Timothy McVeigh (Saddam sympathizer):
[quote]
Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of "mass destruction" -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?
The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.
[unquote]
(March, 1998 essay)
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcveigh.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Rev.” Jeremiah Wright, for 20 years Pastor of (Saddam financed) Barack Hussein Obama
[quote]
In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.
"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus, promoting his candidacy and criticizing his rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright told a cheering congregation. "Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."
[unquote]
http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewthread.php?action=printable&tid=594905
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36T1fnIafC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc2FCJ7zWEQ
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Did the hatred of America proceed from McVeigh to Wright to Obama?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obamacare Is an Attack on Liberty, Prosperity, and Health
Posted by Dirk L. Hudson on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:47:42 PM
I oppose any bill that provides for government-controlled health care for the following reasons:
(1) It is totalitarian (as interfering with our individual self-determination) and contrary to our basic rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence (to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"),
(a) the right to life includes that of senior citizens (whose health care would inevitably be rationed and denied by bureaucratic “death panels” to those citizens whose lives are deemed less valuable to the all-powerful State); it also includes that of unborn children (whose genocidal murder would inevitably be tax-payer subsidized in any government-controlled health care plan).
(b) the right to liberty includes that of choosing the health care plan of one’s preference or even no health care plan at all (perhaps paying directly for treatment as needed) without having a plan imposed by the all-powerful State (under threat of imprisonment for not conforming).
(c) the right to pursuit of happiness includes the right to enjoy in retirement the health care plan that one chose and paid for during one’s career, without having it stolen by thieving politicians and bureaucrats.
(2) It is unconstitutional, as going beyond the limited powers delegated to the federal government, and as a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments, respectively creating a presumption of liberty, and reserving remaining powers to the states and the people. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendments IX and X.)
Under the ninth amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This creates a presumption of liberty as against the federal government going beyond the powers specifically delegated to it and intruding into the private sector so as to limit the fundamental (albeit generalized) rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence, “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (including one’s right to privacy in health care decisions, and to the contractual acquisition and use of property such as private health insurance).
Under the tenth amendment, “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of the tenth amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
It is also unconstitutional for the following reasons:
(a) "Provision” for the general welfare only authorizes taxing and spending for the limited purposes specifically listed under that generic head, and does not include other types of (non-fiscal) legislation for other (unlisted) purposes. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)
(b) Interstate “commerce” means exchanges of products, not the manufacture (or internal production or drafting) of such goods. To be “interstate” these exchanges must occur across state lines (something that government does not allow at present with respect to health insurance). In that context, the flow of commerce is to be kept free (i.e., “made regular”) across state lines, rather than be subjected to governmental restrictions or interference. Accordingly, the exchange (sale and purchase) of private health care products must (like other “commerce”) be allowed to be accomplished freely (i.e., with regularity) across state lines without governmental impediments. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)
(c) “Sweetheart deals” or special exemptions for favored groups (such as the inhabitants of select states - as in the “Louisiana purchase,” “Cornhusker kickback,” etc., and members of select labor unions) violates the constitutional requirement of budgeting for the “general” welfare. (See U.S. Const, Art. I, Sec. 8.) It also violates the equal protection guarantee which the Supreme Court has read into the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Const., Amend. V.)
(d) Mandated purchase of insurance by consumers, and restrictions on health insurance prices (regardless of risk) are not only constitutionally unauthorized, but also violate the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. )
(e) [discussed but apparently not used due to intimidation of hold-outs such as Stupak]: “Reconciliation” without separate passage of the same exact bill by both houses is unconstitutional. Bicameralism requires both houses of Congress to pass identical bills before presentation to the President. Thus any attempt to “reconcile” different bills passed by different houses must produce a version that passes each house separately. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7, Clause 2.) Here bills differing in content each passed only one house. “Reconciliation” applies to numerical differences in budgetary items, not to policy differences between two bills different in content. Thus, there is nothing to “reconcile.”
(f) [discussed but not used]: “Deeming” the Senate Bill passed in the House of Representatives without a direct vote on the same exact bill passed in the Senate is likewise a violation of the Bicameral Provision (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 7), and also of the accountability requirement of Section 5 of that article, "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 5.) Thus, those who vote for “deeming” shall be held responsible for voting for passage.
(3) It is undemocratic
(a) in that the health care bill (of over 2,500 pages of legalese) is too lengthy and complicated to be absorbed with understanding by the People’s elected representatives who will vote on the bill without having read it;
(b) in that the bill creates at least 111 new agencies of unelected bureaucrats who will add their own regulations without responsibility to the voting public
(c) as subordinating our health care to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, who arbitrarily assess the comparative value to the all-powerful State of a given citizen's life, and via "death panels" limit their access to future care;
(d) Moreover, buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
(4) It is unequal (as exempting those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).
