Posts Tagged ‘Ezekiel Emanuel’

Why I Call Obama A Fascist

April 25, 2011

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word.  No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that.  At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below).  Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue.  He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet).  So he can’t be a “fascist.”  This argument fails on two parts.  First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part).  One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced.  Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger.  Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day.  What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda.  And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

Before I answer that, allow me to respond to liberals who denounce me for using the label “fascist” to describe Obama by pointing out that when liberals point a finger at me for denouncing Obama as a fascist, three fingers are pointing back at them.  And frankly a lot more than just three fingers.  Oh, yes, a WHOLE lot more.

Got Oil? Pictures, Images and Photos

Allow me to simply quote a self-described leftist socialist (i.e., “Socialist Worker”) for a rather blanket and categorical admission:

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes.  I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama.  That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome???  It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

With all due respect, the left started this form of “discourse.”  They turned it into an art form.  And how dare these hypocrites dare to tell me not to do unto Obama as they did unto Bush???

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right.  But it remains a powerful one.  Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one.  I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

Allow me to first correct a common leftist-spread misconception of fascism by again citing the above “Socialist Worker” article:

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article.  But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis.  What did the word “Nazi” stand for?  It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.”  Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist WorkersBecause that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

I point out in a rigorous way more than once in my writings that fascism came squarely out of the leftist intellectual tradition.  I have a three-article series different from that article which details how many of the ideological presuppositions of progressive postmodernism invariablylead to fascism, and have dealt with the subject multiple times to document the Nazi fascist citing the same leftist intellectuals (Heidegger, Nietzsche) that the modern leftist intellectuals routinely cite.

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker .  Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative.  [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.”  Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite.  If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative.  If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing.  If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie.  If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism.  Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism.  Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity.  Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie.  Both attacked the conservatives.  Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers.  Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.  Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left.  They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks.  And yet that is largely what we get.  Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless.  The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.”  And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists.  They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism.  They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer.  And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”).  If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists.  But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers.  Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice?  The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men.  Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.

It is for that reason that I can state categorically that Marxism and fascism are not “polar opposites” at all.  They are merely two potentially complementary species of socialism.  That is why China has been able to easily weave blatantly fascistic (national socialist/corporatist) elements into its Maoist communism.  It is also why Joseph Stalin was able to go from being an international socialist (i.e. a communist) and then appeal to nationalism (i.e., national socialism or “fascism”) when he needed to fight Hitler, only to switch back to “international socialism” after the war, as a few lines from Wikipedia on “Russian nationalism” point out:

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].

[…]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[…]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again.  The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved.  Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism.  And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.”  And then see who and how the label fits.  From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[…]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[…]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Jonah Goldberg is all over FDR and other leftist American leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Hillary Clinton in their quasi-embrace of fascism in his excellent book Liberal Fascism: the Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual.  Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens.   It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement.  In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility.  Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country …” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation.  Salvation is an individual choice.  It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity.  It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader.  The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf.  It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation.  According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin.  The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil.  The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God.  For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses.  Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.”  Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity.  Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

On a regular basis, I witness liberals so utterly butcher Christianity that I can only shake my head and think back to the Nazis butchering of Christianity.  In the case of the Nazis, it led to the murder of 6 million Jews.  In the case of American liberals, it has so far led to the murder of 53 million innocent human beings in the abortion mills.  And just to make that association between abortion and progressivism all the more crystal clear, Margaret Sanger – the patron saint of progressivism – was a Nazi sympathizer, even as the Nazis were huge fans of Sanger’s work in racist eugenics.  And then I contemplate Obama’s own documented position of literally supporting infanticide, and you wonder why I call him a fascist?

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of  “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja!  JA!  Das ist ES!”  Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,”  which was then further defined as “collectivism.”  And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

As I point out in a response to a comment in an article I wrote, the Nazis were ALL about that, “It takes a village” and “collective salvation” stuff:

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

In another comment to another article, I established some of that long association that American liberal progressives have had with fascism:

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism.  Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it.  All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat.  In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare).  For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America.  It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

But the thing is that the Nazis’ national health care system very much degenerated into death panels on steroids.  It was through that national health care system that some of the most evil and vile decisions ever made in the history of the human race were made.

Do your own homework.  Research key ObamaCare figures such as Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emanuel and John Holdren.  Research policies such as the Complete Lives System and phrases such as “changes that are attenuated.”  Then consider the massive lies by Barack Obama and other key Democrats in pushing for a socialistic “single payer” system before claiming they hadn’t.  As for me, I consider both the socialized nationalized health care and the hypocritical lies and activities that were spread to push it quintessentially fascist.

John Holdren thought it was a good idea to impose forced abortions and mass sterilization to reduce the human population.  And Obama apparently said, “That’s the sort of outside-the-box fascistic thinking that I like.”  Incredibly, Obama actually made this guy his science czar. 

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too.  Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process.  Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”?  One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.”  And of course, he’s right.

Then you’ve got an Obama bureaucrat named Cass Sunstein whose project is to continuously “nudge” us to make decisions we don’t want to make on the theory that people like him know better than the rest of us.  He gets to use all of the mountain of government regulations as his laboratory.  As the head of the Office of Information, he is able to “nudge” society via regulations that cost businesses $1.7 trillion a year – more than all U.S. business profits combined.  It’s largely a hidden tax by which one can impose an agenda that bypasses our Constitution and our Congress entirely.  Sunstein gets to tweak these regulations and mold them into his own image.  If Democrats had identified a Bush official using these tactics to shape opinions and control minds, they would have come utterly unglued.  And rightly so.

An example of quintessential fascism that might even be more significant than national health care is the takeover of the banking and financial system.  Since the encyclopedia article above references Mussolini’s fascist takeover of the banking system, let us consider Obama’s fascist takeover of the banking system.  We start with George Bush, who rather incredibly said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”  Which is akin to abandoning intelligence in order to be smart.  As part of this abandonment, George Bush pushed his $700 billion in TARP.  What is not so well-known is that Bush allowed Obama to use fully half of that money.  If you add that to the $3.27 TRILLION that Obama will spend on his so-called “stimulus,” as verified by the Congressional Budget Office, you are talking about a takeover of the economy and the financial sector never seen in American history.

