The Surest Path To Hell: Just Keep Listening To ‘The Experts’

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

The road to hell is paved with “intellectuals” and “experts.”  That’s the record of history.

The next time you see a beatific mother lovingly holding her baby, kindly suggest to her that she ought to instead pursue the liberal path and slam it on the ground and bash its brains out:

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say
Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article’s authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
 
As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.
 
The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.
 
They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that “only the 64 per cent of Down’s syndrome cases” in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing.
 
Once such children were born there was “no choice for the parents but to keep the child”, they wrote.
 
“To bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”
 
However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others – their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised.
 
They preferred to use the phrase “after-birth abortion” rather than “infanticide” to “emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus”.
 
Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University.
 
Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School – where Prof Savulescu is also a director – titled ‘What is the problem with euthanasia?’
 
He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the city’s Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002.
 
Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were “largely not new”.
 
What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments “in consideration of maternal and family interests”.
 
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
 
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” – a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
 
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
 
Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary’s University College, said: “If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say ‘it’s doesn’t matter, she can get another one,’ is that what we want to happen?
 
“What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new.”
 
Referring to the term “after-birth abortion”, Dr Stammers added: “This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide.”

That hell is already in North America.  And for the record it is already in America – in the person and presidency of Barack Hussein Obama (see also here and here).

The Nazis didn’t begin with Hitler.  They began a full generation before Hitler came to power, in the minds of intellectuals who contaminated German culture with their “expertise.”

One of the leading ideas that led to Nazism was Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life).

American liberals enthusiastically supported Hitler’s socialist fascism during his rise to power, just as they had supported totalitarian communism in the years before.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

Margaret Sanger – the heroine of the left – famously or infamously said:

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.”

And she proceeded to do an incredibly good job at doing precisely that by getting black mothers to murder their very own babies with the full knowledge, consent and support of the Democrat Party.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed:

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I never cease to be stunned that black people in America overwhelmingly support the party that has actively sought their deaths after literally fighting a war to keep them in slavery.

And, mind you, if Democrats can do that to one group of people and then condition them to like it, there’s really no logical reason why they shouldn’t do similar things to other groups.

When the leftist judicial activists of the Supreme Court inflicted the sin of abortion on demand on the United States, many predicted that abortion would be followed by euthanasia.  They were savagely mocked by the left.  They were also right.  Assisted suicide is now the law of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Georgia.  And there is widespread movement to push it to other states.  They also predicted that abortion would lead to infanticide.  And having already elected a pro-infanticide murder president (see also here), America is on the verge of opening the door to that one-way ticket to hell as well.

That’s right: Obama has already taken the position that it’s perfectly okay to kill a baby who has survived an attempt at abortion and is outside his or her mother’s body.  And the next logical step from that is straightforward infanticide, as a Canadian judge recently ruled.

It can all be done in the name of “science,” just as has been done before.

And now we also already have organized, mandated euthanasia in the form of ObamaCare.

The Democrat Party is the party of the murder of 54 million innocent human beings.  It is the demonic party of hell.  And in these last days before the Antichrist comes liberals are getting more and more demonic with every passing day.

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.

‘What About The Baby’s Choice?’ A Pro-Life Woman Asks As She’s Being Assaulted By A Pro-Choice Thug

First of all, may God bless this courageous and beautiful woman as she stands up for the cause of innocent human life.

Pro-Life Activist Lila Rose Attacked by Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Escort

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
December 18, 2009

San Jose, CA (LifeNews.com) — Lila Rose has made a name for herself exposing the abuses at Planned Parenthood centers, such as staffers misleading women about abortion or hiding cases of sexual abuse. Rose became a victim herself Thursday morning as a Planned Parenthood staff member attacked her.

Late Thursday morning at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility located at 1691 The Alameda in San Jose, California, Rose led a group of pro-life advocates.

Rose tells LifeNews.com she was visiting the abortion center with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to abortion alternatives.

According to a police report filed at the scene and numerous witnesses, a uniformed Planned Parenthood escort engaged in a short exchange with Rose and eventually struck her on the hand, knocking her literature to the ground.

“Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?” Rose asked the Planned Parenthood escort while standing on the public sidewalk.

The escort approached Rose from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”

Rose told LifeNews.com today: “The man appeared to recognize me though I had never met him. He knew who I was and I think that is part of the reason for his surprising anger and the attack.”