(5) It is economically disastrous (as taking over one sixth of the economy, adding $6trillion in costs over a ten year period and, via deficit spending, bankrupting the nation and depriving future generations of a prosperous life-style). Even Obama acknowledged, "Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html
Barack Obama's health care plan ensures spiraling costs and will convert health insurance companies into cost-plus health reimbursement utilities, or else bankrupt them completely. Health insurance as we know it (think home/auto/life) will no longer exist.
(6) It is regressive in that it undermines the world's finest and most progressive health care system (by rationing medical care and depriving senior citizens of critical operations, by discouraging and decreasing supply of prospective future physicians, while increasing demand for trivial ailments, and it also would slow down medical research into new cures and treatments (as advocated by Obama's medical advisers such as David Blumenthal).
This month (February, 2010), Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the United States for heart surgery. In coming to the United States for health care, Williams is no different than other Canadian leaders (such as Lougheed, Chretien, Bourassa, Stronach etc.). How ironic that the very health care system which is the envy of the world should be under attack in the United States!
(7) It is inherently corrupt since
(a) it steals from the taxpayer and gives the loot to tax-subsidized parasites, and
(b) since expansion of government power vastly expands opportunities for bribery for monopolistic government favoritism, e.g., as to preferred patients, as to preferred businesses (e.g., “big pharma”) contracting with the government for goods and services, as to preferred doctors, and as to preferred access to government jobs).
We have already seen this bribery in action in Harry Reid’s unconstitutional sweetheart deals known as the “Louisiana purchase,” the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Gator-aid,” SEIU exemption, etc., converting senators from being faithful representatives of their constituencies into Obama-Reid prostitutes (no doubt using unspent “stimulus” money). The stench of corruption once confined to Chicago and Washington, D.C., now wafts across the nation.
(8) It is secretive and insincere
(a) since even Democrat Senators other than the devious and corrupt Harry Reid are not allowed to see the infinitely complex and lengthy bill (some 2,000 pages of legalese), but are expected to vote for it (sight unseen, on pure faith) by Christmas, in violation of their duty to know what they are voting on, and
(b) since the pressure is that the bill be passed by the end of the year despite the fact that it will not take effect for several years so that its (foreseeable) detrimental impact is not associated with its con-artist promoters who rammed it down the throats of the unwilling public that they supposedly represent.
(c) As Speaker Pelosi said on March 9, 2010: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . “ (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576 .)
(9) It is fraudulent as providing “health care” in name only.
First, “death panels” for senior citizens and patients with costly pre-existing conditions are inevitable:
(a) as a result of demand outpacing supply, with resultant rationing,
(b) as advocated by Obama advisers such as Robert Reich and “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, and
(c) as already seen in Oregon (e.g., the case of Barbara Wagner denied anti-cancer medication), the U.K., and in other government controlled systems,
Second, Obamacare also provides for “death care” for innocent unborn babies. Taxpayers are being forced to fund the abortion genocide (cruelly slaughtering 45 million babies since abortion was legalized in 1973), making us unwilling accomplices in murder. Democrat Congressman Stupak realizes this, and opposed the bill until being strong-armed into submission by Obama hoodlums. Many conscientious members of the medical profession will leave if forced to violate the Hippocratic Oath (as advocated by Obama’s advisers Reich and Emanuel) and to perform abortions.
(10) Government Health Care is inherently monopolistic.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama admitted that his goal was a “single payer” plan, i.e., a monopoly.
There is no such thing as “competition” with the government, or as a “public option.” Such terminology is false advertising.
(a) In order for there to be “competition” with the government, the “competitors” would have to all have the governmental powers of taxation and regulation. The companies would then be competing governments in a state of civil war, each seeking to exercise the governmental powers of regulation and taxation against their “competitors.” Unlike private enterprise, government does not need to find more efficient (cost-effective) modes of production to offer “lower prices.”
The government’s true prices are in the form of taxes forced on the taxpayer. The taxpaying consumer has no choice, but to pay any tax-“price” the government requires. In government-controlled systems, taxation discourages entrepreneurial innovation. There will be no incentive to offer the consumer improved products or a greater range of choices. Rather, with bureaucratic red tape, supply will dry up and fall behind demand . This will lead inevitably to rationing and “death panels” for senior citizens and those with pre-existing conditions.
(b) The so-called “public option” is also a fraudulent term. The term “public” may sound nice, but it masks the governmental fist of coercion.
Under Obamacare, rather than the true public (i.e., the consumers), unelected governmental bureaus will choose the “competitors.” These “competitors” willl be deemed the only “qualified plans.” Those governmentally favored plans will be subject to intense regulation as to products, prices and wages, reducing them to public utilities or semi-monopolistic arms of the government (i.e., fascism). The government will then offer itself as the only other “option,” creating a “choice” between regulatory fascism and national socialism.
The consumer will no longer control the direction of commerce. Instead, your role will be degraded from that of independent citizen to dependent serf. Your oligarchic lords will be the bureaucratic elite. They will determine your range of economic choices as well as your political ones. Once the government controls your health, it will control you. You will have no other “option” but to submit or die.
