UPDATE, 10:50a: Here are links to the entire Beck segment yesterday. In clip 1 Beck covers the history of eugenics in America. Clip 2 includes what I discuss in my post and a panel discussion.
[HT: Claude]
_______________
Glenn Beck ran a valuable exposé yesterday showcasing some of the people Obama has surrounding himself with related to the healthcare issue. I'll pick up the piece with a clip Beck ran of Obama in an earlier speech, with Beck following up:
Obama: Let me tell you who I associate with.... Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House.
Beck: We will do exactly what Obama himself has told us to do: We have to find out about his advisers. Who is shaping his opinion? Who is surrounding him? We know it's not based in eugenics, but what is it based in?...
You see, your voice isn't going to be represented in the "war room" in a crisis situation. Whose voice will the president hear?
Well, there's Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. He is a health adviser. He said this in January of this year: "When implemented, the complete lives system 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."
The science "czar," John Holdren, says: "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth will ultimately develop into a human being." He also wrote about putting sterilants in drinking water for population control.
One of the leaders in this type of thought, and a friend of the regulatory "czar" Cass Sunstein, is prominent Princeton professor Peter Singer. In July 2009, in a New York Times article titled "Why We Must Ration Health Care," Singer wrote that saving the life of one teenager is equivalent to saving the lives of 14 85-year-olds.
You also have Rahm Emanuel's brother Ezekiel saying in November 1996: "Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed."
This is the stuff that they're now saying out loud. What are they saying to the president behind closed doors when we aren't there to watch it?
With friends like that, our elderly and disabled have all got enemies.
Comments:
Beck did an excellent job revealing the current thought on the value of the human person. This type of thinking will not only affect national policy for the elderly, but most certainly the young, unborn and born. Viewing the two clips is a must.
Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2009 11:03 AM"Singer wrote that saving the life of one teenager is equivalent to saving the lives of 14 85-year-olds."
What a goon. Where does he get this quality of life calculus?
Posted by: Bobby Bambino
at August 12, 2009 11:39 AMI am 'over 40' (I'm 44) and diabetic. So if we follow this 'logic', if something happened to me that required major surgery or whatever means would be required to save my life, I'm not worth saving. I'm (according to their way of thinking) just taking up space that would be better saved for someone young and healthy. Gee, I thought this was THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in the year 2009. Apparently, we've been 'teleported' back to 1930's Nazi Germany!
Posted by: Pamela at August 12, 2009 11:46 AMEzekiel wants to kill my wife, my mother-in-law, my sister-in-law and my nephew. So does Mr. Holdren and Mr. Singer. He wants to kill my wife because she is a stay at home mom over 40 will several chronic conditions that require several different medicines. She is not physically unable to work, but we can afford to have her at home. That makes her "unproductive." My nephew has down syndrome. He gets a big fat "0" in the denominator of the cost effectiveness equation they will use to decide who gets health care.
The devil is in the details and PBHO remains "deliberately ignorant" so he can claim that none of this is in the planned reform. Maybe not exactly at this moment. It just sets up the committees that will implement these "reforms" after PBHO gets it rammed through.
You tell a lot about a man by who his friends are.
...and PBHO is "wondering" why Americans are so angry at his proposed "Health"-care plan?
Funny, him adn his goons stated it was "un-American" to oppose this so-called healthcare...
I wonder how Obama and his ilk know this?
He, himself, NEVER grew up as an American.
My elderly grandmother would not be covered. About two weeks ago she had a stroke, but after she made an AMAZING turn around two hours later (the doctors were amazed because she had not been able to move her arm or speak for two hours), they decided to send her by air ambulance to a specialized stroke care medical center in Denver. Now she's back home in Nebraska and doing therapy. She's also on a LOT of medications and she's almost 88 years old. She'd be considered "not worthy" under this health care plan.
