_It has become crystal clear that a chilling belief system has taken root in our society again. A great many among our population no longer have a deep respect for human life. It begins with the growing "movement" and loosely allied coalitions among the "green movement", environmenal activists, and the "animal rights" movement. The most hard core of these clearly place a higher value on the "natural environment" and on other species than they do on the human society.
In fact, they view human society as the greatest threat to the environment, the earth, and the well being of other species. Their views have grown sufficiently among a segment of society to foster serious debates such as the one here. Members of the current Administration advocate equal legal rights for animals and the ability for animals to sue in federal court to seek redress for harms by human society. For example, Cass Sunstein has written: "that personhood need not be conferred upon an animal in order to grant it various legal protections against abuse or cruelty, even including legal standing for suit." Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions by Sunstein and Nussbaum.
At a risk of sounding somewhat extreme in my own views, I will propose to you that many among the environmentalist and animal rights movement have developed the same attitude about the human race that was stated so starkly by Agent Smith in The Matrix movie franchise:
_OK. But that's a movie. Cute. But this is very serious business, indeed. Bear me out a little further.
This attitude of devaluation of human life came to full fruit in the 1930s and 40s in fascist and communist societies overseas. But it pervaded the U.S. at that time as well. Americans had a serious flirtation with the socialistic philosophies of the collective. So much so, that one of the "most beloved" American playwrights of the era, George Bernard Shaw, publicly and brashly extolled the virtues of Italy's Mussolini and Germany's Hitler. And he, like many other American socialists placed much more value on the collective, on the "greater good" than on human life.
_The rationing will be conducted in accordance with Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel's "Compete Lives System". The important point here is that we now have a government health care system based on the ideology of collectivism where in order to ration and properly distribute outcomes, those with less value to the collective -- less value to society as a whole, to the "greater good" -- are to be sacrificed for the benefit of the state. This is exactly what George Bernard Shaw was saying in those bad old days -- applied these days to health care.
It is a demeaning of the sanctity of life. It is a devaluation of the individual. It is an extension of the disrespect for human society emanating from the environmental and animal rights movement.
Now you may think this is painting with too broad a brush -- that life is still considered sacrosanct. You may think that these are fringe extreme beliefs that I am citing -- in complete disregard for the mainstream and elite positions of the sources themselves. Well, may I offer you one final chilling, scary source for consideration? If this doesn't wake people up, what will?
Two eminent American bioethicists in an online article in the Journal of Medical Ethics. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, of Duke University, and Franklin G. Miller, of the National Institutes of Health believe that “killing by itself is not morally wrong...". I urge you to read this article: Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists.
Yes, you read that correctly! These two mental defectives who unjustly occupy prestigious positions go on to say: “[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”
Did you get that?! According to the National Institutes of Health and Duke University, hospitals "routinely" harvest organs from human beings who are not "really" "fully" dead, but have "lost their value" to themselves and to society. All right, I'm paraphrasing to make a point. It is what they said, right?
And finally these "ethicists" compare killing humans to weeding a garden. They argue that there is nothing sacred about human life: “[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”
If this is what "ethics" has come to in this country, I want out! See how far those corrosive ideas have brought us? We are again on the threshold of eugenics, euthanasia, purges, and all the bad, evil things that were brought to you by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Guevarra, and Chavez.
I want to know. What is it going to take to wake people up!
_The supposedly conservative writer who authored the article below asks a very pertinent question: "Where's ObamaCare's replacement?" She explains how long the country has been talking about the need to repeal this awful, un-Constitutional monstrosity which was forced upon the country. She speaks of how likely it is that the bill will be ruled un-Constitutional by the Courts (as we all know already that it is un-Constitutional; we do not need the courts to tell us what we already know, but we do need for them to officially throw it out). Finally, she makes the point that the Republicans have been promising to "Repeal and Replace".
