Posts Tagged ‘Final Solution’

Remember The Firestorm Over Mitt Romney’s 47 Percent Remark? Hillary’s Deplorables Remark Was DEPLORABLE

September 12, 2016

First the story as the New York Times puts it:

Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers ‘Deplorables,’ and G.O.P. Pounces
By AMY CHOZICKSEPT. 10, 2016

Republicans from the presidential ticket on down pounced Saturday on Hillary Clinton’s remarks that half of Donald J. Trump’s supporters fit into a “basket of deplorables,” saying it showed she was out of touch with an economically hard-hit electorate.

Mrs. Clinton’s comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.

“You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump’s campaign demanded an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect to the voters she hopes to represent as president.

“Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working people. I think it will cost her at the polls!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

By Saturday afternoon, Mrs. Clinton had acknowledged her stumble. “Last night I was ‘grossly generalistic,’ and that’s never a good idea,” she said in a statement. “I regret saying ‘half’ — that was wrong.” […]

The first thing I can’t help but notice is the title the New York Slimes chose to run this story under, fixating on the “… and the G.O.P. Pounces” part.  That signifies that they are saying that this is just political posturing; Hillary didn’t say anything truly bad.  It’s like her emails and her illegal secret server and her Clinton Foundation pay-for-play proofs; nothing really wrong.  It must just be Republicans going after her over sheer politics.  So let’s move on.

But now let’s see how the same New York Slimes covered Mitt Romney when he did something that actually wasn’t as bad either in terms of numbers (he said 47%; she said HALF) or nastiness (he insinuated that poor people would vote to get stuff without demonizing their characters; she said half of the American people are EVIL):

In Video Clip, Romney Calls 47% ‘Dependent’ and Feeling Entitled
By Michael D. Shear and Michael Barbaro
September 17, 2012 6:51 pm
12:26 a.m., Sept. 18 | Updated
WASHINGTON — During a private reception with wealthy donors this year, Mitt Romney described almost half of Americans as “people who pay no income tax” and are “dependent upon government.” Those voters, he said, would probably support  President Obama because they believe they are “victims” who are “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”
In a brief and hastily called news conference Monday just after 10 p.m., Mr. Romney acknowledged having made the blunt political and cultural assessment, saying it was “not elegantly stated,” but he stood by the substance of the remarks, insisting that he had made similar observations in public without generating controversy.
The video of Mr. Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, was made in May, offering a rare glimpse of his personal views. Mr. Romney told reporters that he had been “speaking off the cuff in response to a question” at the fund-raiser, and said he wanted “to help all Americans — all Americans — have a bright, prosperous future.”
Democrats quickly condemned the remarks as insensitive, and Mr. Obama’s campaign accused Mr. Romney of having “disdainfully written off half the nation.”
The video surfaced as the campaign enters its final 50 days and as Mr.  Romney sought to restart his campaign with new ads and new messaging, in response to calls in his campaign and from outside for him to be more specific about how his policies would fix the nation’s economy and help the middle class.
Now, the video has raised the possibility that Mr. Romney’s campaign will be sidetracked, with attention focused again on his proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, the release of his personal tax returns and his ability to connect with middle-class voters. With its unvarnished language, the video seems to undermine what aides have argued is an enduring attribute that would appeal to independent voters: a sense that Mr. Romney is, at base, an empathetic and caring man.

First of all, notice in the title of the article there is no qualifying “… and Democrats Pounce.”  Because on the leftist warped narrative, ONLY Republicans are capable of partisan politics.  When a Republican is outraged, it is because they are playing politics; when a Democrat is outraged, it is only and always because Republicans are evil.

But second of all, I want you to notice that whether you like Romney’s remarks or not, HE WAS DEALING WITH SIMPLE FACTS.  Whereas Hillary Clinton deals only with demonic slander and hate.  She doesn’t have a statistic to cite (47% of Trump supporters have physically beaten or lynched a black man…”) because there AREN’T any and because the ONLY people who have physically beaten or lynched ANYONE in this campaign have been DEMOCRATS attacking Republican Trump supporters.

The New York Times’ question – “the video has raised the possibility that Mr. Romney’s campaign will be sidetracked” – was nothing short of a self-fulfilling prophecy stating in advance their intent to do precisely that.  Many experts believe it was that “47 percent” comment that ended Romney’s presidency.  Which was exactly what the mainstream media tried to do by framing the question that way over and over.  And look at that Bloomberg article where they just flat-out state it: “Today Mitt Romney Lost the Election.”