Posted by: LizFromNebraska at August 12, 2009 1:08 PMPamela: "I am 'over 40' (I'm 44) and diabetic. So if we follow this 'logic', if something happened to me that required major surgery or whatever means would be required to save my life, I'm not worth saving."
Oh, take heart, Pamela. While you're not as "worth saving" as, say, a 19-year-old, you're still considered MORE "worth saving" than, say, a 57-year-old!
Isn't that great news?!
Posted by: bmmg39 at August 12, 2009 3:30 PM40? 40! Come on, women arent even having children until their 30s. So they would deny care for women with young children because they are over 40. Since when did 40 become too old?
Posted by: Kristen at August 12, 2009 3:32 PMKristen @ 3:32,
Crazy, isn't it? (I like how Beck characterizes them as "crazy people".) Forty is not old, but women who become pregnant after age 35 are considered high-risk. The government healthcare system could reduce costs by mandating sterilization after a certain age or even a certain number of children.
Given the state of our economy and the guarantee of inflation in the near future, medical ethics will fall by the wayside in the effort to reduce costs.
Posted by: Janet at August 12, 2009 5:16 PMLiz,
I'm happy to hear your grandmother is back home and doing better.
God bless her!
Yeah, my grandmother would be WAY off this productivity list. She's 81 and suffered a traumatic brain injury. Then she got breast cancer. She's also a diabetic.
She's now cancer free, but she still has that pesky brain damage. No treatment for her!
Posted by: Lauren at August 12, 2009 5:37 PMConsidering how little value this administration places on childbearing, it is curious that they place the most value on those of childbearing age?
How many senators fit into their "most valuable" age bracket?
When do we find out whether men or women are more valuable?
Posted by: YCW at August 13, 2009 1:30 PMRead "War Against the Weak", by Edwin black. It outlines the Eugenics policies that began in the U.S. at Cold Springs Harbor in N.Y. in the early 20th century. The same policies were picked up by Hitler and how he used them on the aged, infirm, and those who lived a "life not worth living", eventually, spreading to any "inferior" race, resulting in the death of millions. The new word to describe these policies is "genetics". What the allies executed people for after WWII is now commonplace in the U.S. and many countries throughout the world.
Posted by: jim at August 13, 2009 2:30 PMI knew it! This kind of thinking can only come from the bowels of hell,thru who else? To those persons with dead souls doing things like their Father.The Father of lies!
Like the source of all goodness is God! The opposite is true. Now we're talking some sense.Thanks to Mr.Glen Beck for his valuable exposé.
"For that one reason among many, the United States will suffer unless there is placed into your government a group that fears the Lord if they cannot love the Lord. They will fear Him and find measures to stop the slaughter of the unborn." - Our Lady of the Roses, April 14, 1984
LifeSiteNews.com reported on July 22, 2009:
More pro-life Democrats are bucking heavy pressure from both Obama and the Democratic National Committee this week by stating their opposition to a nationalized healthcare plan that would open the door to taxpayer-funded abortion.
While Obama's healthcare plans are continuing to be criticized by fiscally conservative Democrats concerned about the plan's staggering price tag, others are also confronting House leadership on the lack of pro-life protections in H.R. 3200, which has been labeled by several pro-life groups as "FOCA by stealth." The bill threatens not only to mandate abortion coverage, which would be paid for by taxpayers, but also, like the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), to dismantle common-sense abortion regulations and doctors' conscience rights.
Five House Democrats sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week, urging the inclusion of language "that makes clear that no insurance company will be required to pay for an abortion except in extraordinary circumstances," reports Politico..
Posted by: lome at August 13, 2009 5:20 PMInteresting to watch N.Pelosi this coming days.
Opposition from God,the church the bishops,the pope her constituents,now from his colleagues,Wonder if she is willing to see the light this time?
This is America founded in Judeo-Christian belief.
Among all nation,We are alone standing against communism and one word government.
A fight to the finish.Since Gen 3:15 .