So, she makes the point that the American public will be expecting quick action as soon as ObamaCare meets its demise. She points out that the Republicans have had plenty of time to be working out the details of their replacement bill. So she basically asks, "Where is it?" And she warns that the Republicans will take a hit if they disappoint the Americans by letting the "popular" aspects disappear without having a Republican solution to quickly keep those provisions in place.
OK. Here's my point-by-point response to her proposition:
❶ This writer is not actually a conservative. Like so many others in the Republican Party who like to think of themselves as conservative, she thinks she is conservative. However, conservatives champion small government principles and honor individual freedom and self-responsibility. True conservatives do not look to government to supply solutions to most issues faced in their private lives. True conservatives do not expect another massive bill to "replace" ObamaCare. True conservatives just want ObamaCare to go away and for the government to get the hell out of their private lives.
True conservatives do not simply want a Big Government solution with red paint rather than blue paint. If the Republicans are just going to give us another massive bill to inject Big Government into all aspects of our health care, then they will simply be acting like the Democrats. We conservatives do not want Big Government solutions at all. Stick to the enumerated powers laid out clearly in the U.S. Constitution.
By expecting and advocating a Republican-flavored government health care "solution", she is revealing that she is actually progressive. Progressives look to the government for their solutions. Right-wing progressives simply believe that "their" solutions are "better" than the "solutions" of the left-wing progressives. That's all. I don't want progressives to bring me any more of their liberty-destroying "solutions". Period.
❷ The "popular" provision she cites as an example of what the "Republican solution" must preserve is the government mandate that 26-year-olds must be covered on their parents' health care plan. Really! That's what we want? NO! This is an entitlement mentality which, again, reveals her progressive mindset. Why should 26-year-old adults be allowed to depend upon their parents' health care plan? When do people become adults anymore? I kinda thought that was at least by 21 years of age.
This provision is a progressive tactic to foster ever increasing dependency and entitlement. People who are more dependent are much easier to control and can be counted upon to always vote for more Bigger Government. I say get rid of this abominable mandate!
Oh, I'm being cruel to those 26-year-old dependents who just can't afford their own health care and whose parents WANT to cover them? No I am not. OK, If you want or need to cover your indigent offspring, by all means cover them! Allow parents who wish to have this feature in their health insurance to purchase a plan which includes that coverage. Allow those same families to pick up the costs of their own decision. Why should others be forced to subsidize those personal, individual decisions? Answer: Others should not be forced to help pay for such personal decisions.
❸ She says that Republicans need "a single, detailed plan that all Americans can understand easily". No we do not! We need to have as many choices and options as a free market can provide. Again, we do not need a GOPcare plan any more than we needed or wanted an ObamaCare plan!
What the Republicans should do, if they wish to remain true to their principles and platform, is to make discreet, targeted reforms in the health care sector which will create the environment for people and doctors to make their own cost-control decisions. To manage their own risk levels. Tort reform to eliminate esurient or vindictive lawsuits. Stop corrupt meddling at state level to create government-approved local insurance monopolies. There should be separate, small bills which are carefully written to address heath care reforms in ways which do not generate thousands of new federal regulations and unintended consequences.
OK, you get the point. I am dismayed by how many of us "on the right" have fallen into the trap of progressive thinking, all the while believing ourselves to be "conservative". When we are considering an issue, we should all begin with the question: "Will this proposed 'solution' increase government power, government intrusion, government dependency, and entitlement mentality? Or will this proposed 'solution' increase individual liberty, self-responsibility, limited government, economic prosperity, and personal choice?"
Read: Memo to Republicans: Where's ObamaCare's Replacement?
This story is astounding. But it never received much press, and the little bit it has received has been missed by so many people that we think we must repeat it here. It is incredible that the Obama Administration would not accept an offer from IBM to save the government at least $900 Billion ― nearly a Trillion Dollars. And guess what IBM wanted to charge the government for its services.... NOTHING! Free. Zip. Nada!