Rose offered to show the escort a picture of a baby victimized by abortion, saying, “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”

At this point, the escort struck Rose’s hand knocking her pro-life pamphlets and Bible to the ground and Rose stepped further back on the public sidewalk.

The Planned Parenthood official moved closer to Rose and, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”

“What about the baby’s choice?” Rose responds.

The Planned Parenthood escort replied, “It’s not a baby!” and then turned around and walked away.

Rose, the president of Live Action, tells LifeNews.com that the police were called and interviewed her and several witnesses on the scene.

She says she was not injured by the attack but will press for charges of assault and battery.

“I attempted to speak with the escort and faced unexpected, intense anger and violent physical contact,” Rose told LifeNews.com. “I was concerned at the time that he would attack somebody more violently, and more do so next time.”

“Live Action maintains a strong commitment to non-violent public discourse. We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort’s attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence,” Rose said.

However, Planned Parenthood has yet to comment on the incident.

Rose told LifeNews.com she’s not concerned about the attack in one sense because unborn children face worse.

“The attack against me cannot even begin to compare with the lethal attacks that take place twice a week at that same clinic against completely defenseless unborn children. I am thankful I live in a nation where my life is protected by law, and the lives of sidewalk counselors, and we will continue to fight for the day when our laws recognize our fellow unborn brothers and sisters as persons with the right to life,” she said.

Rose said she received good news this morning.

“A woman who thought she was pregnant and considering abortion, bound for Planned Parenthood , turned around, and one of the parents and their daughter at the clinic drove her and her friend to the criis pregnancy center,” she said.

‘She was crying and so happy because she said she wanted ‘a sign from God’ not to get an abortion. And the sidewalk counselors and students praying were her sign,” Rose concluded.

Related web sites:
Live Action – http://liveaction.org

Again, bless you, Lila Rose.  I thank God for you, and for what you are doing, and – now that I know who you are and what you are about – I will not forget to pray for your ministry and for your protection.

Let me ask one pertinent question.  If “It’s not a baby,” as Planned Parenthood says, then why is it that men are called “fathers” and held legally responsible to provide support for “the children they fathered”?

If it was not a child immediately following his part in procreation, then upon what legal or moral basis can a man be held responsible as a “father”?  After all, he didn’t father a “baby”; he merely fertilized a single-celled lump of goo.  It didn’t “become” a baby until considerably after the fact – according to the abortionist reasoning – either after the baby was born, or after the mother decided to “choose” that it was a baby and therefore somehow wasn’t a lump of goo.

If a baby doesn’t actually become a baby until he or she is born, then on what possible basis do you hold the “father” responsible for something that happens 9 months after he had anything to do with anything?  The only thing he cause was a non-human lump of goo, not a baby, right?

If your going to hold him responsible for the fact that a baby is born 9 months later as a result of something he had done 9 months previous, how can you not apply the same logic to the mother, and recognize that in 9 months time she will have a baby, so that she become responsible for that outcome of a baby in the same way a father is held responsible?

If a baby doesn’t become a baby until the “mother” decides that little boy or girl in her womb is a baby, then that’s her “choice” alone – and nobody but the woman who made that choice should be held accountable for it.  Period.  If she has all the “rights,” she should bear all the responsibilities for her “choice.”

The simple fact of the matter is that justice is dead.  A baby is expected to forfeit his or her very life for the mere convenience and “choice” of a mother.  And a father is expected to sit passively by while his own child is killed by being violently ripped apart after being dissolved – writhing in agony – by acid.  Ah, unless the mother subjectively “chooses” that her baby really is a baby; in which case the father is compelled to provide support for that baby whether he wants to “choose” to do so or not.

You can understand why modern fathers are decried for being passive and uninvolved today.  It is the legacy of abortion, which tells fathers that neither they nor their children have any real value.  Given the twisted moral logic of abortion – which has permeated our culture – why should they care?  The baby that he fathered is intrinsically without value apart from the completely subjective “choice” of the woman he once had sexual relations with.  Why should he be any more involved with his “child” now than he was forced to be when all “choice” as a parent was taken away from him by our legal system in the first place?

There is a famous photo of a baby reaching out of the womb and grasping the finger of the surgeon (Dr. Joseph Bruner) who was in the midst of operating to alleviate the effects of spina bifida in that child.