Mitt Romney talked about a FACT relating to 47% of the Democrat Party base; Hillary Clinton talked about a SLANDER of HALF of the Republican base.  In a fair, objective world, Bloomberg would be writing the article titled, “Today Hillary Clinton Lost the Election.”  But you know full damn well they won’t; because to be a “journalist” today is to be a liar who looks at every story and asks, “How do I twist this, slant this, pervert this to my ideology?”

To be a Democrat you have to HAVE a twisted and perverted ideology.  And you need professionally-trained experts in deceit to rewrite the news for the people to get them to swallow those lies.

Hillary Clinton apologized, we’re told.  But really?  She doesn’t apologize for claiming that Trump supporters are racist; she apologizes for suggesting that “half” of them are.  You know, when maybe only “47 percent” are racist.

It was an ugly comment from an ugly human being, a human being who is now proven to be pathologically unfit for the presidency by ANY measurement.

And yeah, Trump is pounding on it the SAME way Obama pounded Romney:

“People like you, you and YOU ‘deplorable,'” the ad correctly points out.

Trump said:

“At first I thought it wasn’t within the realm of possible that she said it,” he said. “She doubled up, because it was said with such anger, such unbelievable anger, and I think this is the biggest mistake of the political season. I really do. When I saw this in its full form, and I saw the anger with which she said it, the way she spoke, I think it’s the single biggest mistake of the political season.” […]

“You cannot run for president if you have such contempt in your heart for the American voter,” she said. “You can’t lead this nation if you have such a low opinion of its citizens.”

In larger context, Trump said in his speech today:

All across this country, I’ve met so many incredible members of both our military and law enforcement community. There’s nothing I’ve enjoyed more than the time I’ve spent with our service members, police officers, and also our firefighters and paramedics.

They embody the goodness and decency of our country.

I was thus deeply shocked and alarmed this Friday to hear my opponent attack, slander, smear and demean these wonderful, amazing people who are supporting our campaign.

Our support comes from every part of America, and every walk of life. We have the support of cops and soldiers, carpenters and welders, the young and the old, and millions of working class families who just want a better future.

These were the people Hillary Clinton so viciously demonized. These were among the countless Americans that Hillary Clinton called deplorable, irredeemable and un-American. She called these patriotic men and women every vile name in the book – she called them racist, sexist, xenophobic, and Islamaphobic.

She called them a “basket of deplorables” in both a speech and an interview. She divides people into baskets as though they were objects, not human beings.

Hillary Clinton made these comments at one of her high-dollar fundraisers in Wall Street.

She and her wealthy donors all had a good laugh. They were laughing at the very people who pave the roads she drives on, paint the buildings she speaks in, and keep the lights on in her auditorium.

Hillary Clinton is an insider, supported by powerful insiders, attacking Americans who have no political power.

Hillary Clinton spoke with hatred and derision for the people who make this country run.

She spoke with contempt for the people who thanklessly follow the rules, pay their taxes, and scratch out a living for their families.

While Hillary Clinton lives a sequestered life behind gates and walls and guards, she mocks and demeans hardworking Americans who only want their own families to enjoy a fraction of the security enjoyed by our politicians.

After months of hiding from the press, Hillary Clinton has revealed her true thoughts.

She revealed herself to be a person who looks down on the proud citizens of our country as subjects for her to rule over.

Her comments displayed the same sense of arrogance and entitlement that led her to violate federal law as Secretary of State, hide and delete her emails, put classified information in the reach of our enemies, lie to Congress, and sell government favors and access through her Foundation.

It’s the same attitude that explains why Hillary Clinton refuses to take accountability for the deadly disasters she helped to create in Iraq, in Syria and in Libya.

To this day, she still won’t take accountability for her role in unleashing ISIS across the Middle East – or for putting Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon.

Hillary Clinton believes she is above the law, that she is above accountability, and that she is above each and every one of you.

Our campaign is about giving voice to the voiceless. It’s about representing the forgotten men and women of this country.

I’m here to represent everyone, but especially those who are struggling against injustice and unfairness.