But if that was fascistic, you aint seen nothin’ yet.  Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority then proceeded to push for a massive totalitarian-style overhaul of the financial system in a move that was promised would prevent another collapse.  But 20/20 hindsight allows us to now see it the way the Washington Times did, as “Financial Fascism.”  That’s not such a bad title given that it underlines my point in two words. 

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight?  Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything.  Instead he made it WORSE:

Financial System Riskier, Next Bailout Will Be Costlier, S&P Says
First Posted: 04/19/11 05:26 PM ET Updated: 04/19/11 06:00 PM ET

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

But even THAT isn’t all.  Let’s go back to TARP and Obama’s $350 billion.  Somehow that $350 billion got “leveraged” into $23.7 TRILLION:

Watchdog: TARP tab could hit $24 trillion

Think last year’s $700 billion Wall Street rescue package was beaucoup bucks to spend bailing out the nation’s floundering financial system? That’s chump change compared to what the overall price tag could be, a government watchdog says.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists.  And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism.  Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives?  The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here.  After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more? 

Allow me to quote myself:

I am beyond sick of this crap.  Where’s the CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS that dedicates itself to securing political benefits for white people, and blacks be damned???  Where’s the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF WHITE PEOPLE that is operating with prestige and acclaim???  Where are the HISTORICALLY WHITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES that exist to educate white students rather than black students???  Where’s the UNITED CAUCASIAN COLLEGE FUND that exists to give scholarships to white students for the sake of being white???  Where’s the NATIONAL WHITE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE to secure business opportunities for white people against black people???

Hey, let me ask a more compelling question, given the occupant of the White House: where’s the national major white politician who spent 20-odd years in a “church” that espoused a commitment to the white value system, which entails a commitment to the white community, a commitment to white self-determination, a commitment to the white family, a commitment to white education, a commitment to the white workforce, a commitment to the white ethic, a commitment to white progress, a commitment to support white institutions, and a commitment to pledge allegiance to all white leadership?

When was the last time a white conservative Attorney General bl about “my people”???  When was the last time Republicans dismissed a civil rights case against a white man because he was violating black people’s rights and that didn’t count???  When was the last time a high-ranking official in a Republican Justice Department instructing underlings to “never bring a lawsuit against a white”???

This racist, race-baiting bigoted crap has just gone on and on and on in this race-baiting – and yes, very fascist – administration.

And lo and behold, yet another über-über-leftist race group is threatening a race-riot to get what it wants or else as I write this (and yes, that German “ü” is there for a reason).

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered.  And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it.  With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”???  Seriously???

There is so much blatantly fascist garbage going on it will shoot right out of your eyes if you pay attention.  Just the other day (I am writing this on Thursday, April 21, but it will not be published until Monday), Obama announced that he is planning to go ahead with a regulation that will force businesses involved in government contracts – but not unions or other key Obama allies – to disclose their employees’ campaign contributions.  The fact that this fascist piece of legislation was so terrible that it failed to pass in the Senate by a wide margin even though Democrats had a stranglehold in the Senate last year.  But what does democracy matter to a fascist?  What Obama is doing is taking a process that was devised to remove the politics from the government contract award process and make it ALL ABOUT paying to play.  By forcing companies to demand of their employees who has given how much to which party, the administration can easily award contracts on the basis of which one gave Obama and Democrats more.

Then there is the lawsuit by the federal government that is trying to force Boeing to build its new facility in Washington state with union labor rather than allowing it to be free to build its plant in a right to work state like it has a right to do in any but a fascist state.  Again, I’m not scratching around for examples; this is just today’s news.

Also in the news today is Obama demagoguing the oil industry, which makes about 8% profit versus liberal Apple which has a 21.8% profit margin.  That’s getting dangerously close to 300% higher, but whose counting?  There’s no evidence whatsoever that anything illegal is actual going on, but that never stops a true fascist from demagoguing.  At least Apple probably pays taxes, unlike Obama’s very far left wing cronies at General Electric.  That company’s brown nosing business plan actually resulted in the corporation getting more money back from the government than it owed.  And meanwhile GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is Obama’s star economic advisor – proving that fascism pays for companies that are willing to play ball with the Führer.  Again, this is all just yesterday’s news.

Can we talk about Libya?  Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” when he had a chance to demagogue Bush over Iraq.  It didn’t matter that George Bush had congressional approval for his actions, Obama demonized him.  And now here he is, in Libya – a country that clearly wasn’t any kind of “imminent threat” to us, and which he had no congressional support to attack – and just does he not deserve to be impeached in disgrace by his own hypocritical and demagogic standard?

But there’s so much more to say about Libya and Obama’s entire foreign policy.  Think of how Obama demonized Bush, versus what he’s doing now:  Guantanamo Bay.  The Patriot Act.  Domestic Eavesdropping.  Rendition.  The Surge Strategy.  The Iraq War.  The Iranian Nuclear Threat.  Military Tribunals.  And, of course, “Air-raiding villages and killing civilians.”  It frankly isn’t nearly enough for me to simply claim that Barack Obama is a fascist.  Barack Obama is a fascist even according to Barack Obama.

What is most frightening about Obama’s bizarre policy on Libya is that it could apply to any country.  Or not.  There is absolutely no doctrine to warn one country or encourage another.  Other countries could use it to impose a no-fly zone here, if the “international community” wanted to do so.  Why don’t we now attack next-door Syria for shooting crowds of civilians?  Because we have a fundamentally incoherent policy that allows us to invade whoever we want.  And – disturbingly – the Arabs are pushing for the same standard Obama is applying to Libya to be applied in imposing a no-fly zone over Israel.  And Obama is willing to take his non-existant “standard” and play political games with it.  Let’s just call that quintessential fascism.

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war.  According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.”  What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values???  What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic.  Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it.  Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted.  In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him.  The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack.  Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.  But that is par for the golf course for a fascist.  If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

I think of Obama demonizing Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling, and then now demonizing Republicans who would even suggest opposing raising the debt ceiling.  That is simply raw fascist demagoguing.

It should simply leave you stunned. 

We could go back and review a lot of other corportist/fascist acts by Obama, such as what he imposed on Chrysler bondholders when he turned bankruptcy law on its head in order to punish his enemies and reward his friends.  We could look at how Obama basically did the same thing to General Motors bondholders.  We could look at how Obama turned fearmongering into an art form, and how he demonized industry after industry to impose his corporatist (as in “fascist”) control over them to force them to do his bidding.

