Suicide Machine Predator Kevorkian Dies Fighting For His Own Life In Hospital While Democrats Nationalize His Ghoulish Agenda

Welcome to hell, Jack.  Hope you enjoy your next few trillion years there (just think of hell as spending a year there for every dollar Obama recklessly adds to the debt for starters).

The New York Times called Kevorkian “fiercely principled” – because there is no question that the left celebrated this evil man and what he stood for – but let’s consider two things to show what a lie that is and what a disgrace to decency the New York Times is for saying it.

What a sick, disgusting joke that one is.

Had this hell-bound soul used his suicide machine on himself to hasten his own eternal judgment, you could at least give him the credit of being consistent with his own stated values.  But, no.  “Dr. Death” died fighting for his own life.

The media chose to overlook that massive piece of hypocrisy, merely saying things like:

The ghoulish-but-folksy physician died Friday not by his own hand but at a hospital in Royal Oak, Mich., where he was being treated for pneumonia and kidney problems. He was 83.

I hear they like to say that Hitler was quite “folksy” too.

The fact of the matter is that as fascinated as Kevorkian was with accelerating the deaths of his victims, he had no fire in his belly to hasten his own.  “Fiercely principled” my butt.

Then there’s another rather large bit of hypocrisy for the left to chew on until it’s their turn to burn in hell: You know how the left is opposed to capital punishment, and has been successfully preventing executions of the worst of the worst criminals because the drugs used could cause “pain and suffering”?  Well, of course, as immoral as it is to cause a torture-rapist murderer “unnecessary pain and suffering” – as if any pain and suffering you could inflict on these monsters would ever be “unnecessary” in the first place – it is fine to cause such pain and suffering as long as the person receiving said pain and suffering is a tragic victim of some disease process.

Possibly the best article on Kevorkian was written by a foreign source.  Here is a link to it.  It is in English, but was clearly translated (likely by machine).  Among other things, you find out that Kevorkian had no credentials to do what he was doing, was clearly not equipped to provide any kind of knowledgable counseling whatsoever and “assisted” numerous victims who had years of productive lives ahead of them.

The same pro-abortion left which is the same euthanasia left that is celebrating ObamaCare with its “death panels” is one day going to be celebrating your death by medical rationing, too.  And they will defend the next giant step in inhumanity by claiming that the elderly and seriously ill are consuming resources that could be used to treat the more productive and they have a duty to die.

Realize that Obama’s views on abortion were both radical and genuinely evil.  Rest assured his vision for you and your future health care are every bit as radical and every bit as evil.

A few articles I’ve written:

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/08/10/the-proof-of-planned-health-care-rationing-and-denial-of-care-to-senior-citizens/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/obamacare-will-bring-abortion-mindset-to-treatment-of-elderly/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/10/28/where-are-the-death-panels-in-obamacare-where-arent-they/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/crazy-claims-about-death-panels-sadly-not-crazy-at-all/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/obamacare-is-killing-private-practice-physicians/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2009/08/09/health-care-debate-as-charges-of-nazism-abound-which-side-is-right/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/what-lies-in-store-for-your-parents-under-obamacare-it-will-be-even-worse-for-you/

https://startthinkingright.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/of-all-the-democrats-running-for-office-not-one-of-them-admits-to-voting-for-obamacare-in-ads/

Democrats are currently using every lie in their massive arsenal of lies to demonize Republicans for trying to hurt Medicare.  But even Bill Clinton worries that the inevitable result of this scheme is that Democrats won’t take on the Medicare system that is heading for bankruptcy by 2017.  Which is to say that Democrats are fighting for the total collapse of the Medicare system and the deaths by medical neglect of hundreds of thousands of the people who need medical assistance most.

“Assisted suicide” lives on, indeed.  It lives on with the Democrat Party.

To paraphrase dialogue from a movie, the Democrats remind me of something from the Bible.  Which part, you ask?  The part just before God gets angry.

You love evil more than good, Falsehood more than speaking what is right. — Psalm 52:3

But he who sins against Me injures himself; all those who hate Me love death — Proverbs 8:36

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! — Isaiah 5:20

You who hate good and love evil, Who tear off their skin from them And their flesh from their bones — Micah 3:2

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools – Romans 1:22

For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodliness and wickedness of those who in their wickedness suppress the truth – Romans 1:18

In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of those who do not believe to keep them from seeing the light of the glorious gospel of the Messiah, who is the image of God. — 2 Corinthians 4:4

Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron — 1 Timothy 4:2

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. — 2 Tim 4:3-4

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

D. James Kennedy prophetically said years back, “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

And coming they are.  And coming after Grandma, too, of course.

One of the morally depraved assumptions of abortion is that the baby has a duty to die for the convenience of his or her mother.

And guess what, Grandma and Grandpa?  It’s getting to be YOUR turn to quit burdening us with your useless lives.  It’s getting to be time that you shoved off and “died with dignity.”

May 11, 2010 12:00 A.M.
A ‘Duty to Die’?
Thomas Sowell

There was a time when some desperately poor societies had to abandon the elderly to their fate, but is that where we are today?

One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have “a duty to die” rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time — fortunately, now long past — when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their families and communities to face their fate alone.

But is that where we are today?

Talk about “a duty to die” made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady — a relative of ours — was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.

She was called “Aunt Nance Ann,” but I don’t know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

At that time, we didn’t have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table — and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had “a duty to die.”

I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-paneled TVs and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites — rather than the masses — have begun talking about “a duty to die.”

Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently, you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about “a duty to die.”

Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.

But my son didn’t have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations, and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.”

Nor are we better people because of it.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Don’t think Sowell knows what he’s talking about?

How about lifelong Democrat talking head and economist Robert Reich?

“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. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going 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.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re 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.”

That’s right, young folk.  You get to pay more to have the privilege of one day being euthanized like an unwanted dog at the county animal shelter.  I know I’D certainly happily pay more for a privilege like that.  Pay more for my health care?  And then get to die a slow, painful death of medical neglect because I’ve been considered to be a useless burden like all those millions of babies Democrats have murdered?  Where can I sign?

Oh, I’m ALREADY signed up for it?  Coool.  I just can’t wait until that cancer starts eating holes in my body, and my government health plan offers me suicide in lieu of any actual care.  Or maybe I’ll get REALLY lucky and simply be left to die in my own filth.

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan.  Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues.  Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated… The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“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, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity.  Or die without it.  It doesn’t matter.  What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle.  And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.