I am running so that the powerful can no longer beat up on the powerless. I’m running to take on the special interests, the big donors, and the corrupt political insiders.

I am running to be your voice.

If Mitt Romney disqualified himself to be president, Hillary Clinton FAR MORE disqualified herself to be president.

Not by my standard, but by everyone who votes DEMOCRAT.

And the ONLY reason Democrats will vote for Hillary Clinton now is that they are the WORST sort of people there are, vile, twisted hypocrites who will ALWAYS distort the truth and the facts and reality to suit their warped ideology.

Let me ask the question, “What is the FINAL SOLUTION” to Hillary Clinton’s now-repeated claim that Republicans are a “basket of deplorables”???

I mean, put them in death camps, or maybe Stalinistic re-education centers, right?  We can’t have these hateful, awful people free to just run around with this kind of hate and evil in them.

This has ALWAYS been the invariable, inevitable path of leftism.  The socialist communists were far left wing monsters; the Nazis where every damn bit as socialist and were merely to the “right” of the most far leftist communists.  Hitler offered his Nazism as a “third way” between the communism of one side and the free market laissez-faire capitalism that has always been cherished by conservatives.  NAZI stood for “National Socialist German Workers Party.”  And if there were a “National Socialist American Workers Party,” you can’t be stupid enough not to think these wouldn’t be today’s Democrats.

Two days ago my mother told me about a man offering a solar deal coming to their home.  He had lied when my father asked him if there was any investment required, but it quickly turned out that, yes, there was, because it was a “rent to own” deal.  The man said there was no cost to this program; but that was just a lie to get his foot in the door and try to sell something to a couple of stupid old people.  You know, in a program that wouldn’t exist unless the federal government were so massively subsidizing solar that it is beyond unreal.

After learning the truth, my parents swiftly lost interest.  And the guy turned to politics, asking who they were going to vote for.

My parents said they were going to hold their nose and vote for Trump.  And the guy – who said his wife was Hispanic – immediately launched into his attack.  “What are you going to do when the people who do all the jobs you aren’t willing to do aren’t here?”

He attacked my parents’ religion, asking “Are they as mean as you up above?”

Well, it’s a damn good thing for that turd that I wasn’t there.  Because I would have IMMEDIATELY gone after him as the racist bigot that he is.  What is he saying?  He’s flat-out stating that white people are lazy and indolent and incapable of doing any kind of hard labor.  The Democrats have ALWAYS viewed the world through a vile, racist perspective.  They just can’t help themselves.  And they spent 200 years viciously attacking black people and minorities before concluding, “if you can’t beat them, co-opt them and get them on your plantation a different way.”  And so now it’s just the same racism they’ve always held in reverse: now it’s white people who can’t work.

So now he’s telling us that inferior white people would STARVE because there would be no fitter race to pick their food for them.

My mom says he mentioned the guys who climb up into trees and asked my mom if she’d do that.  Well, damn, you fool turd, my mom is eighty years old!!!  What kind of stupid jackass ARE you?  How many 80-year-old Mexicans are climbing up in trees to trim them for a damn living???

I would have been all in his face screaming, “GET OUT of here, you racist pile of bigoted rodent filth!  We don’t need your kind of race-roach crawling around our home!”

Just as we don’t need Hillary Clinton anywhere near the White House.

Hillary Clinton just proved herself to be unfit for the presidency.  She didn’t prove herself to be unfit by Republican standards; she proved herself to be unfit by the very same standard that was applied against Republicans by Democrats just four years ago.

Every vote for Hillary Clinton is a statement about people who support a part that is nothing but hypocritical to its very core.

 

If You Like ANY Of The Rights The Bill Of Rights Affirmed, You’d Better LOVE The 2nd Amendment’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Without Infringement

February 4, 2013

Let’s take a quick look at the Bill of Rights.

Here’s a few things that stand out: the most important ones mention the rights of “the people.”

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

2nd Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

And you see, the same liberal big government worshipers who feel like they are justified in infringing on a right that shall not be infringed will ultimately feel every scintilla as justified in violating rights that shall not be violated.

