Posts Tagged ‘Oregon’

The God Of Liberalism And Ben Carson’s Unpardonable Sin In His Response, ‘I Would Not Just Stand There And Let Him Shoot Me.’

October 9, 2015

The most hateful words ever uttered, based on the mainstream media’s outright hate poured over Dr. Ben Carson when he said the following in answer to a question:

Question from reporter: “But Dr. Carson, if a gunman walks up and puts a gun at you and says, ‘What religion are you?’  That is the ultimate test of your faith.”

Dr. Cason: “I’m glad you asked that question, because, not only would I probably not cooperate with him, I would not just stand there and let him shoot me.  I would say, ‘Hey, guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can’t get us all.'”

I want you to notice that I took these words from the video in which Huffington Post says in bold typeface, “Skip to 0:25 in the video above to hear Carson describe what he would have done if he’d been present at the shooting.”  In other words, skip PAST the part where the reporter asks, “What would you do?”  And Dr. Carson responds with what he would do.

It’s frankly amazing on one level.  I mean, what in the hell is controversial about that?  The argument to this side is literally, I WILL stand there and let him shoot me.”  And of course, “I will stand there and let him shoot me until my Savior and Lord, the State, kicks down every single door in America and goes over every square inch of land with metal detectors and confiscates until it can account for every single one of the more than 300 million guns in this country.  And PISS on the Constitution in the process.

Remember those three American heroes who were so honored in France for saving that trainload of passive French people from that terrorist?  WHAT BEN CARSON SAID HE ASPIRED TO DO WAS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID.

Let me tell you why what Ben Carson said is such a horrifying sin in the religion of liberalism: because liberalism is a religion of radical submission and radical helplessness.  You are to be helpless and submissive in your role as a member of “the State.”  And liberalism is a MISSIONARY religion in that every liberal must force the rest of us to be as helpless and as submissive in the face of “the State” as they seek to be.

If you so much as BELIEVE or FEEL that you ought to have a right to protect or defend yourself, you are a blasphemer and a heretic.

I guess that’s quite possibly why Spencer Stone – one of those heroes on that train in France who did not “cooperate” with the terrorist because they ddn’t want to “just stand there and let him shoot” them, was stabled – and fittingly stabled in the back by some coward – in the liberal bastion of Sacramento, California.

Somebody got this point in their title parodying the leftist piece of truly lousy toilet paper known as GQ: “F*CK Ben Carson For Preaching Self-Defense.”  Because we’re getting to the very core essence of what truly separates a liberal from a conservative.

The Bible frequently uses the metaphor of “sheep” to describe believers before their God.  And yes, apart from the wisdom of God, which we should therefore seek, humans are described as helpless and stupid, like sheep.

If you are a liberal, don’t sneeringly tell me you don’t have a religious faith.  Because YES YOU DO.  Liberalism is a religion following secular humanism that replaces “God” with “Government,” with human government.  And the priests of this religion are bureaucrats, and to them the words of Isaiah 53 – “all we like sheep have gone astray” – ring like music.  We are poor, stupid, helpless sheep under liberalism.  And Government is our God, our Savior, to whom we ought to helplessly submit.

And when it comes to weapons, the biblical metaphor couldn’t be more apt in describing what liberals’ want: the SHEEP don’t get to carry weapons.  They are far too stupid and they would clearly only hurt themselves or one another.  No, only the shepherd, only the bureaucrat’s designated force-bearer, can carry weapons.

Probably the most famous passage in the Bible, Psalm 23, the Shepherd’s Psalm, sums it up: “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.”  God is the One who carries the rod and the staff, not the sheep.  And liberalism is a rabid religion that keeps shrieking, “There is no God but Government, and Obama is His Prophet!”

AND THEY MUST STRIP YOU OF YOUR GUNS AND LEAVE YOU UTTERLY HELPLESS, BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP AND IT IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE ONE TRUE GOD THE STATE TO THINK ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT YOURSELF.

You have the right to religious freedom if and ONLY If you are a liberal.  But every other religion is blasphemy before liberalism and its One True God, the human State.  And every other religion must ultimately be forced to SUBMIT and be HELPLESS.  Like a good sheep.

This doesn’t just apply to guns; it is all encompassing.  Allow me to give you another example of God vs. Government and the side liberalism takes:

The silver is mine and the gold is mine,’ declares the LORD Almighty.  — Haggai 2:8

WHO does all the wealth belong to?  Well, I think we all understand those words very easily: the LORD Almighty.  GOVERNMENT.  OBAMA.

