Author Topic: HEALTH ADVISOR Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's Brother): No care for Useless Eaters?  (Read 36543 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!

The aim of totalitarian regimes has always been to keep the 'workers' just well enough, long enough to perform their slave labor to 'retirement' age ... that is per the actuarial tables ... but no longer. A serviceable body and a weak mind is the perfect vehicle to serve the agenda, as far as they are concerned.

What does "Universal Healthcare" mean to the NWO?

It means, "... keep them young bucks strappin' strong ... got to get as much work out of 'em as possible!"

"But them youguns ... no siree! And them old farts too damaged by fluoride and aspartame and vaccines to get the job done ... to hell with 'em!"

Our Moms and Dads ... the Useless Eaters ... do not apply.


Ezekiel Emanuel: Death to Those With Dementia, as Useless Eaters

July 21, 2009 (LPAC)-- Ezekiel Emanuel, the top healthcare adviser at Obama's Budget Office and brother of his chief of staff, believes it is "obvious" that people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia (estimated as one of three people who live beyond the age of 65) should be denied health-care, since they are "irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens." An essay published in the Hastings Center Report (Nov-Dec 1996) by Emanuel, Norman Daniels and Bruce Jennings, says in part:

"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 deliberation - 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."


Ezekiel Emanuel ... brother of Rahm Emanuel



Obama advisor would ration medical care to seniors, young children, the demented

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
07/22/09 2:57 PM EDT

No wonder President Obama is in such a rush to get his health care reform package through Congress before the August recess. And before the public finds out about Ezekiel Emanuel, special advisor to Peter Orzag, Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and brother to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel has written in medical journals of how health care should be rationed, with priority given to younger people over seniors and over those suffering from dementia, according to John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Ezekiel also believes that very young children should be lower on the priority list than younger people who have received public educations.

Goodman cites an article Ezekiel co-authored with two other men that appeared in the January 31, 2009, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet. Goodman also cites a 1996 article by Ezekiel that appeared in The Hastings Report. In the latter, which was titled "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet," Ezekiel argued for limiting health care for “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”  He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example.

Goodman offers additional analysis on his blog of Ezekiel's presence among Obama's health care advisors. Goodman notes that the health care reform legislation now being crafted in Congress includes a provision designed to ration the availability of MRI, CT and other advanced technology scans that often are critical to identifying dangerous diseases at a sufficiently early stage to enable life-extending treatment:

“An example of what can be done is actually in legislation being written on Capitol Hill. Buried somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages is a provision to severely limit what Medicare pays for CT and MRI scans performed in doctors' offices. This would force elderly patients, for example, to go to the hospital for their radiology — where there are often lengthy waits. Patients in rural areas who must travel long distances to get to hospital-based testing facilities may be discouraged from getting the tests done at all.”

“individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”  Emanuel wrote, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Goodman notes that the World Health Organization estimates that 25,000 cancer patients die in Britain annually as a result of such restrictions on medical scans.

~~~~—>  Thanks SANE
St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Ezekiel Emmanuel exposed on Zionist depopulation policy
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2009, 06:29:59 am »

Henry Kissinger's 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide     

This article appeared as part of a feature in the December 8, 1995 issue of Executive Intelligence Review, and was circuclated extensively by the Schiller Insitute Food for Peace Movement. It is reprinted here as part of the package: “Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage?”

Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide
by Joseph Brewda
Dec. 8, 1995

On Dec. 10, 1974, the U.S. National Security Council under Henry Kissinger completed a classified 200-page study, “National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” The study falsely claimed that population growth in the so-called Lesser Developed Countries (LDCs) was a grave threat to U.S. national security. Adopted as official policy in November 1975 by President Gerald Ford, NSSM 200 outlined a covert plan to reduce population growth in those countries through birth control, and also, implicitly, war and famine. Brent Scowcroft, who had by then replaced Kissinger as national security adviser (the same post Scowcroft was to hold in the Bush administration), was put in charge of implementing the plan. CIA Director George Bush was ordered to assist Scowcroft, as were the secretaries of state, treasury, defense, and agriculture.

The bogus arguments that Kissinger advanced were not original. One of his major sources was the Royal Commission on Population, which King George VI had created in 1944 “to consider what measures should be taken in the national interest to influence the future trend of population.” The commission found that Britain was gravely threatened by population growth in its colonies, since “a populous country has decided advantages over a sparsely-populated one for industrial production.” The combined effects of increasing population and industrialization in its colonies, it warned, “might be decisive in its effects on the prestige and influence of the West,” especially effecting “military strength and security.”

NSSM 200 similarly concluded that the United States was threatened by population growth in the former colonial sector. It paid special attention to 13 “key countries” in which the United States had a “special political and strategic interest”: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia. It claimed that population growth in those states was especially worrisome, since it would quickly increase their relative political, economic, and military strength.

For example, Nigeria: “Already the most populous country on the continent, with an estimated 55 million people in 1970, Nigeria's population by the end of this century is projected to number 135 million. This suggests a growing political and strategic role for Nigeria, at least in Africa.” Or Brazil: “Brazil clearly dominated the continent demographically.” The study warned of a “growing power status for Brazil in Latin America and on the world scene over the next 25 years.”

Food as a weapon

There were several measures that Kissinger advocated to deal with this alleged threat, most prominently, birth control and related population-reduction programs. He also warned that “population growth rates are likely to increase appreciably before they begin to decline,” even if such measures were adopted.

A second measure was curtailing food supplies to targetted states, in part to force compliance with birth control policies: “There is also some established precedent for taking account of family planning performance in appraisal of assistance requirements by AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] and consultative groups. Since population growth is a major determinant of increases in food demand, allocation of scarce PL 480 resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control as well as food production. In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion.”

“Mandatory programs may be needed and we should be considering these possibilities now,” the document continued, adding, “Would food be considered an instrument of national power? ... Is the U.S. prepared to accept food rationing to help people who can't/won't control their population growth?”

Kissinger also predicted a return of famines that could make exclusive reliance on birth control programs unnecessary. “Rapid population growth and lagging food production in developing countries, together with the sharp deterioration in the global food situation in 1972 and 1973, have raised serious concerns about the ability of the world to feed itself adequately over the next quarter of century and beyond,” he reported.

The cause of that coming food deficit was not natural, however, but was a result of western financial policy: “Capital investments for irrigation and infrastucture and the organization requirements for continuous improvements in agricultural yields may be beyond the financial and administrative capacity of many LDCs. For some of the areas under heaviest population pressure, there is little or no prospect for foreign exchange earnings to cover constantly increasingly imports of food.”

“It is questionable,” Kissinger gloated, “whether aid donor countries will be prepared to provide the sort of massive food aid called for by the import projections on a long-term continuing basis.” Consequently, “large-scale famine of a kind not experienced for several decades—a kind the world thought had been permanently banished,” was foreseeable—famine, which has indeed come to pass.

To read the entire NSSM 200 document, click here:
And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Zionist Plan For World Depopulation

wow, I guess that "pakalert" uses the word "zionist" like others use "the". I mean that post uses the word "zionist" 13 times.  There is so much information on this that there is no need to pigeonhole it and thus hold harmless the others involved. WTF, there is a real depopulation issue here and it ain't just zionists involved (not that they aren't psychopathic genocidal maniacs at the top). Kind of interesting how these propagandists work though, rather obvious.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
The Windsors' Global Food Cartel:
Instrument for Starvation

by Richard Freeman

Ten to twelve pivotal companies, assisted by another three dozen, run the world's food supply. They are the key components of the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel, which is grouped around Britain's House of Windsor. Led by the six leading grain companies—Cargill, Continental, Louis Dreyfus, Bunge and Born, André, and Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer—the Windsor-led food and raw materials cartel has complete domination over world cereals and grains supplies, from wheat to corn and oats, from barley to sorghum and rye. But it also controls meat, dairy, edible oils and fats, fruits and vegetables, sugar, and all forms of spices.

Each year tens of millions die from the most elementary lack of their daily bread. This is the result of the work of the Windsor-led cartel. And, as the ongoing financial collapse wipes out bloated speculative financial paper, the oligarchy has moved into hoarding, increasing its food and raw materials holdings. It is prepared to apply a tourniquet to food production and export supplies, not only to poor nations, but to advanced sector nations as well.

The use of food as a weapon can be found at least four millennia ago in Babylon. Imperial Rome took this tack, as did Venice and various Venetian offshoots, including the Antwerp-centered, powerful Burgundian duchy, and the Dutch and British Levant companies, East India companies, and West India companies. Today, food warfare is firmly under the control of London, with the help of subordinate partners in especially Switzerland and Amsterdam. Today's food companies were created by having had a section of this ancient set of Mesopotamian-Roman-Venetian-British food networks and infrastructure carved out for them.

The Windsor-led oligarchy has built up a single, integrated raw materials cartel, with three divisions—energy, raw materials and minerals, and increasingly scarce food supplies. Figure 1 represents the situation. At the top is the House of Windsor and Club of the Isles. Right below are two of the principal appurtenances of the House of Windsor: the World Wide Fund for Nature, headed by the Doge of London, Prince Philip, which leads the world in orchestration of ethnic conflict and terrorism, such as the British-created afghansi movement; and British intelligence's Hollinger Corp. of Conrad Black, which is leading the assault to destroy Bill Clinton and the American Presidency.

The firms within each cartel group are listed. While they maintain the legal fiction of being different corporate organizations, in reality this is one interlocking syndicate, with a common purpose and multiple overlapping boards of directors. The Windsor-centered oligarchy owns these cartels, and they are the instruments of power of the oligarchy, accumulated over centuries, for breaking nations' sovereignty.

The control works as follows: The oligarchy has developed four regions to be the principal exporters of almost every type of food; the oligarchy has historically acquired top-down control over the food chain in these regions. These four regions are: the United States; the European Union, particularly France and Germany; the British Commonwealth nations of Australia, Canada, the Republic of South Africa, and New Zealand; and Argentina and Brazil in Ibero-America. Through the centuries, the oligarchy has taken control of these regions' markets, and thus over the world food supply. These four regions have a population of, at most, 900 million people, or 15% of the world's population. The rest of the world, with 85% of the population—4.7 billion people—is dependent on the food exports from those regions.

British food cartel control intensified after World War II. Regions such as America had long been seen as important areas in which to increase control, in order to maintain the cartel's global domination, especially around the turn of the twentieth century when Minneapolis, under the control of the Pillsbury and Peavey families, replaced Hungary as the world's major miller of grain. But before World War II, the amount of grain that crossed borders, or oceans, seldom exceeded 30 million tons a year. America's share of that was usually 10 million tons or less. This was a substantial amount, but small compared to the levels of trade that would follow. World War II ravaged the globe, creating mass hunger, especially in Europe and what is today the Third World. Under the impetus of American programs such as "Food for Peace," PL 480, the worldwide trade in grain shot up to 160 million tons by 1979. Today it is 215 million tons per year. In addition, tens of millions of tons of other foodstuffs, from meat to dairy, are traded each year.

It is proper for countries with grain, meat, dairy, and other surpluses to export them. But the cartel's four exporting regions were given preeminence in a brutal manner, while much of the rest of the world was thrust into enforced backwardness. The oligarchy denied these nations seed, fertilizer, water management, electricity, rail transportation, that is, all the infrastructural and capital goods inputs needed to turn them into self-sufficient food producers. These nations were reduced to the status of vassals: Either import from the cartel's export regions, or starve.

Meanwhile, the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss food cartel reduced the export regions, which supposedly enjoy favored status, to a state of servitude as well. During the last two decades, millions of farmers in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and Argentina have been wiped out. For example, in 1982, the United States still had 600,000 independent hog farmers. Today, that number is less than 225,000. The food cartel companies have concentrated hog production into their own hands. Farmers were paid far below a parity price, i.e., a price that covers costs of agricultural production plus a fair profit for investment in future production.

In 1983, Robert Bergland, President Jimmy Carter's agriculture secretary in 1976-80, told an interviewer concerning Cargill, the world's largest grain company: "Cargill's view is ... [that] they generally regard the United States as a grain colony." Bergland continued, "When [in 1979] the Russians invaded Afghanistan and Jimmy Carter asked how much grain the Russians had bought [from the United States] ... we couldn't tell him because we didn't know." But Cargill and the other grain cartel companies knew. In 1976, when Cargill, Continental, and other grain cartel companies sold the Russians a record 12.4 million tons of American and Canadian grain (creating a grain shortage in the United States), the administration of President Gerald Ford learned of the sales only after the fact. The grain may have been American grown, but the Anglo-Dutch-Swiss cartel disposes of it as it pleases.

This article will document, for the first time, the extent of concentration and control that the British-centered raw materials cartel exercises over both the international and domestic trade in food. It will look at the food cartel's international and domestic control of grains, milk, edible oils and fats, and meat. The article which follows provides a more detailed profile, with names and addresses, of the key forces in the cartel's control of the world's food supply.

Concentration in four food groups
Grains and grain products, milk and dairy products, edible oils and fats, and meat provide the majority of the intake of calories, as well as proteins and vitamins, which keeps the human species alive. Grain and grain products can be consumed as animal feed (especially corn and oats), and directly for human consumption, sometimes in grain form (the case of rice or barley), but often in a milled form, such as in bread and tortillas.

The "Big Six" leading grain cartel companies are: Minneapolis- and Geneva-based Cargill; New York-based Continental; Paris-based Louis Dreyfus; São Paulo, Brazil- and Netherlands, Antilles-based Bunge and Born; Lausanne, Switzerland-based André; and Illinois- and Hamburg, Germany-based Archer Daniels Midland/Töpfer. The first five of the companies are privately owned and run by billionaire families. They issue no public stock, nor annual report. They are more secretive than any oil company, bank, or government intelligence service. Just two of these companies, Cargill and Continental, control 45-50% of the world's grain trade.

(article continues at source link)

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline bs

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Check the titles of the books behind his inbred head!

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!
^ ^ ^

Woah... did you see, Must We Mean What We Say?

 ... a nice summer read for the liers club.
St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline bs

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
^ ^ ^

Woah... did you see, Must We Mean What We Say?

 ... a nice summer read for the liers club.
Im sure "the difficulty of tolerance" is a Family must!

Online donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,965
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!

"Buried By The Times" and "Black Markets" caught my eye immediately... :o
Please visit my website:

Offline adissenter2

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,044
  • Revolt Time
good catch, I wonder what his purpose of reading that book was for... maybe to learn from the tactics and to expound upon them?
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Molon Labe! Come and take them!

Offline EchelonMonitor

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,934
    • Infowars Ning Network--upload your photos for posting in the forum

Goyim don't need health care.

Offline bs

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
They need wealth care! :)

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Germany's Socialized Medicine

1. German Psychiatry
The participation of physicians, especially psychiatrists, in the Holocaust is unprecedented in history. The crimes of German Psychiatry are unique and unprecedented in the history of mankind. The mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals was prepared and preceded by the medicalized mass murder of mental patients.

2. Prior to the Nazis Period
Long before the Nazis came to power psychiatrists in Germany referred to their "patients" in an inhuman manner, and consequently argued for and used inhuman methods of "treatment".
Emil Kraeplin, 1918: "An absolute ruler who unscrupulously interfered with human habits would, without any doubt, and in the course of only a few decades, effect a decline in memtal debility".
In 1931, Hermann Simon, director of the Anstalt (mental institution) in Gütersloh, precisely defined those categories of people deemed to be inferior. These included: the physically ill, the invalid, the weak, the imbecile, the crippled, and the insane. Simon concludes: "Some must die".
Ernset Rüdin, 1934: "The psychiatrist and healthy people are allies against the genetically defect. The psychiatrist must render his service in the furtherance of a hereditary pure, able and superior race."
Rüdin, who regarded compulsory sterilization as the "most humane act of mankind", says in 1934 about Hitler: "Only Adolf Hitler's political work made it possible to raise and strengthen people's awareness of the meaning and importance of the purity of race. Our dream, which we have had for the past 30 years, has finally become reality."

"The Nazis did not need German Psychiatry, German Psychiatry needed the Nazis." (Ernst Klee)

3. Chronological Table
30.01.1933    Appointment of Hitler as "Reichskanzler".
22.03.1933    Opening of Dachau, the first concentration camp.
24.03.1933    Passing of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz". Hitler aquires unrestrictive power.
14.07.1933    Passing of the "Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses" (Law to prevent hereditary disease).
Between 1934 and 1939 circa 400,000 persons were sterilised.
18.10.1935    Passing of the "Gesetz zum Schutz der Erbgesundheit des Deutschen Volks" ("Ehegesundheitsgesetz") (Law to protect the genetic health of the German Nation (Marriage Health Law)).
1.09.1939    German troops invade Poland. Start of World War II.
1.09.1939    Decree to end sterilisation.
1.09.1939    Hitler personally signs the "Euthanasie-Erlaß" (Euthanasia Decree)
September 1939    Murder of patients in Polish psychiatric institutions.
October - December 1939    Beginning of "Aktion T 4"
· Founding of the central organization (Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft Heil- und Pflegeanstalten, gemeinnützige Krankentransportgesellschaft, gemeinnützige Stiftung für Anstaltspflege, Zentralverrechnungsstelle Heil- und Pflegeanstalten), located at Tiergartenstraße 4, in Berlin.
· Reporting to Berlin of all hospitalised patients.
· Establishment of the killing machinery in six psychiatric hospitals.
End of 1939 - 24.08.1941    Murder of 70,000 psychiatric patients within the German Reich.
15.01.1940    Decree to report all Jewish patients, and the beginning of their killing after transferral to psychiatric institutions in the "Generalgouvernement" Poland (primarily Cholm near Lublin).
1940    Beginning of the establishment of 21 children's units.
By 1945 circa 10,000 children and youths were murdered in these.
24.08.1941    Conclusion of "Aktion T 4".
17.11.1942    Introduction of the "Hungerkost" (Starvation Diet) in many Reich institutions.
Circa 90,000 people died as a result of this.
6.04.1944    Decree to establish "Ostarbeiter-Sammelstellen" (units for forced labour from east European countries) in 11 psychiatric institutions.
Beginning of the killing of the "useless" forced labourers.
1942 - 1945    Time of the "wilde Euthanasie" (wild euthanasia).
In circa 15 institutions special wards were installed. Here patients were mainly killed with Luminal and Morphium-Scopolamin injections.

4. Action T 4
On 1st September 1939, the "Ethanasieerlaß" (Euthanasia Decree) was disclosed to the directors of psychiatric institutions inside Germany's prewar boundaries. The directors were ordered to send a registration form for each patient to a specifically created administration in Berlin, in order to ascertain if the patient fulfilled the necessary criteria for death. A group of well-know psychiatrists was appointed as "T 4 Gutachter" (T 4 Experts), who re-examined the registration forms. One group of experts travelled from institution to institution in order to check the completeness and correctness of the reports, especially with those few institution directors who tried to delay the reports.

Six institutions within Germany's prewar boundaries were emptied of their patients and gas chambers were installed. A transport company, specially founded for this purpose, brought the selected patients from the psychiatric hospitals to the extermination institutions, mostly in groups of 40 to 120 patients. Immediately on arrival the patients were undressed, photographed, numbered with a stamp on the shoulder or arm, briefly seen by a doctor who checked their identity by means of a file, whereupon they were led into the gas chamber. Carbon Monoxide was introduced into the chamber while a doctor observed through a window.
After death gold teeth were extracted and the bodies burned in crematoriums. Relatives received a report that the person concerned had died of an illness.

It was not possible to keep these proceedings secret. The staff of the hospitals of origin as well as relatives soon became aware of the fate of the patients. There were relatives who protested, and there were staff of hospitals who advised relatives to take patients home in order to save them from this fate. Thereby, a few were able to be rescued from death.
A total of 70,273 people were killed in these six institutions.
Due to increasing public criticism, and for organizational reasons, this action was terminated by a decree on 24th August 1941.

5. Euthanasia of Children


"...möchte ich Sie noch höflichst bitten, mir folgende Fragen zu beantworten:", Beate Passow, 1996.
"...I want to most courteously ask you to answer the following questions:", Beate Passow, 1996.