(11) As a citizen of this once free country I protest. Government has no business inserting itself into my (or anyone else’s) private health care decisions. That is no-one’s business but that of the individual.
Posted by Dirk L. Hudson on Tuesday, December 01, 2009 9:47:42 PM
I oppose any bill that provides for government-controlled health care for the following reasons:
(1) It is totalitarian (as interfering with our individual self-determination) and contrary to our basic rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence (to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"),
(a) the right to life includes that of senior citizens (whose health care would inevitably be rationed and denied by bureaucratic “death panels” to those citizens whose lives are deemed less valuable to the all-powerful State); it also includes that of unborn children (whose genocidal murder would inevitably be tax-payer subsidized in any government-controlled health care plan).
(b) the right to liberty includes that of choosing the health care plan of one’s preference or even no health care plan at all (perhaps paying directly for treatment as needed) without having a plan imposed by the all-powerful State (under threat of imprisonment for not conforming).
(c) the right to pursuit of happiness includes the right to enjoy in retirement the health care plan that one chose and paid for during one’s career, without having it stolen by thieving politicians and bureaucrats.
(2) It is unconstitutional, as going beyond the limited powers delegated to the federal government, and as a violation of the ninth and tenth amendments, respectively creating a presumption of liberty, and reserving remaining powers to the states and the people. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendments IX and X.)
Under the ninth amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This creates a presumption of liberty as against the federal government going beyond the powers specifically delegated to it and intruding into the private sector so as to limit the fundamental (albeit generalized) rights recognized in the Declaration of Independence, “to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (including one’s right to privacy in health care decisions, and to the contractual acquisition and use of property such as private health insurance).
Under the tenth amendment, “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” Thomas Jefferson explained the pre-eminence of the tenth amendment in 1791: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: . . . To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."
It is also unconstitutional for the following reasons:
(a) "Provision” for the general welfare only authorizes taxing and spending for the limited purposes specifically listed under that generic head, and does not include other types of (non-fiscal) legislation for other (unlisted) purposes. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)
(b) Interstate “commerce” means exchanges of products, not the manufacture (or internal production or drafting) of such goods. To be “interstate” these exchanges must occur across state lines (something that government does not allow at present with respect to health insurance). In that context, the flow of commerce is to be kept free (i.e., “made regular”) across state lines, rather than be subjected to governmental restrictions or interference. Accordingly, the exchange (sale and purchase) of private health care products must (like other “commerce”) be allowed to be accomplished freely (i.e., with regularity) across state lines without governmental impediments. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8.)
(c) “Sweetheart deals” or special exemptions for favored groups (such as the inhabitants of select states - as in the “Louisiana purchase,” “Cornhusker kickback,” etc., and members of select labor unions) violates the constitutional requirement of budgeting for the “general” welfare. (See U.S. Const, Art. I, Sec. 8.) It also violates the equal protection guarantee which the Supreme Court has read into the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Const., Amend. V.)
(d) Mandated purchase of insurance by consumers, and restrictions on health insurance prices (regardless of risk) are not only constitutionally unauthorized, but also violate the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment. (See U.S. Constitution, Amendment V. )
(e) [discussed but apparently not used due to intimidation of hold-outs such as Stupak]: “Reconciliation” without separate passage of the same exact bill by both houses is unconstitutional. Bicameralism requires both houses of Congress to pass identical bills before presentation to the President. Thus any attempt to “reconcile” different bills passed by different houses must produce a version that passes each house separately. (See U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 7, Clause 2.) Here bills differing in content each passed only one house. “Reconciliation” applies to numerical differences in budgetary items, not to policy differences between two bills different in content. Thus, there is nothing to “reconcile.”
(f) [discussed but not used]: “Deeming” the Senate Bill passed in the House of Representatives without a direct vote on the same exact bill passed in the Senate is likewise a violation of the Bicameral Provision (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 7), and also of the accountability requirement of Section 5 of that article, "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal." (U.S. Const., Art. I, Sec. 5.) Thus, those who vote for “deeming” shall be held responsible for voting for passage.
(3) It is undemocratic
(a) in that the health care bill (of over 2,500 pages of legalese) is too lengthy and complicated to be absorbed with understanding by the People’s elected representatives who will vote on the bill without having read it;
(b) in that the bill creates at least 111 new agencies of unelected bureaucrats who will add their own regulations without responsibility to the voting public
(c) as subordinating our health care to the whims of unelected bureaucrats, who arbitrarily assess the comparative value to the all-powerful State of a given citizen's life, and via "death panels" limit their access to future care;
(d) Moreover, buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation! Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."
(4) It is unequal (as exempting those staffers NOT in personal offices, such as those working and paid under the committee structure (such as those working for Chairman Henry Waxman) or those working on leadership staff (such as those working for Speaker Nancy Pelosi) would be exempt from these requirements (emphasis added).