Liberals are the faithful demanding that all wealth go to the One True God, the State.  It’s not that liberals disagree with the Bible as much as they disagree on who “God” is.

I’ve written about this stuff before, of course.  I wrote about 1 Samuel 8:10-22 and how a wicked people refused God as their king and wanted giant, powerful human government instead.  I wrote about Daniel 2:31-35 and how Democrats have picked the absolutely WRONG side of history to be on as they side with the human government that will utterly perish before the coming Christ who as the Rock will destroy it.

These people worship human Government in place of God, and human government will ultimately burn in hell right along with them.

Sheep are helpless.  Just as liberals want those whom they dole out welfare to for literally generation after generation after generation to be helpless sheep who cannot take care of themselves.  And all you have to do to guarantee that you will be poor for life, that your children will be poor for all of their lives, that their children will be trapped in poverty all of their lives, and so on, ad nauseam, is to vote Democrat.  Because they seek to trap you in a vicious cycle that you will never get out of and you will therefore always need to keep voting for them to keep you in.

Liberals take money from one group and dole it out to keep another group dependent and helpless.  Like sheep.

Liberalism is the confiscation of wealth and the offering of that wealth to the One True God, the State.  And the priests of this religion, the bureaucrats, distribute it according to their theology.

There’s more, of course: who says what life is and who gets to live?  God, of course, and ONLY God:

13You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body
    and knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex!
    Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it.
15 You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion,
    as I was woven together in the dark of the womb.
16 You saw me before I was born.
    Every day of my life was recorded in your book.
Every moment was laid out
    before a single day had passed. — Psalm 139:13-16

And who gets to decide these weighty questions of what is life, what is sacred, who gets to live and who should die?  God, of course.  The State.  The Black-Robed High Priests of Liberalism.

Which is why the doctrine of abortion and the support for that doctrine is tantamount to an act of religious devotion.  It is an act of religious faith, for I the LORD your God gave you Roe v. Wade.  And let all other gods be forced to bow down before Me, and let all who oppose my rule be torn limb-from-limb or burned with acid in the very womb in which I, Obama, formed him.

What is marriage?  Who decides?  Only God, of course.  That’s obvious.  We all agree with that.  Jesus, the divine Messiah of the God of the Bible, summed up God’s way according to Genesis 2:22-24 when He described biblical marriage:

“Haven’t you read,” [Jesus] replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” — Matthew 19:4-6

Well, liberals rabidly and utterly reject that God.  They have their own God, the State.  And so we now have Obama, the divine Messiah of the God of the State, providing a radically different view of “marriage.”

Atheism is a religion. It has been ruled so by the same Supreme Court that gave us Roe v. Wade and gay marriage.  Just as secular humanism has been defined as a religion.  It is now an amply documented scientific FACT that the human brain is hard-WIRED for religion and religious experience.  It is literally now ANTI-SCIENCE to claim that humans aren’t intrinsically religious beings.  You can put it in the most atheistic, physicalist, materialistic terms you want: but the human brain is hard-wired for religious experience and it’s only a question of what you worship, not whether you worship.  Let me take a moment to deal with this part about our religious instincts being genetically or evolutionarily “hard-wired” into our brains: atheists have kind of GOT to say something like that to explain the fact that atheists are an incredibly tiny minority of the world’s population; “Adherents.com, estimates that the proportion of the world’s people who are “secular, non-religious, agnostics and atheists” at about 14%.”  With about one-fifth of that 14% – or 2.8% – categorically stating themselves as “atheist” rather than some form of agnostic or secular.  2.8% of the world’s population is atheist.  So here’s the question: since religion is hard-wired into our brains, who the hell do these people think they are telling us that we don’t need something that their very own precious evolution very clearly put in us because we need it?  Their claim is tantamount to saying, “I evolved to no longer need evolution.”  There’s an awful lot of problems with consistent atheism, but this is one of those contradictions that needs to be exposed.