Children were excluded from Aktion T 4, but by October 1939 a special children's unit was established in Görden, where the killing of children began. After the termination of "Euthanasia Aktion T 4" in August 1941, the euthanasia of children was systematically developed. At least 21 special units were established within Germany's prewar boundaries. The directors of the units were authorised to kill children. Children were transferred to these wards from hospitals and welfare organisations who selected them for the euthanasia programme. They were then transferred to special units after approval by the Central Organisation in Berlin. Children were transferred to these special wards as "observation cases". The doctor responsible then made a report, by which the central office in Berlin decided if the child should continue to be observed, or killed. The latter were given Luminal in tablet form, or mixed with food, wherupon they became unconscious and died after two to five days. Sometimes Morphium Scopolamin was injected.
Circa 5,000 children were killed within Germany's prewar boundaries, for example in Bavaria 695 children were killed.

This programme was scientifically promoted and organised by the universities.
The resistance of psychiatrists to this programme was strongest. So many left their appointments that there became a shortage of doctors. In June 1943 the professors Rüdin, De Crinis, Carl Schneider, Heinze and Nitsche sent a memorandum to the "Generalkommissar des Führers für das Sanitäts- und Gesundheitswesen", Professor Karl Brandt, which contains the following sentence: "There has been an exodus of capable doctors from Psychiatry into other medical areas."

The mentally handicapped, who were systematically murdered by the Nazis during the war as they were considered to be a burden to society, and not regarded as being worthy of life, are amoung the most frequently "forgotten" victims of national socialism.
Mentally handicapped Jews were especially vulnerable as they had no chance of emigrating.
Such an example in Hamburg was the treatment of handicapped patients in the Alsterdorf Institution. From 1937 onward, Pastor Lensch, the head of the institution, attempted not to admit any more Jewish patients, and to quickly transfer the more than 20 Jewish patients already living in the institution to other mental institutions. He later justified this policy by alleging that the charitable status of the institution was threatened. This was a pretext as the Hamburg authorities wanted to accommodate mentally handicapped patients in Alsterdorf at this time.
On 31st October 1938, 16 Jewish mentally handicapped patients were deported to the state-run Langenhorn institution, and further patients soon followed them there, or were transferred to other state-run institutions such as that in Farmsen.
On 23rd September 1940, the first 150 Jewish patients were deported to Langenhorn nursing home and murdered there. This was referred to as "euthenasia". Amoung those murdered were patients who had been expelled from the Alsterdorf Institution.
A total of over 3,000 handicapped people from Hamburg were murdered in this way during the war.

The Evangelische Stiftung Alsterdorf has since confronted itself with its history during the Nazi period, and has erected a memorial to the deported victims, of whom many were non-Jews, in the institution's entrance at No. 3 Dorothea-Kasten-Straße, 22297 Alsterdorf.

6. Death by Starvation
On 15th November 1942 a conference of directors of all Bavarian psychiatric hospitals was held in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior. After the war, a participant of this conference reported the following to the American investigating authorities:
"In November 1942 the medical directors of all Bavarian psychiatric hospitals were summonded, by secret letter, to the Health Department of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior in Munich. The meeting was immediately declared secret. The directors had to justify the number of deaths in their institutions, which had risen in number due to starvation and tuberculosis. Despite this, the chairman explained that far too few patients were dying, and that it was not necessary to treat arising illnesses.
The director of the Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Kaufbeuren gave a short explanation of his personal procedure. Initially, he had been opposed to euthanasia, but when he learnt of the official statistics, he regretted that euthanasia had been stopped. He now gave patients in his institution, that would have formerly come within the euthanasia programme, a completely fat-free diet; he especially stressed fat-free. The patients died of famine edema within three months. He recommended this procedure to all institutions as being what was called for.
The chairman accepted this recommendation, and gave the immediate order that this "starvation diet" be put into practice in all institutions. There was to be no written order, but it would be checked whether the order had been followed or not."

The starvation diet was introduced in many hospitals, first in Bavaria, and later nationwide.
Around 90,000 people died either directly as a result of the starvation diet, or indirectly from a starvation induced illness, mainly tuberculosis.

7. Human Experiments
It is only in recent years that it has come to light that "medical" experiments on humans were also performed in psychiatric institutions. To this date little is known of these experiments. It is also still unclear what the purpose of the I.G. Farben laboratories were, which were installed in many psychiatric institutions.
At the beginning of the 1990s, G. Schaltenbrand's experiments were discussed again. In 1940, in the Werneck psychiatric hospital, he had injected chronic mentally ill patients intradernally and cisternally with spinal fluid from apes, the latter having been previously injected with spinal fluid from multiple sclerosis patients.

8. Forced Labourers in Psychiatry
On 6th September 1944 the Reichsminister of the Interior ordered the establishment of special units for "Ostarbeiter" (labourers from Eastern Europe) in several psychiatric hospitals in the Reich. The reason given was that: "With the considerable number of "Ostarbeiter" and Poles who have been brought to the German Reich as a labour force, their admission into German psychiatric hospitals as mentally ill patients has become more frequent ...
With the shortage of space in German hospitals, it is irresponsible to treat these ill people, who in the foreseeable future will not be fit for work, for a prolonged period in German institutions."

The exact number of "Ostarbeiter" killed in these psychiatric institutions is as yet not known.
189 "Ostarbeiter" were admitted to the "Ostarbeiter" unit of the Heil- und Pflegeanstalt Kaufbeuren; 49 died as a result of the starvation diet, or from deadly injections.

9. The Psychiatrists
These were:
1. Doctors who were active in and primarily responsible for the different euthanasia organisations.
They directed and administered the different euthanasia programmes.
2. The T 4 Experts, psychiatrists in positions of responsibility, mostly clinic directors, who observed and controlled the selection of those to be killed. They advised those who were primarily responsible, and themselves determined killings and carried them out.
3. Numerous doctors in universities, who laid the scientific foundations of the euthanasia programme and used its victims for scientific purposes.
4. Psychiatrists in institutions involved with these actions and who carried them out with conviction by sending the registrations to Berlin, making transferrals to killing institutions, and participating in killings.
There were also:
1. Psychiatrists who refused to participate in the euthanasia programmes, and who withdrew, were transferred, or retired.
2. Some psychiatrists who secretly tried to save patients, who delayed registration, who did not introduce the starvation diet, etc.
3. Some psychiatrists who actively and openly protested.
This protest did not provoke any disadvantageous consequences.

10. Post-Nazi Death by Starvation
On 28th April 1945, the day of liberation, the Brandenburg Anstalt (mental institution) Teupitz, accommodated 600 inmates. By the end of October, the number had declined to a mere 54.
At the Saxon Anstalt (mental institution) Altscherbitz, more people died in 1945 than during Nazi times. The mortality rate in 1945 was 36·5%, i.e. 838 people. In 1947, the rate rose to 38%, i.e. 887 people.
At the Saxon Anstalt (mental institution) Großschweidnitz, 1,012 inmates died in May 1945 alone.
At the Wurttemberg Anstalt (mental institution) Zwiefalten, the mortality rate in 1945 was 46·5%, double what it was in 1944.
At the Pommeranian Anstalt (mental institution) Ueckermünde, the mortality rate in 1945 was 55%.
At the Anstalt (mental institution) Bernburg/Saale, in 1945 the mortality rate doubled.
During Nazi times Schloß Hoym (Hoym Castle), in Saxony, functioned as a "killing institution" for so-called psychiatric patients in need of constant care. Again mass dying only started after liberation. In 1945 it housed 500 inmates, however the "average demand for coffins" was not less than 250.
At the North Rhine-Westphalia Anstalt (mental institution) Düsseldorf-Grafenberg, the mortality rate between 1946 and 1947 was 55%. In 1948/49 it was still 30%. Prior to Nazi times, the Grafenberg mental institution supplied the pharmaceutical company Bayer-Elberfeld with "test objects" for their anti-malaria research.

Heinz Faulstich was one of the first psychiatrists to document murder by starvation. He gives a minimum number of 20,000 deaths due to starvation in the post-war period. It is impossible to obtain an exact number as many of the relevant asylums and homes have destroyed data and relevant documents.

There is one exception: staff of the Wittenauer Heilstätten, in Berlin, have critically investigated and assessed the historical role of their clinic. Between 1938 and the end of the war, on 24th April 1945, 4,607 patients were killed, usually within 20 days of admittance. After liberation 2,500 people were newly admitted, and 1,400 patients "died" within the same year, i.e. around 55%. In 1957, the institution was renamed the Karl Bonhoeffer Clinic of Neurology. Bonhoeffer played a key part in the "sterilization of the mentally inferior", and, like many others, did so voluntarily. Despite retirement he continued to work for the racial sterilization courts. In December 1941 he examined a Jewish "Mischling" ("half-cast"), who had once been admitted to a psychiatric unit 14 years previously. The NS-Erbgesundheitsgericht (the Court for the Protection of German Blood and Honour) itself hesitated in condemning, as the examined individual showed no symptoms of disease, and worked normally. Nevertheless, Bonhoeffer advised sterilization.

The forcibly sterilized were victims of Nazi Germany's racial policies. However, their victim status has never been legally accepted, thereby preventing these people from being able to claim compensation. They are solely dependent on social support.

The perpetrators were able to further their careers after the war. Further, they shamelessly acted as experts and consultants in cases for compensation, deriding their victims further by declaring that, considering their "inferiority", no signs of emotional damage could be established. One of the most honoured and respected psychiatrists in post-war Germany was Professor Helmut E. Ehrhardt, from 1937 onward member of the NSDAP (National Socialist Workers Party), i.e. the Nazi Party, and professor of Forensic and Social Medicine in Marburg. Ehrhardt frequently functioned as a "whitewasher" of Nazi Psychiatry. He gave his expert opinion to the Federal Ministry of Finance: "To regulate compensation claims of those sterilized would, in most cases, only lead to derision, and could not justify the real thought behind reparation." Ehrhardt was awarded the Paracelsus Medal, the highest honour of the German medical profession. He was also a member of the Mental Health Advisory Board of the World Health Organisation, the Ethical Committee, and the Forensic Section of the World Federation of Psychiatry, of which he eventually became honorary member.

In 1946, the Viennese Professor of Psychiatry, Otto Plötzl, gave medical evidence that poisoning was a particularly humane form of killing because people "slowly drifted" into death. The Viennese forensic medical expert, Leopold Breitenecker, voiced a similar opinion when, in 1967, he said: "Death by gas is one of the most humane forms of death imaginable." Breitenecker was asked to examine Aquilin in testimonies against medical doctors responsible for gassings. Founder of the Austrian Association of Forensic Medicine, he was a member of various ethical committees.

Psychiatrist's protection of their murderous colleagues has always taken priority over the suffering of their victims. This is the only explanation of how Werner Heyde, Professor of Psychiatry and head of gasings was able to practice under the false name of Dr Sawade, and act as an expert for claims of compensation. This is inconceivable without the knowledge of his colleagues.

Protection lasted until death:
  • Lower Saxony's General Medical Council's obituary for Dr Klaus Endruweit, responsible for the gassings at the Anstalt (mental institution) Sonnenstein, in Pirna, states: "We will honour and remember him".
  • The obituary notice of the clinic in Wunstorf for Heinz Heinze, former director of the largest institution for the homicide of children states: "In honoured commemoration".
  • The obituary notice of Kiel University for Professor Werner Catel, who conducted the mass murder of children reads: "he contributed in many ways, to the welfare and well-being of sick children".
  • The obituary notice of the Düsseldorf University Clinic of Psychiatry for Professor Friedrich Panse culmnates with: "A life in the service of suffering people ... is completed". Panse was a T4- advisor who "expertly guided" patients into the gas chambers.

Until today, the perpetrators of these crimes are treated more sympathetically than their victims.
"Those who honour the perpetrators of these crimes kill their victims a second time." (Ernst Klee)

Klee, Ernst: Auschwitz, die NS- Medizin und ihre Opfer, S. Fischer, 1997
Klee, Ernst: Dokumente zur Euthanasie, Fischer
Klee, Ernst: Euthanasie im NS- Staat. Die Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens, Fischer, 1985
Klee, Ernst: "Schöne Zeiten", Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer, Fischer, 1988
Im Memoriam, Catalogue to the Exhibition commemorating the victims of the Nazi Euthanasia Programme on the occasion of the XI World Congress of Psychiatry/Hamburg, 1999.
Faulstich, Heinz: Hungersterben in der Psychiatrie 1914-1949. Mit einer Topographie der NS- Psychatrie. Lambertus, 1997.
Leibbrand, W.: Um die Menschenrechte der Geisteskranken, Verlag Die Egge, Rudolf Tauer Nürnberg, 1946.
Mitscherlich, A. und Mielke, F.: Medizin ohne Menschlichkeit, Dokumente des Nürnberger Ärzteprozesses, Fischer Bücherei KG, Frankfurt an Main und Hamburg, 1960.
Dörner, D./Haerlin, C./Rau, V./Schernus, R./Schwendy, A.: Der Krieg gegen die psychisch Kranken, Nach "Holocaust": Erkennen-Trauern-Begegnen, Rehburg-Loccum: Psychiatrie Verlag, 1980.
Schmidt, G.: selektion in der Heilanstalt 1939-1945, suhrkamp taschenbuch, 1943.
Finzen, A.: Auf dem Dienstweg, Die Verstrickung einer Anstalt in die Tötung psychisch Kranker, Rehburg-Loccum: Psychiatrie Verlag, 1983.
Seidel, R./Werner, W.F.: Psychiatrie im Abgrund, Spurensuche und Standortbestimmung nach den NS-Psychiatrie-Verbrechen, Rheinland-Verlag GmbH, Köln, 1991.
Hinterhuber, H.: Ermordet und Vergessen, Nationalsozialistische Verbrechen an psychisch Kranken und Behinderten, VIP.Verlag, Innsbruck-Wien, 1995.
Faulstich, H.: Hungersterben in der Psychiatrie 1914-1949, Mit einer Topographie der NS-Psychiatrie, Lambertus-Verlag, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1998.
Cranach, M. von und Siemen, H.L.: Psychiatrie im Nationalsozialismus, Die Bayerischen Heil- und Pflegeanstalten zwischen 1933 und 1945, R. Oldenbourg Verlag München, 1999.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Nazi Euthanasia Program: Forerunner of Obama's Death Council

by Anton Chaitkin

    At his trial in front of the American National Military Tribunal in 1947, Karl Brandt, Hitler's escort physician and later a leading euthanasia operative, testified that, sometime in 1935, Hitler had informed Reich Health Leader Gerhard Wagner of his intention to implement euthanasia of the mentally disabled once war had begun. According to Brandt, Hitler believed the opposition to euthanasia from church circles would be less pronounced during war than in peacetime.

    —Michael S. Bryant, Confronting the Good Death: Nazi Euthanasia on Trial, 1945-1953 (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2005)

    The world economy is teetering ... With trillions of dollars evaporating in this crisis, millions of middle-class Americans face the prospect of losing their homes and jobs, and witnessing a dramatic contraction of their retirement savings. In response, the public will desperately want financial security.... Bailing out bankers and other gamblers [and the] huge increase in the federal debt that these bailouts will entail intensifies the pressure to rein in health-care costs....

    The dean of health-care economists, Victor Fuchs of Stanford, has long maintained that we will get health-care reform only when there is a war, a depression or some other major civil unrest. It's beginning to look like we might just have all three....

    —Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, "The Financial Crisis and Health Care," the Chicago Tribune, Oct. 12, 2008

When Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel wrote those words, he was chair of the Department of Bioethics (euthanasia education) at the United States Institutes of Health. Today he is President Obama's leading representative on a Federal "death council" drawing up a list of medical procedures to be used to deny care to elderly, chronically ill, and poor people, whose lives are considered of less value. Ezekiel's brother, Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, is ramming this Nazi-revival policy through Congress.

The President beat the drums on May 11, after meeting with private insurance companies, saying that because of the financial crisis, $2 trillion must be cut from American health-care spending. The companies promised to help him shut down more "costly" treatments, which typically prolong life.

The Nuremberg Precedent

In the Medical Case conducted from October 1946 to August 1947 as part of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the United States charged Nazi officials and doctors with mass killing of patients in the euthanasia ("mercy death") program. Among the defendants, Hitler's personal physician Karl Brandt created the organization for killing crippled children, and as National Health Commissioner ordered the murder of mental patients throughout the country. Viktor Brack, a member of Hitler's Personal Chancellery, carried out the Hitler-Brandt "Aktion T-4" euthanasia program that trained the doctors in genocide; then he assigned Tiergarten-4 euthanasia personnel to work on the gas chambers for the extermination of Jews. Brandt and Brack were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity and executed on June 2, 1948.

The U.S. National Military Tribunal identified as a prime motive of the euthanasia program, "to eliminate 'useless eaters' from the scene, in order to conserve food, hospital facilities, doctors and nurses for the more important use of the German armed forces."

That euthanasia program, and the rise to power of the Nazi regime that perpetrated it, had been sold to a population frantic from economic collapse and predisposed, from years of propaganda by the eugenics/euthanasia movement, to consider some lives unworthy to be lived.

After World War II, London and Wall Street supporters of Hitler's program continued the eugenics/euthanasia movement and spread it globally. Under names including "bioethics," this movement has prepared public opinion, medical education, and government policy to discard the notion of the sanctity of human life that holds our civilization together.

German advocates of eugenics (a crackpot notion of hereditary superiority and inferiority), law professor Karl Binding and psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche, had written a sensational 1920 pamphlet, The Permission To Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, a prime theoretical basis for the Nazi genocide. Binding and Hoche argued that society should cast aside the "obsolete" Hippocratic Oath, that binds doctors to do no harm to patients and commits them to consider only the patient's welfare.

Obama advisor Ezekiel Emanuel likewise suggested that the Hippocratic Oath ought to be junked to cut costs, in an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008.

    Medical school education ... emphasize thoroughness," he wrote. Doctors "are trained to identify and praised for ... enumerating all possible diagnoses and tests that would confirm or exclude them.... Peer recognition goes to the most thorough and aggressive physicians.... This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically, the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.

The $2 trillion health-care cuts, now demanded by Obama and the financiers, were previously promoted in a speech by Dr. Gerhard Wagner, head of the Nazi organization for physicians, at the Sept. 8-14, 1936 Nazi Party rally at Nuremberg:

    The millions and billions that we have spent ... for care of the genetically ill, is a squandering of our national resources that we National Socialists cannot justify when we consider the needs of the healthy population. Healthy working class families with numerous children today earn only enough for the necessities of life, which means that it is irresponsible that the state must provide the money for some genetically ill families who may have several family members in institutions costing thousands of marks annually....

The previous year, Hitler had told this same Dr. Wagner, that the doctors, primed for murder through the eugenics/euthanasia movement, would have to wait for the crisis of the war to convince the public to give up their moral principles—the identical point made by Ezekiel Emanuel in October 2008.

Behind the Nazi Health Reform

The death-lobby movement whose propaganda supports the program of Obama and Ezekiel Emanuel, originated with eugenics founder Sir Francis Galton, and Thomas Huxley, Arthur Balfour, and other late-19th-Century British Empire strategists of a new dark age. They spread this filth among Anglophiles in Germany and the United States.