(5) It is economically disastrous (as taking over one sixth of the economy, adding $6trillion in costs over a ten year period and, via deficit spending, bankrupting the nation and depriving future generations of a prosperous life-style). Even Obama acknowledged, "Yes, it's one-sixth of the economy, but we're not transforming one-sixth of the economy all in one fell swoop."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589589,00.html
Barack Obama's health care plan ensures spiraling costs and will convert health insurance companies into cost-plus health reimbursement utilities, or else bankrupt them completely. Health insurance as we know it (think home/auto/life) will no longer exist.
(6) It is regressive in that it undermines the world's finest and most progressive health care system (by rationing medical care and depriving senior citizens of critical operations, by discouraging and decreasing supply of prospective future physicians, while increasing demand for trivial ailments, and it also would slow down medical research into new cures and treatments (as advocated by Obama's medical advisers such as David Blumenthal).
This month (February, 2010), Danny Williams, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is in the United States for heart surgery. In coming to the United States for health care, Williams is no different than other Canadian leaders (such as Lougheed, Chretien, Bourassa, Stronach etc.). How ironic that the very health care system which is the envy of the world should be under attack in the United States!
(7) It is inherently corrupt since
(a) it steals from the taxpayer and gives the loot to tax-subsidized parasites, and
(b) since expansion of government power vastly expands opportunities for bribery for monopolistic government favoritism, e.g., as to preferred patients, as to preferred businesses (e.g., “big pharma”) contracting with the government for goods and services, as to preferred doctors, and as to preferred access to government jobs).
We have already seen this bribery in action in Harry Reid’s unconstitutional sweetheart deals known as the “Louisiana purchase,” the “Cornhusker kickback,” the “Gator-aid,” SEIU exemption, etc., converting senators from being faithful representatives of their constituencies into Obama-Reid prostitutes (no doubt using unspent “stimulus” money). The stench of corruption once confined to Chicago and Washington, D.C., now wafts across the nation.
(8) It is secretive and insincere
(a) since even Democrat Senators other than the devious and corrupt Harry Reid are not allowed to see the infinitely complex and lengthy bill (some 2,000 pages of legalese), but are expected to vote for it (sight unseen, on pure faith) by Christmas, in violation of their duty to know what they are voting on, and
(b) since the pressure is that the bill be passed by the end of the year despite the fact that it will not take effect for several years so that its (foreseeable) detrimental impact is not associated with its con-artist promoters who rammed it down the throats of the unwilling public that they supposedly represent.
(c) As Speaker Pelosi said on March 9, 2010: “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . “ (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576 .)
(9) It is fraudulent as providing “health care” in name only.
First, “death panels” for senior citizens and patients with costly pre-existing conditions are inevitable:
(a) as a result of demand outpacing supply, with resultant rationing,
(b) as advocated by Obama advisers such as Robert Reich and “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, and
(c) as already seen in Oregon (e.g., the case of Barbara Wagner denied anti-cancer medication), the U.K., and in other government controlled systems,
Second, Obamacare also provides for “death care” for innocent unborn babies. Taxpayers are being forced to fund the abortion genocide (cruelly slaughtering 45 million babies since abortion was legalized in 1973), making us unwilling accomplices in murder. Democrat Congressman Stupak realizes this, and opposed the bill until being strong-armed into submission by Obama hoodlums. Many conscientious members of the medical profession will leave if forced to violate the Hippocratic Oath (as advocated by Obama’s advisers Reich and Emanuel) and to perform abortions.
(10) Government Health Care is inherently monopolistic.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama admitted that his goal was a “single payer” plan, i.e., a monopoly.
There is no such thing as “competition” with the government, or as a “public option.” Such terminology is false advertising.
(a) In order for there to be “competition” with the government, the “competitors” would have to all have the governmental powers of taxation and regulation. The companies would then be competing governments in a state of civil war, each seeking to exercise the governmental powers of regulation and taxation against their “competitors.” Unlike private enterprise, government does not need to find more efficient (cost-effective) modes of production to offer “lower prices.”
The government’s true prices are in the form of taxes forced on the taxpayer. The taxpaying consumer has no choice, but to pay any tax-“price” the government requires. In government-controlled systems, taxation discourages entrepreneurial innovation. There will be no incentive to offer the consumer improved products or a greater range of choices. Rather, with bureaucratic red tape, supply will dry up and fall behind demand . This will lead inevitably to rationing and “death panels” for senior citizens and those with pre-existing conditions.
(b) The so-called “public option” is also a fraudulent term. The term “public” may sound nice, but it masks the governmental fist of coercion.
Under Obamacare, rather than the true public (i.e., the consumers), unelected governmental bureaus will choose the “competitors.” These “competitors” willl be deemed the only “qualified plans.” Those governmentally favored plans will be subject to intense regulation as to products, prices and wages, reducing them to public utilities or semi-monopolistic arms of the government (i.e., fascism). The government will then offer itself as the only other “option,” creating a “choice” between regulatory fascism and national socialism.
