with unarmed social workers is a recipe for disaster in these very situations. Sending an unarmed social worker into the volatile, weapon-rich environment of a domestic dispute is not compassionate; it is irresponsible and potentially deadly. The solution is not to replace the police, but to better support them and, more importantly, to rebuild the civic and familial structures that prevent these situations from arising in the first place.

The conservative vision for addressing this crisis is twofold. First, it demands a recommitment to supporting law enforcement—ensuring they have the resources, training, and political backing to do their difficult and dangerous job. This means supporting qualified immunity, resisting the rhetoric that vilifies them, and prosecuting crimes against officers to the fullest extent of the law. Second, and more fundamentally, it requires a cultural renewal. We must champion the two-parent family as the most stable and safest environment for children and adults alike. We must reinforce the pillars of civil society—our churches, synagogues, and community groups—that provide the moral guidance and social support that government programs cannot. We must restore an ethos of personal responsibility, where individuals are held accountable for their actions, from the abuser who chooses violence to the adult who chooses to remain in a destructive cycle.

The story that began with a thrown cat is not just an anecdote. It is a testament. It speaks to the bravery of the men and women who run toward the chaos the rest of us flee. It highlights the absurdity and danger they face as they stand on the front lines of our nation’s social decay. And it serves as a stark reminder that the answer to this crisis does not lie in a new government program or a smaller police force. The answer lies in our own homes, in our own communities, and in our own commitment to rebuilding the foundations of character, responsibility, and family that keep societies strong, and keep police calls from descending into a surreal, heartbreaking madness.

#Crime #DomesticViolence

Face It, Democrats wanna COMMUNIZE Healthcare. Less Competition leads to higher costs and poor service.

 

The Road to Serfdom in White Coats: Why Democrat "Medicare for All" is a Prescription for Failure

In the grand American debate over healthcare, a stark and unsettling truth is often obscured by promises of "free" care and moral posturing. Behind the slogans of "healthcare as a human right" lies a rigid, ideological endgame that has nothing to do with health and everything to do with control. The Democratic vision for our medical system is, at its core, a project to communize American healthcare. It seeks to replace the dynamic, if imperfect, engine of free-market competition with a monolithic, government-run monopoly. And as with every socialist experiment throughout history, the inevitable outcomes of this plan are already written in the dust of failed states: less competition will lead to skyrocketing costs, rationed service, and a catastrophic loss of medical freedom.

To "communize" does not necessarily mean to adopt the hammer and sickle; it means to collectivize, to centralize, and to strip away individual choice in favor of state control. This is precisely the blueprint of proposals like "Medicare for All." It outlaws private health insurance, making the federal government the sole "single payer" for nearly all medical services. This isn't an expansion of options; it is the elimination of them. It is the forced nationalization of one-sixth of the American economy, transferring the most personal decisions of our lives—choices about our bodies and our families' well-being—from the doctor's office to a Washington bureaucrat’s desk.

The immediate consequence of establishing such a state monopoly is the utter destruction of competition. Proponents of this system bizarrely argue that it will lower costs, but this defies every known economic principle. Competition is the very discipline that forces providers to innovate, improve quality, and lower prices. Think of any other sector of our economy—technology, retail, automotive. The relentless pressure to win customers drives a constant cycle of improvement and value. In a single-payer system, this pressure vanishes. The government is your only customer, your only payer, and your only regulator. There is no need to compete for patients by offering better service, shorter wait times, or more advanced procedures. The "customer" is no longer the individual patient, but the state. The result is a system that operates for its own convenience, not for the care of the people it is supposed to serve.

We need not speculate on the outcome; we can look to the nations that have walked this path. In the United Kingdom’s National Health Service (NHS), a government-run monopoly, rationing is not a bug; it's a feature. Patients face notoriously long wait times for critical procedures—months for a biopsy, over a year for a hip replacement. The state decides who gets care and when, using tools like the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) to determine if a patient’s treatment is a worthwhile investment for the system. In Canada, another single-payer model, patients often wait weeks to see a specialist, leading to what has been termed "waiting list mortality." When the government is the sole provider, the only way to control costs is to limit supply. You do not have to lower prices through efficiency; you simply refuse to provide the service. This is the grim reality of "free" healthcare: it is healthcare that is not free at all, but paid for in the most valuable currency of all—time, and often, lives.