Galton's British eugenics movement opened its German branch in 1904, as the Society for Race Hygiene, and its U.S. branch in 1910, as the Eugenics Records Office. The movement operated internationally under Galton's direct leadership, and held world Eugenics Congresses in 1912 (London), 1922 (New York), and 1932 (New York).

The last Congress made Nazi race theorist Ernst Rudin president of the International Federation of Eugenics Societies. Rudin ran Nazi eugenics work in Germany at the Rockefeller Foundation's Kaiser Wlihelm Insitute for Anthopology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. After Hitler took power in 1933, Rudin and his followers—with Rockefeller money—shaped the entire Nazi race genocide program, beginning with sterilization and then, euthanasia of "costly patients." Rudin's men ran the medical experiments on Jewish death camp inmates.

Since, as Hitler noted, the German population was still resistant to euthanasia, the British leaders of the movement acted to break down the resistance globally, with the founding of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society in 1935, and a U.S. branch in London's movement cheered on the German program as the sterilization and killing escalated.

After the war, with corpses still smoking in Europe, the eugenics/euthanasia movement laid low for a time, inventing new names for itself such as "social biology" and "the right to die."

The British royal family, whose palace physicians such as Lord Thomas Jeeves Horder had officially run the eugenics/euthanasia movement all through the Hitler era, now teamed with their Wall Street moneybags to retool the movement behind population reduction, especially for non-white peoples.

This led to the initiative known as Bioethics (whose U.S. government chief in recent years has been Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel), and to the Obama "death council"—the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, of which Dr. Emanuel is a leading member.

A few highlights will suffice to show the nature of the beast.

    * The American Eugenics Society merged with, and moved its offices into the headquarters of the Rockefeller family's new Population Council in 1953.
    * A eugenics zealot in the Ernst Rudin tradition, Daniel Callahan, got a Population Council grant and continual Rockefeller family sponsorship in 1968-69 to found the Hastings Center, in Garrison, N.Y., to push euthanasia under the new title, "Bioethics."
    * Geneticist and evolutionary biologist Theodore Dobzhansky was simultaneously a founding director of the Hastings Center and chairman of the American Eugenics Society. Hastings founder Callahan became a director of the Eugenics Society.
    * The Hastings Center is now headquarters for the Obama reform agenda, still under the active leadership of emeritus president Callahan, the Hitlerian eugenist.
    * Peter Orszag, now the White House Budget Director, sent his deputy Philip Ellis to Hastings last May to assure the Center that "comparative effectiveness" would be the criterion for an Obama Administration's attack on respect for human life.
    * Regular Hastings writer Henry J. Aaron has now penned a demand for tough adherence to the comparative effectiveness doctrine. Aaron is Orszag's fellow "behavioral economist" and was Orszag's partner on the Brookings Institution team for taking down medical care and Social Security. Regular Hastings writer Anthony Culyer is research director for the British Crown's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) the model for the Obama-Emanuel "death council." NICE runs the rationing that has already killed thousands under Britain's National Health Service.
    * Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, as is his former wife and longtime bioethics collaborator, Linda Emanuel. She set up and ran the death education initiative for the American Medical Association, sponsored by George Soros's Project on Death in America.
    * Ezekiel Emanuel's deputy director of the Federal Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is a director of the Hastings Center and a Hastings fellow.
    * Animal liberation guru Peter Singer is no doubt the most famous Hastings Center fellow, and founding president of the International Association of Bioethics. Singer advocates the killing of handicapped infants, to stop them from being a burden to parents and a cost to society. He believes that humans have no right to life above that of beasts, and that it may be more appropriate to do medical experiments on disabled, unconscious people than on healthy rats.
    * In 1980, Britain's Voluntary Euthanasia Society founded the World Federation of Right to Die Societies. They sent London Times reporter Derek Humphrey to America, to found the Hemlock Society for euthanasia and suicide.

The eugenics/euthanasia movement has now hammered the public for decades to give up their humanity and accept Hitler's point of view, for example, to assent to the demand that old people die now, to make way for others. The "debate" over this crime is sanitized by movement leaders, such as when, according to Ian Dowbiggin:

    Ezekiel Emanuel argues that ... a third of Americans endorse legalization under a wide variety of circumstances, a third oppose it under any circumstances, and a third support it in isolated cases but oppose it under most circumstances.

    (Ian Dowbiggin, in A Merciful End: the Euthanasia Movement in Modern America).

Emanuel and some other movement spokesmen have stated that physician-assisted suicide is not necessary, that life-saving care can simply be denied to the elderly and costs will be saved. This will be painless, supposedly, if the patient is unconscious and is starved to death—starvation being one of the first methods used by the Nazi T-4 killers before gassing was adopted.

In line with the central euthanasia administration of the Hitler regime, Obama's health-care advisors want to set up a "non-political" structure which would decide the parameters on who should live, and who should die.

In his 2008 book, Healthcare, Guaranteed, Dr. Emanuel calls for an independent National Health Board to oversee and cut health care in America, and to approve all payments and procedures. "To reduce political interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made," Emanuel says, this board must be insulated from "pressure" by elected officials such as Congress or the President, and must get funding independently of Congressional appropriations. The board's life-or-death decisions would proceed without possibility of objection from victims or voters.

Emanuel's plan is a virtual carbon copy of that put forward by former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.)—originally slated to be Obama's health czar—in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis. Daschle demands the equivalent of the Federal Reserve Board, to be run just as the private financiers run the Federal Reserve. Daschle calls for a rule, that all who register for Medicare must sign a document outlining the degree to which they consent to be killed in an "end of life" situation.

Dr. Emanuel and the other 14 members of the Obama Administration's death council were confronted by this author at their June 10 public hearing in Washington. I concluded my testimony:

    You on the Council are drawing up the procedure list to be used to deny care, which will kill millions if it goes ahead in the present world crash. You think, perhaps, that the backing of powerful men—financiers—will shield you from accountability. But you are now in the spotlight. Disband this Council, and reverse the whole course of this Nazi revival—now.    

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Obama Administrations Nazi Eugenics Policy blown wide open on Public TV
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
As if it had gone anywhere.

As the world moves further into economic chaos, eugenics, an old idea cloaked under modern terminology, is making a comeback. During these times it is easy to see how a resurgence and re-packaging of eugenics could come about. Do you have more than two children? Your carbon footprint has been deemed unacceptable. Your economic burden on society cannot be tolerated during unprecedented economic times. The growing population of elderly individuals will be an incredible burden on a faltering system, we are told. Some governmental think tanks see younger generations pursuing euthanasia policies as an option.

Eugenics "went underground" after WWII, but continued under the guise of population control and environmentalism, proceeding partly with the aid of Rockefeller family wealth. Rather than focus on "quality control" the emphasis was on "quantity control". One of the first books to tie these ideas together post-WWII, titled Our Plundered Planet, was written by Fairfield Osborn, who in 1921 served as the President of the Second International Congress of Eugenics in New York.

Today, we see calls for one or two child policies to be implemented to fight global warming. The Times recently reported, "Couples who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has warned." The Times article reports that Jonathon Porritt, who directs the United Kingdom's Sustainable Development Commission, is calling for abortion and contraception to fight global warming.

The economic hardship that the world faces is also creating a climate favorable to population and eugenic policies. House speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated that family planning services are a must during these economic times. Pelosi says,

    "Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."

One of President Obama's first decisions after being sworn into office included the reversal of Ronald Reagan's ban on United States funding of international family planning groups that provide abortion services. The issue of abortion has been consistently used as a political football to maintain the theatre of the two party system, but the practice remains at the heart of Rockefeller-sponsored population control directives.

In 2007 The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense released The DCDC Global Strategic Trends Program 2007-2036 report. The report outlines a grim economic future of middle class rebellion amidst falling standards of living, brain chips, and other forecasts. One scenario in particular states that youth in western societies could see the growing elderly population as a burden, opening the doorway to euthanasia. The report states,

    "Declining youth populations in Western societies could become increasingly dissatisfied with their economically burdensome ‘baby-boomer’ elders, among whom much of societies’ wealth would be concentrated. Resentful at a generation whose values appear to be out of step with tightening resource constraints, the young might seek a return to an order provided by more conservative values and structures. This could lead to a civic renaissance, with strict penalties for those failing to fulfil their social obligations. It might also open the way to policies which permit euthanasia as a means to reduce the burden of care for the elderly."

The growing economic crisis, and numerous other crises both real and manufactured, will be held as an example of the need for a new army of social workers and bureaucracy to manage the affairs of average men and women. Among all of the other proposals that the elite are throwing at us to "fix" these problems, such as world governance, the scenario outlined by the DCDC report and other population control proposals could become a reality.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
U.S. eugenics legacy: Ruling on Buck sterilization still stands
By Michael A. Schwarz, USA TODAY

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. — Paul Lombardo hadn't planned on a three-decade detour when he stopped at a greasy-spoon restaurant for breakfast in February 1980. Lombardo, then a graduate student at the University of Virginia, picked up a newspaper to read as he ate his bacon and eggs.  And the rest is history, literally and figuratively. For almost 30 years, Lombardo has tried to uncover the full story of the wrongs he read about that day. The article he had stumbled across was about two sisters sterilized in the 1920s by the state of Virginia for being "feeble-minded." The younger sister hadn't even known she'd had a tubal ligation. She didn't learn until she was in her late 60s that the surgery hadn't been for appendicitis. The older, more famous sister — Carrie Buck — was the subject of the now infamous lawsuit over the legality of the operation, Buck v. Bell, that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He read that although Carrie Buck was the first victim of a 1924 sterilization law, 8,300 Virginians had involuntary sterilization until the practice was stopped in the 1970s. The law itself was repealed in 1974. "It was startling," says Lombardo, 59, now a legal historian at Georgia State University in Atlanta.  He had not known of eugenics — the "science" of human improvement through controlled breeding — as more than a vague concept. Learning that there had been many eugenics programs in the United States in the 20th century and that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Buck's sterilization amazed him. "Three generations of imbeciles are enough," Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote in the 1927 ruling. Lombardo says: "This woman got railroaded. And one of the giants of the Supreme Court was driving the train." In the years that followed, Lombardo's Ph.D. dissertation focused on the attorney who fought to have Buck sterilized. In 1985, he published more research in the New York University Law Review, saying that key "facts" of the Buck case were simply not true and that Buck never received any real legal representation.

He has written journal articles and made many speeches on the subject, finding himself returning to the details of the story again and again. The case was "part of my intellectual life for so long that in some senses it was my … 'hobby' is not the right word," Lombardo says. " 'Obsession' would probably be closer." Last fall, his book Three Generations, No Imbeciles was published. In February, he traveled to Rome to speak on the dangers of eugenics at a Vatican conference. He is working on a book titled 100 Years of Eugenics: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Project. Lombardo has no plans to abandon his fight to publicize the terrible history of eugenics. With genetics playing an increasingly important role in science, Lombardo and other bioethicists fear the lessons of the eugenics debacle matter more than ever. University of Maryland historian Steven Selden worries about how we will handle the ethical questions of possible genetic "improvements" to humanity. "We're going to revisit all the ethical conundrums that were inherent in the eugenics movement as we move forward."

The story of Carrie Buck
Buck was born and raised in Charlottesville, then became pregnant near her 17th birthday. Her foster parents had her institutionalized as a "feeble-minded moral delinquent," despite her claims that she had been assaulted by their nephew. When she gave birth, her child was given to her foster parents, who adopted her, and Buck was sent to the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded in Lynchburg. Buck's mother had already been committed to the colony.  With three generations available for examination, colony superintendent Albert Priddy felt confident that he could prove the Buck women were defective. He sought to have Carrie Buck sterilized under Virginia's new law authorizing surgery on epileptics, the feeble-minded, imbeciles and the socially inadequate.  The case went to court, and as it worked its way through the legal system, Priddy died and John Bell took his place at the colony. By virtue of his new position, Bell became the official defendant in the case, known thereafter as Buck v. Bell.

Aubrey Strode, the legislator who had written the Virginia law, became the lawyer representing the colony in the fight to sterilize Buck. Strode and Buck's appointed attorney, Irving Whitehead, were childhood friends. Whitehead, a longtime supporter of sterilization, had been a founding director of the Virginia Colony.  Even for a small town half a century ago, the connections felt suspect to Lombardo. The whole process, from Buck's institutionalization to the Supreme Court decision that the state could legally sterilize her, seemed cruel and arbitrary to him. Buck was indeed sterilized after the high court's ruling and was later paroled from the colony. In his research, Lombardo found report cards for Carrie and her daughter Vivian. Buck had been passed on each year with "very good" marks in deportment and lessons. Vivian had made the honor roll. There was nothing to suggest any mental deficiency in either of them. The child died at age 8 from measles and an intestinal infection. Buck. v. Bell has never been overturned.

The aftermath
Though he hadn't discovered Carrie Buck or eugenics before living in Charlottesville, Lombardo had inadvertently landed in the perfect place to study both. Bastions of eugenics lay farther north, in New York and Massachusetts, but Virginia and its university had their own deep ties to the movement, which aimed to improve the human race much as livestock is bred. Eugenic schemes included immigration restriction, laws against interracial marriage, and sterilization of those considered "defective." In all, more than 30 states passed legislation supporting sterilization as part of a eugenic program. The official numbers of surgeries exceeded 65,000, and targeted groups included — as they did in Virginia — epileptics, the "feeble-minded," "imbeciles" and the "socially inadequate." Nazis on trial at Nuremberg after World War II cited the influence of American eugenics programs on their policies and mentioned Buck v. Bell in their testimony.

The passion for eugenics faded after the war as news of the Nazi atrocities came to light. But sterilization is still proposed from time to time as a remedy to a social problem. In 2006, Virginia state Sen. Emmett Hanger, who would represent Buck if she were alive today, introduced a bill to offer castration to some sex offenders in exchange for release into the community after serving their sentences. His efforts to date have been unsuccessful. Hanger calls Virginia's eugenics history "reprehensible" but says he does not fear that provisions for government-sanctioned sterilization will be misused.  "I have no concerns that there would be any return to the past," he says. On Monday, North Carolina officials unveiled a historical marker in Raleigh that notes the sterilization of more than 7,600 people "by choice or coercion" in the name of eugenics.

Lifelong effects
Lombardo met Buck shortly before her death in 1983 at 76.  She was living in a residence for poor senior citizens in Waynesboro. Lombardo found her sitting frail and hunched in her wheelchair. He talked with her a bit, and then asked if it were true that she had been assaulted. She said yes. And then she confirmed that she had gone to school and been promoted through several grades. Lombardo asked about her sister, Doris Figgins, who had recently died. He didn't feel comfortable going much further.

"She was happy to have a visitor. It was clear, though, that she still felt the shame. What was done to her affected her in a bad way her whole life." In 2002, the Virginia Legislature passed a resolution specifically recognizing the mistreatment of Carrie Buck. That year Lombardo paid more than $1,200 for the posting of a historical marker in front of a Charlottesville community center to commemorate the 75th anniversary of Buck v. Bell.  The infamous state Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-minded underwent several name and mission changes in the years after Carrie Buck was released. It is now called the Central Virginia Training Center and focuses on providing services to the mentally retarded. But Lombardo is not optimistic that most Americans will remember Carrie Buck's story. Historian Selden hopes they do. "The moral issues do not go away," he says. "They get transformed. They change. But they come back to us again." Carrie and Vivian are buried in Charlottesville's Oakwood Cemetery, Vivian next to her adoptive parents, who reported on her death certificate that they did not know the name of her birth mother.


Now 86, he says that after his mother died, his father had falsely accused him of setting fires as part of an effort to get rid of him and his siblings. He was to spend more than 12 years as a patient and was another healthy, young person to be sterilized there. Months after his arrival, doctors told him he would have an operation "to help my health." He remembers being "numbed a little bit down there" but awake for the procedure, and that he was "awful sore" in the following days. He recalls that a fellow patient stayed in a coma for more than a week after her sterilization. Meadows tried repeatedly to escape and ended up spending up to two months at a time in the colony's "blind room" as punishment. Patients tell of the locked door being opened just three times a day for meals. A bucket sat in a corner of the floor in place of a toilet. Patients were required to push brooms with 20-pound blocks to polish the floors. Meadows describes being beaten by staff members. "It wasn't no hospital," he says. "It was worse than a prison." Despite his patient file, which lists him as a psychotic, feeble-minded pyromaniac "devoid of insight," after his release Meadows was happily married and worked in the Lynchburg area as a painter.  He wants to be sure no one forgets Virginia's eugenics history. But as for the regrets expressed by the state of Virginia in a 2002 resolution, he says, "It's a little bit late for that."
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

Goyim don't need health care.

Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Israel's Socialized Medicine

The Ringworm Children


In the early 1950's, approximately 100,000 immigrant children, primarily from North Africa, received X-ray radiation treatment for ringworm upon their arrival in Israel. At the time, the medical establishment thought ringworm was a grave danger to public health. It was later discovered that these treatments caused high rates of infertility, cancer and death. Through exhaustive research and testimonies of survivors, this emotional documentary unearths a possible conspiracy between American and Israeli health officials to initiate and fund this deadly medical experiment.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Obama's Healthcare Plan:
Case Study: Russia's Socialized Medicine

Socialized Health-Care Nightmare
By Yuri N. Maltsev and Louise Omd • November 1994 • Volume: 44 • Issue: 11