And the thing about Obama and the Obama administration is that I could just go on and on and on.

Let’s go back to Obama’s college days, when he was a self-avowed Marxist  who made friends with all the Marxist professors (which again, is fascism’s kissing cousin).  He got his start in politics in William Ayers’ home – the Marxist terrorist bomber and leader of a terrorist group called the Weathermen.  Obama served on several boards with Ayers – and clearly FAR more than just rubbed elbows.  It should more than trouble you that a close associate of the president of the United States is an unrepentent terrorist who felt he didn’t bomb enough, and who once discussed murdering the 25 million capitalists who wouldn’t be suitably brainwashed in a future re-education camp.  You move on to membership in an un-American racist and Marxist church and a relationship with a demonic pastor and spiritual guide that lasted for 23 years.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background.  And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Recently, Obama’s incredibly close relationship with the SEIU enters the discussion as a very recently former top level SEIU official was just caught on tape plotting the financial implosion of the United States of America.  Given that Steven Lerner’s boss Andy Stern visited the Obama White House more times than anybody – and Stern himself liked to say, “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power”, and “workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore” – we should simply start taking these people at their word and start calling them what they very clearly are.  And Obama is one of them.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

And these radical fascist unions were talking about the vile crap that they pulled in Wisconsin and demanding a whole lot more of it.

That’s why I call Obama a fascist.  Because he is one, and if he could get away with it in America, he would be far more fascist than he already is.

Advertisements

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

May 13, 2010

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 attenuatedThe 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.

Democrats Believe Their Power To Regulate Our Lives Has No Constitutional Limit

December 26, 2009

We can sing the below story to Nancy Pelosi’s famous tune, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” regarding whether she should give the faintest of consideration to the Constitution while she tries to regulate one-sixth of the US economy and force citizens to purchase insurance.

Sen. Feinstein ‘Assumes’ Commerce Clause Gives Congress Unlimited Authority to Mandate Health Insurance
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The health care bills in both the House and Senate require that every American purchase a health insurance policy. At the Capitol on Tuesday, CNSNews.com asked Sen. Feinstein: “Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate?”

Feinstein said: “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”

CNSNews.com followed up by asking Sen. Feinstein whether this broad power had any limits: “If there’s a health insurance mandate, is there a limit to that authority? Is there something that can’t be mandated?”

Feinstein responded: “My own view is that there is not, within health insurance.”

The Commerce clause is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It states the numerous powers authorized to Congress, including the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Senate version of health reform imposes an historic mandate on all Americans, requiring them to have government-approved health insurance, either through an employer or individually. The mandate also can penalize people with a surtax ranging from $500 to nearly $1,500 per year if they do not have a health insurance policy.

The bill, which looks certain to pass the Senate sometime on Christmas Eve, is unpopular with the public, garnering the support of barely 40 percent of Americans, according to recent national polls. Those numbers led Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele to accuse Congress of “flipping the bird” to the American people.

“This is a bad bill, it is bad, certainly for individuals and enough is enough,” Steele said in a conference call on Monday. “I am tired of Congress thumbing its nose and flipping a bird to the American people. I’m tired of this Congress thinking it knows better than me and my family how to provide for our health care now and in the future. I’m tired of this Congress not listening to me and to the American people – to all of us.”

In 1994, when the Clinton administration attempted to push a health care reform plan through a Democratic Congress that also mandated every American buy health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office determined that the government had never ordered Americans to buy anything.

“The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO analysis said. “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

My own view is that California should elect a Senator who actually understands or even cares about the US Constitution.

If Feinstein’s “view” were true, then the congress has no constitutional limits whatsoever.  On anything.  If they can regulate private citizens’ behavior or purchases as “interstate commerce,” then they can “regulate” anything and anyone on anything they want.  And this gives them the precedent to do more and more.  The Democrats’ vision of health care “reform” makes the entire idea of constitutional limits null and void.

Let’s call this what it is: a naked power grab.

Fascism, Marxism, take your pick.  We’re getting a hybrid of both (they’re both quintessentially leftist and socialist and totalitarian systems, you know) shoved right down our throats.

The Commerce clause regulates commerce between states.  It has NEVER been used even ONCE in our history to regulated the behavior of individual citizens.

This is almost as appalling as liberal activist judges reading “penumbras and emanations” into the Constitution so they could pull abortion out of thin air.

Democrats have been telling us quite openly that this bill is a clear pathway and vehicle to a government-controlled single-payer system.  It is past time that we took them at their word and started to realize the ramifications of what the Democrats are trying to accomplish.

Democrats aren’t focused in transforming either the quality or the costs of health care coverage.  Their bill does nothing to improve either.  Rather, it lays the architecture for a future socialistic system which they believe that they will ultimately be able to control and use to their own political advantage.  They want power and control.  They want to be able to wield the levers of government and “take care” of everyone and everything – or punish everyone and everything that get in their way.  And when big government has the power to shape things, it shapes them in a way that always favors big government, and favors more and more accumulation of big government.  And Democrats are nothing if not the party of big government.

These people aren’t going to let a little nuisance like the US Constitution get in their way.  Even our own president has repeatedly said disparaging things about our Constitution as well as the men who wrote it.  The once sacred and sacrosanct Constitution has come to mean whatever liberals want it to mean.

Tragically, a look back at history should tell you that the system the Democrats want will hardly be a success.  The fact of the matter is that Democrats are making the same arguments (that health care is a right) and the same promises (that every American will be guaranteed health care) that the Soviets made.

The former Soviet propaganda mouthpiece Pravda is watching America fall into the same catastrophic mistakes Russia did and is laughing hysterically .

The Obama administration and Democrats can swear all they want that rationing won’t be a part of their system, but you sure wouldn’t know it by looking at Obama officials such as Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel.  They will be all about rationing.

To summarize, this is a flagrantly unconstitutional power grab, packaged on lies, which can’t even in theory fulfill the pantheon of bogus promises it was sold on.

Breast Cancer Screening: Government Fires First Volley Of Rationing, Death By Medical Neglect

November 19, 2009

Let me begin by saying that the current versions of ObamaCare don’t have a single death panel.