Beyond the waiting lists lies the specter of innovation stagnation. America’s competitive, profit-driven healthcare market, for all its flaws, is the engine of global medical innovation. It is the American system that produces the majority of the world’s new life-saving drugs, medical devices, and treatment protocols. The prospect of a financial return on massive research and development investments is what drives this relentless progress. Under a communized system, the government, as the sole purchaser, would use its monopsony power to brutally negotiate down drug and procedure prices. This may sound appealing to those focused only on the price tag, but it is a recipe for killing the golden goose of innovation. When the reward for a billion-dollar, decade-long research gamble is a government-mandated price that offers no return, the gamble stops. The pipelines for new cancer treatments, Alzheimer's therapies, and advanced medical technology would dry up. The entire world relies on American innovation; socializing our system would be a medical catastrophe for the globe.

Furthermore, the Democratic push to communize healthcare is a direct assault on the doctor-patient relationship. In a government-run system, your physician’s primary allegiance is fractured. No longer is their duty solely to you, the patient. They become agents of the state, forced to work within the confines of a centrally-planned budget, following treatment protocols dictated by a federal agency. The Hippocratic Oath is subordinated to the demands of the Treasury Department. Doctors will face immense pressure to limit referrals, deny expensive treatments, and follow one-size-fits-all guidelines that ignore the unique needs of the individual in front of them. This transforms the healer into a gatekeeper, a rationing agent for the government.

A conservative vision for healthcare reform stands in direct opposition to this collectivist nightmare. It is a vision rooted in the principles of freedom, choice, and competition. The goal is not to have the government take over, but to empower individual patients. This means fighting for real price transparency, so patients can actually see the cost of services and shop for value. It means expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), giving people direct control over their healthcare dollars, turning them from passive recipients of care into active, cost-conscious consumers. It means breaking down protectionist barriers that limit competition, such as allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines and scaling back certificate-of-need laws that prevent new providers from entering the market.

The conservative approach trusts the wisdom of the American people, not the arrogance of central planners. It understands that a system of top-down control will always be less efficient, less innovative, and less humane than a system of bottom-up, decentralized decision-making. The choice before us is not between a broken status quo and a government takeover. That is a false dichotomy designed to force us into accepting socialism. The true path forward is to inject more market forces, more competition, and more individual autonomy into healthcare, not to eliminate them entirely.

The push to communize healthcare is the left’s most ambitious power grab. It is about consolidating control over the most intimate aspect of our lives, making every citizen permanently dependent on the state for their very survival. It promises a utopia of free and equal care but delivers a dystopia of rationing, stagnation, and subservience. We must face the truth: less competition does lead to higher costs and poorer service. It is an iron law of economics, and it is a future we must reject. The American people deserve a healthcare system that is more free, not more federal. They deserve a system that puts them in charge, not one that makes them supplicants in a line for communized care.

#Healthcare #Obamacare #Subsidies

COVID is OVER. We don't need the Subsidies to pad the pockets of insurance companies to give kickbacks to politicians.

 

Of all the phrases that have the power to shape our national discourse, few are as potent, as financially consequential, or as morally clarifying as a simple, declarative statement: “COVID is OVER.” For millions of Americans, this has been a lived reality for years—a return to school, to work, to worship, and to a life free from the shadow of mandates and lockdowns. Yet, in the halls of power in Washington, a parallel reality persists. Here, the emergency narrative is a political evergreen, a perpetual motion machine for the redistribution of wealth and the expansion of state power. The most glaring example of this phenomenon is the continued subsidization of the health insurance industry, a multi-billion-dollar racket that perfectly illustrates the post-pandemic swamp culture. As the sentiment rightly notes, we are now padding the pockets of insurance companies to create kickbacks for politicians, all under the hollow guise of a crisis that has, for all practical purposes, ended.

The mechanism for this great wealth transfer is largely hidden in plain sight, buried in the pages of massive spending bills and extended through “temporary” measures that have a habit of becoming permanent. During the genuine emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. A key provision of this act was a mandate that states keep people continuously enrolled in Medicaid in exchange for enhanced federal funding. This was a sensible, temporary measure during a time of unprecedented economic disruption. But as the crisis waned, the emergency-era policy did not. It was repeatedly extended, creating a massive, artificial inflation of the Medicaid rolls. When the continuous enrollment provision finally ended in 2023, the reckoning began: states began the arduous process of “unwinding,” discovering that millions of those enrolled were no longer eligible. The system had been bloated with ineligible recipients for years, with taxpayers footing the bill.