Atheists can play their rhetorical word games and say, “If atheism is a religion, then off is a TV channel.”  Here’s the problem with it: the very word “atheism” means, “no god.”  Let’s acknowledge and then move beyond the problem with atheism as expressed by G.K. Chesterton: “When a man stops believing in God he doesn’t then believe in nothing, he believes anything.”  Which corresponds with the admonition in Colossians 2:8 which says, “Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ.”  I am making a different point here that strictly relates to the TV channel analogy; namely that atheism is espoused as a belief in the denial of something, but the very thing they are denying is such a quintessential part of who they are that the very word “theist” is the most prominent part of their own self-description.  To wit: in the analogy that the atheist provides, “GOD is the TV. Religions are the channels. If it is off, maybe he’s dead or disengaged, but at least you admit there’s a TV.”  .  Just for the record, I can cite you MILLION of Christians who can easily use the same “logic” to rationalize that Christianity is NOT a religion.  I googled the phrase, Christianity is not a religion, and got 86,000,000 hits.  Their point is that “Religion is man’s way to reach God.  Christianity is God’s way to reach man.”  That many atheists don’t consider themselves “religious” is no more an accurate part of their perspective than that many Christians don’t consider themselves “religious.”  The simple fact boils down to this: whether you are talking about atheism not being a religion, or Christianity not being a religion, the only way the proponents of either view are correct is if their belief (i.e., atheism or Christianity) is correct.  If there is in fact a God, atheism is merely one of many false religious systems.  And belief in God is NOT an essential part of a religious system, for the record, given that many Buddhists are actually atheists.  Finally,  the author of this actually quite-good article I cite above points out that the rabidness of the atheist and the tendency of the atheist to hate theists is every bit as fervent as it is the other way around.  She points out, “Let me tell you: The angriest ones can be as malicious as a coven of Westboro Baptists at a veteran’s funeral.”  In case anybody actually has the foolishness to doubt that, let me just point out that the very shooting that Ben Carson is the target of so much hate for describing how he would react was an ATHEIST who TARGETED CHRISTIANS.

I say this because of the incredibly dishonest, deceitful, disingenuous way that liberals and their counterparts who dominate the mainstream media constantly frame any and basically all religious debate in America.  Religious people are constantly told that we have no right to impose our religion on others.  From the very same people who even as they are saying that are exploiting it as an incredibly cynical device to impose their damn religion on me.  As an example, an atheist decided to get offended over students being allowed to pray and rabidly determined to impose HIS religion of refusing to pray on every student whose religion encouraged them to pray.  Every single court or every single bureaucracy that seeks to remove prayer from school is NOT removing religion; they are DICTATING which religion that students will be forced to practice, namely the religion of atheism/secular humanism.

My point is that liberals ARE worshipers.  They are RABID worshipers.  They merely choose to worship a very different God from the God of Christianity.  And to the extent that they don’t worship the State, they worship themselves and their religion is about selfishly and self-centeredly obtaining their lusts and their desires through the power of the State and forcing others to provide these things for them.

I am beyond sick of liberals imposing their religion on me while they smarmily tell me that I don’t have a right to impose my religion on them.  I’m sick of liberals perverting the Word of God and constantly seeking to turn me a sheep, as the Bible says I am, but a sheep of their God the State.  I’m sick and tired of liberals telling me that I should be helpless, and that as a stupid, helpless sheep the only thing I’d do if I were allowed to have a weapon is hurt myself or some other innocent.  So only the Shepherd of the religion of the State ought to be allowed to have weapons.  I’m sick and tired of being told that I don’t have a right to impose my view of marriage on people as the people who tell me that impose their view of marriage on me with in-your-face-hypocrisy.  I’m sick of liberals telling me that I’m crazy to believe that human life begins in the womb when they can’t produce a single example of a single human who didn’t begin in the womb.  If their mothers had aborted those liberals, those liberals would have been killed.  A child in the womb is human by virtue of the taxonomy of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she is a living thing: she is a HUMAN BEING.  Let’s go through the taxonomic system that classifies every single living thing with our unborn baby: That “fetus” (which is Latin for “unborn child” by the way) is classified from the moment of conception as Kingdom-Animal; Phylum-chordata; Class-Mammalia; Order-Primate; Family-Hominid; Genus-Homo; and Species-Sapiens.  Just like every human being whose life is precious unless you are describing human value in the hateful religious system of liberalism.  These things are simply facts, but the religion of liberalism doesn’t give a damn about facts; it is a rabid religious faith.  It is in fact a totalitarian religious faith that is missionary in its determined intent to impose itself on heretic unbelievers in Government.