It’s more like 111 separate death panels.

Some of the names  and acronyms of the dozens and dozens of bureaucracies are undoubtedly different under the new iteration of socialized medicine, but here’s a snapshot of your new health care system if Democrats get their way:

The Senate version is 2,075 pages of fun, I hear.  Nobody understands it.  And nobody is going to end up getting a chance to read it by the time it gets voted on.

If you thought that there was going to be any kind of transparency or accountability – or even honesty – from the Obama administration – you need to stop smoking your crack pipe.

This latest event in the march toward socialized medicine reminds me of the case of Barbara Wagner.  In Oregon, which has “universal coverage” through the state, she was abandoned to die by a system that would not pay for her cancer treatment, but offered to pay for her euthanasia.

Only this time, the government wants to deny treatment on the other side of the cancer diagnosis.

IBD Editorials

Rationing’s First Step

Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn’t that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn’t work.

We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing.  New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.

Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a “best practices” study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.

The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does save lives,” Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening.”

Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies.  Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.

“I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force,” says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. “There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. … I’ve seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn’t have adequate screening.”

Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.

As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40,” says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.”

Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we’ll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.

An IBD/TIPP poll found that 45% of medical doctors would consider retiring if the Congressional health care “reform” passes.  Given the fact that an increasing shortage of doctors is already one of the chief burdens in providing health care, this exodus would amount to a catastrophe that our health system would never recover from.

In Canada, the chronic doctor shortage has been bad enough that patients literally have to sign up for a lottery in order to have a chance to “win” a primary care physician.  But now we are learning that overwhelmed Canadian doctors are using a lottery of their own to dump patients.

Why on earth would anyone want this for America?

The Obama administration is preparing the health delivery system to implement the philosophy of Obama advisers such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, which can be easily summarized with the quote:

It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Robert Reich’s words in context only make the hateful idea sound even more hateful:

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.”

Then there are the words of Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who wrote:

“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.”

And Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, whom Obama appointed as his OMB health policy adviser in addition to selecting him to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research wrote:

“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 attenuatedThe 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.”

And Obama himself told a woman who wanted to keep her aging mother alive:

“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.”

YOU take the painkiller rather than have that lifesaving surgery, Barry Hussein.  And why don’t you insist that Michelle and your two daughters take the pill rather than have that lifesaving surgery, too?  Just to be like all the “little people” out there.

But of course that’s not going to happen.  Rather, Democrats have now exempted themselves from 11 separate amendments that would have required them to have the same ObamaCare that they want to force everyone else to have.

You can understand why they would do so, given the promises that the system will be worse than terrible, and due to the fact that even a complete idiot who looks around and sees how horribly the administration has managed the H1N1 vaccine situation can recognize that taking on 1/6th of the economy would be beyond catastrophic.  I mean, heck, if I were a Democrat, I’d be sure to exempt myself from this monstrosity too, lest MY family members fall under the coming steamroller.

This “recommendation” of reducing mammographies isn’t mandatory now, but that’s because the government hasn’t usurped the health care system yet.  You just wait a decade from now, when the government runs everything, and soaring deficits force them to start cutting costs.

“… So We’re Going To Let You Die.” Vote Deathocrat, Vote Death Panels

October 17, 2009

Verum Serum sets up the hypocrisy of the Democrats:

Robert Reich, the former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and more recently an Obama economic adviser, has been all over the media lately shilling for ObamaCare. The public option is no more dangerous than a box of puppies according to this professionally produced video featuring Reich. (I won’t embed it but it’s worth a quick watch.) The real injustice, according to Reich, is that political operatives like us are trying to “confuse and scare” people about change.

So perhaps he can explain for us his comments in the video below. Reich is speaking at a Colloquium on Political Science at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007. No other set-up is necessary – watch:

Listen to the words of Robert Reich:

[Youtube link]

Here’s a transcript of the most relevant remarks of Robert “Third” Reich:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on 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 a candidate should say if we were in the 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. 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.”

Pay more, old people die.  Check, and check.  Sounds like exactly what any big government fascist would want.

“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 attenuatedThe 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.”

Sarah Palin just cut right to the chase back when she wrote:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

And for all the hell that the servants of hell have unleashed on her for her comment, she was 100% correct.

The entire plan is evil:

Health-Care_Democrats-plan-Charted

And, yeah, there really are things that can very legitimately be called “death panels.”  Take “The Death Book for Veterans” – which George Bush banned and Barack Obama demanded be reinstated – that required veterans to consider life and death from a bleak perspective and consider euthanasia to avoid being a burden.  My article on that discovered some dishonest federal government shenanigans when that story was exposed as the VA sought to cover up the role of the Hemlock Society.

We’re seeing the genesis of a genuine holocaust beginning to emerge.  The Democrats’ plan will force health insurers to cover everyone regardless of whether they have a pre-existing condition, regardless of whether they honestly represented themselves when they obtained their insurance, and regardless of whether they can even pay for their coverage.  And the system the Democrats are creating completely depends on young, healthy people who have historically not bought medical coverage.  You can’t add massively to the costs of providing care if you don’t have at least an equally massive inflow of dollars coming in.  If young people who have never bought medical coverage before don’t buy coverage in huge numbers, we will very quickly face critical shortages, and massive rationing of care – particularly to the elderly who have less value under the Democrats’ plan – will ensue.

And I don’t mean just pay the “individual mandate” fines – which have been watered down significantly to make the Democrats’ plan more palatable – because they don’t create enough revenue.  I mean if they don’t purchase health care in huge numbers, we will see serious shortages, rationing, and death by medical neglect.

Harry Reid made a staggering admission while trying to prevent Democrat-special-interest anathema tort reform.  He said:

HARRY REID: “He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesnt it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, were talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. Its a very small percent.”

[Youtube]

The Democrats’ health plan will be FAR more costly than any estimates yet offered.  The government ALWAYS underestimates its cost for its programs.  Medicare cost nine times more than was estimated, for example.

And let me point out that figures such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein are proponents of the Democrats’ system and believe it will go well – AND THEY ARE STILL TELLING US THAT A CENTRAL PART OF THE SYSTEM WILL BE TO ALLOW ELDERLY PEOPLE TO DIE.