Maybe a liberal wouldn’t mind explaining to me why “the right to vote” means not having to show ID when the right to keep and bear arms without being infringed upon somehow necessitates not only an ID but background checks up the whazoo.  Their argument might amount to “the right to vote never killed anybody.”  And I’m saying, SERIOUSLY?!?!?  Dude, the Nazi Party in Germany was ELECTED.  We watched several years back as the Palestinian Liberation Organization – a murderous terrorist organization – was ELECTED.  We just watched as the Muslim Brotherhood – a murderous terrorist organization – was ELECTED in Egypt.  And that organization just imposed fascist sharia law over the nation’s constitution by fiat almost immediately afterward.

The right to vote is FAR more dangerous than the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.  And you are a moral idiot to the extreme not to understand that.

Moral idiots are far worse and far more dangerous than intellectual idiots.  Because moral idiots are people with dishonest minds and dishonest minds prefer lies to the truth.  Moral idiots such as those who run our culture today devote their intelligence to advancing lies.  And they are the first to justify extreme policies with the notion that the ends justify the means.

Let me point out that the very biggest moral idiots of all are the so-called “intellectuals” who dominate our universities and our political think tanks.  Thomas Sowell interacted with George Orwell to produce this gem:

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

And a lot of the people who are such beyond-belief fools are the very same people who continue to be for banning guns “despite the fact that  these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a  scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.”  They are consistent only in that they are so consistently morally stupid.

The nature of the big government socialist left was, is and will always be fascism.  And the nature of fascism has always been to deprive human dignity and freedom – starting with the right to self-defense.

Because herd animals shouldn’t have a right to defend themselves.  We don’t want our hamburgers getting guns any more than fascists want their people to resist their policies (such as Hitler’s Final Solution, such as Stalin’s Collectivization, such as Mao’s Great Leap Forward).

Which is why they’re going after our guns first just like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung did before they brought the Horror against unarmed and defenseless people.  Considerably more than 100 million people were brutally murdered by leftist big government dictatorships during peacetime alone.  And the one thing all these governmental philosophies had in common besides big government totalitarian control was the initial disarming of the people they were about to impose horror against.  This is a fact of history.

What has the left done with the 2nd Amendment?  First of all, they have defined the right as belonging only to a militia.  Okay.  Then the 4th Amendment (and other important amendments such as the First Amendment) needs to be only for militias, because the same amendment which says the right of the people to bear arms says the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.  And if “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers only to “militia,” then ALL of the rights accorded to the people only pertain for those belonging to a militia.  Because a right recognized for “the people” either applies to “the people” or it doesn’t.  And which is it?  Which do you want?  “The people” either refers to a militia or to the actual “people.”  Just because the right to arms are also granted to well-organized militias does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms any more than the mention of the right of the press somehow abrogates the right of the people to freedom of speech and to peaceable assembly as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

They also try to limit the 2nd Amendment by asserting that it somehow only allows for hunting.  Why shouldn’t we have a right to the frankly dishonestly named “assault weapons”?  Because you don’t need thirty bullets, or even ten, to shoot a deer, we’re told.  That is absolutely absurd.  The founding father’s writings are jam-packed LOADED with their clearly expressed view that the ultimate purpose of an armed citizenry was to serve as a safeguard against a tyrant government along with serving as a means for a free people to defend their homes, their property and their persons.  Lastly, they have infringed ALL OVER the 2nd Amendment guarantee while dishonestly saying they’re not infringing on anybody’s rights.

Fascism and government tyranny has started with the confiscation of guns from the people, to disarm them in order to control them.  Big government is ALWAYS about controlling people.

If you value ANY of the other rights of the Bill of Rights, then you’d damned well better protect the 2nd Amendment.

I keep telling anyone who will read me, over and over again: the beast is coming.  And he most certainly is.  And soon.

The thing you need to realize is that by the time he gets here, the Democrat Party will have given the once-great and mighty United States of America into his hands by disarming the people.  And it will be Democrats who worship this ultimate big government leader and take his mark on their foreheads or their right hands as a sign of that worship.

We just went through a disgusting act of propaganda via incredibly deceitful editing of video by the leftwing MSNBC.  Neil Heslin – the father of a slain Sandy Hook shooting victim – said, “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question … why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”  And then he categorically stated, “Not one person can answer that question.”