The consumer will no longer control the direction of commerce. Instead, your role will be degraded from that of independent citizen to dependent serf. Your oligarchic lords will be the bureaucratic elite. They will determine your range of economic choices as well as your political ones. Once the government controls your health, it will control you. You will have no other “option” but to submit or die.
(11) As a citizen of this once free country I protest. Government has no business inserting itself into my (or anyone else’s) private health care decisions. That is no-one’s business but that of the individual.
Obama versus the Constitution
Obama re his contempt for the U.S. Constitution
(a contempt reflected in the current Obamacare legislation which ignores and violates, inter alia, the 9th and 10th Amendments):
1. (Obama [panel discussion], Sept. 6, 2001, Odyssey program, Chicago’s WBEZ-FM radio):
"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. […The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/10/obama_constitut.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=related
-------
2. (Obama [panel discussion], Sept. 6, 2001, Odyssey program, Chicago’s WBEZ-FM radio):
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4
(a contempt reflected in the current Obamacare legislation which ignores and violates, inter alia, the 9th and 10th Amendments):
1. (Obama [panel discussion], Sept. 6, 2001, Odyssey program, Chicago’s WBEZ-FM radio):
"I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, and that the framers had that same blind spot. […The Constitution] reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day."
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/10/obama_constitut.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11OhmY1obS4&feature=related
-------
2. (Obama [panel discussion], Sept. 6, 2001, Odyssey program, Chicago’s WBEZ-FM radio):
"But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2116060/posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFf7DU9ywQ4
The Fourth Reich:
The Demo-nazi Thieves Have Stolen Our Health Care!
Are We Going to Let Them Get Away With It?
----------------------------------------------------
1. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Obama-nazis, themselves:
(a) "Rev." Al Sharpton, Obama Activist (Obamacare is socialism),
(b) Sen. Max Baucus (D - Mont.) (Obamacare is theft, i.e., "an income shift"),
(c) Congr. John Dingell (D - MI)(Obamacare is "to control the people",
(d) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D - Cal) (Obamacare's contents are being concealed),
(e) Robert "4th" Reich, Obama Adviser (Obamacare means increased cost, letting seniors die, slowing down innovation),
(f) Oregon bureaucrats (Oregon plan refuses to fund Barbara Wagner's anti-cancer medication, but would fund pain-killer).
----------------------------------------------------
2. Obamacare = National Socialism
"Rev." Al Sharpton, Obama supporter:
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589814,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlJzTzemok
--------------------------------------------------
3. Obamacare = Legalized Theft
Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and Senate Finance Committee Chairman:
Business Week, March 25, 2010,
“This is also an income shift,” Baucus said. “It’s a shift, a leveling toward lower-income Americans.” Americans’ income distribution has been thrown off in recent years, he said.
“The wealthy are getting way too wealthy,” Baucus said. “This will help to address that maldistribution among all Americans.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/senate-approves-final-changes-to-landmark-health-care-overhaul.html
----------
See also:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Democrat Max Baucus Gives The Game Away
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/0dd8afd2-a9b2-46bf-b67d-69a7a83d53a5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature=player_embedded
---------------------------------------------------
4. Obamacare Means Control of the Individual
- Controlling your health care means controlling you.
Democrat Congressman John Dingell:
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU&NR=1
John Dingle Admits They Want To Control Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgqJwlJ_m9Q&NR=1
Dem Congressman says It will take some time for ObamaCare to control the people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N7ziD4iZU8&feature=related
Dingell: It takes a long time for ObamaCare to "control the people"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_HPs34usU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI&NR=1
Dem Congressman John Dingell: Obama Care Will Control The People
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWdBDfLsNP8&feature=related
---------------------------------------------------
5. Citizens denied advance knowledge of contents of Obamacare bill
Dem. Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
---------------------------------------------------
6. Obamacare in reality
Humble Libertarian, Monday, October 12, 2009
[quote]
Obama Advisor, Robert Reich To Elderly "We're Going To Let You Die!"
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to President Barack Obama, spills the beans about the Democrat's plans for your health care!
He affirms that this is what an educated, honorable, realistic, democracy should support:
-Younger people should pay more
-Healthier people should pay more
-Older people should just die- they're "too expensive"
-There should be "less innovation" in medical technology
-You should not expect to live longer than your parents.
[unquote]
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/10/obama-advisor-to-elderly-were-going-to.html
------------------------
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14. 2009
Robert Reich, who served as President Clinton's labor secretary [and is now an adviser to President Obama], delivered [a speech] on the subject in 2007:
[quote] I will actually give you a speech made up entirely--almost at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:
"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That's true, and what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.