Chairman and CEO of IBM, Samuel J. Palmisano, approached President Obama and members of his administration before the healthcare bill debates with a plan that would reduce healthcare expenditures by $900 billion. Given the Obama Administration's adamancy that the United States of America simply had to make healthcare (read: health insurance) affordable for even the most dedicated welfare recipient, one
would think he would have leaned forward in his chair, cupped his ear and
said, "Tell me more!"
in the end and after two meetings, President Obama and his team rejected the offer and instead chose to enlist the help of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through the most hated piece of legislation in the history of the United States.
Hard to believe, isn't it? Well, first, here's a video of an interview by Stuart Barney of Mort Zuckerman on Fox News where they discuss IBM's offer and the Administration's rejection:
Notice the excerpts of the interview of Sam Palmisano by Alan Murray of the Wall Street Journal? Well, the video of that entire exchange on the Wall Street Journal is very interesting and completely confirms the story:
This is all confirmed by IBM, and you can read the email and a transcript of the above interview here.
So, the bottom line is that the Administration's propaganda about the goal of ObamaCare being to save money, reduce costs, and make healthcare more affordable was all a big lie. We knew it at the time, but this confirms it. The Administration wasn't willing to accept a TRILLION DOLLARS in free, easy savings from IBM. No, this was never about savings. It was never really about insuring the uninsured. It was always about control ― control over the citizens, control over the states, and forcing everyone to become fully dependent on the federal government.
The Complete Lives System age curve for administering medical care.
Sarah Palin called them "Death Panels". Everyone by now should be aware of the "Complete Lives System" approach to rationing medical care which forms the basis for ObamaCare. I'm not going into it again here. If you haven't read up on this approach, proposed by Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel (what a misnomer!), you can read one of his papers on it here ― or simply "google" the words "complete lives system" and your search will reward you with many hours of reading material.
Well, we now have a new glimpse into what is planned for us under this glorious healthcare rationing system of the central planners. Our window into ObamaWorld is provided by a neuro-surgeon who called into the Mark Levin radio program on Tuesday, November 22, after attending a Health and Human Services meeting in Washington D.C.
If you have not heard this converstion, you really must. It is chilling. It is the beginning of the reintroduction of eugenics and euthanasia in these United States. The seeds have been planted and are now sprouting. I wonder if we have enough hands to uproot and exterminate these horrid ideas from the system.
I am glad "The Donald" isn't running for the presidency. The man's ego is dangerous enough in and of itself! I wouldn't trust him to be our president, and a lot of his positions are actually leftist. But the man does have a strong wit and an great ability to cut straight to the "bottom line" of an issue. He certainly gets it right in the quote below!
Let Me Get This Straight.....
"We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!! What the hell could possibly go wrong?"
Today we learned Obama failed to appeal a ruling by a federal court striking Obamacare as unconstitutional. Most expected Obama’s Justice Department to appeal the decision to the entire Eleventh Circuit for review. Surprisingly,
Team Obama allowed the deadline to expire. This will undoubtedly catapult Obamacare to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This is good news.
It expedites Obamacare on a collision course with the High Court in the midst of a presidential election year.
But it doesn’t mean Obama’s given up the fight. It only means Obama thinks he can win ― another “gutsy move.”
But dare I say, I agree with Obama on expediting a decision by the High Court, although for very different reasons. Obamacare is a big part of the millstone of uncertainty weighing-down our economy. Obamacare will cut Medicare $500 billion for seniors, and Obamacare will raise taxes $500 billion. It’ll ruin the single greatest healthcare the world has ever known, while continuing to devastate our economy.
The sooner the fate of Obamacare is decided the better for our economy.
It also pushes the debate over Obamacare front and center to voters, who’ll have their own say next November. And It’s important that Americans speak-out forcefully on Obamacare. This will force the hand of a reluctant Congress to act, once and for all. This point I cannot underscore enough. The fact is we simply cannot afford to abandon our legislative efforts in the Congress.
This would be a grave mistake.
We simply don’t know HOW OR WHEN the U.S. Supreme Court is going to rule on Obamacare!