Democrat Rep. Alan Grayson “warned” Americans that “Republicans want you to die quickly” during a floor speech in the House of Representatives.  But he is a liar.  It is not Republicans who are literally out talking about letting people die, but Democrats.

Please come to your senses and start denouncing the Deathocrats’ Death Panel bill.

Obama’s Demonic Czars: Obama ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Supported Pedophile Molestation Of Student

October 7, 2009

No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” – Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

And he has surrounded himself with demons.

He surrounded himself with Van Jones – a communist; a supporter of cop murderers; a man who took the terrorists’ side on 9/11; a man who signed a “truther” statement demonizing President Bush for secretly attacking the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11; a racist who accused even white liberals of being murderers who deliberately poisoned people of color; etc. etc. etc.

He surrounded himself with men like Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel, who have said things like:

– “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 attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” – Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Resarch

– “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.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.

And Dr. Mengele couldn’t have put it much better.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with men like his science czar, John Holdren, who has stated:

– Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

– It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

And now we are learning that he has surrounded himself with a teacher who refused to protect a child under his counseling from being sodomized by a pedophile.

Kevin Jennings, appointed as the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is another Obama buddy out of ultra-corrupt Chicago.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

You see, I think most parents would rather teachers and public schools teach their kids to be in “exploratory mode” of damn near anything else than their children’s rectums.  Am I wrong?

And then we have Kevin Jennings sharing how he provided advice to a fifteen year-old sophomore:

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster].

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Kevin Jennings is an advocate for homosexual pedophilia.  He has in his past openly supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) by way of praising Harry Hay.  Jennings wrote the forward to a book entitled, The Queering of American Education.  For what it’s worth, fellow Chicago Obama buddy and terrorist Bill Ayers wrote a note endorsing the book on its cover jacket.

This is the man that Obama “entrusted” with ultimate care over your children.  But he is a demon in masquerade.

The despicable personal conduct, followed by the threat of a lawsuit when it was revealed, reminds me of another organization that Obama chose to surround himself with — ACORN.

Contrary to the left’s dismissal, Obama’s ties with ACORN are deep, and go back more than 20 years.

Two kids who were sick of the lefts’ corruption, hypocrisy, and vileness decided to see if ACORN would fall for the most horrendous scenario they could imagine: a prostitute and her pimp seeking to commit federal income tax fraud so they could purchase a house with the intent of importing child sex slaves from El Salvador so they could start a brothel.

And Obama’s ACORN fell for it – on film – on at least five separate occasions in five separate ACORN offices.

Let us judge Obama by the people with whom he has surrounded himself.  Because he has surrounded himself with the devil – and demons are doing his bidding.

And let us finally begin to think about how God will judge these demons – and the president who surrounded himself with them.  And, yes, the nation that elected that president.

Galatians 6:7 makes it clear, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”  And it is not just individuals who fall under God’s judgment, but nations.  As Psalm 110:6 says, “He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.”

“No, no, no! Not God bless America!  God damn America!”

Democrats Censure Joe Wilson In Spite of Own Lies And Hypocrisy

September 15, 2009

I – like most Republicans – understand that Rep. Joe Wilson exercised something less than great judgment in his outburst during the Obama speech to the Congress.  But for some reason I just can’t muster up the outrage that Democrats bitterly cling to.

Barack Obama himself actually started the “You lie!” war in his speech:

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.  The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.  Such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.  It is a lie, plain and simple.

To which I can only blurt out, “You lie!”

When Obama appoints Ezekiel Emanuel as his health policy adviser who is on the record saying just this year:

The Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

And:

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.”

And when Obama appoints a regulatory czar like Cass Sunstein who is on record saying:

“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.”

And:

Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

Well, I think that Republicans are more than justified in pointing out that the president who calls them liars is actually the one who is the liar.

That, and the fact that it is now a matter of fact that when Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” as Obama said that illegal immigrants would not be covered, it was Joe Wilson who was telling the truth.  The Democrats have SINCE began to deal with that reality.

But in any event, the Democrats today decided they would make a public spectacle out of demagoguing a man who had twice apologized for not apologizing.

Nancy Pelosi initially said she would move on after Wilson publicly apologized for his emotional outburst.  And Barack Obama – the allegedly offended party – accepted the apology.

Or did he?

Did the president decide to bury the hatchet in Joe Wilson’s head?  Because somebody’s hatchet men suddenly went on the warpath on Joe Wilson.  It’s kind of nice to put on the face of the One who is loftily above partisanship while your thugs go out on the attack.  For example:

Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.

Making an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Tuesday that people will be putting on “white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside” if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Wilson, are not rebuked.  He said Wilson must be disciplined as an example.

Given Hank Johnson’s racist statement, it is rather ironic that the Ku Klux Klan was created by Democrats to thwart the rise of the Party of Lincoln in the South.  And that the Democratic National Convention of 1924 was so dominated by the Klan that it went down in infamy as “the Klanbake.”

And that just dovetailed right along with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd who could have sworn she heard Joe Wilson use a polite euphamism for “nigger” in Joe Wilson’s remark:

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Well, sure it’s fair, Maureen.  Everyone knows that liberal journalists are allowed to make up facts and assign the harshest possible motives to their stories.  It’s called propaganda.  And mainstream journalists embrace it like lovers for their ideology and their party.

For liberals like Hank Johnson and Maureen Dowd, facts don’t matter.  Their souls swim in a sea of lies.

Democrats couldn’t help but assign racist motives to a statement that had nothing to do with race.  Because that is just the kind of vile, racist, brain-diseased cockroaches that they are.

The House voted that it was a breech of decorum for Wilson to shout, “You lie!”  And it was.

But this, apparently, was NOT a breech of decorum for the most partisan and most nakedly ideological Party and politicians in American history:

Some transcribed highlights from Democrat Rep. Pete Stark’s remarks on the House floor toward President George W. Bush:

The Republicans are worried that we can’t pay for insuring an additional 10 million children. They sure don’t care about finding $200 billion to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where you going to get that money. You gonna tell us lies like you’re telling us today? Is that how you’re going to fund the war. You don’t have enough money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the President’s amusement…

…But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress.

Apparently, any reasonable person is supposed to be able to understand why the two words spoken by Joe Wilson were horrendous, but the ugly and hateful accusations that accompanied the charge of lying were not.