Yeah, Neil.  We CAN answer that question.  We have a right to be able to protect ourselves with the same sorts of weapons that either predatory criminals or an even more predatory criminal thug government possess.  Our founding fathers gave us that right, and our ancestors died to preserve that right for us.  Here’s a question for YOU, though: can you answer to the hundreds of millions of families who saw their governments brutally murder their parents, their children, their brothers and sisters, their grandparents, their cousins, etc. etc., just why it was that they didn’t deserve the right to be able to defend themselves???  Can you explain why you believe government ought to have the right to slaughter us like farm animals by the hundreds of millions???

That’s my question.

Consider smoking.  First the left forced restaurants to divide their buildings, airplanes, etc. into smoking and non-smoking sections.  But the nature of the left is to keep taking, keep building more regulations with more penalites.  Now you can’t smoke at all in any government place – whether the owner of that place likes it or not – and many people are not lawbreakers even for smoking in their own homes.  If that isn’t bad enough, you’ve got liberals saying that now that the left has taken over and socialized health care, it is too expensive to give the smokers the Medicare and health services they paid into.  And so they should die.  And I mean literally be killed by denial of medical treatment.

You’re only one government regulation away from being treated like Hitler treated the Jews or Stalin treated the Ukrainians or Mao treated, well, pretty much all of his people.

The Proof Of Planned Health Care Rationing And Denial Of Care To Senior Citizens

August 10, 2009

People are being told that the crowds of people who are going to town halls to angrily protest the Democrat health care plan are “un-American” as well as being swastika-carrying fascists.  It is terribly malicious and hateful demagoguery.  It is amazing that Democrats demonize tactics that they themselves are pursuing and have been pursuing for YEARS.  And then we come to learn that not only are Democrats organizing, but they are in fact literally PAYING people to show up and fight for the Democrat health care plan.  Talk about “manufactured outrage“!!!

The Speaker of the House decided to make this a debate about who is more Nazi.  I welcome that argument.  Just look at the Democrats’ own tactics!

But there is a far deeper issue at stake when we talk about “Nazism” than mere political rhetoric.  There is a very real issue of life and death at stake.

Mike Sola angrily confronted his Congressman over his fear that the Democrat system would not cover his son, who is in a wheelchair suffering from cerebral palsy.  He has since received death threats and vandalism at his home from Democrat supporters.

Should people fear for their lives under ObamaCare?  Should people like Mike Sola fear for their loved ones’ lives?

Let’s get away from the rhetoric, and reflect on the words of key Obama health care architects.

Consider a New York Post article:

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,” he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).

Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.

So, yeah.  Mike Sola has every right to be fearful of what will happen to his son.  Just as I have every reason to be afraid of what will happen to my parents.

When Dr. Emanuel says “communitarianism,” it is impossible for me – given the man’s writings – not to think “communist” plus “totalitarianism.”

And Obama appointed this man.  How can he distance himself from a guy who he himself appointed?  As Glenn Beck put it, “I wouldn’t let these people bring me a can of Coke, much less allow them to write a national health care plan.”

In January of THIS YEAR, Dr. Emanuel – who is a principal architect of the Democrat’s health care plan – 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.”

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.

Take Cass Sunstein, 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.”

Which very much jives with what Obama 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.”

As I wrote in my last article, “Don’t let the coffin lid hit your face on the way out, Grandma and Grandpa.”

Incredibly, that’s not all.  There are other writings that President Obama’s appointed architect Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel have said.  I thank Jeff Head for bringing his own blog citing other statements by Emanuel to my attention:

Is the “Final Solution” wording that was added to this revamped Obama Health Care graphic warranted? Some might see it as a simple play on words.

But before you decide how to consider that wording, please read the following shocking quotes from Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the chief health-care policy adviser to President Barack Hussein Obama, and (not coincidentally) the brother of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.

From: Principles of allocation of scarce medical interventions, January 31, 2009
Also see: Deadly Doctors, New York Post, June 24, 2009

Strict youngest-first allocation directs scarce resources predominantly to infants. This approach seems incorrect. The death of a 20-year-old woman is intuitively worse than that of a 2-month-old girl, even though the baby has had less life. The 20-year-old has a much more developed personality than the infant, and has drawn upon the investment of others to begin as-yet-unfulfilled projects…. Adolescents have received substantial substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments…. It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies, and worse still when an adolescent does.”

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.”

“Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create ‘classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on,’ but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.”