Dr. Maltsev gained his insight as an adviser to the last Soviet government on issues of social policy, including health care, and as a patient in the system. He teaches at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Louise Omdahl, a nursing educator and manager, is actively involved in humanitarian assistance through nursing contacts in Russia and has visited numerous Russian health-care facilities.

In 1918, the Soviet Union’ s universal “cradle-to-grave” health-care coverage, to be accomplished through the complete socialization of medicine, was introduced by the Communist government of Vladimir Lenin. “Right to health” was introduced as one of the “constitutional rights” of Soviet citizens. Other socioeconomic “rights” on the “mass-enticing” socialist menu included the right to vacation, free dental care, housing, and a clean and safe environment. As in other fields, the provision of health care was planned and delivered through a special ministry. The Ministry of Health, through its regional Directorates of Health, would pool and distribute centrally provided resources for delivery of medical and sanitary services to the entire population.

The “official” vision of socialists was clean, clear, and simple: all needed care would be provided on an equal basis to the entire population by the state-owned and state-managed health industry. The entire cost of medical services was socialized through the central budget. The advantages of this system were proclaimed to be that a fully socialized health-care system elimi nates “waste” that stems to “unnecessary duplication and parallelism” (i.e., competition) while providing full coverage of all health-care problems from birth until death.

But as we have learned from our own separate experiences, the Russian health care system is neither modern nor efficient.

In contrast to the impression created by the liberal American media, health-care institutions in Russia were at least fifty years behind the average U.S. level. Moreover, the filth, odors, cats roaming the halls, and absence of soap and cleaning supplies added to an overall impression of hopelessness and frustration which paralyzed the system. The part of Russia’s GNP destined for medical needs is negligible1 and, according to our estimates; is less than 2.5 percent (compared to 14 percent in the United States, 11 percent in Canada, 8 percent in the U.K., etc.).

Polyclinics and hospitals in big cities have extremely large numbers of beds allotted for patients reflecting typical megalomania of bureaucratic planning. The number of beds in big cities would usually range from 800 to 5,000 beds. Despite the difference in average length of stay, less than one-half were utilized. In the United States hospital stays for surgery are three to seven days; in Russia stays average three weeks. American mothers typically leave the hospital a day or two after giving birth. New mothers in Russia remain for at least a week. It was explained that the length of stay was necessary due to unavailability of follow-up care after hospitalization. A physician was reluctant to discharge a patient before the majority of healing had occurred. In addition, there was no financial incentive for early discharge, as reimbursement was directly related to number of “patient-days,” not the necessity for those days.
Scarce Supplies, Inadequate Personnel

Supplies are painstakingly scarce—surgeries at a major trauma-emergency center in Moscow that we observed had no oxygen supply for an entire floor of operating rooms. Monitoring equipment consisted of a manual blood pressure cuff, no airway, and no central monitoring of the heart rate. Intravenous tubing was in such poor condition that it had clearly been reused many times. The surgeon’s gloves were also reused and were so stretched that they slid partially off during the surgery. Needles for suturing were so dull that it was difficult to penetrate the skin. All of this took place in 95 degree F temperature with unscreened windows open; though the hospital was built less than twenty years ago, there was no air conditioning.

Utilization of medical/nursing personnel was very different from our model. The ratio of nurses to patients in the ordinary hospitals was 1 to 30, compared to 1 to 5 in the United States. Duties of the nurse ranged from housekeeping to following medical orders. When asked for her “best nurse,” a head nurse in Moscow helped a young woman up from scrubbing the floor. Five minutes later she was practicing intravenous insertions with equipment donated by us. Both of these functions were in her “job description,” however unofficial that may be. Nurses are unlicensed and are not considered an independent profession in Russia. As a result, all their duties are delegated, with assessment and most documentation completed by physicians. The education of nurses occurs at an age comparable to the last two to three years of American high school.2 Nurses are educated by physicians, not other nurses. A separate body of scientific knowledge in nursing does not exist.

The role of a patient advocate, heavily assumed by nurses in the United States was distinctly lacking in Russia. Nurses were subjugated to medical bureaucracy. Patients’ rights and patients’ privacy were all but ignored. There is no legal mechanism to protect patients from malpractice. To our amazement we were asked to photograph freely in patient-care settings without seeking patient consent. Patient education and informed consent were dismissed by the socialized system as an unnecessary increase in time and the cost of care. If the society does not respect individual rights in general, it would not do it in hospitals. The Russian medical oath protects the “good of the people,” not necessarily the “good of the person.”3
Apathy and Irresponsibility

Widespread apathy and low quality of work paralyzed the health-care system in the same way as all other sectors of Russian economy. Irresponsibility, expressed by a popular Russian saying (“They pretend they are paying us and we pretend we are working.”) resulted in the appalling quality of the “free” services, widespread corruption, and loss of life. According to official Russian estimates, 78 percent of all AIDS victims in Russia contracted the virus through dirty needles or HIV-tainted blood in the state-run hospitals. To receive minimal attention by doctors and nursing personnel the patient was supposed to pay bribes. Dr. Maltsev witnessed a case when a “non-paying” patient died trying to reach a lavatory at the end of the long corridor after brain surgery. Anesthesia usually would “not be available” for abortions or minor ear, nose, throat, and skin surgeries, and was used as a means of extortion by unscrupulous medical bureaucrats. Being a People’s Deputy in the Moscow region in 1987-89, Dr. Maltsev received many complaints about criminal negligence, bribes taken by medical apparatchiks, drunken ambulance crews, and food poisoning in hospitals and child-care facilities.

Not surprisingly, government bureaucrats and Communist party officials as early as 1921 (two years after Lenin’s socialization of medicine) realized that the egalitarian system of health care is good only for their personal interest as providers, managers, and rationers, but not as private users of the system. So, in all countries with socialized medicine we observe a two-tier system—one for the “gray masses,” and the other, with a completely different level of service for the bureaucrats and their intellectual servants. In the USSR it was often the case that while workers and peasants would be dying in the state hospitals, the medicines and equipment which could save their lives were sitting unused in the nomenklatura system.4
A “Privileged Class”?

Western admirers of socialism would praise Russia for its concern with the planned” scientific” approach to childbearing and care of children. “There is only one privileged class in Russia—children,” proclaimed Clementine Churchill on her visit to a showcase Stalinist kindergarten in Moscow in 1947. The real “privileged class”-Stalin’s nomenklatura—were so pleased with the wife of the “chief imperialist” Winston Churchill that they awarded her with an “Order of the Red Banner.” Facts, however, testify to the opposite of Mrs. Churchill’s opinion. The official infant mortality rate in Russia is more than 2.5 times as large as in the United States and more than five times that of Japan. The rate of 24.5 deaths per 1,000 live births was questioned recently by several deputies to the Russian Parliament who claim that it is seven times higher than in the United States. This would make the Russian death rate 55 compared to the U.S. rate of 8.1 percent per 1,000 live births. In the rural regions of Sakha, Kalmykia, and Ingushetia, the infant mortality rate is close to 100 per 1,000 births, putting these regions in the same category as Angola, Chad, and Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of infants fall victim to influenza every year, and the proportion of children dying from pneumonia is on the increase. Rickets, caused by a lack of vitamin D and unknown in the rest of the modern world, is killing many young people.5 Uterine damage is widespread, thanks to the 7.3 abortions the average Russian woman undergoes during childbearing years.

After seventy years of socialist economizing, 57 percent of all Russian hospitals do not have running hot water, while 36 percent of hospitals located in rural areas of Russia do not have water or sewage. Isn’t it amazing that socialist governments, while developing sophisticated systems of weapons and space exploration would completely ignore basic human needs of their citizens?”It was no secret that on many occasions in the past 70 years, workers’ health had been sacrificed to the needs of the economy—although the cost of treating the resulting diseases had eventually outweighed the supposed gains,”6 stated Russian State Public Health Inspector E. Belyaev.

Man-made ecological disasters like catastrophes at nuclear power stations near Chelyabinsk and then Chernobyl, the literal liquidation of the Aral Sea, serious contamination of the Volga River, Azov Sea and great Siberian rivers, have made unbearable the quality of life both in the major cities and the countryside. According to Alexei Yablokov, the Minister for Health and Environment of the Russian Federation, 20 percent of the people live in “ecological disaster zones,” and an additional 35-40 percent in “ecologically unfavorable conditions.”7 As a sad legacy of the socialist experiment, we observe a marked decline in the population of Russia and experts predict a continuation of this trend through the end of the century. From Russian State Statistical Office data, it appears that in 1993 there were 1.4 million births and 2.2 million deaths. Because of inward migration of Russians from the “near abroad”—former “republics” of the Soviet empire, the net fall in population was limited to 500,000. The dramatic rise in mortality and significant decline in fertility is attributed primarily to the appalling quality of health services, and the deteriorating environment. The head of the Department of Human Resources reckons that the fertility index will remain at around 1.5 until the end of the century, whereas an index of 2.11 would be necessary to maintain the present population.8 But, “the only lesson of history is that it does not teach us anything” says a popular Russian aphorism. Despite the obvious collapse of socialist medicine in Russia, and its bankruptcy everywhere else, it is still alive and growing in the United States. It possesses a mortal danger to freedom, health, and the quality of life for us and generations to come.
Incentives Matter

The chief reason for the dire state of the Russian health-care system is the incentive structure based on the absence of property rights. The current lack of goods and education within health care has caused Russians to look to the United States for assistance and guidance. In 1991 Yeltsin signed into law a Proposal for Insurance Medicine.9 The intent is to privatize the health- care system in the long run and decentralize medical control. “The private ownership of hospitals and other units is seen as a critical determining factor of the new system of ‘insurance’ medicine.”10 It is moving to the direction the United States is leaving—less government control over health care. While national licensing and accreditation within health-care professions and institutions are still lacking in Russia, they are needed for self-governance as opposed to central government control.

Decay and the appalling quality of services is characteristic of not only “barbarous” Russia and other Eastern European nations, it is a direct result of the government monopoly on health care. In “civilized” England, for example, the waiting list for surgery is nearly 800,000 out of a population of 55 million. State of the art equipment is non-existent in most British hospitals. In England only 10 percent of the health-care spending is derived from private sources. Britain pioneered in developing kidney dialysis technology, and yet the country has one of the lowest dialysis rates in the world. The Brookings Institution (hardly a supporter of free markets) found 7,000 Britons in need of hip replacement, between 4,000 and 20,000 in need of coronary bypass surgery, and some 10,000 to 15,000 in need of cancer chemotherapy are denied medical attention in Britain each year.11 Age discrimination is particularly apparent in all government-run or heavily regulated systems of health care. In Russia patients over 60 years are considered worthless parasites and those over 70 years are often denied even elementary forms of the health care. In the U.K., in the treatment of chronic kidney failure, those who were 55 years old were refused treatment at 35 percent of dialysis centers. At age 65, 45 percent at the centers were denied treatment, while patients 75 or older rarely received any medical attention at these centers. In Canada, the population is divided into three age groups—below 45; 45-65; and over 65, in terms of their access to health care. Needless to say, the first group, who could be called the “active taxpayers,” enjoy priority treatment.

Socialized medicine creates massive government bureaucracies, imposes costly job-destroying mandates on employers to provide the coverage, imposes price-controls which will inevitably lead to shortages and poor quality of service. It could lead to non-price rationing (i.e., based on political considerations, corruption, and nepotism) of health care by government bureaucrats. Socialized medical systems have not served to raise general health or living standards anywhere. There is no analytical reason or empirical evidence that would lead us to expect it to do so. And in fact both analytical reasoning and empirical evidence point to the opposite conclusion. But the failure of socialized medicine to raise health and longevity has not affected its appeal for politicians, administrators, and intellectuals, that is, for actual or potential seekers of power. []
1.   Pavel D. Tichtchenko and Boris G. Yudin, “Toward a Bioethics in Post-Communist Russia,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, No. 4, 1992, p. 296.
2.   C. Fleischman and V. Lubamudrov, “Heart to Heart: Teaching Pediatric Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery to Nurses in St. Petersburg, Russia,” Journal of Pediatric Nursing, Vol. 8, No. 2, April, 1993, p. 135.
3.   Pavel D. Tichtchenko and Boris G. Yudin, “Toward a Bioethics in Post-Communist Russia,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, No. 4, 1992, p. 298.
4.   Here in the United States the system of fully socialized medicine is not yet complete, but we already observe the “parallel” system of health care for bureaucrats who enjoy coverage practically unseen in the private sector. Referring to this system, Dr. Stuart Butler of the Heritage Foundation remarked: “Why reinvent the wheel? If a working health-care system already exists, that’s good enough for official Wash-ington, why not to use it as our model, improve upon it and let the rest of America enjoy the same kind of program as members of Congress and Clinton’s White House staff,” Heritage Today, Winter 1994, p. 4.
5.   N. Eberstadt, The Poverty of Communism {New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1990), p. 14-15.
6.   The Lancet, Vol. 337, June 15, 1991, p. 1469.
7.   The Economist, November 4, 1989, p. 24.
8.   Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty Daily Report, Feb-mary 16, 1994.
9.   George Schieber, “Health Care Financing Reform in Russia and Ukraine,” Health Affairs, Supplement 1993, p. 294.
10.   Michael Ryan, “Health Care in Moscow, British Medical Journal, Vol. 307, September 1993,” p. 782.
11.   Joseph L. Bast, Richard C. Rue, and Stuart A. Wes-bury, Jr., Why We Spend Too Much on Health Care and What We Can Do About It (Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 1993), p. 101.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations as armed police and attack dogs stand guard

(NewsTarget) Following the State of Maryland's threats against parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, children were herded into a Price George County courthouse being guarded by armed personnel with attack dogs. Inside, the children were forcibly vaccinated, many against their will, under orders from the State Attorney General, various State Judges and the local School Board Director, all of whom illegally conspired to threaten parents with imprisonment if they did not submit their children to vaccinations.

The State of Maryland has now turned to Gestapo tactics to force its medical will upon the People, stripping parents of any right to decide how they wish to protect their own children from infectious disease. Health authorities there have already announced their intent to essentially kidnap parents and throw them in jail, removing them from their children for up to thirty days if they continue to refuse to have their children vaccinated. This will all be conducted at gunpoint, with armed personnel and attack dogs at the ready, making sure nobody steps out of line, and suppressing any attempt at public dissent against the Orwellian vaccination policies.

The entire campaign against these parents is blatantly illegal. There is no law in Maryland requiring the vaccination of children, thus parents who refuse to do so may not be legally charged with violating any law. Instead, Maryland health and school authorities are using Gestapo-like tactics, threatening to charge the parents with child truancy violations, criminalizing them for daring to protect their children from the dangerous chemicals found in vaccines (including thimerosal, a chemical additive containing a neurotoxic form of mercury).

The desperation of organized medicine is becoming increasingly apparent
As more and more parents are becoming informed about the dangers of vaccinations and their link to autism, state health authorities are increasingly turning to "Gunpoint Medicine" to force the People to submit to the poisons of conventional medicine. Parents who attempt to save their children from deadly chemotherapy chemicals are being arrested and having their children kidnapped by Child Protective Services (see ), and oncologists who used to be armed only with radiation machines and chemotherapy injectors and now arming themselves with U.S. Marshals and other local law enforcement authorities who are using loaded firearms to enforce "the will of the State" against parents who resist.

Even the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) announced its strong opposition to the Maryland "Gunpoint Medicine" vaccination campaign. In a press release published Nov. 16, the AAPS states:

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons today condemned the “vaccine roundup” executed in Prince George’s county Maryland this week, and promised to do everything it can to support parents who refuse to immunize their children.

“This power play obliterates informed consent and parental rights,” said Kathryn Serkes, director of policy for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the few national physician groups that refuse corporate funding from pharmaceutical companies.

In a scenario reminiscent of cattle round-ups, the state’s attorney has issued summons to more than 1600 parents of children who have not provided certificates of immunization for their children. But instead of toting a cattle prod, this state’s attorney chooses to wield a syringe to keep the “herd” in line.

Read the rest of the press release at:

Gunpoint Medicine: Why drug pushers must now rely on Gestapo tactics
Conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine is the only system of medicine in the world that is so unpopular with informed consumers that it must be administered at the barrel of a gun. There is no other system of medicine anywhere in the world that resorts to such tactics to recruit patients.

At the Nov. 17th event in Maryland, activists Jim Moody and Kelly Ann Davis from SafeMinds ( were able to get in front of TV news cameras and voice their opposition to the coerced vaccination policy. Yet, amazingly, most parents just lined up like cattle ready to be branded, not bothering to question the sanity or legality of the very system in which they were now agreeing to participate.

A health freedom blog called Center for the Common Interest ( also covered the event, and it reports that a local activist named Donovan Hubbard videotaped the event and plans to make the video available online. (NewsTarget would like to contact Donovan and / or publicize his video. If you know of a way we can contact him, please call us at (520) 232-9300 to let us know...)

What's next for Gunpoint Medicine?
As the truth continues to emerge about the extreme dangers of vaccinations and pharmaceuticals, Big Pharma is becoming increasingly desperate to coerce the public into relying on its products. It is now working closely with state authorities (including Governors of several states) to mandate the use of vaccinations on young children. This results in the criminalization of parents who refuse to subject their children to these dangerous chemicals.

In effect, Big Pharma is hoping to turn natural health followers into criminals.

The FDA has already criminalized nutritional supplement companies who dare to tell the truth about the health benefits of their supplements. (Read the true history of armed FDA raids on vitamin companies here: )

Next, parents who refuse to subject their children to the chemical pharmaceuticals proposed by Big Pharma will be criminalized, rounded up and incarcerated for "refusing to comply with public health policy." This is all being done by the State in the name of "protecting the children" from their own natural health parents. (Insane, isn't it, to think that protecting your child from toxic chemicals is now a criminal act in the United States?)

