Woman with bone cancer thanks Trump for ‘right to try’ legislation
June 27, 2019 by Ben Marquis

Of the many things that President Donald Trump has accomplished since taking office, one of his proudest achievements is passing legislation known as “right to try,” which affords terminally ill patients the opportunity to try experimental and unapproved treatments for whatever ails them if they so desire.

To that end, Trump highlighted a “right to try” success story during an address on Wednesday, actually placing his own speech on hold to allow a young woman with bone cancer to share her story.
A fighting chance

Trump was mid-way through his address at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference on Wednesday when he began to talk about the passing of the so-called “right to try” legislation. He noted the story of Natalie Harp, who he invited to join him on stage.

Harp had spent most of her young life fighting against Stage 2 bone cancer when a medical error by a nurse involving an incorrect IV caused near-fatal consequences that left her wheelchair-bound and in constant pain.

All of the standard treatments had failed Harp, and medical authorities had all but given up and counseled Harp to make preparations for death — until “right to try” was signed into law and Harp took advantage of new doctors, different medications, and experimental treatments that not only improved her quality of life, but even enabled her to walk again.

“Thank you, Mr. President,” Harp said at the podium. “We all know the story of the Good Samaritan. But what you don’t know is I was that forgotten person on the side of the road, a victim of medical error, the number three cause of death under the previous administration, and left to die of cancer.”

She went on: “First the medical establishment, they came by, and they saw me there so they wrote prescriptions for opioids, and they walked on. Next, the political establishment. They saw me there, and they stopped just long enough to come over there and tell me how to die, how to speed up my death so I could somehow ‘die with dignity.'”

Gesturing toward the president, Harp added, “But then an outsider, my Good Samaritan, President Donald J. Trump, he saw me there and he didn’t walk by. He stopped, and for every single one of us, he gave up his own quality of life so we could live and work and fight with dignity.”
Keeping promises.

Harp went on to laud Trump for believing “in survival of the fighters, not the fittest.”

“I have to say that you’ve made a lot of promises to us and you have kept every one of them,” she said of the president. “So now we’re going to make you this promise: Just as you fought for us, forgotten America will never forget how you saw us on the side of the road, and you walked over and you picked us up and you made us great again. And now we’re going to fight for you, Mr. President. God bless you.”

The cheering crowd broke into a chant of, “Four more years!” as Harp left the stage.

Trump then spent a few more moments marveling over just how “incredible” Harp’s story is and how she is an “inspiration” to others — a sentiment no doubt shared by the crowd of Trump supporters at the conference on Wednesday.

Indeed, Natalie Harp’s story truly is an incredible and inspirational one that everyone should hear, and her gratitude toward President Trump for his role in providing her and others the opportunity to try for life was overwhelmingly obvious.

"Social in its meaning means relating to society or its organization." That would make virtually any human activity and ALL human organizations, socialist. Even despicable organization like the KKK and Antifa would qualify under your definition.

Mirriam Webster
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Cambridge English Dictionary
Socialism definition
any economic or political system based on government ownership and control of important businesses and methods of production

Dictionary.com
definition of socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Webster College Dictionary
Socialism definition
Socialism is defined as an economic theory, system or movement where the production and distribution of goods is done, owned and shared by the citizens of a society.
1-any of various theories or systems of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of society or the community sharing in the work and the products
2-[oftenS-]
*a political movement for establishing such a system
*the doctrines, methods, etc. of the Socialist parties
3-in Marxist doctrine, the stage of society coming between the capitalist and the communist stages

So do all these well respected dictionaries miss the mark?

