Meat For The State

Over a century ago President Abraham Lincoln freed the Blacks from slavery. Now, the the First Black President who mendaciously seeks to have people think he emulates Lincoln, seeks to enslave all Americans, irrespective of race, in the most disgusting and profound manner.

Obama's Regulatory Czar and budding Slave MasterPresident Obama’s “Regulatory Czar,” chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein believes and espouses that the State owns your body and can, at what it considers sufficient need, use it how it wishes to, up to and including harvesting your organs without your permission.

In his eyes we’re all merely meat for the State.

Some disturbing and salient points from Worth Reading:

President Obama’s newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as “routine removal,” posits that “the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone’s permission.”

“Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend,” wrote Sunstein. “In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.”

Aaron Klein

Now Obama’s followers and Liberals in general would dispute the validity of the the sources for this post. They favor only sources within the Obama-approved MSM and absolutely despise the original source of this material, World Net Daily. Sadly for them, I actually perform independent research on the material I post and Cass Sunstein did actually commit those disgusting thoughts and beliefs to published paper.

To be fair to the Liberals, I’m not overly trusting of World Net Daily either. They do not cite sources, as if they were themselves a primary source. Given the current regime, that would be doubtful.

As is often the case with intelligent psychopaths, Sunstein does carefully work around the edges of what he wants to enforce. Much like President Obama, he is fond of maintaining enough “nuance” to uphold plausible deniability and therefor claim that any outrage leveled at his evil is merely a “false rumor.”

Sunstein was quite careful to couch his desires as one of several options. He put it forth as the “Routine Removal” option, alongside the “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” option used in some foreign nations. What is telling though to anyone that is trained to read for meaning and intent is that Sunstein had little to say against harvesting the organs of the dead and dying by fiat, whereas he had much to say against either the current “Explicit Consent” methodology or the “Presumed Consent” option.

This is an established technique for espousing controversial and/or evil ideas in a manner that both makes those ideas seem more reasonable and writer less strongly in favor of them, and hence less controversial or evil himself. The more vile or unacceptable idea – the one truly being suggested – is put forth alongside two or more other, more palatable alternatives and thereby is presented as a possibility with equal weight as the acceptable ideas. The then writer or speaker elaborates on all of the practical problems with the more acceptable ideas while limiting his or issues with the suggested vile or unacceptable idea to those of beliefs or ideologies.

Given the times and Sunstein’s employer, perhaps I should have spoken simpler and just said that he presented a “nuanced” case for the State owning Americans’ flesh.

This is exactly what Cass Sunstein did by putting his idea of “Routine Removal” of terminally ill patients’ and the recently deceased organs, alongside the “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” option; he attempted to grant his desire to harvest organs from sick Americans and our dead by fiat as course of action that had equal validity to the other ways of increasing organs for transplantation.

Then Sunstein goes on to showcase all the practical problems with both “Explicit Consent” (America’s choice) and the “Presumed Consent” options, whereas all that he has to say against his obviously preferred “Routine Removal” is that people would complain about it because it violated a “generally held principle.”

[sic]…many people would object to a law that allows the government to take parts of people’s bodies when they have not agreed, in advance, to the taking. Such an approach violates a generally held principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies.

— Cass Sunstein
Nudge, pg. 179

Combine Cass Sunstein’s views on who owns your body and its organs with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s Complete Lives System, which details a merit-based approach to healthcare rationing, and you can begin to put together a potentially horrifying future for Americans if ObamaCare is allowed to be enacted upon us.

Is this post inaccurate? Needlessly scary? Overly hyperbolic? Nothing but fear-mongering? You’d all better hope that it is so, or do something to this stop scenario from happening.

When President Obama’s chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein believes that we’re all meat for the State, and President Obama’s special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel has already made plans for determining what relative value to place on individuals, the framework for atrocity has certainly been created.

Would such atrocities actually take place though? Maybe, maybe not and, in no case but the most extreme, would it happen all at once; it would come, if it were going to, in seemingly easy to swallow, plausible phases. It would also depend a great deal upon just how bad things get in America over the next few years and how well silenced we are by the government.

Worse has happened elsewhere though, and similarly vile and horrifying things are happening elsewhere right now. It would be foolish hubris to think that it couldn’t happen here.

Related Reading:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Death Panel
Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing & Healthcare: A Guide to Best Practice 3rd edition
From Here to Eternity: Traveling the World to Find the Good Death
Freedom: A Novel (Oprah's Book Club)

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | |

4 Responses to “Meat For The State”

  1. zhann Says:

    Being an organ donor, this doesn’t effect me either way. That does not take away from its incredible invasion of person. How such a bill could ever pass is beyond me, it would lead to riots in the streets. Many religious people would go batshit crazy that their bodies could be desecrated. I don’t think that there is much to worry about here.

  2. jonolan Says:

    Zhann,

    Certain organs, such as corneas, are already removed from the dead without asking anyone if it’s OK to do so. In some states it’s even done by the Medical Examiners why they’re determining cause of death…

    But, as I said in the post, this is not an atrocity that would be perpetrated all at once unless there was a “national disaster” of some form.

  3. zhann Says:

    I know that this will fly in the face of many religions, but personally I see nothing wrong with harvesting organs for the greater good of society. I know that I am probably in the minority on this, but it seems logical.

    With so many people dying each day with highly needed organs for transplant patients, I think that some people, especially those with rare blood types, should be heavily encouraged to become organ donors (probably they are). I wish people were more open to helping others for the good of helping rather than for personal gain. Many of my friends are organ donors, and the most common response to those that are not is, “Whats in it for me?”. Its unfortunate that in today’s age this is still a prevalent mindset.

  4. jonolan Says:

    I’m an organ donor myself, so I too see nothing wrong with harvesting organs from voluntary donors. I’m very concerned, however, about the State choosing to do it by fiat and how that could effect care for the critically and/or terminally ill – especially ones that “wouldn’t be missed.”

    What was the most disturbing was Sunstein’s statement of, the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyones permission.

    Excuse me!?! “…or in certain hopeless conditions?” That goes an order or two of magnitude beyond mere “routine” harvesting / recycling of the newly deceased’s organs.

Leave a Reply