We’re watching the Middle East and the world melt down due to President Barack Obama’s morally idiotic foreign policy.  Right now we’ve got five million refugees fleeing Obama’s collapse, and millions more are going to come behind them.  And where the hell are they going to go?  And we’re ultimately going to see why Obama’s epic fail in the Middle East will result in America’s epic fail.  We’re watching the complete vacuum of any kind of moral or military leadership being filled not by the United States but by Russia and now Iran.  But there’s something in the strategy of the only man who actually HAS a strategy – Vladimir Putin – that I want to close this piece on the religion of liberalism with.  Marco Rubio – the man WHO PREDICTED the invasion of Syria by Russia which so stunned and caught Obama off guard – NAILED Putin’s strategy:

“Vladimir Putin is deliberately targeting the non-ISIS rebels,” Rubio explains. “And here’s why: If he’s going to wipe out all the non-ISIS elements on the ground in Syria, then they can say: ISIS or Assad, there are no other options. We killed all the non-ISIS people.”

“And at that point, he’ll be able to force the world to support Assad, and that is what he is doing.”

Vladimir Putin is crushing all the non-Islamic State rebels, leaving only Assad’s regime and Islamic State.  And his plan is then to force America to support Assad’s regime as the only viable alternative.

That is precisely what is happening with Christianity.  We know damn well what it feels like to be a “non-ISIS rebel” in America right now.  Whether it’s the Little Sisters of the Poor, whether it’s the Christian baker, or the Christian florist – whom a judge demanded the “personal ruin” of – or Kim Davis, the millions of Christians around the world who are being exterminated under the Obama presidency in numbers that have NEVER BEFORE IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY BEEN WITNESSED, Christians are being systematically wiped out more than any other group of people on earthThere’s a new Holocaust going on right now.  And Obama and liberals are participating as much as the bystander of any vile event who does NOTHING participates in the horror they are standing by and allowing to happen.

By commission and by omission, Barack Obama is the world’s leading persecutor of Christians in the history of the world in terms of the sheer, mass numbers of Christians whom have suffered under him and as a result of his colossal failure.

Obama has said he is a Christian.  He also said that “as a Christian” he was opposed to gay marriage.  The latter statement turned out to be an outright lie, and the first one about Obama being a Christian is a lie as well.  I have pointed out and documented how Obama’s theology has NOTHING whatsoever to do with biblical Christianity.  He can go into a church and call himself a “Christian.”  Just like I can lay down in my garage and call myself a “car.”  But both statements are equally false.

You shall have no other gods before me, says liberalism.  And every Christian who says or believes otherwise shall be devoted to destruction.  Because liberalism is a rabid, religious faith.  And all we like sheep have gone astray and need to be brought under the Stalinist boot heel for our own good and for the good, for the praise and for the glory, of the State.

That’s Ben Carson’s real sin.  He’s “the Coon of the Year” to them.  At least that’s what a liberal professor in a liberal Ivy League university with the liberal system of tenure protecting her says.  She helps us get back to the God of the Bible – whom she calls “a white racist” – versus the liberal God also known as the State.

Advertisements

Obama Can’t Hide In Hawaii: Even In The Farthest Stretches Of His Realm, The ObamaCare Debacle Haunts King Obama

December 27, 2013

Personal note to King Obama: Notre Dame business law professor Laura Hollis nailed it: you really aint a king, and I certainly am NOT one of your “subjects.”

I say knowing I say it in vain.  Malignant narcissist that you have been diagnosed to be by the leading psychologist authority on the subject of narcissism, no one will ever be able to tell you ANYTHING that doesn’t suit your incredibly vain ego, President Selfie.

It also, tragically, doesn’t matter how much of a costly, colossal and catastrophic failure your signature legislative accomplishment a.k.a. ObamaCare truly is, in your arrogance and in your self-centered wickedness you will NEVER allow it to be overturned until you’re either out of office or rightly impeached.

But you can go to the farthest reaches of your realm, Hussein, and you STILL can’t run from your “signature legislative debacle,” can you???

Obama fled to Hawaii, where (even according to the liberally-biased New York Slimes:

The executive director of Hawaii’s state health care exchange announced her resignation on Friday amid delays in getting the insurance marketplace off the ground.

The director, Coral Andrews, who has led Hawaii Health Connector for two years as the state worked to build the exchange, will step down on Dec. 6. Tom Matsuda, the Affordable Care Act’s implementation manager in the governor’s office, will take over as interim director. […]

From its outset, Hawaii’s exchange has faced many of the same problems that have plagued the federal health care website and other state exchanges around the country.