The characteristics of socialism according to: http://www.studylecturenotes.com/management-sciences/economics/381-characteristics-of-socialism
*Public Ownership
*Planned Economy
*Classes of Society
*State is responsible for basic necessities of life
*Equal Opportunity to all
*Non-existence of competition and limited choice of consumer products
*Pricing Mechanism

According to: http://www.economicsdiscussion.net/economy/socialist-economy-meaning-and-features-of-socialist-economy/2070
(i) Collective Ownership: In socialism, all means of production are owned by the community, i.e., Government, and no individual can hold private property beyond certain limit. Therefore, it is government who utilises these resources in the interest of social welfare.
(ii) Economic, Social and Political Equality:
Under socialism, there is almost equality between rich and poor. There is no problem of class strugg
(iii) Economic Planning:
Under socialism, government fixes certain objectives. In order to achieve these objectives, government adopts economic planning. All types of decisions regarding the central problems of an economy are taken in the economic plans. There is a Central Planning Authority, who plans for the economy.
(iv) No Competition:

Unlike capitalistic economy, there is no cut throat competition. It means lack of competition as state is the sole entrepreneur.

(v) Positive Role of Government:

In socialism, government plays significant role in decision making. Thus, government has complete control over economic activities like distribution, exchange, consumption, investment and foreign trade etc.
(vi) Work and Wages According to Ability and Needs:
In socialistic economy, work is according to ability and wage according to need. It is said that under socialism “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, is socialism.”
(vi) Maximum Social Welfare:
The sole objective of socialism is the maximum social welfare of the society. It means that there is no scope of exploitation of labour class. Government keeps a close eye on the needs of the poor masses while formulating plans. {by the way, positive in this aspect does not mean good but rather that a scale of government involvement. Positive government involvement vs negative government involvement where government takes a hands off approach}

Volunteer Fire Departments often receive significant funding from corporate sources, IF those running the department's funding will just reach out and ask. Community charity fund raising is common in many rural communities. And charity organizations (and despite your definition, charities are NOT socialist). Another source is funds the local community glean from lotteries. Lotteries are NOT taxes!!!! And yes, many apply for FEMA grants which is taxpayer funded. So even with your broad characteristic that anything funded by the government is socialist (which I disagree with according to many sources of socialism definitions), a volunteer fire department would not qualify. And many communities, especially rural; have ONLY volunteer fire departments!

In your list of characteristics, some involve control of the individual yet you also say they are fully sovereign. These are opposites!!!!

Also, your characteristics sound great in writing, but where have they ever been accomplished? While the success of capitalism has many examples. Including pre-socialist Venezuela!

Of course you’d have no idea about what the Bible says about the end times because anything biblical to you is like a cross to a vampire!
You flee from it!
BUT, when His apostles asked Him when He would return, He told them signs to look for, including that sodomites would be openly parading in the streets, as in the time of Noah.
And to pinpoint the exact generation of His return, He then told them the parable of the fig tree. (Even a neophyte student of biblical theology knows that in the Bible, Israel is represented by the fig tree.)
He said He would return in that “generation when the fig tree’s roots are yet tender and she puts forth shoots”, or in other words, in the generation when Israel became a nation again. Hmmm, that was 1948. So we’re 71 years into this final generation, dude. Wake up!
Daniel also tells us that the end times will occur when the king of the west will be as a rough he-goat who will make his nation exceedingly great (MAGA?) Hmmm, I wonder who that could be.
As far as unmarried couples cohabiting, many jurisdictions even recognize common law marriages as valid if they consider themselves as such. So, even w/o the benefit of an official marriage ceremony, the union can be recognized by God, as well as civil governments.
God NEVER recognizes sodomites as walking in the light. Forget about whatever the SCOTUS said! It’s still an abomination!

That is a troubling and highly complex question. If we want to see patriotism as a good thing, than we have to see that all patriotism, even that of our enemies or any others, as equally good. This is the book definition of Patriotism: "the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country." Yet "devotion and vigorous support" means what? Or the simple definition of patriotism as "love of country" means what?

Patriotism is to me a sham; it does not come close to truth on the matter. Samuel Johnson said that it was the last refuge of the scoundrel, yet Boswell, his biographical commentator, gave no context. Let me provide one, my own.

Basically, there is absolutely no need for patriotism. America has ideals and principles and values that we honor and protect. Why? Because if we have integrity those same ideals and principles and values reflect what we stand for as individuals. It is not a dedication to borders or a flag but to the heart and spirit of liberty. If America strayed from these things, as much as another country threatened them, we would be equally zealous, "devoted and vigorous," in rooting out the corrupting influence. This is something the Right does not seem to understand.