Democrat Barbara Lee is quoted from the House floor as saying:

“I have been appalled by the growing evidence that the President may have lied about the reasons for invading and conquering Iraq.”

And let us not forget Democrats by the dozens booing and shouting “NO!” at George Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address must not have been a breech of decorum either.

Democrats rudely interrupted President Bush to jeer and applaud their own obstruction of crucial legislation to try to fix Social Security:

And the Gateway Pundit shows that one of the jeering Democrats was one Barack Hussein Obama.

So you’re just going to have to pardon me for not thinking, “My gosh, these Republicans are just so awful!  Good thing the Democrats are the party of wonderfulness.  No Democrat would ever do anything nasty like that!  They need to hold that awful Republican responsible!”

Because I have a brain – and the thing actually works.

That separates me from congressional Democrats.

President Obama himself suggested that a formal rebuke of Mr. Wilson would be a distraction from the larger debate. “I mean, it just becomes a big circus instead of focusing on health care,” Mr. Obama said.

So let’s just realize that even President Obama is pointing out that Congress has important business to attend to, but that DEMOCRATS are refusing to do their duty in favor of the demagoguery and partisanship of the “big circus.”

James Clyburn, who has been the lead rabble-rouser in the witch hunt, had this to say:

This is not a partisan stunt,” said Clyburn, whose district in South Carolina adjoins Wilson’s. “I do not participate in partisan stunts, and I think every member here knows that. This is about the proper decorum that should take place on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.”

But every member probably knows that Clyburn was in fact such a player in “partisan stunts” that he once said that good news in Iraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.  If every member of Congress doesn’t realize that hoping for your own side to lose a war for the sake of partisan political advantage is anything less than the most gross and contemptible sort of partisan stunt, then this country is surely doomed.

Not to mention the fact that James Clyburn – who is clearly so interested in “proper decorum” now – didn’t give a fig about it when it was Democrats who were repeatedly violating that decorum.

Democrats have the power to force through whatever resolution they want.

But anyone who thinks that it’s anything other than a partisan distraction and witch hunt by a nasty group of Democrat politicians is a fool.

For what it’s worth, if I were a Republican, I would be inclined to vote to censure Joe Wilson for his out-of-bounds comment.  But I would only do so if every episode of the Democrats’ vile conduct over the last eight years were read into the record so we can appreciate just who these self-righteous hypocrite accusers truly are.

Wall St. Journal Bursts The Obama Bubble: ObamaCare Is All About Rationing

August 19, 2009

Reading through this article, you begin to come to two conclusions: 1) the problem with the costs of health care is NOT that there is too LITTLE government involvement in health care, but rather too MUCH, namely due to stupid government regulations that end up raising costs by undermining individual responsibility; 2) the people who most stand in the way of legitimate health care reform that would really work is Democrats and their special interest allies, such as organized labor.

ObamaCare Is All About Rationing
Overspending is far preferable to artificially limiting the availability of new procedures and technologies.

By MARTIN FELDSTEIN

Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama’s health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration’s goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating “high cost, low-value treatments,” by “implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt,” and by “directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers.”

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to “health care that works.” To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.

In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as “too expensive.”

One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government’s exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary would cause government outlays for Medicare and Medicaid to rise to 15% of GDP by 2040 from 6% now. Paying those bills without raising taxes would require cutting other existing social spending programs and shelving the administration’s plans for new government transfers and spending programs.

The rising cost of medical treatments would not be such a large burden on future budgets if the government reduced its share in the financing of health services. Raising the existing Medicare and Medicaid deductibles and coinsurance would slow the growth of these programs without resorting to rationing. Physicians and their patients would continue to decide which tests and other services they believe are worth the cost.

There is, of course, no reason why limiting outlays on Medicare and Medicaid requires cutting health services for the rest of the population. The idea that they must be cut in parallel is just an example of misplaced medical egalitarianism.

But budget considerations aside, health-economics experts agree that private health spending is too high because our tax rules lead to the wrong kind of insurance. Under existing law, employer payments for health insurance are deductible by the employer but are not included in the taxable income of the employee. While an extra $100 paid to someone who earns $45,000 a year will provide only about $60 of after-tax spendable cash, the employer could instead use that $100 to pay $100 of health-insurance premiums for that same individual. It is therefore not surprising that employers and employees have opted for very generous health insurance with very low copayment rates.

Since a typical 20% copayment rate means that an extra dollar of health services costs the patient only 20 cents at the time of care, patients and their doctors opt for excessive tests and other inappropriately expensive forms of care. The evidence on health-care demand implies that the current tax rules raise private health-care spending by as much as 35%.

The best solution to this problem of private overconsumption of health services would be to eliminate the tax rule that is causing the excessive insurance and the resulting rise in health spending. Alternatively, Congress could strengthen the incentives in the existing law for health savings accounts with high insurance copayments. Either way, the result would be more cost-conscious behavior that would lower health-care spending.

But unlike reductions in care achieved by government rationing, individuals with different preferences about health and about risk could buy the care that best suits their preferences. While we all want better health, the different choices that people make about such things as smoking, weight and exercise show that there are substantial differences in the priority that different people attach to health.

Although there has been some talk in Congress about limiting the current health-insurance exclusion, the administration has not supported the idea. The unions are particularly vehement in their opposition to any reduction in the tax subsidy for health insurance, since they regard their ability to negotiate comprehensive health insurance for their members as a major part of their raison d’être.

If changing the tax rule that leads to excessive health insurance is not going to happen, the relevant political choice is between government rationing and continued high levels of health-care spending. Rationing is bad policy. It forces individuals with different preferences to accept the same care. It also imposes an arbitrary cap on the future growth of spending instead of letting it evolve in response to changes in technology, tastes and income. In my judgment, rationing would be much worse than excessive care.

Those who worry about too much health care cite the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction that health-care spending could rise to 30% of GDP in 2035 from 16% now. But during that 25-year period, GDP will rise to about $24 trillion from $14 trillion, implying that the GDP not spent on health will rise to $17 billion in 2035 from $12 billion now. So even if nothing else comes along to slow the growth of health spending during the next 25 years, there would still be a nearly 50% rise in income to spend on other things.