The end game of all this is to apply Gunpoint Medicine tactics to everyone: Adults and senior citizens included. Anyone suffering from high cholesterol, for example, who does not submit to Big Pharma's statin drugs could be arrested, strapped to a table and medicated against their will. People with cancer could be arrested for choosing to treat that cancer with safe and effective botanical medicines instead of patented, high-profit Big Pharma drugs. If you think the prisons are full enough right now from all the arrests for marijuana possession and other victimless crimes, just wait until the State starts arresting all the natural health moms and dads across the country who refuse to participate in the utterly insane and extremely harmful system of medicine that now dominates U.S. health care today.

The State is very clear about medicine: If you want to remain a free citizen, you must submit to the synthetic drugs made by the very same corporations that now control government health regulators. Any person who resists such "treatments" will be branded a threat to public health -- a designation just beneath "terrorist" in the eyes of many government bureaucrats. As such, they believe there is no limit to the level of force they may use to coerce such people into submitting to Big Pharma's chemicals. Today, it's armed guards with attack dogs. Tomorrow, it might be water boarding or other torture methods. Think that's impossible? Think again: Just five years ago, nobody in their right mind would have thought that parents who did not want to get their children vaccinated would end up in prison, their children kidnapped by state authorities and forced to subject themselves to dangerous chemical injections at gunpoint. Yet that is precisely what is happening right now in the state of Maryland. It happened on Saturday, in fact.

Where is the outrage?
What's most interesting about this issue of using the threat of imprisonment to force vaccinations upon children is not necessarily who is speaking out against it, but who has chosen to remain silent.

The American Medical Association, for example, has said nothing in opposition to the policy. Neither has the Food and Drug Administration. Where is the outrage from the Maryland Hospital Association? None of these organizations seem to have a problem with Gunpoint Medicine. The idea of rounding up parents and coercing their children into receiving injections of toxic chemicals does not seem to bother these organizations. And why should it? All of these organizations are closely tied to Big Pharma. They're all in favor of vaccinations for all, it seems, and I have no doubt that some individuals in these organizations (especially the AMA) are strongly in favor of the Gunpoint Medicine coerced vaccination policy being played out in Maryland right now.

Organized medicine believes the People are too stupid to be allowed to make their own health decisions. Bureaucrats and physicians should be the ones making these decisions, we're told, and any person who disagrees with such decisions should be labeled a criminal, arrested and prosecuted. This is no exaggeration. It is, in fact, a shockingly accurate description of Maryland's current vaccination policy.

It wasn't too long ago that Americans would have stood up and rallied against this kind of medical tyranny. The major news networks would have denounced Maryland's vaccination policy with strong language and harsh accusations. People would have been marching in the streets, demanding their health freedom. But today, it's a different America. The People are drugged up on pharmaceuticals and dosed on fluoride. They're too intoxicated to think straight, and they're frightened into submission by a fear-based government that invokes domestic tyranny at every opportunity to control and manipulate the People into doing whatever it wants.

The "free" America we all once knew is long gone, and it has been replaced with The United States of Corporate America, where police tactics are now used to enforce hazardous public health policies, and the people who run the State no longer think there's anything wrong with rounding up the population at gunpoint and performing large-scale medical experiments on their children. That's what modern vaccines are, after all: A grand medical experiment whose effects will only become known after a generation of mass poisoning has come and gone.


About the author: Mike Adams is a consumer health advocate with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He's also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NewsTarget subscriptions. Adams is currently the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Draskinn

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 308

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to how long it will take artists without the proper political beliefs to be listed as “useless eaters” as well?

This is all starting to sound very familiar.
I’m getting a little tired of living in interesting times.  “Draskinn”

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to how long it will take artists without the proper political beliefs to be listed as “useless eaters” as well?

This is all starting to sound very familiar.

All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline InsideJob

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
Im sure "the difficulty of tolerance" is a Family must!

Here's the first chapter:

Check out the last paragraphs where the author argues for rescinding the Constitution. Pure fascism:

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,061
** Ezekiel Emanual Wrote Article - "Whose Right to Die?"
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2009, 08:50:52 pm »

In the Netherlands physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia are provided in the context of universal and comprehensive health care. The United States has yet to provide such coverage, and leaves tens of millions effectively without health care.

What Are the Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide?

More on the Brother of Rahm Emanuel here:
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: ** Ezekiel Emanual Wrote Article - "Whose Right to Die?"
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2009, 09:01:19 pm »
Oh man, this guy is worse than Marvin Bush, keep digging!
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline bs

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 365
Here's the first chapter:

Check out the last paragraphs where the author argues for rescinding the Constitution. Pure fascism:

Some f**ked up shit here!

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341

 It is time to move the ADL offshore (back to Israel). 

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated

 It is time to move the ADL offshore (back to Israel). 

I wish that was all we had to do. Sibel Edmonds just revealed all the spies including Israelis, British, Pakistani, Turkish, Saudi, Iranian...

We need to stop obstructing justice, just allow justice to prevail, it will be fairly obvious what is what.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!

According To An MD - Part 1 Of Obama Care
Was Already Passed Last February!

By Devvy Kidd

Back in March, I wrote a column titled, 'Will you let the federal government take possession of your medical records?' (1) In that column, I said this:
"This one I call the gang rape bill is officially titled, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009. (2) Of course, it is no such animal. But, like Roosevelt's NIRA, Obamaination's ARRTA will give birth to even more useless and costly government agencies.
"Sec. 3001. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sets up another useless bureaucracy. The goal is to have everyone's medical records entered into a massive, electronic government data base. Now, I don't know about you, but I have a real problem with this because I know the real goal is to track medical care and treatment under a totalitarian government. This would mean an already incompetent government is allegedly going to manage some 300 MILLION medical records using technology that CAN be hacked, never mind some nosey busy body snooping into your medical records or "sharing" with some agency or foreign government down the road under world government.
"On March 6, 2009, I sent a certified letter to my primary care physician (which I'm required to have under our broken medical system that Congress destroyed), various specialists (neurosurgeons) and TriCare, our insurance company. I simply told all of them very politely about this new "law" signed by Obama and that the purpose of my correspondence is to notify each of them I do not, under any circumstances, give my permission or consent to have my medical records submitted to the federal government under any agency to put be put into their electronic data base. If it is declared mandatory that physicians and insurance companies hand over my medical records to some government agency, I will sue the federal government to stop such an action."
In my last column, Health Care Reform: Congress Has no Authority to Legislate, (3) I linked a letter by Dr. Dave Janda, MD.
Today, I received an email that shocked me. The shadow government will use any means necessary to Sovietize these united States of America and what better way than to slip draconian laws into bills well over 1,400 pages?
I studied the links and bill sections Dr. Janda provided; it is beyond outrageous. No wonder there was the original thousand plus pages in the "stimulus" package. Then another 318 pages withheld until the last minute. If I recall, that amendment was voted on at 3:00am in the morning. Then the "final" amendments.

Should we be surprised that someone began altering Dr. Janda's letter on the Internet? Shame on those who call themselves Americans and engage in such deceit. They are swimming in a gutter of rotten garbage.
There will have to be lawsuits to get hundreds of the provisions of these bills thrown out of Part One and if Part Two passes because the Politburo (Congress) has no authority to legislate medical practice or treatment within the states of the Union. That is precisely the language contained in the stimulus bill and the Obama Care bill.


For further reference, here is the full Stimulus Bill text and you can compare the sections cited by Dr. Janda as I have done:

Here's the link to the "stimulus bill"

Here is a news item on health care in the bill:

U.S. to Compare Medical Treatments
February 15, 2009
WASHINGTON - "The $787 billion economic stimulus bill approved by Congress will, for the first time, provide substantial amounts of money for the federal government to compare the effectiveness of different treatments for the same illness.
"Under the legislation, researchers will receive $1.1 billion to compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions. The bill creates a council of up to 15 federal employees to coordinate the research and to advise President Obama and Congress on how to spend the money.
"In addition, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators complained that the legislation would allow the federal government to intrude in a person's health care by enforcing clinical guidelines and treatment protocols."
This is the question everyone should also be asking at all town hall meetings and phone calls to their Congressional representative:
Why were we not told Part One of ObamaCare was passed in the Stimulus package in February? Without question, the regulation and treatment for health care is in that phony "stimulus" bill that was passed.

Email I received today:
"(Name deleted for privacy), I was concerned about forwarding the article, written by Dr. Dave Janda, that is circulating on the Internet, so I tracked him down by phone in Ypsilante, Michigan. I left a message for him, which, to my great surprise, he returned within the hour. He confirmed the letter circulating around the Internet is his, but he said it has been altered in some ways on blogs, mostly parts removed. He kindly sent me the original letter as well as the text of his congressional testimony.
"Attached is the text of his original letter. He floored me by telling me that the Obama Care plan is in two parts. Part II is what is being considered now in Congress; Part I has already passed and is law -- are you sitting down? -- buried inside the stimulus bill. Please forward the letter and congressional testimony to your contact list. He has given me his permission to distribute this.

"Dr. Janda's letter makes it clear why the Democrats pushed through the stimulus bill so fast without giving anyone time to read it."
Regards, (Name deleted for privacy)
P.S. "In Dr. Janda's email below, he refers to my being "upset." He is referring to my utter shock that part one of the Obamacare plan is already signed into law, creating the federal agencies that will administer it. Even more shocking is that Rahm Emmanual's brother, a physician, is on one of the boards created. Rahm Emmanual, for those who don't know, is President Obama's chief of staff."


From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 3:48 PM
Subject: Janda Response
Mr. .....,
" I received your phone message. My note about The Obama Health Care Plan has generated significant interest around the country. Several versions of the article have appeared on the Internet..... the complete version of the article is attached. If you were was not my intention to upset was my intention to help educate and inform you . What is of concern....the councils I refer to in my article have already been created and passed into law.....the Obama Health Care Plan is comprised of two parts. The second part is currently before Congress. The first part was buried in The Stimulus Bill that President Obama signed into law in February. The creation of the Federal agencies were in the Stimulus Bill.
"The hardest part of my job is to tell a patient they have is much easier to ignore the x-rays, the lab tests and put on a happy face and say, "Everything is fine." End result....that patient ends up in a box and never had a chance. The hard part is to analyze the tests and data and lay it on the line and tell the truth so that patient has the best opportunity to survive. I stand by my assessment and the similar assessment made by many others that are active in the field of health care.
"The response to bad news such as a new cancer diagnosis is multifaceted.....but it basically becomes manifested as either anger and hostility or acceptance and resolve. I provided data to you that reveals President Obama's Health Care Plan has Cancer and it will metastasize to you and your family. The response from the vast majority has been of resolve to make a better plan and approach. To those of you who became angry.... the diagnosis was and is accurate....the data does not lie. Just do me a favor.....don't say "Everything is fine".....I want to PREVENT you from wearing that box. Other references are the following:
Dave Janda, M.D.


Dr. Janda's original letter:
By David H. Janda M.D.
"As a physician who has authored books on Preventative Health Care and Health Care Cost Containment, I was recently given the opportunity to be the keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner at The Capitol Building in Washington D.C... The presentation, entitled Health Care Reform; The Power & Profit of Prevention was well received.
"In preparation for the presentation, I read the latest version of "reform" as authored by The Obama Administration and supported by Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reed. It is important to realize that The Obama Health Care Plan is comprised of two parts..that's right, not one but two parts.
"The first part of The Obama Health Care Plan was buried in The Stimulus Bill which was signed into law by the President in February (see ). It is the second part of The Health Care Plan which is now being debated in Congress.
"Below is the link to the over 1000 page document.....

"Let me summarize just a few salient points of the two part Obama Health Care Plan. Warning.......They need to put the same warning on The Obama Health Care Plan as they do a pack of cigarettes.....Consuming this product WILL be hazardous to your health.

"The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care, NOT PREVENTING health care need. The plan's method is the most inhumane and unethical approach in cutting costs. The rationing of care is implemented through a Council, equivalent to the National Health Care Board in the British Health Care System. The name given to this panel is The Federal Coordinating Council For Comparative Effectiveness Research ("Federal Council"). (Section 9201 H.R. 1 Version of the Stimulus Bill.) 
"President Obama has already appointed the fifteen member Federal Council. According to the Stimulus Bill, p. 152, all members of the Council must be "senior federal officers or employees." Thus, medical treatment will be dispensed by a group of bureaucrats from their ivory towers, not by the hands-on practitioners in the presence of the patients. The council was funded with $1.1 BILLION from The Stimulus Bill. ( )
"Comparative Effectiveness Research" is based on the formula of the approval or rejection of treatment for patients based upon the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.
"According to former New York Lieutenant Governor and Health Policy Analyst Dr. Betsy McCaughey, the Federal Council will set a cost effectiveness standard for treatment. (Stimulus Bill p. 464) Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer, dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your box. Oh, you say...this could never happen. Sorry....this is the same model they use in Britain.
"The plan also empowers the Federal Council to create another level of bureaucracy, The Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research. (Health Care Bill, Section 1181, p. 502).

The effect of this extra level of bureaucracy is to slow the development of new medications and technologies in order to reduce costs. How special is that!
"The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. This "Coordinator" will be responsible for monitoring treatments to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following what the government deems appropriate and cost effective, and to "guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." (Stimulus Bill, p. 116; see also pp. 442, 446).
"The Stimulus Bill goes on to say that hospitals and doctors that are NOT "meaningful users" of the new systems will face penalties. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will be empowered to impose "more stringent measures of meaningful use over time." (Stimulus Bill pp. 366, 478, 511, 518, 540, 541.) According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. According to the Obama Plan, if your doctor saves your life but breaks government protocol, you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow -up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

"In Section 102 of the Health Care Plan has the Orwellian title: "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage." What this section really mandates is that it is ILLEGAL for you to keep your private insurance if your status changes, e.g., if you lose or change your job, become a senior citizen, graduate from college and land their first job. Yes, illegal. When President Obama was asked about this portion of his plan recently, his response was, "I am not familiar with that part of the plan."
"Obama hosted a conference call with bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

"During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: "Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"

President Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
"Then there is Section 1233 of the Health Care Bill, devoted to "Advanced Care Planning." After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this government run session will include how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care. It is no wonder the Obama Administration does NOT like my emphasis on Prevention. Under the Health Care Plan for cost containment, Prevention is the "enemy," since people would live longer.
"I rest my case....The Health Care Plan authored by Obama / Pelosi / Reed is hazardous to the health of every American.

"In the question/answer session following my Capitol Hill presentation, a Congressman asked: "I am doing a number of network interviews next week on the Obama Health Care Plan. If I am asked what is the one word to describe the plan, what should I answer?"

"The answer is simple, honest, direct, analytical, and sad, but truthful.

The word is FASCIST.


Dr. Janda is a practicing orthopedic surgeon and a world-recognized expert on prevention, healthcare cost containment, and health care reform.
His website is .
Foot notes:
(1) Will you let the federal government take possession of your medical records?
(2) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009
(3) Health Care Reform: Congress Has no Authority to Legislate

St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!

EDITORIAL: Health rationing by other names
Obama health adviser doesn't 'evolve' enough

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Sunday, August 16, 2009

When Ezekiel J. Emanuel, a key presidential health care adviser, told The Washington Times on Thursday that his "thinking has evolved" on the subject of health care rationing, he was making a distinction without a difference. Even his "evolved" ideas amount to nothing more than government rationing by another name.

Here's what Dr. Emanuel told news reporter Jon Ward: "When I began working in the health policy area about 20 years ago ... I thought we would definitely have to ration care, that there was a need to make a decision and deny people care." And: "I think that over the last five to seven years ... I've come to the conclusion that in our system we are spending way more money than we need to, a lot of it on unnecessary care. If we got rid of that care we would have absolutely no reason to even consider rationing except in a few cases."

First of all, notice that he gives himself an out "in a few cases." That is the health-care-rationing equivalent of being just a little bit pregnant. You either ration or you don't.

Second, when it is the government, rather than private individuals through the open market, deciding what is or isn't "unnecessary care," and deciding what care to get "rid of," then that by definition is government rationing. Government acts by compulsion. If government decides what is "necessary," and grandma's hip-replacement surgery is deemed "unnecessary" even if grandma wants the surgery, then grandma's care has been rationed by the power of the state -- no matter what words you use to describe it.
Entire Article:

