Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Monday, November 28, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Friday, November 25, 2016
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Friday, November 18, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Monday, November 14, 2016
Sunday, November 13, 2016
November 13, 2016
By Lynn J. Cheramie III, Editor, FFOA News Network
I sit here watching and reading about the protests happening in very liberal cities since the election of Donald J Trump, The 45th President of the United States and wonder what if Hillary would've won?
I can only assume the reaction to Hillary winning the White House would've been the same or even better or worse or whatever. It's amazing that we don't see the same thing from the mainstream media for Donald J. Trump, The 45th President of the United States.
We see what we assume are informed and intelligent people acting like child thugs, inciting violence, burning others property, destruction of not their stuff, shouting death to Trump and his supporters and yes the favorite liberal word of all, HATE! We kept hearing during the campaign of Hillary Clinton:
and this one from The Daily Show. Does Trevor even have a job anymore? I guess this kind of racist and condescending reporting might have something to do with him still having a TV career. Liberals do own the mainstream media:
and this montage from The Daily Show. Today the mainstream media is showing us the circus and all of the real sideshow freaks:
The left preaches tolerance and respect for only themselves:
and this from "Mr. Thrill up my leg" the farthest left you can go:
American Patriots have grown tired of hearing the hate speech from communists who want to keep the power and get more money by exploiting minorities and the weak. Look at the inner cities. Ask yourselves what have Democrats done for me in the last 50 years? Your situation is far worse today and you won't admit it. It's always the other guys fault. Just keep blaming the other guys while we once again try to fix the mess that's been created by failed policies and leadership.
Saturday, November 12, 2016
November 12, 2016
By Anna Morris, Co-Editor, FFOA NEWS NETWORK
It sounds like President-elect Trump is trying to figure out ways to keep parts of Obama Care. I don't disagree that those with serious preexisting conditions should be protected. I wouldn't care if those people went on Medicare early. Mr. Trump also wants to keep the provision that 26 year old "kids" stay on their parents' insurance. To me, 26 years old is adult. I suppose it doesn't matter a great deal if Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson drop all mandates and make their "replacement" voluntary. At the moment this is just as hidden as the original fiasco that had to be passed so we could read it, as Pelosi said with an egg sucking grin.
Meanwhile Florida Governor Tim Scott sent me into a rage of discouragement as he spewed away on TV, something about the Trump plan, and we all have to stay healthy so we can all afford health care. Hillary pushed this as an Obama Care solution and Governor Mike Huckabee endorsed this idea in his book God, Guns, Grits and Gravy.
Probably in anticipation of running out of other peoples' money, as Margaret Thatcher said of socialism, the idea of enforced wellness is written into the dehumanizing parts of Obama Care. This scheme of enforced wellness has also been part of actual medical practice in Oregon for many years. The idea floated in along with President Clinton's dispensation for the Oregon Health Plan rationing scheme circa 1994, and it was actually used against some patients, mostly smokers, when that scheme ran out of money in the early 2000s.
Stay healthy so your brothers and sisters have enough! Doesn't that just sound touchy-feely, Progressive Liberal? Of course this requires living as government dictates. Right now government is down on sugar, fat, meat, alcohol, tobacco, salt and bacon. It is for whole grains and lots of fruits and veggies every day. How many of you remember when cholesterol was on government's hit list? There was an idea that if children consumed any cholesterol they were sure to get hardening of the arteries when they were 70 or so. Then it was found that children actually need cholesterol to grow properly and develop their nervous systems and brains. I don't know that any children were hurt by this government pronouncement but perhaps the mega data will tell us if there is an epidemic of a newly discovered neuro-degenerative disease in about 20 years.
Ah yes, Big Government demands we consume less than a teaspoon of sugar per day or something because some obscure study says sugar might cause diabetes. Or is that obesity from over consumption of food in general that "causes" diabetes? Meanwhile, why am I nursing an elderly athlete who had no bad habits, always ate healthy foods and now has diabetes?
While we are on that subject, why did my mom who called herself a "health nut before there were health nuts", get the only case of cancer in my family?
Government plans to dictate our personal choices to lower the health care costs government has driven into the stratosphere. Under Obama Care, a woman who drinks more than one alcoholic drink per day (two for men) is to be considered a mis-user of alcohol, certainly on the fast track to alcoholism and in desperate need of government oversight and counselling. At the same time marijuana is being legalized for recreation in many states and everyone snickers about the smoke till you're wasted philosophy.