Like virtually every economist I know, I believe the right approach to limiting health spending is by reforming the tax rules. But if that is not going to happen, let’s not destroy the high quality of the best of American health care by government rationing and misplaced egalitarianism.

Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal’s board of contributors.

So it’s not private insurance companies’ “excessive profits” that are to be demonized, but the government’s tax rules.  As is usually the case, the reason we’ve got high costs is because government is too involved, and is making things worse.  And again, who is the biggest obstacle to finally fixing the tax rules in a way that will lower costs?  Big labor, a key Democrat ally.

Having Democrats “fix” the system is like having foxes “guard” the chicken coop.

A further culprit in our skyrocketing medical costs are still another powerful Democrat special interest: the trial lawyers.  In exchange for the millions of dollars the trial lawyers give to Democrats, Democrat politicians continue to protect the system that allows lawyers to file frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit.  A simple “loser pays” system – such as the U.K. offers – would cut billions out of the costs of health care.  Instead, not only are doctors’ malpractice insurance costs exorbitant (which doctors must then pass on to patients), but fear of lawsuits leads to a practice known as “defensive medicine.” When 93% of physicians admit to ordering tests, prescribing drugs, or performing procedures to protect themselves from potential lawsuits rather than help their patients, something is just incredibly wrong.

Doctors are literally leaving medicine over the insane costs of medical malpractice.  In certain specialized fields, such as Ob/Gyn, whole regions are losing their doctors.  Insurance premiums for Ob/Gyn doctors are running $250,000 a year – and between higher insurance costs, lower government deductibles, and always high medical school costs, vitally important family care doctors are finding themselves netting less than fast food restaurant managers.

Alan Miller explains another reason why private insurance is absolutely vital to our health care system – and why a government “public option” would be disastrous:

Medicare reimbursements to hospitals fail to cover the actual cost of providing services. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent congressional advisory agency, says hospitals received only 94.1 cents for every dollar they spent treating Medicare patients in 2007. MedPAC projects that number to decline to 93.1 cents per dollar spent in 2009, for an operating shortfall of 7%. Medicare works because hospitals subsidize the care they provide with revenue received from patients who have commercial insurance. Without that revenue, hospitals could not afford to care for those covered by Medicare. In effect, everyone with insurance is subsidizing the Medicare shortfall, which is growing larger every year.

If hospitals had to rely solely on Medicare reimbursements for operating revenue, as would occur under a single-payer system, many hospitals would be forced to eliminate services, cut investments in advanced medical technology, reduce the number of nurses and other employees, and provide less care for the patients they serve. And with the government in control, Americans eventually will see rationing
, the denial of high-priced drugs and sophisticated procedures, and long waits for care.

When we consider that – all protestations aside – some 88 million Americans will be shifted out of their employer-paid private insurance into a “public option” under the Democrats’ plan, we should be very, very worried.

Democrats aren’t doing ANYTHING to reduce the costs of healthcare.  All they are offering is total government control as fiscally-responsible panacea; and that is simply a lie.  Government bureaucracy is not more efficient; it is unimaginably LESS efficient.  The government has never been more efficient at delivering services (remember the $435 hammers? the $640 toilet seats? the $7,600 coffee makers?).  You want efficiency and economies of scale?  How about the government overpaying 618%.  Big government is inherently bureaucratic, inefficient, and corrupt.  And as their costs go up and up and up, the only way they will be able to bring their costs down will be to ration care.

Don’t just listen to me: listen to the man Obama chose to be his health policy adviser, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who said this 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:

“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 attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

Please don’t be so stupid not to think that rationing care – particularly to senior citizens who have already “lived their complete lives” – that rationing won’t be essential to government care.  And we will GET government care unless we rise up now to stop it.

Leftwing Warning Of ‘Obama’s Euthanasia’ Too

August 12, 2009

We are being told by the propagandists (including the propagandist-in-chief in the White House) about “rightwing efforts to frighten senior citizens.”  And we’re being told about “angry mobs” of  protesters at community town hall meetings are being “organized” (by the community organizer-in-chief).

But it isn’t true.  This health care legislation is no longer about the right vs. the left; it is about life and death.  There are plenty of independents and Democrats who are hollering mad at Democrats pushing ObamaCare.  And it turns out, there are leftwing blogs warning of “death panels” as well.

The Daily Beast is no conservative bastion.  In fact, they went after me once for daring to suggest that conservatives do unto Obama as liberals had unrelentingly done unto Bush:

Ironically, some wingnuts on the right are blaming Democrats’ techniques on their newfound commitment to tear down the next President of the United States. Take one particularly unhinged culture warrior, Michael Eden of TheAmericanSentinel.com, who writes: “Barack Hussein Obama and his Democratic lackeys get to wear the bullseyes on their foreheads for the duration of the next election cycle…don’t let a bunch of appallingly blatant hypocrites tell you that you owe Obama one more iota of respect than they gave Bush… It’s time to start burning down their houses and salting their fields.”

My response, for the record, was to say, “‘One particularly unhinged culture warrior.’  I actually liked the ring of that.  Thought about making it my byline.  Michael Edenone particularly unhinged culture warrior.”

I offer that interaction only to provide you with my personal experience to assure you that the Daily Beast is hardly a bastion of rightwing plots.

So it is somewhat notable that Lee Siegel has an article entitled, “Obama’s Euthanasia Mistake” on the Daily Beast.

The Republicans carping about limitations on end-of-life care have a point. Lee Siegel on why the plans Obama is endorsing are dangerously sympathetic to “cost effective” end-of-life treatments.

For those of us who believe that the absence of universal health care is America’s burning shame, the spectacle of opposition to Obama’s health-care plan is Alice-in-Wonderland bewildering and also enraging—but on one point the plan’s critics are absolutely correct. One of the key ideas under consideration—which can be read as expressing sympathy for limitations on end-of-life care—is morally revolting. And it’s helping to kill the plan itself.

Make no mistake about it. Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable.

This is the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Obama told Diane Sawyer in June that government should “study and figure out what works and what doesn’t. And let’s encourage doctors and patients to get what works. Let’s discourage what doesn’t.”

Sawyer then asked him: “Will it just be encouragement? Or will there be a board making Solomonic decisions?”

Obama replied, “What I’ve suggested is—is that we have a—a commission that helps—made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best—best practices.”