The photo reflects something that is so profoundly human that it brings tears to my eyes every time I see it.  This is the kind of creature that any human mother and father should do absolutely everything in their power to save and protect.  To casually kill such an innocent little human being – that now lives because of a union of mother and father – is beyond monstrous.

Here’s a more recent photo of that same child – Samuel Armas – ten years later, proudly holding up his awards for swimming.

Of his role in “The Hand of Hope,” Samuel says, “When I see that picture, the first thing I think of is how special and lucky I am to have God use me that way.”

Amen, my young brother.  You are as incommensurably priceless now as you were the day you famously reached out of your mother’s womb.

Now, since I am one who actually knows that that an innocent little baby in the womb is a developing human being conceived in the image of God, I know that every father becomes a father from the moment he conceives a child.  And therefore every father has a moral duty under God and under heaven to love, support, and protect his child – from the very sort of murderers who would rip his child apart in abortion.  And I know that just as I also know that any mother who murders her own baby deserves hell for her crime.

And anyone who nods their assent to this monstrosity likewise deserves hell for advancing the cause of the greatest moral evil the world has ever seen.  Fifty million human beings are dead in this country alone because of the systematic holocaust of abortion.  People think that just because it’s legal, it must be okay.  But Hitler’s death camps, Stalin’s purges, and Mao’s cultural revolution, were all perfectly legal in their day, too.

You might recoil back and say, “How dare you invoke the Nazis!”  But there is a crystal clear link between Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, and the Nazi ideology.  And not very long ago, Planned Parenthood was caught in the act embracing the same racist and uber-Darwinian mentality as their founder once shared with Hitler.

The Nazis had a slogan – Arbeit macht frei, meaning “work shall make you free,” which they posted above the gates of many of their death camps.  Human beings were forced to worked until starvation and disease made them unable to continue working, and then they were euthanized in gas chambers, all because they were not deemed to have intrinsic value as human beings.  Abortion and euthanasia were at the heart of Nazi ideology – to help along Darwinian selection and improve their “master race” by preventing or terminating “unfit” human beings – under a doctrine that they called lebensunwertes leben, or “life unworthy of life.”

In America, we have done something that is virtually as chilling from a different philosophy called “choice.”  We demand “rights” that impose duties and burdens upon others – culminating in a baby’s duty to die for the sake of the “rights” of the mother.  American abortion clinics should post their own, even more menacing phrase: tod macht frei, or “death shall make you free.”  In America, the choice to abort is the choice to kill in the name of convenience and consumerism.  Abortion clinics are modernized drive-through death camps.  Walk in through the gate with a growing baby in your womb; walk out with your own child’s blood on your hands.

Obama Lies About AARP Endorsement At Bogus Town Hall Event

Obama has told so many lies regarding health care that it is positively unreal.  But here’s yet another:

Rachel Martin and Jake Tapper report:

President Obama today suggested that the health care reform legislation for which he’s pushing has been endorsed by the American Association of Retired Person.

“We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,” the president said.

At another point he said: “Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits.  We are not.  AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?”

The problem?

The AARP hasn’t endorsed any plan yet.

The country’s largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

AARP is a lot less likely to be rushing in to endorse anything after getting their heads bit off by their own membership:

Last week, AARP officials speaking at a forum in Dallas walked out after several seniors interrupted the meeting with critical questions and comments.

Some AARP members say they are so outraged that they’ve taken to tearing up their membership cards and firing off heated letters to the organization’s CEO.

Recent polling by FOX News shows seniors, many of whom are on Medicare, don’t want a major overhaul — 93 percent rate their current coverage as good or excellent, and 56 percent say they oppose the creation of a government-run option for all Americans.

Other groups representing seniors say they aren’t surprised by the recent backlash.

“We get letters every single day from people that are very upset about this bill and about the AARP supporting it,” said Stuart Barton, president of the American Seniors Association. “So I don’t blame them for coming back and saying they are going to tear up their AARP cards.”

It’s understandable that many members would get the mistaken impression that AARP is backing the ObamaCare plan, given their frankly weaselly behavior as they waffled one way under White House pressure, and then waffled the other under their memberships’ pressure.  But they don’t have a massive White House staff to sort out the actual facts, and they aren’t expected to be held accountable the way the President of the United States of America is to be held accountable.

President Obama is supposed to tell the truth; not advance falsehoods.

