C.C.Sinned

i wonder if being deaf would be eventually be considered "Not Worthy" to recieve SSDI, medicare and any other government assistence...

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

yizuman

Only if we let it happen. Preventative Education is key for our survival if we want to try to prevent it from happening to us.

The more we educate the masses regarding all people of various disabilities, the less ignorance we'll have to deal with them.

We need to get the word out as much as we can and hope nothing comes out of these eugenic programs that would eventually target us.

Yiz

__________________

netrox

The problem is how you interpret their statements and you clearly don't understand the concept of cost-benefits vs risk-benefits. Everything comes with a price.

It's quite ironic that Republicans are upset about the universal health care when in fact, they're practicing eugenics of the disadvantaged, they literally let them die because they think that only worthy people are entitled to have healthcare which means, "Only people who make money should be insured."

Also, remember, even with private insurance, you will be denied if the private company determines that you're too expensive and too risky. There is ALWAYS a limit to how much insurance can pay.

Better to insure everyone than to leave millions of Americans without insurance. I care about public health, I am sorry you don't feel that way.

darkdog

Just today, I was thinking, "I can't wait till those 46 million uninsured die. Then we can find a way to yank away insurance from another 46 million people and watch them die in the streets! Mwahahahhahahahahahaahaaa!!!!" Then, I took out my cigar wrapped in insurance policies for poor children and smoked it. So I'll get lung cancer. Who cares? I got my insurance. Then I kicked a puppy. Good times.

I hope that satiated your need to feel morally superior. Maybe now we can get beyond the ego-stroking and talk about actual consequences about the Democrats' plan. After all, there are a lot of people who want medical care to be affordable for all (Not me of course. Mwahhahahahahahahahaaa!) who believe universal health care is the worst way to go.

__________________
Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

dreama

shudders.

It sounds really awful.

Hope americans come to their senses before it is too late.

Thanks for the transcripts.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

PuyoPiyo

It sadden me that some people support this, it's very selfish..

yizuman

Source: Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions - Political News - FOXNews.com



Obama's Science Czar Considered Forced Abortions, Sterilization as Population Growth Solutions

John Holdren, director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, considered compulsory abortions and other Draconian measures to shrink the human population in a 1977 science textbook.

President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.

Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.

He was confirmed with little fanfare on March 19 as director of the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy, a 50-person directorate that advises the president on scientific affairs, focusing on energy independence and global warming.

But many of Holdren's radical ideas on population control were not brought up at his confirmation hearings; it appears that the senators who scrutinized him had no knowledge of the contents of a textbook he co-authored in 1977, "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment," a copy of which was obtained by FOXNews.com.

The 1,000-page course book, which was co-written with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich, discusses and in one passage seems to advocate totalitarian measures to curb population growth, which it says could cause an environmental catastrophe.

The three authors summarize their guiding principle in a single sentence: "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people."

As first reported by FrontPage Magazine, Holdren and his co-authors spend a portion of the book discussing possible government programs that could be used to lower birth rates.

Those plans include forcing single women to abort their babies or put them up for adoption; implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty; and spiking water reserves and staple foods with a chemical that would make people sterile.

To help achieve those goals, they formulate a "world government scheme" they call the Planetary Regime, which would administer the world's resources and human growth, and they discuss the development of an "armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force" to which nations would surrender part of their sovereignty.

Holdren's office issued a statement to FOXNews.com denying that the ecologist has ever backed any of the measures discussed in his book, and suggested reading more recent works (clicky) authored solely by Holdren for a view to his beliefs.

"Dr. Holdren has stated flatly that he does not now support and has never supported compulsory abortions, compulsory sterilization, or other coercive approaches to limiting population growth," the statement said.

"Straining to conclude otherwise from passages treating controversies of the day in a three-author, 30-year-old textbook is a mistake."

But the textbook itself appears to contradict that claim.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs offer ideas for "coercive," "involuntary fertility control," including "a program of sterilizing women after their second or third child," which doctors would be expected to do right after a woman gives birth.

"Unfortunately," they write, "such a program therefore is not practical for most less developed countries," where doctors are not often present when a woman is in labor.

While Holdren and his co-authors don't openly endorse such measures on other topics, in this case they announce their disappointment -- "unfortunately" -- that women in the third world cannot be sterilized against their will, a procedure the International Criminal Court considers a crime against humanity.