~~~~~~~~~~~> Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline rosswellp

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,934
The aim of totalitarian regimes has always been to keep the 'workers' just well enough, long enough to perform their slave labor to 'retirement' age ... that is per the actuarial tables ... but no longer. A serviceable body and a weak mind is the perfect vehicle to serve the agenda, as far as they are concerned.

What does "Universal Healthcare" mean to the NWO?

It means, "... keep them young bucks strappin' strong ... got to get as much work out of 'em as possible!"

"But them youguns ... no siree! And them old farts too damaged by fluoride and aspartame and vaccines to get the job done ... to hell with 'em!"

The part in red makes no sense. How are you going to get more "strappin' young bucks" if you don't take care of "them younguns"?

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!

Good point ... I was just thinking in terms of priorities, with the military/industrial aged males at the top. But, as the eugenics hammer starts to come down in earnest, look for the most defenseless ones among us to be targeted ... the children and the old.

St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-

Offline Jackson Holly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,576
  • It's the TV, stupid!
Re: HEALTH ADVISOR Ezekiel Emanuel (Rahm's Brother): No care for Useless Eaters?
« Reply #31 on: September 19, 2009, 09:21:47 am »

Social Utility: How Much Are Grandpa and Grandma Worth?

By Rus­sell L. Blay­lock, M.D.
September 2009

In a pre­vious essay, I dis­cussed a con­cept that is always on the mind of the socialist planner and that is “social utility”. To fully under­stand this con­cept one has to under­stand the socialist phi­los­ophy, if it can indeed be called a phi­los­ophy?—?in gen­eral, philoso­phies are ana­lyt­ical. In their world view, which is basi­cally a gnostic one, the world is occu­pied by two basic forms of human life?—?those who are wise and chosen and those who make up the common rabble?—?the masses.

The wise, in an older gnostic view, are anointed by the divine force to lead mankind and mold his nature based on an under­standing derived from arcane knowl­edge care­fully guarded by mys­tics of the ancient world. This idea, that cer­tain men are chosen to rule mankind has per­me­ated many gov­ern­ments of the world since and in modern times has attained a less meta­phys­ical tint, but which is still divided between those who cling to the ancient notions of gnos­ti­cism, such as the theosophists (Alice Bailey), and the modern view of the New World Order Move­ment. Of course, they inter­mingle quite often. We are wit­nessing an exploding interest in wisdom derived from the gnostic gospels, as taught by its chief dis­ciple Elaine Pagels. Many intel­lec­tuals, high-ranking pol­i­cy­makers and even clergy have accepted gnostic beliefs.

When it is accepted that cer­tain men are chosen to rule purely based on their divine anoint­ment and that they rule not based on raw power, but by the fact that they pos­sess a wisdom far beyond the common man, it becomes accepted that the masses (ordi­nary people) must obey?—?it is their duty.

In the view of the gnostic, society is chaotic, poorly planned and unjust. There­fore, through a series of care­fully thought out plans, in their view, society can be molded or engi­neered to create a more free, just and hap­pier society than would oth­er­wise occur. This requires that the masses, the people, be con­vinced to adhere to the “plan” and if they are not con­vinced they must be tricked into accepting the plan. As Edmund Burke said, -“The people never give up their lib­er­ties but under some delu­sion”. The last resort is out­right force.

The wise ones see society as a parent views their small chil­dren, they must be made to take their med­i­cine because only the wisdom of the par­ents can know that in the long run it will be good for them?—?the idea of the pater­nal­istic society. Like­wise, they are assured that the common rabble will never have the vision and intel­lec­tual capacity to under­stand the plan in its entirety. We see this level of arro­gance in all their writings.

Armed with this world view, the self-appointed elite have con­cluded that since they must engi­neer the per­fect society, they alone must gauge a person’s worth in terms of social utility?—?what does the indi­vidual or group have to offer to the New World Order. In this view, social utility is based on one’s con­tri­bu­tion to the plan. The socialist only deals in terms of society as a whole or to the economy in general.

One who works, pays taxes and is not a burden on the state is of higher social utility than is a retired or dis­abled person, who not only does not con­tribute skills (work) or pay taxes, but more likely is a burden on the state. In the col­lec­tivist way of thinking (seeing society as a whole and having no con­cern for the indi­vidual) the latter person should be removed from the society, either by pos­i­tive or neg­a­tive euthanasia. It is pos­i­tive if one actively kills a person and neg­a­tive if they just deny those per­sons access to life sus­taining care?—?in both cases they are just as dead.

The Amer­ican gnostic elite have chosen neg­a­tive euthanasia as the system that will be most accepted by the people, the masses. The mech­a­nism for this mode of killing is rationing of health care. It is ironic that during this debate on national socialist health care many vocal defenders deny that the admin­is­tra­tion wants to kill anyone, yet if we read the words of those who designed this plan, that is exactly what they say. More on that later.

His­to­rian Paul Johnson wrote in his book, Intel­lec­tuals, that “social engi­neering is the cre­ation of mil­lenarian intel­lec­tuals who believe that they can refashion the uni­verse by the light of their unaided reason. It is the birthright of the total­i­tarian tra­di­tion.” These intel­lec­tuals are the chosen wise ones of modern times. Socialist Edward Alsworth Ross in his book Social Con­trol, makes plain that some, the wise, must create a plan that estab­lishes con­trol over the society and that it is these leaders who must con­trol the behavior and actions of the people. This book, which was highly influ­en­tial among pol­i­cy­makers, was written in 1910. In the chapter on The Need for Social Con­trol he explains:

    “Although the social fabric is at first held together by sheer force of arms, time grad­u­ally masks naked might, and moral and spir­i­tual influ­ences partly replace brute force. It is in the com­posite society, then, where the need of con­trol is most imper­a­tive and unremit­ting, that the var­ious instru­ments of reg­u­la­tion receive their highest forms and finish. Here has been per­fected the tech­nique of almost every kind of control.”

He then goes on to say:

    “The only thing that can enable a society to dis­pense with con­trol is some sort of favor­able selec­tion. The way to pro­duce a short-clawed feline is not to trim the claws of suc­ces­sive gen­er­a­tions of kit­tens, but to pick out the shortest clawed cats and breed from them."

This, of course is a call for eugenic engi­neering of society to breed for desir­able people and rid society of the unfit and unde­sir­able. It is impor­tant to keep in mind that those sup­porting these dra­conian eugenic pro­grams were not dis­grun­tled dreamers cog­i­tating in some New York coffee house, they were men and women of high social rank, intel­lec­tuals, pres­i­dents of major uni­ver­si­ties, pol­i­cy­makers, cor­po­rate heads and even pres­i­dents of the United States. These were people in posi­tions of power and influ­ence who could enforce these dreams of a Utopian society and that made them very dangerous.

Lily Kay, in her book, The Mol­e­c­ular Vision of Life, a his­tory of mol­e­c­ular biology, she states:

    “By the time of the launching of the mol­e­c­ular biology pro­gram, the Rock­e­feller phil­an­thropies had con­sid­er­able expe­ri­ence with eugenics. … they did sup­port eugenics projects, such as the ster­il­iza­tion cam­paign of the National Com­mittee for Mental Hygiene to restrict the breeding of the feeble-minded, The Rock­e­feller phil­an­thropies also acted in the area of eugenics through the Bureau of Social Hygiene (BSH) and the Laura Spellman Rock­e­feller Memo­rial (LSRM).”

Enthu­siasm for social engi­neering and elim­i­nating the “unfit” reached beyond our shores with links being made to the German eugenics move­ment, a favorite topic of Hitler and the National Socialist. Edwin Black in his his­tory of the eugenic move­ment, War on the Weak, says:

    “The third Inter­na­tional Con­gress of Eugenics was held in New York City in August of 1932, once again at the Amer­ican Museum of Nat­ural His­tory. Although orga­ni­za­tion such as the Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion were donating vast sums to German eugenics for research and travel, the grants were fre­quently lim­ited to spe­cific activ­i­ties within Ger­many or neigh­boring countries.”

The reason for quoting this mate­rial is to show how even in a country such as ours the brightest and most edu­cated class can some­times be obsessed with dan­gerous ideas that can harm indi­vid­uals. These indi­vid­uals become espe­cially dan­gerous when they con­trol the reins of edu­ca­tion, dis­sem­i­na­tion of news and gov­ern­ment policy-making. As the title of Richard Weaver’s book says—Ideas Have Con­se­quences.

The Modern Social Engineers

Unknown to many, once again a group of our most politically-connected intel­lec­tuals are pur­suing an idea that can harm a great many people in our society. Much of the funding for these ideas once again flows from the major foun­da­tions in our country, espe­cially the Ford Foun­da­tion, Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion and affil­i­ates and the Carnegie Foun­da­tion. These major foun­da­tions are net­worked with hun­dreds of other foun­da­tions and research study groups, giving them enor­mous influ­ence in society and among politi­cians who can carry out these ideas by spe­cific legislation.

I have chosen the Hast­ings Center for my source of writ­ings on the new under­stand­ings on health care as being pro­moted by this admin­is­tra­tion. I say this admin­is­tra­tion, but I am cer­tain this bill was not drafted in any con­gres­sional office, but rather had been pre­pared long ago by one of the foun­da­tion think tanks. I base this on my knowl­edge of the foun­da­tions’ obses­sion with health care plan­ning and social­ized med­i­cine and the com­plexity of this bill.

The Hast­ings Center, as some will remember, was involved in much con­tro­versy many years ago as the group pro­moting the idea of neg­a­tive euthanasia to estab­lish more equity in health care dis­tri­b­u­tion. They were not as openly rad­ical as the Hem­lock Society, which felt it their duty to elim­i­nate those con­sid­ered unfit for life and for pro­moting the idea of having panels of experts decide to decide who shall live and who shall die in nursing homes.

One of the fel­lows of the Hast­ings Center is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Pres­i­dent Obama’s health care czar and a source of con­stant input on health care “reform”. His schol­arly paper is included in a package of arti­cles expressing the Hast­ings Cen­ters posi­tion on health care reform and life in general.

On this web­site they make the fol­lowing statement:

    “Death may not have changed, but dying is quite dif­ferent from what it used to be, thanks to med­ical tech­nolo­gies that have extended life and made dying fre­quently a lin­gering process rather than a sudden event. People with failing kid­neys can sur­vive on dial­ysis for 20 or more years. People with incur­able cancer can live for months or years with chemotherapy and radi­a­tion treat­ments. Vic­tims of car acci­dents who would once have died of head trauma can now be kept alive by ven­ti­la­tors and feeding tubes. Mean­time, life-saving ther­a­pies for what were once sudden killers, like heart attack, mean that increasing num­bers of us end up with chronic com­pli­ca­tions or decline into dementia.”

