The United States is one of the few countries that allows prescription drugmakers to speak directly to patients. That simple fact now fuels political calls to “ban the ads.” But restricting direct-to-consumer advertising would do more than change what runs during football games. It would shrink the flow of information to patients and push our system toward the bureaucratic throttling that has turned other countries into innovation laggards.
Advertising is part of a dynamic market process. Entrepreneurs inform consumers about new products, and when profits are high, firms have every incentive to improve quality and expand access.
The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.
New, cheaper treatments need to be brought to consumers’ attention. Otherwise, people stay stuck with older, more expensive options, and competition falters. Banning pharmaceutical advertising would hobble innovative firms whose products are not yet known and leave those seeking medical care less informed.
Critics warn that “a growing proliferation of ads” drives demand for costly treatments, even when less expensive alternatives exist. Yet a recent study in the Journal of Public Economics finds that exposure to pharmaceutical ads increases drug utilization across the board — including cheaper generics and non-advertised medications. In short, advertising pushes people who need care to make better, more informed decisions.
A market-based system rewards risk-taking and innovation. Despite the many flaws in American health care, the United States leads the world in medical breakthroughs — from cancer immunotherapies to vaccines developed in record time. That success wasn’t created by government decree. It came from competition: firms communicating openly about their products, fighting for patients, and reinvesting earnings into the next generation of lifesaving discoveries.
Sure, some regulations are adopted with good intentions. But drug ads are already heavily regulated, and a full ban would create serious unintended consequences — including the unseen cost of innovative drugs that will never reach patients because firms won’t invest in developing treatments they are barred from promoting.
American health care is now regulated to the point of satisfying no one. Patients face rising costs. Physicians navigate a Kafkaesque maze of top-down rules. Taxpayers foot the bill for decisions made by distant bureaucracies. Measures associated with socialized medicine continue creeping into the marketplace.
Price controls in the Inflation Reduction Act are already cutting into pharmaceutical research and development. One study estimates roughly 188 fewer small-molecule treatments in the 20 years after its enactment. The pattern is clear: The more Washington intervenes, the fewer cures Americans get.
RELATED: Trump faces drugmakers that treat sick Americans like ATMs
The answer to the problems in American health care isn’t more government. It’s less. Expected profitability drives investment in biomedical research. Imposing new advertising bans or European-style price controls would mean lower-quality care, higher mortality, and the erosion of America’s leadership in medical innovation.
The United Kingdom offers a warning. Once a global leader, it drove investment offshore through overregulation and rigid price controls. Today, only 37% of new medicines are made fully available for their licensed uses in Britain. Americans spend more, but they also live longer: U.S. cancer patients outlive their European counterparts for a reason.
Discovering new drugs is hard. Every breakthrough begins with the freedom to imagine, to compete, and to communicate. Strip companies of the ability to inform patients, and you strip away the incentive to develop the next cure. Competitive markets — not centralized control — will fuel tomorrow’s medical miracles.
Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?
For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.
We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.
The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.
Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.
In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.
That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.
Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.
Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.
We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.
Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.
RELATED: Evil never announces itself — it seduces the hearts of the blind
This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.
We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.
For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.
Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.
To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.
We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.
Americans are accustomed to innovation improving their lives. From smartphones to artificial intelligence, breakthroughs keep coming — and most of them happen in the United States, where freedom fuels invention. But across the Atlantic, the story is very different. Europe’s regulators have built a bureaucracy that smothers creativity.
The lesson is simple: Innovation thrives where government steps back, not where it rules from Brussels.
Europe doesn’t need more commissions or consultations. It needs courage to scrap bad laws and let innovation breathe again.
A recent analysis from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation drives home the point. All seven of the world’s trillion-dollar tech firms are American. Europe can claim only 28 companies worth more than $100 billion. Over the past decade, European firms raised about $426 billion — $800 billion less than their U.S. counterparts.
Rather than learn from failure, Brussels tightened its grip — proving again that when regulators fail, they regulate harder. Their Digital Markets Act and Copyright Directive saddle companies with costly mandates that make life harder for both innovators and consumers.
EU regulators insist that their rules ensure fairness, transparency, and competition. In reality, they’re strangling convenience and driving users crazy.
Take Google Maps. Because of DMA rules, Europeans can no longer click directly into expanded map views. As one user complained on Reddit, it’s become “a severe pain in the butt.” The new restrictions also hobble tourism. Google Search can’t link directly to airlines or hotels, forcing travelers through clunky intermediaries that waste time and money.
The Copyright Directive makes things worse. It tells search engines to display only “very short” snippets of news articles — without defining what that means. Bureaucrats promise to judge “the impact on the effectiveness of the new right,” which means nothing. By contrast, American courts have long recognized that snippets are fair use and help people find what they need. U.S. policy treats information as a public good; the EU treats it as a privilege controlled by the state.
The damage goes beyond search results. The EU now forces Apple and other “gatekeepers” to make their devices interoperable with third-party software — a costly demand that undermines engineering efficiency. Features like iPhone-to-Mac mirroring and real-time translation could disappear from European markets because of it.
As Cato Institute’s Jennifer Huddleston noted, “The real-time translation feature would be immensely helpful in Europe with so many languages; however, the consequence of European regulation is that it might not be available.”
RELATED: Can anyone save America from European-style digital ID?
And when companies don’t comply fast enough, Brussels slaps them with massive fines. Apple got hit with 500 million euros (around $580 million), Meta with 200 million euros (around $232 million) — punished not for misconduct but for trying to innovate.
The EU now says it will review whether the DMA “achieves its objectives of ensuring contestable and fair digital markets.” That’s bureaucratic code for “we might make it worse.” Meanwhile, the Copyright Directive’s vague language grows even more dangerous in the age of AI, where machine learning depends on large-scale data use that Brussels can’t seem to comprehend.