Simultaneously, the Affordable Care Act’s premium subsidies were supercharged by the so-called American Rescue Plan and later extended by the Inflation Reduction Act. These were not targeted relief for those in dire need during a lockdown; they were a fundamental rewriting of the healthcare subsidy landscape, making subsidies available to households earning well into the upper-middle class. The stated goal was to make coverage more affordable. The unstated effect was to create a river of taxpayer money flowing directly to insurance companies, insulating them from market pressures and making a significant portion of the industry functionally dependent on the federal treasury. This is the very definition of “padding the pockets of insurance companies.” When the government becomes your primary payer, you have not secured a market; you have secured a patron.

This leads directly to the second part of the equation: the kickback to politicians. The relationship is not one of crude bribes in smoke-filled rooms—though the recent surge in stock trading scandals among sitting politicians does give one pause—but rather a more sophisticated, systemic corruption. The health insurance industry, now deeply entangled with government policy, spends millions on lobbying and campaign contributions. This is not charity; it is an investment. They are funding the political careers of those who will ensure the spigot of taxpayer subsidies remains open. A politician who votes to extend these subsidies can reasonably expect financial support from the industry that benefits. It is a virtuous cycle for the political and corporate class, and a vicious cycle for the taxpayer. The government creates a dependency, the industry profits from it, and then funds the re-election of the politicians who perpetuate the system. The “kickback” may not arrive in a briefcase; it arrives in the form of a seven-figure Super PAC donation or a lucrative speaking fee after leaving office.

This entire edifice is built on the foundational lie that the COVID-19 emergency is ongoing. To justify the continued emergency spending, the emergency must be perpetuated. This is why, long after the public had moved on, we saw efforts to maintain a climate of fear, to fixate on new variants with minimal public health impact, and to keep emergency authorities on the books. The emergency declaration is not just a public health tool; it is a financial instrument. It is the key that unlocks the treasury and allows for the bypassing of normal budgetary scrutiny. To declare “COVID is OVER” is to break that key in the lock. It is to demand a return to normal, transparent governance where every dollar is accounted for and spending is justified on its own merits, not on the decaying corpse of a three-year-old crisis.

A conservative response to this racket is not, as opponents often caricature it, a desire to see people go without healthcare. On the contrary, it is a belief in a system that is sustainable, efficient, and free from the corrupting influence of big government and big business collusion. The conservative vision for healthcare is one of transparency, competition, and patient control. It seeks to unwind the dependency created by these subsidies and replace it with a system that empowers individuals, not bureaucrats and insurance executives.

This means advancing policies that reintroduce market forces into healthcare. Expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) allows individuals to save and spend their own money for routine care, making them conscious consumers and driving down prices. Supporting association health plans and allowing the purchase of insurance across state lines would increase competition, giving consumers more choices and putting downward pressure on premiums. Pushing for real price transparency from hospitals and providers would finally allow patients to shop for value, a fundamental principle in every other sector of our economy. These solutions are focused on the individual, not the system. They trust Americans to make their own decisions with their own money, a concept that is anathema to the central planner who believes that your health choices are best made by a partnership of a federal agency and a corporate boardroom.

The fundamental philosophical divide here is over the proper role of government and the nature of freedom. The progressive model views the citizen as a subject of state care, a beneficiary who should be grateful for the subsidies and coverage provided by their betters in Washington. This model necessitates a vast, powerful bureaucracy and a cozy relationship with corporate partners who carry out its will. It is a system that is inherently paternalistic and, as we have seen, deeply corruptible.

The conservative model views the citizen as a sovereign individual, capable of making their own life choices and responsible for their own well-being. The government’s role is not to be a dispenser of benefits, but a guarantor of a framework within which freedom and competition can flourish. It is a system that prizes liberty over security, and self-reliance over dependency. The continued COVID-era subsidies are a direct assault on this principle. They are a deliberate effort to make more people dependent on the state, and by extension, on the political party that promises to maintain that dependency.

In the final analysis, the statement “COVID is OVER” is more than a declaration of fact. It is a demand for accountability. It is a refusal to allow our nation’s fiscal and health policy to be held hostage by a perpetual crisis. The subsidies propping up insurance companies are a monument to everything that is wrong with Washington: the profligate spending, the corporate cronyism, the erosion of individual liberty, and the sheer arrogance of a political class that believes it can ignore the lived reality of the people it purports to serve.

To end these subsidies is not an act of cruelty; it is an act of restoration. It is the first step in dismantling a corrupt and unsustainable system and beginning the work of building one that is based on genuine choice, real competition, and fiscal sanity. It is to declare that the era of government by emergency must end, and that the season of American resilience and self-reliance must begin again. The pandemic is over. The reckoning for the programs it spawned is long overdue.

#Obamacare #Obama #Healthcare #Subsidies