Click here to see the passage on sterilizing women | Click here for the full section on "Involuntary Fertility Control"

"It's very problematic that he said these things," said Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Lieberman faulted Holdren for using government as a solution to every problem and advocating heavy-handed and invasive laws.

But other members of the scientific community said accusations against Holdren are wholly misplaced.

"John Holdren has been one of the most well-respected and prominent scientific voices urging the federal government to address global warming," wrote Kevin Knobloch, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.

Holdren's co-authors, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, said in a statement that they were "shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren," caused by what they called misreadings of the book.

"We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described -- but not recommended" in the book, they wrote.

Still, William Yeatman, an energy policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, faulted the Senate for not screening Holdren more strenuously during his hearings before confirming his nomination by unanimous consent both in committee and in the full Senate.

Despite "the litany of apocalyptic warnings that turned out to be incorrect, no one was willing to stick his neck out" and vote no, Yeatman said.

Some of Holdren's views on population came under fire during the otherwise quiet confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, where Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked him to revisit his past statements about environmental catastrophes that have never come to pass.

"I was and continue to be very critical of Dr. Holdren's positions -- specifically his countless doomsday science publications and predictions that have been near universally wrong," Vitter told FOXNews.com.

"I wish that the Commerce Committee had taken more time to evaluate his record during his nomination hearing, but like with everything else in this new Washington environment, the Democratic majority and the White House were pushing to speed his nomination along," Vitter said.

Vitter grilled Holdren during the hearing, asking him to clear up his 1986 prediction that global warming was going to kill about 1 billion people by 2020.

"You would still say," Vitter asked, "that 1 billion people lost by 2020 is still a possibility?"

"It is a possibility, and one we should work energetically to avoid," Holdren replied.

Sen. John Kerry, a leading Democrat on the committee, said the renewed scrutiny was essentially a Republican smear on Holdren's good record. Kerry told FOXNews.com that senators already had "ample opportunity" to question Holdren, who "made clear that he does not and never has supported coercive approaches, end of story.

"The Commerce Committee and the Senate then unanimously concluded what I have long known -- that John Holdren is a leading voice in the scientific community and we are fortunate to have him lead the fight to restore the foundation of science to government and policymaking that has been lacking for almost a decade."

Holdren has confronted a number of challenges during his four-decade scientific career, including nuclear arms reduction, and was part of a group that shared the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to diminish the part played by nuclear arms in international politics," as the Nobel Committee said.

Now his greatest focus is global warming, which he said in a recent interview poses a threat akin to being "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog."

Holdren told the Associated Press in April that the U.S. will consider all options to veer away from that cliff, including an (clicky) experimental scheme to shoot pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays and cool the earth, a last resort he hoped could be averted.

"Dr. Holdren is working day and night for the Obama Administration and the American people, helping to develop science and technology policies to make the country stronger, more secure, and more energy independent, and to make Americans healthier and better educated," his office told FOXNews.com.

Four months after Holdren's confirmation, his critics are keeping a wary eye on his work in the White House, where they assert that he has the president's ear on scientific issues.

"It is interesting that this 30-year-old book is finally coming to light," said Lieberman, of the Heritage Foundation.

"The people who are concerned about Holdren, quite frankly we didn't do enough homework."

__________________

rockdrummer

Be careful of misinformation

snopes.com: Senior Death Warrants

yizuman

credit to kokonut who posted this...

Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Deaf man asks if he will get shut out under Obamacare?

Photobucket
Here's a deaf college student, Noah Logue, from a local college in St. Louis asks a Democrat at a Townhall meeting whether if he'll get punished under "Obamacare." The question was a potent one since under "Obamacare" special needs citizen may not qualify. In short, if ya a poor kwipple, deaf, mute, blind or whatever limiting conditions you may have, you may not qualify under "Obamacare" when it comes to rationing medicine.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens...

Gee, what a nice warm fuzzy feeling knowing that some people do have hearts of gold! Oh, btw, Noah Logue speaks quite well for a guy with cochlear implants as some of you can tell. Though no need for him to sign in this situation. He did just dandy.


Here's the note used by Noah at the meeting seen in the video.

CONCERNS FROM A VOTER WITH A DISABILITY
McCASKILL TOWN HALL MEETING
JULY 27, 2009

I am a young adult who is profoundly deaf with a cochlear implant, starting my second year of college in September.