Government tells us what to eat but it avoids its responsibility to enforce laws against shooting each other in places like Chicago. Lots of those casualties survive and end up using many "scarce health care dollars" to recover, not to mention disability payments if they do not.
Only government hell bent on totalitarianism dares try to mandate our legal personal habits. Progressive Liberals are big for saying crude stuff like, "If I wanted government in my bedroom I'd F*** my senator." Remember when little kids held up signs like that at some protest or another? They will tax our sugar and soda but never even give lip service to any sexual practices that could be good for us as a society. How many "scarce health care dollars"--not to mention otherwise scarce tax dollars for education and every other public expenditure "for the children"--do unplanned and unwanted births cost society? (I know, that's why Progressives push abortion. Go have a good time and kill the babies that are created by mistake.)
Let's look at that whole picture. HIV, a huge expense when treated, is still a threat and some STDs are very hard to treat. Multiple partners add to these possibilities. Some women do conceive children to get more welfare. Of course these kids grow up "disadvantaged", in "need" of government programs and hopefully from the purveyors of the welfare state, grow up to vote for government dependency by registering Democrat.
Now that I have ticked off half of the readers, why shouldn't the government that demands we eat multiple servings of fruits and veggies per day so our brothers and sisters can have health care, regulate births in general? Since I espouse Roman Catholicism I am on a slippery slope here, but this is just for the sake of argument. Natural births cost a few thousand dollars and complications cost a whole lot more. (As noted previously each child will be educated by tax payers and if Mr. Trump is a liberal as some of us fear, he may yet give free college to Bernie's supporters.) Should the government that taxes soda and rations and neglects unrepentant smokers to the point of death, restrict the number of children a woman may have? Oh no! That would be like China!
There is another religion that at least in the past has believed that giving birth liberated a soul that God had on a shelf in heaven or limbo or somewhere, just waiting to complete itself on earth. Huge families were encouraged. Once in a small town where I lived, a fertility specialist set up practice. He was a member of this faith and I have it from a good source that his specialty was repair work that allowed women of this faith to keep liberating souls even after other doctors said another pregnancy was a grave danger. An acquaintance of mine and a patient of his, nearly died having her sixth or seventh child!
Should children be limited to one or two? Is more than two a waste of "scarce health care dollars?" Does the birth of a fifth child to a family in Idaho someway deny treatment for a combat level gunshot injury sustained by a youth on the streets of Chicago?
Of course government also believes by regulating our personal consumption of whatever the UN/WHO decries for political purposes, chronic disease can be eliminated. As noted I am caring for an elderly athlete who has some serious chronic illnesses due to age and genetics according to his doctor. If there aren't enough health dollars to go around, how long before all people with chronic conditions will be on a Death Panel hit list for euthanasia? Oh no! That would be like Nazi Germany!
Like candidate Trump said, our country blows billions of dollars building up other countries. Then when government steps into health care it demands our last drops of blood to fund a redistribution scheme that aims to restrict our personal choices and delights. (Except of course, sex. Have as much of that as you want, with as many partners as you can. It would be a hate crime to complain about the cost of treating HIV or providing late term abortion on demand.)
We build hospitals in foreign countries at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars yet we have to tax sugar and soda here to enforce WELLNESS? Americans are tired of getting the smelly end of the stick!
We will live as we please. That is a BIG reason we want government OUT of health care, when we hear politicians like Governor Scott, a Trump supporter, telling us we have to live better, the way government demands of us. He is signalling to all of us that health "insurance", which has become privatized socialism rather than a pooling of risk, adding around 15% to medical costs for paper pushing alone, has run out of other peoples' money. What else is he saying? Admit smoking, drinking alcohol or soda, eating bacon or meat, eschewing fruits, veggies and whole grains, and be sanctioned as an enemy of the people? Communist China or Nazi Germany, indeed!
President-elect Trump: Government is out of our bedrooms and anything goes, no matter the cost to society. Now get government out of our kitchens and living rooms! Put the people back in charge of their medical care! The doctor/patient relationship must always be individualized, not community care. Government-centered care, which is Obama Care, IS the highway to totalitarianism at the most personal levels. Oh, and start calling it MEDICAL care again. Those "scarce health care dollars" need not be wasted on every bureaucratic, wealth redistributing, crackpot wellness plan that anyone can dream up! By the way, do you or Dr. Carson know how much Smoking Cessation Specialists earn in a year? Put those supposedly scarce dollars to work actually healing the sick!
