A NYS Democratic Senator, 2 Liberal Washington Post Pundits Get It Right, and So Does Palin

Guess it isn't just right-wing vast-conspirators, white racists, or nutjobs, after all:

"My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President's chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which "produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated."

[ATTENUATED (as defined in medicine, since this is a medical doctor writing this): Weakened, diluted, thinned, reduced, weakened, diminished.]

"Dr. Emanuel is a special adviser to the budget director, Peter R. Orszag. He is also the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff."

The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 - 431, 31 January 2009, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions. Govind Persad BS a, Alan Wertheimer PhD a, Ezekiel J Emanuel MD:

"Allocation of very scarce medical interventions such as organs and vaccines is a persistent ethical challenge. We evaluate eight simple allocation principles that can be classified into four categories: treating people equally, favouring the worst-off, maximising total benefits, and promoting and rewarding social usefulness. No single principle is sufficient to incorporate all morally relevant considerations and therefore individual principles must be combined into multiprinciple allocation systems. We evaluate three systems: the United Network for Organ Sharing points systems, quality-adjusted life-years, and disability-adjusted life-years. We recommend an alternative system--the complete lives system--which prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life, and also incorporates prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value principles." (emphasis this author)

Lottery systems, folks. Like they're already having to do in Canada, where there is already "universal" healthcare.

Pick a number, any number, take a number and wait. Like at the deli counter at your local grocer, only add months to wait, not minutes.

Controversy:
Ezekiel Emanuel wrote an article for The Hastings Center Report in 1996, in which he proposed that health care services should not be guaranteed for "individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens."

Still don't want to read what Palin says because you're convinced she's an idiot? (even though you're rather the idiot if you believe what the pro-Obama media have only allowed you to learn)...

Then read these Obama-supporters and Obama-liberal newspaper pundits:

1. THE WASHINGTON POST, Charles Lane:

   Section 1233 "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones.... If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to 'bend the curve' on health-care costs?"
   
   "Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,' as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
   
   "Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would 'place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,' I don't think he's being realistic.

2. WASHINGTON POST Columnist Eugene Robinson ("a self-described 'true believer' who 'will almost certainly support' 'whatever reform package finally emerges'):

   "If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending."

3. Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee:

   "Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives.... It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen ... should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign."

"The goal is to reduce end-of-life spending."

Sounds great, doesn't it.

Except when some government insurance clerk(s) and/or the doctor(s) getting pressured by that clerk or committee of clerks to "reduce end-of-life spending" decide that you're near the "end" of your life and they say "No more healthcare for you."

But by then, it'll be too late. You'll have the government against you, then. And you'll die before you can fight to reverse this havoc that you've allowed Obama and the Democrats to wreak.

Don't the Pro-O liberals find it interesting that Congress won't hold itself to this same "standard of care" that they think all other Americans should accept meekly, silently and blindly?

If it was such a great system, they'd be trampling us to get it for themselves first.

They're not. They never will.


POSTSCRIPT: Palin echoes today what I and others also already know, but sadly the vast majority of Obama-ites refuse to learn:

"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200). It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.

"...nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time. The rationing system proposed by one of President Obama's key health care advisors is particularly disturbing. I'm speaking of the "Complete Lives System" advocated by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the president's chief of staff. President Obama has not yet stated any opposition to the "Complete Lives System," a system which, if enacted, would refuse to allocate medical resources to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled who have less economic potential. [1] Why the silence from the president on this aspect of his nationalization of health care? Does he agree with the "Complete Lives System"? If not, then why is Dr. Emanuel his policy advisor? What is he advising the president on? I just learned that Dr. Emanuel is now distancing himself from his own work and claiming that his "thinking has evolved" on the question of rationing care to benefit the strong and deny the weak. [2] How convenient that he disavowed his own work only after the nature of his scholarship was revealed to the public at large."

How convenient indeed. And this doesn't bother any of Obama's supporters? None at all??

A Physician testifies- watch, listen and learn...truth spoken before Congress


This physician is a member of Congress.

What he said. And then some.

And how.

The best and truest line?

"Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do."

At least someone just like a clerk at the DMV. Wonder how many of them will be lured into being "on the take" as so many at the Connecticut DMV were not long ago? Yes, I feel secure with my healthcare being run by those folks, oh, yeah.