"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. [applause]
"Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid--we already have a lot of bargaining leverage--to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you." [unquote]
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14. 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514.html
-------------
Obama's troll Robert 4th Reich on euthanasia: "if you're very old we're going to let you die"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMCigXbNnNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65GjfGgdtI&feature=related
Robert 4th Reich healthcare reform plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtOs7Yce6Fw&feature=related
----------------------------------------------------
7. Death Panels Illustrated: What Obamacare will look like.
http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
July 31, 2008
[quote] SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.
"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said. [unquote]
http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
Oregon death panels: Barbara Wagner assisted suicide case.m4v
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erzYKNrsx_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCB2oDgC29w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36nlylod0rY&NR=1
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Demo-nazi Thieves Have Stolen Our Health Care!
Are We Going to Let Them Get Away With It?
----------------------------------------------------
1. Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the Obama-nazis, themselves:
(a) "Rev." Al Sharpton, Obama Activist (Obamacare is socialism),
(b) Sen. Max Baucus (D - Mont.) (Obamacare is theft, i.e., "an income shift"),
(c) Congr. John Dingell (D - MI)(Obamacare is "to control the people",
(d) Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D - Cal) (Obamacare's contents are being concealed),
(e) Robert "4th" Reich, Obama Adviser (Obamacare means increased cost, letting seniors die, slowing down innovation),
(f) Oregon bureaucrats (Oregon plan refuses to fund Barbara Wagner's anti-cancer medication, but would fund pain-killer).
----------------------------------------------------
2. Obamacare = National Socialism
"Rev." Al Sharpton, Obama supporter:
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
"The American public overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they elected President Obama."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589814,00.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlJzTzemok
--------------------------------------------------
3. Obamacare = Legalized Theft
Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat and Senate Finance Committee Chairman:
Business Week, March 25, 2010,
“This is also an income shift,” Baucus said. “It’s a shift, a leveling toward lower-income Americans.” Americans’ income distribution has been thrown off in recent years, he said.
“The wealthy are getting way too wealthy,” Baucus said. “This will help to address that maldistribution among all Americans.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-25/senate-approves-final-changes-to-landmark-health-care-overhaul.html
----------
See also:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Democrat Max Baucus Gives The Game Away
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 5:08 PM
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/0dd8afd2-a9b2-46bf-b67d-69a7a83d53a5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY4Qbv7gPbo&feature=player_embedded
---------------------------------------------------
4. Obamacare Means Control of the Individual
- Controlling your health care means controlling you.
Democrat Congressman John Dingell:
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re passing legislation that will cover 300 million American people in different ways, it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU&NR=1
John Dingle Admits They Want To Control Us
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgqJwlJ_m9Q&NR=1
Dem Congressman says It will take some time for ObamaCare to control the people
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N7ziD4iZU8&feature=related
Dingell: It takes a long time for ObamaCare to "control the people"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk_HPs34usU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI&NR=1
Dem Congressman John Dingell: Obama Care Will Control The People
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWdBDfLsNP8&feature=related
---------------------------------------------------
5. Citizens denied advance knowledge of contents of Obamacare bill
Dem. Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
---------------------------------------------------
6. Obamacare in reality
Humble Libertarian, Monday, October 12, 2009
[quote]
Obama Advisor, Robert Reich To Elderly "We're Going To Let You Die!"
Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton and an adviser to President Barack Obama, spills the beans about the Democrat's plans for your health care!
He affirms that this is what an educated, honorable, realistic, democracy should support:
-Younger people should pay more
-Healthier people should pay more
-Older people should just die- they're "too expensive"
-There should be "less innovation" in medical technology
-You should not expect to live longer than your parents.
[unquote]
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/10/obama-advisor-to-elderly-were-going-to.html
------------------------
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14. 2009
Robert Reich, who served as President Clinton's labor secretary [and is now an adviser to President Obama], delivered [a speech] on the subject in 2007:
[quote] I will actually give you a speech made up entirely--almost at the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is, and a candidate will never say, but what candidates should say if we were in a kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship, and they were educated in terms of what the issues were, and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them:
"Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I'm so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That's true, and what I'm going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.
"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die. [applause]
"Also, I'm going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid--we already have a lot of bargaining leverage--to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you." [unquote]
Wall Street Journal, Oct. 14. 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514.html
-------------
Obama's troll Robert 4th Reich on euthanasia: "if you're very old we're going to let you die"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMCigXbNnNE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65GjfGgdtI&feature=related
Robert 4th Reich healthcare reform plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtOs7Yce6Fw&feature=related
----------------------------------------------------
7. Death Panels Illustrated: What Obamacare will look like.
http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
July 31, 2008
[quote] SPRINGFIELD, Ore. -- Barbara Wagner has one wish - for more time.
"I'm not ready, I'm not ready to die," the Springfield woman said. "I've got things I'd still like to do."
Her doctor offered hope in the new chemotherapy drug Tarceva, but the Oregon Health Plan sent her a letter telling her the cancer treatment was not approved.