The (very slightly less) liberally-biased AP said slightly more:

HONOLULU (AP) — The director of Hawaii’s health insurance marketplace under President Barack Obama’s federal health care overhaul has resigned after delays in getting the exchange running and low signups in the first month. […]

The exchange had a two-week delay in starting open enrollment, then signed up only 257 people in its first month of allowing people to buy coverage.

The delay led to complaints from consumers, including some turning directly to health insurance companies to buy plans. Those who bought plans directly from insurance companies are unable to qualify for tax credits and other rebates.

Hawaii is the place where numerous healthcare industry leaders have actually been stepping forward and saying “we’re not going to have any health care.”

The pattern of debacle is going on even in many of the bluest states, such as Maryland and Washington.  Liberals point to California as a shining example of ObamaCare’s wonderfulness, but not so damn fast, you reality-denying idiots: not when the figures released by the executive director of the California Exchange (for ObamaCare) indicate that premiums are going to increase, on average, by between 64% to 146%.  Because if THAT’S “going well,” if THAT’S “succeeding,” then we can claim that as the Titanic plunged stern-first into the ocean and sank toward the bottom, it made really good time aaaaaaaalllllllllllllllllll the way down.

In California, more than ONE MILLION Americans have had their insurance policies CANCELLED because of ObamaCareTHAT’S “going well”????  Seriously????

Similarly, liberals point to New York state and say, “See how well ObamaCare is working?  Praise messiah!  Praise him!  Worship him!  Adore him!”  But consider that:

A headline about the health care law driving down premiums, by this level of magnitude, is a rarity. But it shouldn’t be shocking: New York has, for two decades now, had the highest individual market premiums in the country.

Do you get this?  Your health premiums may actually go down, provided that you live in the state with the very highest premiums on planet earth.  But that’s a “success.”  Praise Obama!  Worship him!”

In the similar industry of auto insurance, the justification for some of the highest rates in America is that:

“the higher rates are justified by the high costs of doing business in New York.”

How about Oregon?  Surely things must be going well there.  I mean, after all, Obama gave Oregon more money to build a website than he gave to ANY other state with the exceptions of New York and California (notice how all the bucks somehow ended up in the blue states???).  But hold on a moment:

The Orgeon website STILL isn’t working, so if you want your ObamaCare fix, you have to fill out a 19 page form to get it.  It’s a shock that it isn’t working, because the same “pros” that built the federal ObamaCare site were brought in.  Nothing but the best for Hussein and his libturds, you know.  And yet in spite of all those millions of dollars to create a “success story” (you know how Democrats are blaming the red states that didn’t want ObamaCare for all the problems, I’m sure), the situation in Oregon is so fouled up that Oregonians are now getting robocalls advising them that if they think they’ve got health insurance, they probably DON’T.

There aint NOWHERE where ObamaCare doesn’t suck the life out of the universe.  Liberalism is by its nature a parasite that just sucks and sucks until the host is dead.

There is nowhere Obama can hide.  He can be the emperor strutting out in his tighty-whiteys, but he is still a very naked scrawny pencil-necked little weasel wherever he goes.

At this point the only possible way to save America from implosion is if the people rise up as one and, with pitchforks and torches if necessary, storm Castle Obamastein and drag the monster-in-chief out with their bare hands.

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.

In Ted Kennedy’s Honor, Let’s Pass ‘Kopechne Care’

November 22, 2009

I wrote this in August after Ted Kennedy passed away.  I decided not to publish it at the time, out of respect for the recently deceased.  But the Democrat leadership rushing out to invoke Kennedy’s name during and after the vote last night made me realize that the time had come to put it out there:

Nancy Pelosi, eager little demagogue that she is, rushed out as soon as she heard that Ted Kennedy had passed to say:

“Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

Democrat Chairman Howard Dean predicted:

“his [Kennedy’s] death absolutely will stiffen the spine of the Democrats to get something this year for this extraordinary giant in Senate history.” Sen. Chris Dodd: “Maybe Teddy’s passing will remind people once again that we are there to get a job done as he would do.”

And Robert Byrd suggested that the subsequent health care reform be named in Ted Kennedy’s honor.

Mind you, in spite of all the blatant politicizing of Ted Kennedy’s death, Democrats bristle with the suggestion that they are doing what they are clearly doing.

The Democratic politicization of Kennedy’s death hearkens to the so-called “Wellstone effect,” as Democrats showed their true colors “honoring” the death of Democrat Senator Paul Wellstone.