And never mind that these so-called "town hall meetings" are being staged in every sense of the word, in many states, and even run by the Democratic political parties, so that only those with supportive pro-ObamaCare signs are being allowed in the first several rows, and big brawny union thugs are being told to cross state lines to attend these meetings to intimidate any opponents who dare try to get a bona fide question in edgewise to their own congressmen and Senators, and these "bouncers" (one attendee's own word for them) have even grabbed opponents by the arm and ushered them roughly out of the meetings for simply trying to ask a question when the elected officials are only choosing the proponents of ObamaCare to get the chance to speak up and oh, yeah, in one state, the local congressperson (Dingell it was, look it up yourselves on Youtube), faked an opposing attendee, having one of his own people carry a sign equating Obama with Hitler so it would appear to the media and others that they actually allowed dissent when, later, that same guy was handing out pro-Dingell/proObamaCare literature as people were leaving...and never mind that some of those who've been opposing ObamaCare at these town hall meetings (which the Big O shunned when McCain called him to have real ones during the campaign) are receiving death threats...

Oh, yes, folks, this is what you gave us when you voted for Obama. You gave us Russia.

Go read about those Democrats who are as appalled and aghast as anyone should be about these unAmerican strong-arm tactics.

And remember, it was your President, Obam-ites, who told you to "get in [our] faces." He doesn't seem too upset that your side is taking that to the extreme and shocking fully one-half of the country who is finally getting vocal about their opposition.

Free speech? What's that? Not for those who oppose the Big O, oh, no.

Don't take my word for it. DYOR, folks. Go here and just watch the videos for yourselves.

It was staged - Update ... more staged.
This was perhaps the most revealing interview I heard yesterday. Bill and Barbara, two Democrats who attended the town hall meeting held by Congressman Dingell. Added plus ... they are Democrats. Update: Please check the post below "It was staged, Part 2″ or just click here for another Democrat who outted the staged performance in Portsmouth. Read More →

The most afraid I have ever been
J Mark Campbell is a photographer who has been to the middle east and elsewhere around the world. He tells Sean Hannity last night that last week's Town Hall meeting in Tampa was the most frightened he has ever been. Listen in the beginning as he first describes how Congresswoman Kathy Castor stacked the meeting with union members, then used union members to rough up a cancer patient trying to... [Read more...]

I will protect my son
So it has come to this in America. When a father, concerned about his son, dares to confront his Congressman, becomes subject to death threats on himself, his wife and his son. The video below is from yesterday afternoon's Fox broadcast. Mike Sola explains why he confronted Michigan Congressman John Dingell. He was worried, upset and he wanted answers. He also wanted assurances his son would... [Read more...]

I am disgusted and incensed and anyone out there who is NOT-- is blind, deaf and/or dumb (in both senses of that last word) regarding what is being perpetrated by the Democrats in power.

Wake up, America, indeed.

Double-take time.

For all those who've ever come here (or ever will) trying to defend Planned Parenthood as nothing but so-called "healthcare for women", and for all those who defend Planned Parenthood's founder as "not a racist" and "not a eugenicist" when it is pointed out to them how racist and Nazi-like she really was (one need only read her writings which PP doesn't want you to read), and for all those who think that our own modern-day U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton with only the "health", wellbeing and "privacy" of "the mother" (exact wording, "the mother") in mind:

Read what S.C. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just said to the New York Times:

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. [Emphasis added]

Amazing. Ginsgurg confirms that abortion, as decided in Roe and Doe, was really about concern about reducing "the populations we don't want to have too many of," not about the opinion that "the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

Isn't it fascinating how Ginsburg and all who agree with her have no problem    w h a t s o e v e r    with the government having every business making that choice for "populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

With folks like Ginsburg and our current President running the government, who needs enemies?


Thanks to the bloggers here for the astute alert.

By rapper Jesus Disciple

LYRICS:

MONOLOGUE
On November 4th 2008 we saw the hearts of the majority of American voters and it's no surprise considering what the
bible says about the human condition. This doesn't mean our countries hopeless though, no matter what silly slogan
obama misuses that word in. We still have the only real hope there is.
VERSE 1
Since I'm a rapper, you must think that I'm liberal,
But I'm never gonna listen to their lies or this bull,
It's kinda funny, but it's stereotypical,
To think blacks, hispanics and us rappers are little fools,
I'm not your puppet and you haven't decieved me,
And I'm never gonna buy into the lies that you feed me,
I won't sell out over selfish reasons,
And reject all the principles I've come to believe in,
You're brainwashing the poor to think that,
The only thing that matters is the less that they pay tax,
I don't know how the democrats tricked 'em,
But now they think, that they aren't really part of the system,
The democratic parties never liked black rights,
Even though that's contradictory to what they might act like,
But now it seems that they've gotten their way on that,
Today, most blacks are now slaves to the democrats.
VERSE 2
People say I'm just a one issue conservative,
And then they act shocked like I shouldn't be concerned with it,
I'm disconcerted with the way all these churches sit back,
Like the murder of children isn't concernin' them,
They say it's their right to take a child and than murder 'em,
This is absurd and it's something that I've been burdened with.
Since Roe V Wade over 49 million,
Unborn babies have been destroyed and dismembered and,
It's hard to believe in a country that's so proud of rights,
People can get a way with taking other peoples lives,
I can't believe that the majority approves this,
Pretending like we really don't know where the proof is,
We're not that ignorant, but I know we're evil,
Scientists care more for global warming than people,
So as we spend millions, tryina prove we're the cause,
Millions are gonna die because we're stubborn and wrong.
VERSE 3
It's funny they say that it's all for the children,
And I guess it might be, only if we don't kill them,
Too bad the new president, cares more about choice,
Then the murder of americans, who don't have a voice,
They say this election was great for our nation,
But the only thing it proved, is still people are racist,
Those who voted soley based on skin tone,
Have desecrated the dream, martin luther king lived for,
Before you say that I'm racist or arrogant,
Alan Keyes has an african american heritage,
That's the man I endorsed from the get go,
He believes in God's authority and holds on to this hope,
I couldn't vote for McCain or republicans,
When it came down to it they betrayed all our trust in them,
-This nations consumed with the sin that enslaves us,
Since we've rejected the law of the God who made us.
MONOLOGUE
When it comes to the current state of America there are many issues that arise, but the real issue behind it all is our
relationship to God as individuals and as a nation.
CHORUS
We've become so numb to reality,
That we don't even see we've become God's enemy,
We the people, traded truth and God for lies,
As a nation we've committed obamacide.
It's so sad, I have to write on this notepad,
The things people know in their hearts, but just won't have,
We the people, traded truth and God for lies,
As a nation we've committed obamacide.
We murder 4 thousand a day,
Let alone for convenience sake,
How can you just sit back and never react,
To the holocaust in front of your face?
The sad thing is we'd like to save our face,
But the truth is we're all to blame,
They say hitler was evil, but we've killed,
Over 49 million since Roe V Wade.

Found this blog quite by accident, not looking for it, but what an eye-opener.

What Kind of Change, indeed.

Kudos to the brave blogger who 1) realized he was duped, and 2) admits it (albeit anonymously. Hey, I can't blame him/her).

What do the following folks have in common, besides the obvious (that they're college professors)?

Robert P. George, Princeton University
Hadley Arkes, Amherst College
Francis Beckwith, Baylor University
Gerard V. Bradley, University of Notre Dame
Robert Lowry Clinton, Southern Illinois University
Teresa Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Anthony Esolen, Providence College
Matthew Franck, Radford University
John Breen, Loyola University of Chicago
Patrick Lee, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Michael New, University of Alabama
Michael Paulsen, University of St. Thomas
Peter Ryan, S.J., Mount Saint Mary’s University
Ronald Rychlak, University of Mississippi
Michael Scaperlanda, University of Oklahoma College of Law
Colleen Sheehan, Villanova University
Gregory Sisk, University of St. Thomas School of Law
James Stoner, Louisiana State University
Christopher Tollefsen, University of South Carolina
Micah Watson, Union University
John Wauck, Pontifical University of the Holy Cross

Read it for yourselves.

In a nutshell:

The Moral Accountability Project trusts that those self-identified pro-life and pro-marriage Catholics and Evangelicals who helped to put Barack Obama into a position to accomplish his goals were sincere in their admiration for him. We are willing to believe that they genuinely hope that he will go back on his pledges to attack pro-life laws and repeal pro-marriage policies. Still, actions have consequences, and the actions of these intellectuals and activists will have consequences that are all too easy to predict. With each assault bythe Obama administration on laws and policies upholding the sanctity of human life and the dignity of marriage, we will ask all Catholics and Evangelicals, including those who supported Obama, to join us in resisting these assaults. That is our mission at www.moralaccountability.com.

Our goal is to help ensure that never again will good intentions conspire with shoddy reasoning and wishful thinking to compromise the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable members of our community and to undermine the institution of marriage. And so in a sincere spirit of friendship, we invite those Catholics and Evangelicals who joined with Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League, and similar organizations in supporting Obama to join us now in repelling the attacks that will be launched against life and marriage by this administration.

Oh, soooo "what they said."

For all those who were fooled into thinking Obama either has no stance on the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, or is in favor of same, do go read Obama On Abortion: A Summary. Written by all those esteemed professors above.

Find out just what Obama really has said, done, and voted for in the past 19 years, from 2000 to the present.