Instead, the letter said, the plan would pay for comfort care, including "physician aid in dying," better known as assisted suicide.
"I told them, I said, 'Who do you guys think you are?' You know, to say that you'll pay for my dying, but you won't pay to help me possibly live longer?' " Wagner said. [unquote]
http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html
Oregon death panels: Barbara Wagner assisted suicide case.m4v
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erzYKNrsx_I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCB2oDgC29w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36nlylod0rY&NR=1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency?
Speaker Pelosi infamously said on March 9, 2010:
“we have to pass the [Senate Health Care] bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . “
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aefEk5LVirs
What then could possibly be in the 2,500 some pages of legalese that constitutes the Senate Health Care Bill which Pelosi is determined to pass in the House of Representatives? One would think that “the People’s representatives” would want to know before they vote on it. Yet it is doubtful that any of the prostituted supporters of Obamacare have any realistic idea.
Who is writing this fascist legislation? Is it Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago hoodlum who bullies reluctant Democrat Congressmen (e.g., New York Rep. Eric Massa) and who infamously said: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjMTNPXYu-Y&NR=1
Things such as a national socialist health care bill designed to control all American citizens and destroy our liberty and independence, purchased with “sweetheart deals” financed by unspent “stimulus” money allocated to non-existent districts. The bribery uses taxpayer funds, i.e., money stolen from citizens who overwhelmingly oppose the bill.
Perhaps we can get an idea of the contents from Obama’s top advisors and from Obama, himself. Shorn of its benign mask of compassion, what does Obamacare really look like?
(a) Obama ‘’medical’’ adviser “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist, would replace individual patient concerns with “communitarian” concerns such as rationing. To Emanuel savings in cost, requires changing how doctors think about their patients.
“Dr.” Emanuel criticizes the professional mentality which regards “the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to `use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
(Emanuel and Fuchs, The Perfect Storm of Overutilization, Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008, p. 2790.).
http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20(JAMA%202008).pdf
(see generally Betsy McCaughey, “Deadly Doctors,” New York Post, July 24, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=AE73A8E022C61B73A5D0F1D06C970C35; see also McCaughey, “Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's Rationing Czar, Says We Have Too Much Health Care,” http://www.lifenews.com/bio2941.html )
In a 1996 article purporting to define “a just allocation of health care resources,” “Dr.” Emanuel pronounced as follows:
“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”
(Examples of those to be denied care include “patients with dementia” and “children with learning disabilities.”)
See Emanuel, Hastings Center Report, 1996, "Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet", The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 26, No. 6, (Nov. - Dec., 1996), pp. 13-14
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
“Emanuel's view of seniors is one of blatant disdain. He openly condemns what he considers antiquated notions of age discrimination. If Emanuel has his way, age discrimination will become standard practice. As he wrote in Lancet, a prominent medical journal:
“`Unlike allocation [of healthcare] by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not [iii]’.”
John Griffing, Cannibalizing America, American Thinker, December 4, 2009.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/cannibalizing_america.html, quoting “Dr.” Emanuel, and citing at fn. [iii] Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," (The Lancet, vol. 373, issue 9661, p. 429).
http://econopundit.com/ezekiel_emmauel.pdf
Thus, it is government which determines the value of the individual (as a mere asset of the state) – i.e., the standpoint of the all-powerful State, and the unelected bureaucracy.
(b) Another Obama advisor, Dr. David Blumenthal emphasizes cutting costs, even at the expense of medical innovation.
"Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're `associated with longer waits' and `reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices' (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it `debatable' whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)"
Betsy McCaughey, “Deadly Doctors,” New York Post, July 24, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=AE73A8E022C61B73A5D0F1D06C970C35 , quoting Blumenthal, David, “Controlling Health Care Expenditures”, New England Journal of Medicine, 344(10), March 8, 2001, 495-498, 766-69.)
(c) In a rare moment of authoritarian candor in 2007, now Obama adviser Robert Reich said:
“[P]articularly to you young, healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more. And by the way, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life…It’s too expensive… so we’re going to let you die.”
(How unusual, a forthright Obamacrat!)
Reich continued: “Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government… to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.”
(Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4.)
How about merely “as long as” your parents – or grandparents?
(d) The statements of “Dr.” Emanuel and Robert Reich reflect the attitude of Obama himself.
June 24th, 2009, ABC National Town Hall on Health Care: WSJ:
At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. . . . End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. . . . At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller .
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-in-abc-prescription-for-america-town-hall-on-health-care-6-24-09/.)
(d) Obama’s heartless pronouncement came almost a year after the July, 2008 case in Oregon in which (despite her protest that she was “not ready to die” and asserted desire to live) Oregon’s state “health” care bureaucrats callously denied Barbara Wagner her anti-cancer medication.
( http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html ).