Patriotism appears to mean to the Right lock-step loyalty to Trump and abject hatred for the Left. This is what is so totally bad about patriotism. It has no parameters. Such thoughts as those are not for the country or its principles but for party or a man. The word patriotism or patriot should be forever banned as being anything more than a poor and shaky description of multiple and perhaps conflicting feelings regarding a nation.

Thanks to Democrats, Most Dangerous Place in America is the Womb
By David Jolly - June 18, 2019

There is a growing dichotomy in America between right and wrong. There is one sector in America that seems to believe that they do not have to abide by the Constitution, laws or ethics to accomplish whatever they want to do. On the other side are those who try to uphold the Constitution, laws and ethics but are accused and blamed for even the slightest hint of anything wrong by the first side who lives by doing wrong.

I’m not talking about criminals versus law-abiding citizens. Rather, I’m speaking about Democrats and conservatives.

Barack Obama violated the US Constitution when he instructed then Attorney General Eric Holder to not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, a full year before the Supreme Court gutted the act.

Barack Obama violated the US Constitution when he opted to not fully enforce federal immigration laws because only Congress can change a law that originated and was passed by Congress.

Barack Obama violated the US Constitution when he made multiple changes to the Affordable Care Act since it also originated in and was passed by Congress.

Barack Obama violated the US Constitution when he bypassed Congress to free funds and a weapons sale to Egypt’s terrorist regime the Muslim Brotherhood, after Congress had frozen the assets and sale of F-16 fighter jets.

The Obama administration interfered with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illegal use of a private unsecured email server for official State Department business, which clearly constitutes obstruction of justice.

The list goes on and on, but realize that nothing was done about Obama’s many violations and only now is Trump’s DOJ and some Republicans pursuing the issue of obstruction of justice in the Clinton email issue.

Yet, Democrats and the sewagestream media are busy pointing fingers of blame at President Donald Trump for alleged obstruction of justice and other allegedly illegal and dangerous actions – thus, examples of Democratic hypocrisy.

So, consider this issue:

Democrats are busy declaring their cities, counties and states as sanctuary cities to protect illegal aliens from federal immigration officials. Democrats are intentionally violating federal immigration laws (misdemeanors) and obstructing federal law enforcement officers from performing their duties (felonies).

By protecting illegal aliens, Democrats are ignoring the safety, needs and welfare of the American people. They don’t care that thousands of American citizens are victimized by illegal gang members, criminals and those who are addicted to the illegal drugs that are brought across the border by many illegals.

In fact, consider this hypocrisy – Democrats are complaining about the opioid epidemic and trying to lay all of the blame on the legal pharmaceutical companies while it has been revealed that the Mexican drug trafficking business makes more money than Walmart.

While Democrats are busy violating laws to protect illegal aliens, they are passing laws that allow for the legal murder of babies up to the moment of birth. Not only are they passing laws to keep abortion legal but are adding infanticide to their list of legalities by allowing a baby who was just born to be killed. In New York, they even lit up the Empire State Building to celebrate the passage of the baby murdering law.

I recently saw a statement saying that one of the most dangerous places to be for any human being here in the United States is in the womb.

Additionally, Democrats oppose the death penalty for convicted murderers, saying it is cruel and inhumane, and yet the brutal dismemberment of a living baby is perfectly humane.

The bottom line is that Democrats protect illegal aliens, of which includes criminals, terrorists and violent gang members, along with convicted murderers and then turn around and celebrate their ability to openly murder innocent unborn babies, even at the time of birth.

And these are people that want to run America!

I can't fix your stupidiocy (that's not a misspelling; Stupidity + Idiocy).
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "Absurd." Utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; Laughably foolish or false; Contrary to all reason or common sense.

Since you have no common sense, nor the ability to reason, I can't expect you to recognized the obvious untruth of your statement.

Therefore, I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
However, if you want to see vicious and disgraceful just keep it up. I'll be more than happy to oblige.