“When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated”

Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”

From: Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008

“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others”

From: Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008

“Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change,”

From: What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide? New England Journal of Medicine, July 1998

(These quotes add new context to the “End-of-Life” Counseling sessions required every 5 years for all seniors over 65 in Obama Care.)

“There is a widespread perception that the United States spends an excessive amount on high-technology health care for dying patients. 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. They also note that the expenditures increase exponentially as death approaches, so that the last month of life accounts for 30 to 40 percent of the medical care expenditures in the last year of life. To many, savings from reduced use of expensive technological interventions at the end of life are both necessary and desirable.”

“Many have linked the effort to reduce the high cost of death with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide. One commentator observed: “Managed care and managed death [through physician-assisted suicide] are less expensive than fee-for-service care and extended survival. Less expensive is better.” Some of the amicus curiae briefs submitted to the Supreme Court expressed the same logic: “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.”

“Although the cost savings to the United States and most managed-care plans are likely to be small, it is important to recognize that the savings to specific terminally ill patients and their families could be substantial. For many patients and their families, especially but not exclusively those without health insurance, the costs of terminal care may result in large out-of-pocket expenses. Nevertheless, as compared with the average American, the terminally ill are less likely to be uninsured, since more than two thirds of decedents are Medicare beneficiaries over 65 years of age. The poorest dying patients are likely to be Medicaid beneficiaries. Extrapolating from the Medicare data, one can calculate that a typical uninsured patient, by dying one month earlier by means of physician-assisted suicide, might save his or her family $10,000 in health care costs, having already spent as much as $20,000 in that year.”

“Drawing on data from the Netherlands on the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and on available U.S. data on costs at the end of life, this analysis explores the degree to which the legalization of physician-assisted suicide might reduce health care costs. The most reasonable estimate is a savings of $627 million, less than 0.07 percent of total health care expenditures.”

From: Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet, Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec.1996

“This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity-those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. 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.

[….]

Do not fall for the platitudes and the revisionism or assurances of the people pushing this plan.  It is a radical plan and it will lead to single payer, complete governmental control of health care.  A command economy of health care much more akin to what someone like Karl Marx would implement to go hand and hand with his political philosophies.

The president, in a less-guarded moment before running for the Presidency outlined his true goals with respect to Health Care, and now he has the congress and the advisers he thinks will lead him there.

“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.

When you see “angry mobs” of Democrat health care plan opponents, realize that they aren’t angry because of “disinformation” or “fishy” emails; they are angry because of what they KNOW.  They are angry because of what Obama’s own architects have STATED.

Some of what we have seen here has far more in common with Dr. Mengele than with medicine.

The Nazis had a term, Lebensunwertes Leben, that meant “a life unworthy to be lived.”  The Nazi agenda was not about goose-stepping soldiers; it was about a complex of ideas that de-valued individual human life and exalted the power of the state to control the lives of the people.  And those who were deemed unable to produce sufficient societal benefit were deemed unworthy of life.  And the men who created this system did not regard themselves as evil men; they regarded themselves as doing what was necessary to implement their vision for their country.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel would never agree that he is a Nazi.  He would point out that he is Jewish; how on earth could he be a Nazi?  But his plan comes right out of the heart of Nazi ideology; it is Lebensunwertes Leben rearing its ugly head all over again.  Does he want 6 million Jews to die?  Of course he doesn’t.  But my question is, “Does he not want 60 million senior citizens to die?” And the only difference is that he would prefer to kill them by neglect due to rationed medical care, or due to a more humane but every bit as evil death by suicide.

The Nazis’ “final solution” was to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating the Jews; Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s “final solution” is to eliminate an alleged crisis by eliminating unhealthy children and senior citizens.

And, again, if Barack Obama doesn’t want this vision himself, then why on earth did he appoint Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel – who has been arguing for this “Complete Lives program” for YEARS, and who has an article urging for it as late as January of THIS YEAR – to write large swaths of the health care bill?  And any of Obama’s protestations to the contrary only fly in the face of what he himself has said and what he himself has done.  Don’t trust him.

A video montage explains precisely how the Democrats have organized behind the scenes to use the currently-proposed plan to necessarily lead into the kind of system that will produce the kind of “care” outlined by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel above.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and Cass Sunstein tell us what government health care will ultimately look like; and the video explains in Democrat health care strategists’ own words how they propose to get us to that point.

Watch it – and then join the fight against this monstrosity.