Europe doesn’t need more commissions or consultations. It needs courage to scrap bad laws and let innovation breathe again. If Brussels wants to compete with America, it should stop punishing success and start trusting its own entrepreneurs. A lighter-touch approach has worked for the United States — and it could save Europe from technological irrelevance.
I should be dead. Buried in an unmarked grave in Romania. But God had other plans.
As a young attorney living under Nicolae Ceaușescu’s brutal communist regime in the 1980s, I spent my life searching for truth in a regime of lies. I found it in the Bible — forbidden in my country. I answered the divine call to defend fellow Christians facing persecution in an ungodly land.
If the United Nations is to mean anything again, it must rediscover the courage that once gave refuge to dissidents like me.
For that “crime,” I was kidnapped, interrogated, beaten, and tortured. I spent months under house arrest and came within seconds of execution when a government assassin pointed a gun at me. I survived and fled to the United States as a political refugee.
In his recent address to the 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly, President Donald Trump said the organization “has tremendous potential — but it’s not even close to living up to that potential.” He’s right.
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, its mission was noble: to promote peace, security, and human rights worldwide. It was meant to be a platform for honest dialogue, a beacon for humanitarian action, and a voice for the voiceless.
It once lived up to that promise. During the Cold War, the U.N. amplified the voices of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain and gave cover to lawyers like me defending Christians in communist courts. Its support for human rights cases in Romania helped expose Ceaușescu’s tyranny to the world.
That international pressure saved my life and countless others.
Today’s U.N. bears little resemblance to that courageous institution. It has become paralyzed by bureaucracy and corrupted by politics. Instead of defending the oppressed, it often defends the powerful — or looks away altogether.
In Nigeria, Syria, and Yemen, millions suffer while the U.N. Security Council stalls over procedural votes. Permanent members protect their allies, veto resolutions, and block humanitarian intervention. Political calculations routinely outweigh moral imperatives.
When the institution created to prevent genocide can’t even condemn it, the crisis isn’t merely diplomatic — it’s spiritual.
President Trump has proposed bold changes to restore the U.N.’s relevance. He called for adding permanent Security Council members — emerging powers such as India, Brazil, Japan, and Germany — to reflect modern realities and make the council more decisive.
He urged the U.N. to prioritize global security and counterterrorism while aligning its agenda with the legitimate interests of free nations. First lady Melania Trump, addressing the same assembly, launched Fostering the Future Together, a coalition promoting education, innovation, and children’s welfare.
These initiatives could help revive the U.N.’s moral voice and refocus it on its founding purpose: defending the oppressed and restraining the oppressors.
RELATED: Trump strongly defends Christianity at UN: ‘The most persecuted religion on the planet today’
My own survival came down to faith. When Ceaușescu sent an assassin to kill me, he pulled a gun and said, “You have ignored all of our warnings. I am here to kill you.”
In that moment of terror, I prayed: “Come quickly to help me, my Lord and my Savior.” Peace replaced panic. I began sharing the gospel.
That armed killer, confronted with God’s word, lowered his weapon, turned, and walked away. Today, he is a pastor — serving the same faith he once tried to destroy.
The lesson is simple: Hearts can change. Institutions can too. But it takes conviction.
If the United Nations is to mean anything again, it must rediscover the courage that once gave refuge to dissidents like me. It must speak for the enslaved, the persecuted, and the forgotten — not for dictators and bureaucrats.
God spared my life so I could keep fighting for truth. The U.N. was part of that story once. It can be again — if it remembers why it was born.
“Individual and human rights, liberty, and equality predate governments because they do not originate from governments.”
This is a line out of Mark Levin’s new book, “On Power” — a deep dive into the nature of power, its historical roots, and its impact on liberty and governance in America.
It’s also a reiteration of the most critical part of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“Those two sentences are so important,” says Levin.
He explains that this idea that “God is sovereign and God's children on earth are His sovereign children” is what distinguishes America – a “fusion of the Judeo-Christian value system” and “the Enlightenment” — from “Marxism and all the isms.” We the people get to decide how we’re governed.
If this is who America is, then why do we have bureaucrats and unelected judges calling so many of the shots?
“The bureaucracy has nothing to do with the consent of the governed,” Levin condemns, castigating the unelected judges and bureaucrats who continue to “devour the powers of the executive.”
This clash between America’s founding principles of individual liberty and the opposing ideology of centralized control by unaccountable powers is unsustainable, he argues.
“The basis for America’s founding and the ideology of the American Marxists are utterly incompatible,” he says, pointing to the “power struggle that exists today and has for 100 years or more” between worldviews about individual liberty and centralized control.
Levin’s “On Power” calls for reclaiming the consent of the governed, urging Americans to resist encroachments on their God-given rights by unaccountable powers, echoing the revolutionary spirit of the Declaration.
If you haven’t already, get your copy today.
To enjoy more of "the Great One" — Mark Levin as you've never seen him before — subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Jackson also fearmongered about 'having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the Ph.D.s, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything.'
The president’s efforts to shrink the federal workforce have gone into overdrive, and it is all thanks to Democrats in Congress.
Judge Illston doesn’t articulate why Clinton RIFs were good but Trump RIFs are a violent hatchet attack, but she clearly feels it.
Low utility middlemen in the Trump administration are feeling left out again, and so they’re back to anonymously moaning to the news media. This time they’re ragging on White House Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and his peacemaking efforts with Russia and Ukraine. Politico on Friday quoted several unnamed “U.S. and foreign officials and other people” […]
Is it truly in the county’s best interest to destroy a thriving business and a cherished community hub simply to enforce its zoning ordinance?
www.theblaze.com
ABC extends Jimmy Kimmel contract despite outrage over Charlie Kirk comments