I would not be able to hear anything without my implant, except maybe a jet engine.

With my cochlear implant, I can talk on the telephone, I can carry on oral conversations, and I can hear music. It has enriched my life tremendously.

Cochlear implant surgery is not inexpensive. Currently it costs between $50,000 and $60,000 per ear.

After this surgery it is important to receive the correct education afterward so the child can learn how to talk. It is expensive to educate a child who is deaf.

It is also expensive to provide services to a child who is deaf who is not oral. Interpreters are needed for them to talk to people who are hearing.

When my mother told me of the health bills being considered by the House and Senate, and how they impacted disabled people, I wanted people to know how that would impact me and how difficult it would be to succeed in life without the services I have received.

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, who is involved in the wording of the House Bill said, “Medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…” “.

Does that include me? If medical decisions are being made by the government; not by my doctors, my parents, or me, I would be determined to be too expensive to receive the services I need to be able to navigate my way in the world.

This is a bad plan for those with special needs. Tell Senator McCaskill to vote NO.

Noah Logue
St. Louis, MO

Kokonut Pundit: Deaf man asks if he will get shut out under Obamacare?

__________________

yizuman

DEADLY DOCTORS
O ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "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" (Lancet, Jan. 31).



DEADLY DOCTORS - New York Post

__________________

yizuman

Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good

Posted by Kim Priestap
Published: July 26, 2009 - 1:20 PM

Betsy McCaughey brings to our attention the Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's views regarding universal health care. Dr. Emanuel is a health policy advisor to President Obama and brother of Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, so what he thinks may impact all of us. As Betsy points out, Dr. Emanuel has some very radical views regarding the rationing of health care. Take for example Emanuel's comments in a 2008 article in which he says cutting costs won't be easy:

Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.

In other words, these procedural changes aren't really change at all. Instead, he thinks we need change in how we apply health care coverage. As Betsy notes, Dr. Emanuel believes doctors try too hard to apply the Hippocratic Oath to everyone as equally as possible, which is what drives up costs. Instead Emanuel thinks we need to ration basic, guaranteed care to only those who can fully participate in society. Betsy points out a 1996 Hastings Center article in which Emanuel wrote this:

This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just alloca- tion 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 genera- tions, 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 is guaranteeing neuropsychological services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason.

So, according to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health care advisor to President Obama, the elderly with dementia and the young who have neurological disorders should be sacrificed for the common good. I can tell you that as a mom to a four year old girl with severe speech apraxia that prevents her from being able to speak intelligibly, this scares the living hell out of me. If you have a child with autism, cerebral palsy, Downs syndrome, or any other neurological disorder or chromosomal defect that prevents him or her from participating in society in the manner Dr. Emanuel or the government thinks they should, that neurological care would not be guaranteed as basic and would, therefore, not be covered in a government takeover of health care.

Making things even worse, private health care companies will be driven out of business, so that won't be an option for parents with disabled children, either, leaving them with no coverage whatsoever. This kind of policy would drive up the abortion rate, which Obama and other liberals want covered as a basic care, as doctors urge parents go out of their way to screen their unborn babies for any and all disorders and defects that would not be covered under basic care. If a child's disorder is undetected by prenatal testing, what happens when the disorder becomes obvious after birth? I shudder to think what the government would come up with then.

Emanuel's policies would lead to a further deterioration of our nation's culture as people begin to look at those with disabilities as objects that drive up collective health care costs instead of as individual human beings who have intrinsic value and rights endowed to them by God.

Ezekiel Emanuel: Deny Coverage to Elderly and Disabled for the Greater Good (Wizbang)

__________________

yizuman

Margaret Sanger

Founder of Planned Parenthood



In Her Own Words

From Here

Copyright © 2001 Diane S. Dew A Love I Could Not Deny, by Diane Dew



"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

(Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)



On blacks, immigrants and indigents:

"...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:

Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.



On the right of married couples to bear children:

Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932



On the purpose of birth control:

The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)



On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12



On the extermination of blacks:

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon



On respecting the rights of the mentally ill:

In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107



On marital sex:

"The marriage bed is the most degenerating influence in the social order," Sanger said. (p. 23)



On the YMCA and YWCA:

"...brothels of the Spirit and morgues of Freedom!"), The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3.