Friday, November 11, 2016
November 11, 2016
By Lewis Shupe, Contributor, Freedom Fighters of America
“It depends on how you define “alone” … there were a lot of times we were alone, but I never really thought we were.” Bill Clinton’s Grand Jury testimony
William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President (1993-2001), would have ranked in the top tier of all time socialist presidents and massively accelerated the descent into socialism except he had a major problem. After his first two years in office, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for the remainder of his presidency and blunted his efforts to move the nation toward the left (you thought we were going to talk about something else, didn’t you!). That doesn’t mean that Bill Clinton didn’t do any damage, he did plenty of damage and particularly so in his first two years in office. Clinton, along with his wife and able co-conspirator Hillary, attempted to foist upon the American people a massive centrally controlled health care plan and that contributed mightily to the shellacking the Democrats took in the congressional elections of 1994, the first time in forty years that the Republicans controlled Congress. After 1994 Clinton pretended to be a centrist, which he was not.
It is not within the scope of this post to delve into the many personal problems of Bill Clinton – his draft dodging, sexual liaisons and various shady dealings while involved in Arkansas politics. Bill Clinton, like most people who rise to high office, was a very brilliant person and was a Rhodes Scholar. Clinton had a penchant for prevarication but was so intelligent he could seemingly remember who he had told what lies to – now that’s brilliant.
Upon taking office Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required large employers to allow employees to take unpaid leave for pregnancy or a serious medical condition. In his first address to the nation Clinton announced his plan to raise taxes to cap the budget deficit. Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (who comes up with these names) that cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families and raised taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers (redistribution of wealth). He expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, a subsidy for low-income workers. Clinton bears more responsibility than any other single individual for the housing collapse in 2008. By instituting executive orders effective in January, 1995 he constructed the conditions that fomented the problem (see our previous post “Anatomy of a Disaster”). Clinton’s socialist thinking was instrumental in one of the largest financial collapses in American history. The Clintons were the driving force behind the legislation forming the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act, all large government programs (SCHIP being the largest health care reform passed in the years of the Clinton Presidency).
One example of Bill Clinton in action should give you a clear view of why he had richly earned the nickname “Slick Willy.” Once in power in Congress in January, 1995 the Republicans passed the Welfare Reform Act. The welfare laws put in place by the Democrats had constructed a matching funds system whereby each dollar of state money spent on welfare was matched by a dollar of federal money. This system encouraged states to expand the welfare rolls since the more people they put on welfare, the more federal money they would receive. The huge numbers of people on welfare and the expanding welfare rolls were becoming a financial burden. The new law block granted fixed amounts of money to each state for welfare. Under the new law states could keep whatever of that amount they did not spend, thus encouraging states to get people off the welfare rolls. The new law was a disaster for the socialists for several reasons. First, it gave incentives to reduce the welfare rolls, something socialists want to see expanded. Second, it took control away from Washington and gave control to the states, reversing centralized political power, a fundamental requirement of socialism. Third, and most importantly, if successful it constructed a model whereby other federal functions could be returned to the states, a disaster in the eyes of socialists. On two occasions, in late 1995 and early 1996, the Welfare Reform Act was passed and sent to Clinton. He vetoed it both times. Then the Republicans decided to wait until September 1996 while Clinton was in a heated reelection campaign and sent him the bill again. Afraid that another veto could cost him the election, Clinton signed the bill, claiming (falsely) that it now had the correct provisions that he wanted. Within a year it was obvious the bill was working and by March 1999 the number of people on welfare had been cut in half. Once it was obvious that the bill was working, Clinton tried to claim credit for it saying that he had “ended welfare as we know it.” How do we know that signing the Welfare Reform Act was a political ploy by Clinton to help him get reelected? In early 2009 shortly after being elected Barack Obama modified the Welfare Reform Act that had worked so well and then continuously modified it even further to attempt to return the country to the old system. Bill Clinton offered not a single complaint – not a peep out of him.
Beginning in 1998 impeachment proceedings were begun against President Clinton thereby making him only the second President ever to be impeached (Andrew Johnson). They had Clinton on perjury and obstruction of justice, probably the same things they had Nixon on but the liberal media in this case rushed to his defense. The impeachment was a dumb move by the Republican Party. From a practical standpoint, they knew they did not have the votes to convict. The precedent it set, however, will be longer lasting since now they can pry into a President’s personal business and try to get the goods on him. They should have let the Starr report just sit there and hang over Clinton’s head. The Republicans got an “F” on their report card for this action.