We can’t place all of our eggs in one basket. Remember, Obama thinks he’ll win at the U.S. Supreme Court.
We must continue our efforts in Congress.
Obamacare has suffered a devastating blow. On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the individual mandate in President Barack Obama's signature health care legislation is unconstitutional. With its ruling, the court affirmed the principle that the Constitution means what it says — Congress does not have unfettered power to force the American people to comply with any and all dictates it creates.
The federal government's argument in favor of Obamacare's individual mandate, in contrast, is without limit — and it's a position that the court strongly rejected:
The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects
interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power….
The federal government’s assertion of power, under the Commerce Clause, to issue an economic mandate for
Americans to purchase insurance from a private company for the entire duration of their lives is unprecedented, lacks cognizable limits, and imperils our federalist structure.
The Obama Administration wasted no time in decrying the ruling, reasserting its argument that the individual mandate is constitutional — cleverly calling it an "individual responsibility" provision and hanging its hat on an earlier
decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld the law. But the significance of last week's opinion cannot be easily undone with clever wordsmithing, spin — or claims of partisanship, given that one of the authors
of the ruling, Judge Frank Hull, was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The Heritage Foundation's Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt explain what the decision means for the President and for Obamacare's future:
In short, the Obama Administration has lost its battle to delay review of the individual mandate until after the 2012 election. Until today, there was at least a chance that the Supreme Court would pass on the case until after its
forthcoming term, but now, with a split between the Eleventh Circuit and Sixth Circuit, the High Court will have little choice but to take the case and resolve the fate of the forced-purchase mandate. After over a year of delaying
tactics, the Obama Administration has no more options to slow-walk the constitutional end-game for the mandate.
Our best estimate is that the case will be argued either in late March or in April, 2012. The Court will issue its decision near the end of its term in June, during the presidential candidate nominating season.
Though the Eleventh Circuit only struck down the individual mandate and related must-carry provisions, it could be the thread that unravels the sweater. And the Supreme Court's decision can't come soon enough. The more America learns about Obamacare, the worse it becomes.
Obamacare has far-reaching consequences for all corners of American society, the economy chief among them. In addition to the unconstitutional individual mandate, Obamacare includes more than $500 billion in new taxes, burdensome new paperwork for business owners, and penalties for companies with more than 50 workers that do not provide employees with a mandated level of health coverage. And with the added costs Obamacare brings, the nation's publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher at the end of 2020.
Heritage's Kathryn Nix writes, "Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis simulated the overall effects of the new law on the economy and found that Obamacare would result in reduced investment in the U.S. economy and a loss of 670,000 job opportunities every year." With 9.1 percent unemployment and an average duration of unemployment hitting a record high of 40 weeks, the last thing the U.S. economy needs is another anchor weighing it down. As Heritage analyst, Curis Dubay, explains, the law “will slow economic growth, reduce employment, and suppress wages. These economy-slowing policies could not come at a worse time. [Obamacare] tax increases will impede an already staggering recovery.”
To date, 28 states have challenged the constitutionality of Obamacare in court. A federal circuit court has struck down a central pillar of the law, holding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The judges have affirmed a truth that Americans already know: When Congress passed Obamacare and the President signed it into law, they crossed a constitutional line in the sand. Fortunately, the courts are holding that line, and now it is up to the U.S. Supreme Court to make it final.
The Left just doesn't get it. I guess they never will. Those on the Left just can't ever seem to connect the dots or put two and two together.... unless they're outsmarting the dull Republicans in Congress. Raise taxes + impose onerous regulations + impose unions + raise the minimum wage = more jobs move overseas.
Seems straightforward enough. Need an example? OK, how about this: Pass ObamaCare with new taxes on medical device manufacturers + increase regulations on the medical industry + drive the economy into deep recession = jobs move overseas,
Case in point: Boston Scientific
And the following video from the Heritage Foundation says something about the explosion in new regulations.
The authors are members of Moore Tea Citizens who have something to say!