On motherhood:

"I cannot refrain from saying that women must come to recognize there is some function of womanhood other than being a child-bearing machine." What Every Girl Should Know, by Margaret Sanger (Max Maisel, Publisher, 1915) [Jesus said: "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep... for your children. For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed (happy) are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the breasts which never gave suck." (Luke 23:24)]



On mandatory sterilization of the poor:

One of Sanger's greatest influences, sexologist/eugenicist Dr. Havelock Ellis (with whom she had an affair, leading to her divorce from her first husband), urged mandatory sterilization of the poor as a prerequisite to receiving any public aid. The Problem of Race Regeneration, by Havelock Ellis, p. 65,



On eradicating 'bad stocks':

The goal of eugenicists is "to prevent the multiplication of bad stocks," wrote Dr. Ernst Rudin in the April 1933 Birth Control Review (of which Sanger was editor). Another article exhorted Americans to "restrict the propagation of those physically, mentally and socially inadequate."

__________________

C.C.Sinned

they gonna feed 'em to grizzly bears?

yizuman

bare, sorry lol

__________________

dreama

All this is very scary. I was born Premmie. I was very sick and I also had thyroid deficency which often leads to learning difficulties but didn't in my case. I wonder if they will take a look at babies such as myself and condemn us to be bumped off at birth.
Very Scary indeed.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

dreama

This reminds me of Peter Singer and his ideas on disabled infants. I once sent Peter Singer an email, but never got any reply from him. I guess he assumed because I was disabled I wasn't worth bothering about. Even though I'm a better vegan then he is.

__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/

Maria

I believe ya.

yizuman

Sanger’s unapologetic eugenics

August 2, 2009

IN CONNECTING support for abortion with support for eugenics, columnist Jeff Jacoby (Op-ed, July 26) makes a historical point that has abundant empirical foundation.

Planned Parenthood, for example, is the nation’s oldest and largest abortion chain. Throughout its history, the organization, originally known as the American Birth Control League, had numerous leaders actively involved in the eugenics movement, such as former president Alan F. Guttmacher and Massachusetts’ own Clarence Gamble. The latter eagerly promoted eugenic sterilization among the poor in the South, who would otherwise “pollute and degrade future generations,’’ he argued.

Planned Parenthood has attempted to divert attention from this, but it is hampered by the unapologetic and frank eugenics of its founder, Margaret Sanger. She wrote in 1920 that her work was “nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.’’ She founded Planned Parenthood partly to institutionalize this attitude.

Given the disproportionately high abortion rates among minorities and the poor, one must ask if she succeeded all too well.

Angela Franks
Brighton
The writer is the author of “Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy.’’

Source: Sanger’s unapologetic eugenics - The Boston Globe

__________________

yizuman

Obama Science Czar A Eugenics Far

By Michelle Malkin

HEALTH AND HUMAN Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius tried to reassure citizens in New Orleans this week that Obamacare bureaucrats will make sound medical decisions for all Americans. She failed. Under the government-run plan, she promised, a team of health care experts will recommend what should be covered: “I think it would be wise to let science guide what the best health care package is.”

Gulp. It’s the Obama administration’s view of sound “science” that should send chills down patients’ spines. Case in point: The president’s prestigious science czar, John Holdren, refuses to answer questions about his radical published work on population control over the last 30 years.

Last week, I called the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to press Holdren on his views about forced abortions and mass sterilizations; his purported disavowal of “Ecoscience,” the 1977 book he co-authored with population control zealots Paul and Anne Ehrlich; and his continued embrace of forced-abortion advocate and eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist.

After investigative bloggers and this column reprinted extensive excerpts from “Ecoscience,” which mused openly about putting sterilants in the water supply to make women infertile and engineering society by taking away babies from undesirables and subjecting them to government-mandated abortions, the White House issued a statement from Holdren last week denying he embraced those proposals. The Ehrlichs challenged critics to read their and Holdren’s more recent research and works.

Well, I did read one of Holdren’s recent works. It revealed his clingy reverence for, and allegiance to, the gurus of population control authoritarianism. He’s just gotten smarter about cloaking it behind global warming hysteria. In 2007, he addressed the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference. Holdren served as AAAS president; the organization posted his full slide presentation on its Web site.