Go on, to all the Obama Nation folks who might be reading this far. Go read the Obama-transition-team-published "pro-abortion 'wish list' assembled by dozens of pro-abortion groups. The document outlines a radical abortion agenda for Obama’s first 100 days that would include taxpayer-funded abortions and compelling pro-life doctors to assist in abortions." You can see the actual PDF file for yourself, even download it.

This is what Business-As-Usual Obama-loving Democrats have bought us:

[Connecticut Democratic Senator Christopher] Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision.

"We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill," Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

"Adopted unanimously by the United States Senate...

"After previously denying any involvement..."

Give me a flippin' break, people, how can so many Americans be so blind?

I cannot possibly be the only one in this state who thinks it's long past time to boot Dodd out of his cushy, phony-baloney job.

And they used to call Reagan the "Teflon" politician?

Obama-Supporting Columnist Froma Harrop...on Obama's Broken Earmarks Promise:

Excerpts from Harrop's March 12, 2009 column, "Obama Takes a Dive on Earmarks":

President Obama has vowed to curb the number of earmarks, also known as pork, in future spending bills. A commendable promise, had his number been zero. Unfortunately, the president wants to deal with an unsavory dish by cutting the portion size.

Earmarks are pet projects that lawmakers stuff into spending bills. There are 9,000 earmarks in the omnibus appropriations bill [NOTE: THIS IS UP FROM 8,500 OF THEM TWO WEEKS AGO] about which Obama gave his pork talk on Wednesday.

Democratic leaders are right that "this is last year's business." And it's true that earmarks made up less than 2 percent of the $410 billion spending bill.

But earmark spending is not only about money. It is about enabling fundamentally corrupt practices in the budgeting process.

I think it disingenuous that Harrop gives Obama and the Democrats a pass on "last year's business," for two reasons.

One, "last year's business" is "George W. Bush's administration's business," which all Democrats are so speedy to condemn, yet Obama and the Dems are continuing W's business a year later? Come on. You just won the White House and Congress promising not to be anything at all like George. You can't have it both ways.

Two, this excuse would never have held an ounce of water with anyone, media or public, had a Republican administration gained the White House this year. Double-standard city: It's OK if I do it, not OK if you do it.

Still, this Obama supporting columnist roundly criticizes Obama and political hack Senator Harry Reid.

You remember Reid. He spearheaded an earlier pork-laden stimulus bill ONE YEAR AGO. See that link for details and why not write Sen. Reid to ask why that stimulus bill failed and demand to know why exactly we should trust him on this one when it also is overladen with pork.

Harrop stings, as well she should:

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid likes the status quo on pork. Waving the flag of American security, a spokesman for the Nevada Democrat recently told The Washington Post that defense-related earmarks "improve critical national defense programs."

No, they don't. Every defense-related earmark goes to something the Defense Department didn't ask for -- and is usually directed to some contractor back in the district. That money could have gone to actually enhancing national security.

Obama's call for still greater transparency on earmarking is a useless gesture. Most lawmakers are darn proud of them. They list the bacon they've bagged for their constituents right on their Websites.
...
The public links the current economic fiasco to a "bought government" for which earmarks are one form of currency.
...
If Washington can't end a tawdry system that involves relatively small amounts of money, what hope is there for reforming the big stuff? Cutting the number of earmarks to zero shouldn't be that hard -- and should be this year's business.

As Obama Nation has proved several times already since January 20, 2009, it's "Business as usual" in D.C.

Federal Income Tax Notice I just received, check it out:

Snopes does not list this as "false", so you might want to check this out with the IRS and your Senators.

Income taxes are normally due on April 15th unless that date falls on a Saturday or Sunday, in which case they are due on Monday the 16th or 17th.

However, I have been told that rule has recently been changed for this and for the next 4 years tax payments will not be due until you are nominated to a cabinet position.

Please check with your Tax adviser to confirm.

"BUSINESS AS USUAL" IN WASHINGTON, 2009:

"Senate keeps pet projects in spending bill...an estimated 8,500 earmarks...[worth] roughly $32 billion..."

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's claim that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.

McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and would have kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.

Last year's Republican presidential candidate said both he and Obama said during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having pledged to go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.

Remember?

Feb. 24, 2009: "My administration has also begun to go line by line through the federal budget in order to eliminate wasteful and ineffective programs."

Oct. 7, 2008: "I want to go line by line through every item in the federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work and make sure that those that do work, work better and cheaper."

It would appear that the only programs that "work" are the ones the Democrats in power want, whether they're wasteful and/or ineffective or not.

So much for "change we can believe in."

Guess maybe the 57 million 154 thousand of us Americans, almost 47% of the popular vote, who didn't vote for Obama weren't so "wrong" after all?