When Sawyer pressed him to say whether those practices would be enforced by law, he evaded the question.

This reeks of the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right.

Leave aside the argument for ending life when its prospects for continuing seem too painful or too hopeless. Leave it aside because this is one case where Kant’s beautiful categorical imperative—act as though your particular deeds should be a universal law—will never apply. We know that theft and murder are wrong because if they were universally committed, the world would explode in chaos. But the decision to end your life before nature wrenches it away is as rational and humane as the decision to prolong your life by whatever means necessary. Life is too specifically precious to turn its final phase into any type of universal practice, whether it’s enforced by custom or by law.

As for the argument that fruitless tests and “senseless” procedures are bankrupting the health-care system, that is an insult to the intelligence. No one knows which tests and procedures will be effective beforehand. No amount of “study” and research is going to address the particular case and the particular condition, let alone the particular, desperate, irrational will to live—which, in animal terms, is pragmatic and rational.

(And anyone who thinks that we are not all animals—even the “experts” Obama is so enamored of— must read David Rieff’s remarkable account of his mother Susan Sontag’s refusal to accept her doctors’ verdict of imminent death. The will to live does not suddenly become an error of judgment just because a “system” cannot “afford” to accommodate it, especially when the system has the means to do so.)

Most consequential of all, even if limitations were put on certain tests and procedures, the only people who would be affected by it would be the people who, presumably, are the ones meant to be rescued by the very plan that would be imposing those limitations. The financially strapped, in other words, who are the intended beneficiaries of the health care plan would be the only people forbidden access to expensive life-extending technology. The rich will always be able to afford it.

Once the technology to extend life has become available, you cannot restrict its availability. That would be like only letting some people use cell phones. Such technology is a drain on the system? Then save money elsewhere. It’s ironic that lacking the will to tax the very wealthy, some of health-care supporters in Congress now wish to save money by limiting end-of-life options to the economically burdened.

Where is Obama coming from? Why is such an apparently humane man not more strongly condemning a utilitarian initiative straight out of Victorian England? A good part of the explanation has to do with the University of Chicago Law School milieu that Obama comes out of. By far, the most influential figure in that world is Judge Richard Posner, who teaches law at Chicago and publishes streams of pompous, robotically written books that are much praised and little read.

Judge Posner is both an enthusiastic advocate of euthanasia and an energetic eugenicist. He once wrote of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ ideas about eugenics—Holmes believed that a just society “prevents continuance of the unfit”—that “we may yet find [Holmes’] enthusiasms prescient rather than depraved.”

Cass Sunstein, who is Obama’s nominee for regulatory czar, is a disciple of Posner and believes in what Time magazine describes as “the statistical practice of taking into account years of life expectancy when evaluating a regulation.” In other words, Sunstein believes that the lives of younger people have a greater value than those of the elderly. This, obviously, would have a radical bearing on end-of-life considerations.

End-of-life treatment is still under consideration and would be a tiny sliver of Obama’s health-care package. But it is a highly volatile sliver. Betsy McCaughey, who singlehandedly killed the Clintons’ health-care initiative 15 years ago with her infamous and infamously inaccurate cover story in The New Republic, claims that this small passage in the bill “would make it mandatory—absolutely require—that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner.” Not quite. But—painful as it is to concede anything to an ideological hack like McCaughey—it’s uncomfortably close.

The section, on page 425 of the bill, offers to pay once every five years for a voluntary, not mandatory, consultation with a doctor, who will not blatantly tell the patient how to end his or her life sooner, but will explain to the patient the set of options available at the end of life, including living wills, palliative care and hospice, life sustaining treatment, and all aspects of advance care planning, including, presumably, the decision to end one’s life.

The shading in of human particulars is what makes this so unsettling. A doctor guided by a panel of experts who have decided that some treatments are futile will, in subtle ways, advance that point of view. Cass Sunstein calls this “nudging,” which he characterizes as using various types of reinforcement techniques to “nudge” people’s behavior in one direction or another. An elderly or sick person would be especially vulnerable to the sophisticated nudging of an authority figure like a doctor.

Bad enough for such people who are lucky enough to be supported by family and friends. But what about the dying person who is all alone in the world and who has only the “consultant” to turn to and rely on? The heartlessness of such a scene is chilling.

Yet many liberals seem drawn to such fantasies of power and control. We live in a highly quantified society, entertained on all sides by divertissements that reduce human life to cute little anecdotes illustrating the morality of statistical, utilitarian analysis, from Malcolm Gladwell to Freakonomics and beyond.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times Magazine unfathomably ran an entire essay arguing, in effect, for a eugenic attitude toward end-of-life treatment written by Peter Singer, a Princeton University “bio-ethicist” whose views are squarely in line with those of Posner and Oliver Wendell Holmes. The essay drove the conservatives opposing Obama’s health-care plan into even greater apoplexy, as it should have. The only point on which it convinced was that euthanasia is morally acceptable only as an antidote to tenure.

One of Obama’s most alluring traits has been what some see as a literary bent that relishes complexity, irony, and even the mystery of the human personality. Let him turn toward that part of his nature and leave the sterile precincts of utilitarian social and legal theory behind. He should immediately and publicly declare his commitment to not placing economic hurdles in the way of people who want to prolong their life, or the life of their loved ones. In that way, he would take the air out of charlatans like McCaughey. And he would calm the fears of people who, far from being right-wing fanatics, are in clear-eyed possession of perhaps the only universal truth there is. No one wants to die.

I’m glad that people on the left are realizing what is going on with this plan and attacking it accordingly.  Whether I’m “one particular unhinged culture warrior” or not, my fear and loathing of this plan is quite genuine, and quite justified.

When you see what key Obama officials intimately involved with the health care agenda have said, it should make your skin crawl regardless of your political party.

The idea of stopping health care reform just to make Democrats look bad is not a project I’m interested in.  If the Democrats’ health plan was good, I would simply ignore it and go after them over something else (just being honest).  But the problem is it’s NOT a good plan; it’s a terrible plan.

And euthanasia by denial of medical resources – what you might call ‘passive euthanasia’ – is right around the corner.

Obama Lies About AARP Endorsement At Bogus Town Hall Event

August 12, 2009

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 attenuatedThe 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.