“we have to pass the [Senate Health Care] bill so that you can find out what is in it . . . “
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1576
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aefEk5LVirs
What then could possibly be in the 2,500 some pages of legalese that constitutes the Senate Health Care Bill which Pelosi is determined to pass in the House of Representatives? One would think that “the People’s representatives” would want to know before they vote on it. Yet it is doubtful that any of the prostituted supporters of Obamacare have any realistic idea.
Who is writing this fascist legislation? Is it Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago hoodlum who bullies reluctant Democrat Congressmen (e.g., New York Rep. Eric Massa) and who infamously said: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjMTNPXYu-Y&NR=1
Things such as a national socialist health care bill designed to control all American citizens and destroy our liberty and independence, purchased with “sweetheart deals” financed by unspent “stimulus” money allocated to non-existent districts. The bribery uses taxpayer funds, i.e., money stolen from citizens who overwhelmingly oppose the bill.
Perhaps we can get an idea of the contents from Obama’s top advisors and from Obama, himself. Shorn of its benign mask of compassion, what does Obamacare really look like?
(a) Obama ‘’medical’’ adviser “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist, would replace individual patient concerns with “communitarian” concerns such as rationing. To Emanuel savings in cost, requires changing how doctors think about their patients.
“Dr.” Emanuel criticizes the professional mentality which regards “the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to `use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
(Emanuel and Fuchs, The Perfect Storm of Overutilization, Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008, p. 2790.).
http://www.ipalc.org/Healthcare_Policy/The%20Perfect%20Storm%20of%20Overutilization%20(JAMA%202008).pdf
(see generally Betsy McCaughey, “Deadly Doctors,” New York Post, July 24, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=AE73A8E022C61B73A5D0F1D06C970C35; see also McCaughey, “Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's Rationing Czar, Says We Have Too Much Health Care,” http://www.lifenews.com/bio2941.html )
In a 1996 article purporting to define “a just allocation of health care resources,” “Dr.” Emanuel pronounced as follows:
“Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed.”
(Examples of those to be denied care include “patients with dementia” and “children with learning disabilities.”)
See Emanuel, Hastings Center Report, 1996, "Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet", The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 26, No. 6, (Nov. - Dec., 1996), pp. 13-14
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
“Emanuel's view of seniors is one of blatant disdain. He openly condemns what he considers antiquated notions of age discrimination. If Emanuel has his way, age discrimination will become standard practice. As he wrote in Lancet, a prominent medical journal:
“`Unlike allocation [of healthcare] by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not [iii]’.”
John Griffing, Cannibalizing America, American Thinker, December 4, 2009.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/cannibalizing_america.html, quoting “Dr.” Emanuel, and citing at fn. [iii] Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, and Ezekiel J. Emanuel, "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions," (The Lancet, vol. 373, issue 9661, p. 429).
http://econopundit.com/ezekiel_emmauel.pdf
Thus, it is government which determines the value of the individual (as a mere asset of the state) – i.e., the standpoint of the all-powerful State, and the unelected bureaucracy.
(b) Another Obama advisor, Dr. David Blumenthal emphasizes cutting costs, even at the expense of medical innovation.
"Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're `associated with longer waits' and `reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices' (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it `debatable' whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)"
Betsy McCaughey, “Deadly Doctors,” New York Post, July 24, 2009, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=AE73A8E022C61B73A5D0F1D06C970C35 , quoting Blumenthal, David, “Controlling Health Care Expenditures”, New England Journal of Medicine, 344(10), March 8, 2001, 495-498, 766-69.)
(c) In a rare moment of authoritarian candor in 2007, now Obama adviser Robert Reich said:
“[P]articularly to you young, healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more. And by the way, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life…It’s too expensive… so we’re going to let you die.”
(How unusual, a forthright Obamacrat!)
Reich continued: “Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government… to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. What that means, less innovation and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market which means you are probably not going to live much longer than your parents.”
(Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4.)
How about merely “as long as” your parents – or grandparents?
(d) The statements of “Dr.” Emanuel and Robert Reich reflect the attitude of Obama himself.
June 24th, 2009, ABC National Town Hall on Health Care: WSJ:
At one point in the town hall, broadcast from the East Room by ABC news, a woman named Jane Sturm told the story of her 105-year-old mother, who, at 100, was told by an arrhythmia specialist that she was too old for a pacemaker. She ended up getting a second option, and the operation, for which Ms. Sturm credits her survival.
OBAMA: I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit. Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that we are gonna provide good quality care for all people. . . . End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. . . . At least we can let doctors know -- and your mom know -- that you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off, uh, not having the surgery but taking, uhhh, the painkiller .
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-in-abc-prescription-for-america-town-hall-on-health-care-6-24-09/.)
(d) Obama’s heartless pronouncement came almost a year after the July, 2008 case in Oregon in which (despite her protest that she was “not ready to die” and asserted desire to live) Oregon’s state “health” care bureaucrats callously denied Barbara Wagner her anti-cancer medication.
( http://www.kval.com/news/26140519.html ).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)