And that has some influential conservative voices sounding the alarm and calling foul.

While most prominent Republicans stuck Wednesday and Thursday to sober condolences — and several Republican operatives said it was too early to accuse Democrats of politicizing a sad moment — the conservative media, as well as some operatives, has seized on the whiff of politicization of his passing, recalling the bitter charges and countercharges that followed Sen. Paul Wellstone’s (D-Minn.) memorial service in 2002.

That service, a sometimes boisterous rally that included calls to carry on Wellstone’s political legacy and some catcalls for Republican speakers, turned the memorial into a central campaign issue, and many observers think the still-disputed event helped elect a Republican to fill his seat.

In all the constant eulogizing of the last couple of days, we learn that Ted Kennedy had this “love of humor”:

Meanwhile, listening to ”Reflections on Sen. Kennedy … Lion of the Senate” on the Diane Rehm Show on the drive home last night, I was deeply moved to hear Newsweek’s Ed Klein tell guest host Katty Kay about Kennedy’s love of humor. How the late senator loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes, and was always eager to know if anyone had heard any new ones. Not that Kennedy lacked remorse, Klein quickly added, seeming to intuit that my jaw and perhaps those of other listeners had just hit the floorboards. I gather it was a self-deprecating manuever on Kennedy’s part, exercised with the famous Kennedy charm, though it sounds like one of those “I guess you had to have been there” things.

“Ha, ha, ha.  Can you tell me any new ones about that time when I was driving around drunk late at night with a young woman not my wife – what was her name?  Mary Joe Something? – and drove into the drink?  My favorite ones are about how she tried to claw her way out of the car after I abandoned her to die.”

Well, I’ve got a Chappaquiddick joke for you: why don’t we name the health care bill Democrats want to name in Ted Kennedy’s honor “Kopechne Care” instead?  I’d suggest “Chappaquiddick Care,” but it’s too hard to spell, and it doesn’t give proper recognition to the victims this bill is going to abandon by means of medical rationing.

If your elderly parents get sick, the Kopechne Care plan would call for them to be loaded into the back seat of a car and driven off a bridge.  As the cost of the Democrats’ plan becomes more and more expensive, you will see expressions of regret that the “clunkers” cars were all destroyed.

Let me tell you something: the theme of being trapped in a government system with no way out as your care is rationed away from you actually ties in quite well with the terrible fate that Mary Joe Kopechne suffered.

Barbara Wagner, battling to survive cancer in Oregon’s government health care system, would certainly agree.  An IBD editorial tells her story in the context of the larger debate around the government single-payer system that abandoned her to die:

“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,” [Sarah] Palin wrote.

“Such a system is downright evil.”

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean’s response was, “She made that up.”  Oregon resident Barbara Wagner might beg to differ — as she begs to stay alive. Last year, the 64-year-old received news that her cancer, which had been in remission, had returned. Her only hope was a life-extending drug that her doctor prescribed for her.

The problem was that the drug cost $4,000 a month. The state-run Oregon Health Plan said no, that it was not cost-effective. Oregon’s equivalent of a “death panel” sent her a letter saying it would cover drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost only $50 or so. Oregon could afford that.

“It was horrible,” Wagner told ABCNews.com. “I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die.

“But we won’t give you the medication to live.”

The $4,000 could be better spent on someone else.

Death panels are already here it seems, just as they have been for some time in Britain and Canada. The concept behind deciding who lives and who dies and how finite resources should be allocated was described by key Obama health care adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

In his paper, “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions,” he expounds on what he calls “The Complete Lives System” for allocating treatments and resources.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly,” he says, “allocating to the better-off is often justifiable.”

These are Dr. Emanuel’s words, not Palin’s. We’re not making this up and neither is she. It is not hard to see this formula for rationing forcing children such as Trig and the elderly such as Barbara Morgan to take a number — a very high number.

So let Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean call it “Kennedy Care.”  I’ll call it “Kopechne Care” – in honor of Ted Kennedy’s first victim.  And point out that if “Kennedy Care” is passed, there will be many, many more victims like Barbara Wagner in the years to come.

It was perfectly fitting for Democrats to honor and mourn the passing of one of their great politicians.  But if they want to turn Kennedy’s passing into a political weapon – and invoke the name of a man who abandoned a helpless woman under his care to die – they had better be aware that it will be a sword that cuts both ways.