In other word, because of advances in med­i­cine we can now give people longer lives, even though they have presently incur­able dis­eases and in their view this is wrong. Why?, because it just means they may end up with some­thing worse years later?—?such as dementia. That is much like saying it would be a waste to fix the fence because even­tu­ally it will wear out anyway.

A paper from this Hast­ings Center col­lec­tion is one by a senior con­sul­tant for the Center, Bruce Jen­nings, titled—Lib­erty: Free and Equal . In essence, it is a dis­cus­sion of how lib­erty is to be rede­fined in light of the “new thinking”. Social­ists have rede­fined most words dealing with their assaults on free soci­eties. For example, Lenin defined a moral act as one that fur­ther the socialist rev­o­lu­tion. Thus, killing mil­lions in gulags is moral because it pro­moted the com­mu­nist revolution.

On the first page he resorts to the mer­can­tilist idea that a country has a fixed amount of wealth and that it is the job of the social planner to make sure there is a “just” dis­tri­b­u­tion of this wealth. We can think of the economy as a pie of a fixed size in this view. He says:

    “Such a con­flict is thought to arise, for example, when allowing all indi­vid­uals the freedom to accu­mu­late as much as they can under­mines the capacity of the entire society to ensure that each indi­vidual receives a fair share.”

In other words, the eco­nomic pie is only so large and if some take a larger slice, others get a smaller slice. Adam Smith, in the Wealth of Nations and many econ­o­mists since that time, have shown that this is not true?–?the size of the pie is ever-growing in a free market society and is deter­mined by the cre­ativity and genius of those oper­ating in a free society in which pri­vate prop­erty is pro­tected. These socialist plan­ners do not under­stand this because they are socialist and socialism can never create any­thing in terms of eco­nomic growth?—?it can only redis­tribute by force what the free market has produced.

We also find that socialist often rede­fine cer­tain words that they use to deceive the public. For example, as stated above Lenin taught that an act was moral if it pro­moted the rev­o­lu­tion. This jus­ti­fied the mass killing of tens of mil­lions of Rus­sians because it fur­thered the com­mu­nist rev­o­lu­tion. In his essay Lib­erty: Free and Equal, Bruce Jen­nings, a senior con­sul­tant for the Hast­ings Center says:

    “The health reform con­ver­sa­tion has to be re-framed at the grass roots level so that a new way of seeing what lib­erty is and what it requires will grow out of that con­ver­sa­tion. One tenet of this move­ment should be that equity in access to health care, reduc­tion of group dis­par­i­ties in health status, and greater atten­tion to the social deter­mi­nants of the health of pop­u­la­tions and indi­vid­uals are all polity goals through which lib­erty will be enhanced, not diminished.”

So, we see that the def­i­n­i­tion of lib­erty is now turned on its head and we are told to view this assault on lib­erty as enhancing lib­erty. He means that when looking at the larger pic­ture and when wearing the spe­cial gog­gles of socialism, forceful redis­tri­b­u­tion of your earn­ings will appear as greater lib­erty. This is because in the socialist view, engi­neering of humanity will make health care more just.

Again, that depends on one’s under­standing of eco­nomics?—?if you accept the mer­can­tilist view of a nation’s wealth, that there is a pie to be divided, yes it is true jus­tice demands that access be redis­trib­uted, but in a truly free society where wealth cre­ation arises from indi­vid­uals and groups of free indi­vid­uals par­tic­i­pating in free market oper­a­tions, it is not true. In a free society we are not dividing up a fix amount of resources, we are allowing people to decide what is the best way for them, using their own money, to indi­vid­u­ally sat­isfy their health care needs and desires.

When the social­ists say that they are dividing “scarce resources” one needs to ask?—?What are the resources in ques­tion? In a free market resource avail­ability depends on demand and cre­ativity of the entre­pre­neur. In fact, in many of their pub­li­ca­tions they com­plain that con­sumer demand is dri­ving the devel­op­ment of more tech­nology and advances in med­i­cine. They cannot have it both ways.

One must under­stand that socialism is about com­pul­sion. The social­ists believes that their view of society is the only cor­rect one, since they are the chosen wise of gnos­ti­cism, and there­fore people must be made to follow their plans. As I stated in my pre­vious paper on National Health Insur­ance: The Socialist Night­mare, when the leg­is­lator encoun­ters resis­tance to the plan they become more frantic and dictatorial.

Jen­nings concludes:

    “Lib­erty rethought can then be one of the touch­stones for a demo­c­ratic, grass roots move­ment for health reform that will demand health jus­tice in a nation of free and equal persons.”

In the paper he rejects the wisdom of many of the philoso­phers of freedom that one cannot have absolute enforced equality and per­sonal lib­erty. Using a per­verse logic he somehow twist the prin­ciple of using com­pul­sion by the gov­ern­ment, that is, to take from some (deny access to mainly the elderly, the chron­i­cally ill and the presently incur­able) and give to the ones anointed by those in power.

Equality as a prin­ciple in a free country means that the gov­ern­ment will not make laws that denies access to the ben­e­fits of freedom, which are directed at a select group or indi­vidual. For example, both seg­re­ga­tion laws and racial quotas specif­i­cally target cer­tain groups to be denied cer­tain free­doms or as being anointed. What is being dis­cussed by the socialist is that access should be guar­an­teed to the “poor”, a rather broad term, and selec­tively denied to those with the highest health care cost (the elderly and the chron­i­cally ill), which is mostly through no fault of their own.

Another paper of the series of Hast­ings Center pub­li­ca­tions is by Paul T. Menzel, a pro­fessor of phi­los­ophy at Pacific Lutheran Uni­ver­sity titled—Jus­tice and Fair­ness: Man­dating Uni­versal Par­tic­i­pa­tion. I found this paper to be espe­cially enlight­ening. He opens by stating that it is unjust that one person is cured of their ill­ness and left unscathed by the cost and another dies or is left finan­cially ruined. This health care plan, as with all such socialist health care plans, reverses the sit­u­a­tion and says, in essence, it is they, the elite, who should choose who lives and who dies, usu­ally meaning that the elderly, the chron­i­cally ill and the presently incur­able are in the latter category.

To attain “jus­tice” he says, manda­tory health care must be leg­is­lated. Any time some­thing is man­dated, someone must be denied their lib­er­ties. For instance, man­dated vac­cines means you will be forcibly vac­ci­nated, as in the case of the thou­sand chil­dren and teenagers in Mary­land who were forcibly vac­ci­nated in the court­room by the judge’s order. To man­date uni­versal health care, under their def­i­n­i­tion, means everyone will be forced into the system even against their will. This is the antithesis of freedom, despite their attempt to rede­fine freedom.

He says:

    “We have already col­lec­tively decided to pre­vent hos­pi­tals from turning away the unin­sured. In such a con­text, allowing insur­ance to remain vol­un­tary is unfair to many of the unin­sured. The obvious way to alle­viate this unfair­ness is to man­date insurance.”

Like the ACORN intim­i­da­tion of banks, forcing them to give loans to people who were bad finan­cial risk, forcing hos­pi­tals to take non-pay patients in mass num­bers, espe­cially illegal aliens, has led to bank­ruptcy of many smaller hos­pi­tals and serious finan­cial strain on many others. It also means, because of cost shifting, the insured and self-pay patient will pay more than just for their ser­vices. But then, that pushes more to accept the idea of social­ized medicine.

One of the most con­tro­ver­sial issues is the new system of analysis called Quality Adjusted Life Years?—?which divides cost with how long one would expect the person to live. For example, fixing an 85 year-old person’s cataracts just so they could see well, only to have them die a year later, seem unjust and foolish to a social planner. To the person and their loved ones, it is humane and rational.

If you treat people like a sta­tistic, as do social plan­ners, many inhu­mane things can be jus­ti­fied. We also see that a policy that won approval when the above example is used, soon expands to reclas­sify a person age 55 as “too old” for a health care ser­vice, as hap­pens in both the UK and Canada.

Effi­ciency, Quality Care and Money

In gen­eral, the old adage?—?you get what you pay for?—?is true. If you have bare-bones health care, you get mar­ginal care and if you pay more, you can get the best med­ical sci­ence has to offer. Most of the plan­ners for national health care plans intended for the public to get bare bones care, but they sold them on accepting the care by telling them it would offer unlim­ited ser­vice and quality.

Now we are hearing a dif­ferent story from the plan­ners. Sud­denly, we are hearing major players in health care sug­gest that we should “turn back the clock” on health tech­nology and top dollar care. In other words, people should settle for care at a 1960 level rather than a 2009 level. Pro­fessor Callahan states it this way:

    “Serious progress would mean turning back the clock; learning to take care of our­selves, to tol­erate some degree of dis­com­fort, to accept the reality of aging and death.”

Fur­ther he says:

    “One could make a good case that improve­ments in edu­ca­tion and job cre­ation could be a better use of lim­ited funds than better med­ical care. Social and eco­nomic progress would have double and even triple ben­e­fits beyond improved health.”

Thomas Murray, the pres­i­dent of the Hast­ings center agrees. He says that, “At times the best invest­ment for health may be in edu­ca­tion, job cre­ation, or envi­ron­mental pro­tec­tions, not in health care.”

Daniel Callahan notes that the carrot and stick approach may have to be used to guide people to accept changes in health care. As for the sticks he says:

    “The stick will be the mes­sage that you should take care of your­self and not expect med­i­cine to save you when your time runs out — that is no longer an option.”

Already, gov­ern­ment funded med­ical care pro­vides less med­ical care than pri­vately insured patients, espe­cially those with expen­sive plans. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s health czar, wrote an article for the Hast­ings Center in 1996 in which he said;

    “Medicare ben­e­fi­cia­ries receive fewer ser­vices with some dis­cre­tionary ser­vices cov­ered and some ser­vices that intu­itively seem basic cov­ered; Med­icaid ben­e­fi­cia­ries and unin­sured per­sons receive far fewer services.”

Dr. Emanuel goes on to sug­gest that:

    “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. A less obvious example is guar­an­teeing neu­ropsy­cho­log­ical ser­vices to ensure chil­dren with learning dis­abil­i­ties can read and learn to reason.”

Does Doctor Emanuel sug­gest that the Alzheimer patients should receive no care? What about the early Alzheimer patients, should they be seen for a bladder infec­tion, a degen­er­a­tive hip or diar­rhea? Or should we just let the family deal with it so we can use that money for other social engi­neering project, per­haps a new pro­jector to show sex-education pro­pa­ganda to grade-school chil­dren. It is obvious that under such a system, we must mea­sure a person’s “social utility” to deter­mine if they are worth the expenditure.

Who Are the Elderly?

From a series of state­ments by Doctor Emanuel it is apparent that he, and many others in posi­tions of power, con­clude that the elderly have lived their lives and it is time for them to move on, espe­cially if they are costing the state money. This is not a new theme among the elit­ists of society, as we went through this with Social Secu­rity as well.

One must then ask-Who are the elderly and why do they deserve to live? This ques­tion poised by the social­ists, assumes that one must give a jus­ti­fi­ca­tion to the fed­eral gov­ern­ment for existing in this society. This is the social utility argu­ment. If you serve no useful pur­pose in the society, as far as some social use­ful­ness, then you have no social utility and are no longer wel­come. This is not really that far away from the German National Socialist Party’s thinking, which referred to those with no social utility as “use­less eaters” and the dis­abled, chron­i­cally ill and incur­ables as “life unworthy of life”.

I remember when I was a boy my dad intro­ducing me to this very old fellow. We got to talking and I learned that the old gen­tleman had fought in the Spanish Amer­ican War. He told me things that I could never learn from a his­tory book and it stuck with me all my life. My dad later told me that there were older people all over who had inter­esting sto­ries to tell, people who had done amazing things and accom­plished much in life. They were a store­house of his­tory, wisdom and inter­esting sto­ries of life during America’s greatest moments.

I have gotten to know many who sur­vived the Great Depres­sion, World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam. I even met a fellow once who saw the Hin­den­burg burn. My mom used to tell me sto­ries of lis­tening to FDR on the radio and my Aunt Ann was working as a tele­phone oper­ator when it was announced that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor. These things are invaluable.

To have the older gen­er­a­tion around as long as pos­sible is a great value to us all. There was a time when we hon­ored our par­ents and grand­par­ents as sources of great wisdom, yet in modern times we just see them as old fogies that have no idea how to send emails or pro­gram a DVD. We are now being taught by our “elite leaders” and intel­lec­tuals that we would all be better off if the elderly would just accept death and that denying them health care can speed the process.

There is a polar­iza­tion between the young and old, which can only be wors­ened by the present debate on the elderly’s “social utility”. With so many divorcees, a growing number of youth often feel little real attach­ment, appre­ci­a­tion or abiding love for their par­ents or grand­par­ents. One can make a strong case for the present destruc­tion of fam­i­lies and mar­riages being the result of a series of ear­lier social engi­neering plans and schemes.

We also need to appre­ciate that because of the great number of chil­dren born out of wed­lock, Grand­mothers are often raising these chil­dren for their daugh­ters, so many have “social utility” not rec­og­nized by the elite plan­ners and social engi­neers. Yet, even beyond this, we should appre­ciate that the elderly have lived good lives, worked hard, paid their taxes, obeyed the laws and many have made sig­nif­i­cant con­tri­bu­tions during their lives that have made life better for others.

A great number have served nobly during America’s wars?–?lost limbs and suf­fered from the stress of war. Are we to dis­honor them now for their sac­ri­fice by telling them they are a lia­bility? Others gave their sons and daugh­ters during wars and lived with the anguish of the loss. Is this how we honor that sac­ri­fice?—?to tell them that they are of no use? When I read the sto­ries of the young men and women who have sac­ri­ficed their lives in battle in today’s wars I wonder will they be dis­hon­ored in such a way when they get old or sick?

We can hon­estly say that it was the labor of our seniors that built this great country, so how can be betray them now? Even worse is that we are telling them that we don’t even care that they are suf­fering during their last days and that they are aware that relief of their suf­fering exist, but they cannot have it?—?the money, they are told, would be better spent on edu­ca­tional pro­grams, studies of global cli­mate change and a plethora of other socialist dreams.

If we let this happen, we should hold our heads in shame.


St. Augustine: -The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it.
Let it loose; it will defend itself.-