Meat For The State

Posted in Politics on November 30th, 2009

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 They do not cite sources, as if they were themselves a primary source.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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related Reading:

Tyranny
Death (The Open Yale Courses Series)
The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever
Kidneys: Buy One, Get One Free (Harry McShane Book 3)
Death: Are You Ready For The Truth?

Mythical Support

Posted in Politics on August 12th, 2009

All politician lie; the very best-trained of them lie by telling the truth; the most canny of them lie by innuendo and disingenuousness, both of which can pass the lying’s subject matter expert, Karl Rove’s “sniff test.” The very worst and stupidest of the politicians lie in a manner that will almost immediately be caught. Happily for Americans – but sadly for the Liberals – President Obama often falls into the latter category.

A case in point; during President Obama’s August 11, 2009, Portsmouth, NH staged and scripted “Town Hall” meeting President Obama conjured up mythical support for ObamaCare.

We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.

Of course, given the concerns over Dr. Emanuel’s involvement, this is a poorly chosen bald-faced lie. ABC News, of all the unlikely places, has the truth of the matter.

We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors, the president said.

At another point he said: Well, first of all, another myth that we’ve been hearing about is this notion that somehow we’re going to be cutting your Medicare benefits. We are not. AARP would not be endorsing a bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?

The problem?

The AARP hasn’t endorsed any plan yet.

The country’s largest advocacy group for Americans over 50 issued a statement after the event saying, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

Busted! Hell, Busted in less than 24 hours and deemed so blatant a lie that even ABC felt that they had to refute it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Related Reading:

Politics
Congressional Government A Study in American Politics
Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream
The Politics
Beyond the University: Why Liberal Education Matters

Complete Lives System

Posted in Politics on August 5th, 2009

Dr. Ezekiel EmanuelPresident Obama’s White House Health Care policy adviser and brother of Obama’s Chief of Staff and “attack dog,” Rahm Emanuel, has some very disturbing plans for healthcare “reform.” Dr. Emanuel advocates a collectivist system of “merit-based” healthcare services.

In an example of Orwellian TrueSpeak he calls his plan the Complete Lives System.

Dr. Emanuel first published his ideas of merit-based healthcare in the 1996 Hastings Center Report (Volume 26, No. 6) where he declaimed:

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

You can download the article in PDF format here.

Over the ensuing years Dr. Emanuel fleshed out his plan over the following years and published it in the January, 2009 issue (Volume 373, Issue 9661) of The Lancet. Some excerpts from the article follow:

Some people wrongly suggest that allocation can be based purely on scientific or clinical facts, often using the term medical need. There are no value-free medical criteria for allocation.

~*~

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritizing adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.

~*~

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.

~*~

Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

~*~

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending.

The complete article in PDF format, entitled, Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions, can be downloaded here.

Dr. Emanuel’s Complete Lives methodology of applying his interpretation of both allocative and distributive justice to healthcare is put forth in the context of having scarce medical resources available. That’s an important consideration when reviewing his Complete Lives proposal; it is not meant to address the allocation and distribution of readily available and plentiful medical resources, only scarce ones. It is a two-tiered system divided between basic (guaranteed) and discretionary (not guaranteed) medical services. Some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services.

So we have to take Dr. Emanuel’s ideas in the context in which they were set, which makes them somewhat less monstrous and horrific than some of the commentary on the subject would have you believe.

That being said, one of the oft-stated goals of President Obama’s healthcare “reform” was to reduce costs and the amount of America’s GDP being spent on healthcare. That certainly implies that money – tax dollars or deficit dollars – will essentially be a medical resource. This could very easily create the sort scarcity that would call Dr. Emanuel’s bio-ethical philosophies into play. Dr Emanuel is, after all, a special advisor to the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy. He would definitely be consulted on streamlining expenditures.

How does that you feel? It definitely makes my skin crawl more than a little bit. There are just too many ways that Dr. Emanuel’s particular twist on eugenics could be quietly and on-legislatively introduced into any government ran healthcare system for me to be comfortable with the idea.

Related Reading:

Reverse Engineering Social Media: Software, Culture, and Political Economy in New Media Capitalism
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism (Politically Incorrect Guides)
The Roots of Obama's Rage
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
Engineering and Social Justice (Synthesis Lectures on Engineers, Technology and Society)