Obama is trying to say, “Seniors don’t have to be worried because AARP wouldn’t endorse a plan that hurts seniors.”

And number one, even AARP’s own members clearly don’t accord AARP that much integrity and good will.  And number two, AARP HASN’T endorsed Obama’s plan.  So I guess we’re back to, “Seniors should be worried.”

An older woman at Arlen Spector’s town hall today said:

“I’m sick of the lies.  I don’t like being lied to.  I don’t like being lied about.“

But the Democrats just keep lying, and keep lying about the people who they’re lying to.

We get Obama attending a phony, controlled, choreographed town hall filled with plants even as his attack dogs demonize protesters as being “plants” and saying things like:

“I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter”

when he is on record having said:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.”

and he is on the record as having said:

“The very first promise I made on this campaign was that as president I will sign a universal health care plan into law by the end of my first term in office.”

It’s one thing for a president to say one thing, admit his mistake, tell the American people that he has changed his mind, and then specifically tell us what he will do and what he will now not accept.  But that’s not what our weasel-in-chief does; rather, he lies about what he’s in fact said without ruling the previously-said thing out.  Instead, concerned citizens are left to worry about whether the president was lying earlier, or whether he’s lying now.  An they have every reason to believe he’s lying now.

Obama said:

Well, the — I’ve seen some of those signs. (Laughter.)  Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here.  The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore.  (Laughter.)  And there are various — there are some variations on this theme.

But, again, Obama just dismissively laughs off something that is actually quite serious.

Maybe he shouldn’t have told a woman regarding her aged but healthy mother:

“Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

He won’t pull the plug on grandma; he’ll just withhold lifesaving surgery and give her a pain pill.  It’s not active euthanasia – at least not yet; it’s passive euthanasia.  But grandma ends up just as dead.

During an October debate with John McCain, Obama said, regarding his foreign policy:

“Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I’m interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.”

So when we want to know what Obama wants in his foreign policy, we have to look at who he is associating with, and who he is surrounding himself with in the White House.  And Barack Obama has surrounded himself with some people who hold some pretty terrifying ideas concerning health care.

Obama has to explain why he appointed Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel as both his health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and as a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.  Emanuel has said JUST THIS YEAR:

“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.”

He explained:

“Unlike allocation 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.”

Dr. Emanuel has said:

Many commentators note that 27 to 30 percent of the Medicare budget is spent on the 5 percent of Medicare patients who die each year.

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide…. Decreasing availability and increasing expense in health care and the uncertain impact of managed care may intensify pressure to choose physician-assisted suicide” and “the cost effectiveness of hastened death is as undeniable as gravity. The earlier a patient dies, the less costly is his or her care.”

And he has said:

Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.

Then there is Cass Sunstein, whom Barack Obama appointed to the position of Regulatory Czar.  Sunstein 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 explained:

“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.”

Let us not forget Obama’s director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, who has openly advocated forced abortions and sterilizations as a population growth solution.  Seriously, is it a stretch that he likewise supports the passive euthanasia advocated by Emanuel and Sunstein to control population growth?

I am willing to entertain the notion that the final health care bill will not include “death panels.”  But, given the people Obama has appointed who are serving as architects of the health care legislation, he certainly shouldn’t get the benefit of the doubt.  Because these men whom Obama appointed have written some very frightening things that very much suggest a “death panel.”  Ezekiel,  Sunstein, and Holdren are just three very real Obama officials who have written some very real things that would entail the very real deaths of many very real American citizens.

And Obama’s mockingly laughing at “death panels” is not very funny given his appointments of Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein.  Mr. Obama, don’t you dare mock us for being afraid over the writings of men that you appointed.

The prospect of bureaucrats having more power to make more decisions over more vital aspects of peoples’ lives is frightening.  It should not be glossed over.  Obama and Democrats assuring us that they won’t accept any plan that creates a deficit when the plan they left behind in August creates another trillion dollars in deficits (and probably many times that, given the CBO’s tendency to massively underestimate costs) is frightening.  And nonchalant promises don’t hold any water.  Assuring Americans that a “public option” won’t push people into government care when the bill in fact does the exact opposite is immoral.

And Democrat politicians who casually dismiss these issues and others are the reason for all the anger.  People are realizing that there lives may literally be at stake – and they are in absolutely no mood to be played with.