In the opening slide, Holdren admitted that his “preoccupation” with apocalyptic matters such as “the rates at which people breed” was a lifelong obsession spurred by Harrison Brown’s work. Holdren heaped praise on Brown’s half-century-old book, “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” and then proceeded to paint doom-and-gloom scenarios requiring drastic government interventions to control climate change.

Who is Harrison Brown? He was a “distinguished member” of the International Eugenics Society whom Holdren later worked with on a book about — you guessed it — world population and fertility.

Brown advocated the same population control-freak measures Holdren put forth in “Ecoscience.” In “The Challenge of Man’s Future,” Brown envisioned a regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.”

Brown exhorted readers to accept that “we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” If we don’t, Brown warned, we will face a planet “with a writhing mass of human beings.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”

When I pressed Holdren’s office specifically about his relationship with Brown, spokesman Rick Weiss told me he didn’t know who Brown was and balked at drawing any conclusions about Holdren’s views based on his homage just two years ago to his lifelong mentor, colleague and continued inspiration, Harrison Brown.

Weiss lectured me rather snippily about the need for responsible journalism (he was a Washington Post reporter for 15 years). He then told me not to expect any response from Holdren’s office to my question on whether Holdren disavows his relationship with a eugenics enthusiast who referred to the world population as a “pulsating mass of maggots” and championed a scheme of abortion and artificial insemination quotas. To date the office has maintained radio silence.

If this is the kind of ghoulish “science” that guides the White House, we can only hope that Obamacare is dead on arrival.

Source: The Daily News Record: Op-Ed: Viewpoint Opinion

__________________

Maria

Thanks, Yizuman. I am not surprised when I read all the articles about Obama's "new change".

Evil-doer....

jillio

Please connect in a logical and valid way, health care reform to eugenics.

The attempt to do so is nothing more than a scare tactic being thrown out by the conservatives who don't want to loose contributions from the insurance companies, and insurance companies who want to continue to rob the American public. You are truly looking in the wrong place for "evil doing". Evil is refusing to cover victims of domestic violence based on a "pre-existing condition" clause categorizing DV as a pre-existing condition. Evil is cancelling a man's insurance after he has paid in for 20 years just because he was diagnosed with cancer. Evil is refusing coverage for a child born with a birth defect based on "pre-existing condition." Evil is refusing to cover any costs associated with diabetes (almost all health care) for a diabetic patient. Evil is the fact that children in this country go without basic health care services just because their parents are not eligible for insurance through an employer and cannot afford the exhorbitant costs of a self-insured policy. Yeah, there is evil going on, all right. You are just looking in the wrong place to locate it.

sallylou

You do realize that Anton Chaitkin is part of the LaRouche crowd, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Chaitkin

Anyone not familiar with LaRouche can check it out here:

PublicEye.org - Lyndon LaRouche: What's the Real Story?

Lyndon LaRouche - SourceWatch

__________________


Happy holidays!

jillio

The man is certifiable.

inspirabull

I have watched as the conservative element in this country has used the media
to poison the well. I will call it what it is: the techniques of brainwashing are being used on the American public in every way from the most subtle to the most flagrant by a core group of criminals. They are driven by greed and power and have no morals at all while they trumpet the opposite. It is my belief that the machinery of their conquest of the minds of the American people needs to be dismantled and these criminals identified and tried and imprisoned for their efforts. This is the real war that is going on and right now America is losing. These billions and billions of dollars are going into the pockets of a few but the network they have built to do it is enormous. I as one man am completely helpless against this vile scourge but I will say what I see and damn the consequences.

jillio

Good for you. My philsophy is: It begins with one voice speaking out.

yizuman

You are most welcome

Yiz

__________________

yizuman

Well that's one way of looking at it...

I also see it another way as well...

Evil is when it comes to money, both sides screws us over. Conservatives screws us out of a honest wage and liberals screws us out of our paychecks by exorbitant amounts of taxes.

Either way, coming from them, we lose.

Yiz

__________________

jillio

What exactly does that have to do with eugenics? I was talking about health care, you are talking about paychecks and taxes.

Banjo

Anything written by Michelle Malkin is not worth reading.

sallylou

Yiz, you sound a little depressed. Are you ok? Seriously, I'm concerned. I know that you're dealing with a lot of personal issues and it's hard.

__________________


Happy holidays!