Obamacare: The New “Animal Farm”

GodFather Politics – Cross-Posted at AskMarion: Now that we’ve had just a few weeks of the mess that is ObamaCare, it brings home how grossly unfair it is for the political class to impose it on the rest of us and not have to abide by it (for as long as it lasts) — think Animal Farm (50th Anniversary Edition). It may yet collapse on its own weight.

I feel sorry for the younger generation (just out of college). They have less of a chance to get a good job with benefits. Many companies continue to downsize because of ObamaCare.

So these young people get less work. But they’ll have to pay more for healthcare, which they may never see. Assuming they can register for it, which we now know is a huge assumption.

Last week, one liberal blogger described how he had been all for ObamaCare. He was one of the few ones (relatively speaking) who managed to get through the computer system and register on-line. Lo and behold, his insurance costs were going to go through the roof, as was the deductible. So he said, forget it. He even said he won’t pay the fine either. Well, good luck with that.

ObamaCare seems simple to understand: You pay more, but you get less. Not to mention the loss of freedoms, the institution of a massive governmental bureaucracy, and the potential annihilation of healthcare as we know it.

At the very least, fairness would demand that all the politicians have to live under it. It’s grossly unfair to force the rest of us into a system that doesn’t seem to work, while the elite class has exempted itself from it.

All of this reminds me of the classic anti-Communist novel, Animal Farm , by the great British writer George Orwell (1903-1950). The short book is a parable of the Soviet Union.

And no, I’m not calling anyone a Communist. But Dr. Paul Kengor, Grove City College professor, documents in his book, The Communist (Kindle), Obama was mentored by Frank Marshall Davis, a member of the Communist Party USA (#47544). This is part of the public record.

Here’s a spoiler alert. In Orwell’s novel, you will recall, the animals revolt against the tyrannical farmer (Mr. Jones, a human), who represents the czar. But then as the animals look forward to sharing everything equally, the pigs in charge ultimately live high off the hog, so to speak.

After killing the farmer, the animals declare, “Remove Man from the scene, and the root cause of hunger and overwork is abolished forever.”

The animals post “Seven Commandments” — the final one stating, “All animals are equal.”

But as the plot develops, it becomes clear that the pigs (representing Josef Stalin, Leon Trotsky, and other Soviet leaders) have become an elite class.

At the end of the book, as the other animals — who do all the work and underfed — look into the farmhouse, they see the pigs enjoying a great meal. They can barely distinguish the pigs from the humans, whose regime they had rebelled against.

The Seven Commandments had been changed to just two: “ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.”

Today, we seem to have an elitists’ class and the rest of us. As long as ObamaCare is implemented as the law of the land, then it ought to apply to the president, his family, his staff, the Senators, and members of the House of Representatives and their staff. The law (and tax) should be good enough for the Supreme Court and their staff as well.

I’ve heard some Congressmen complain that their staff members can’t afford it. Well, what about the rest of us?

Meanwhile, the Bible says differing standards are unfair and unjust: “Differing weights and differing measures — the Lord detests them both” (Prov. 20:10). Psalm 94:20 criticizes “those who frame injustice by statute.” Paul strongly criticizes Peter in Gal. 2:14 for forcing a standard on the Gentiles that he himself was not living by.

Our nation’s birth certificate declares that “all men are created equal.” Are we to assume that under ObamaCare, some are created more equal than others?

Animal Farm and 1984 (Kindle)

Michelle Obama – The Fat and the Furious…

What the First Lady eats or doesn’t eat would normally not be an issue worthy of much attention if not for the fact she has clearly linked her national campaign against obesity with her husband’s freedom-breaking Obamacare initiative that has doctors looking over their shoulders awaiting government approval over what procedures can and cannot be performed on their patients and parents looking over their shoulders wondering what they can and cannot feed their own children.

In recent days, we have learned Michelle Obama has successfully convinced Mars Candy to make smaller candy bars. Prior to this the First Lady has been aggressively working to reform school lunch programs with a veiled threat of loss of federal dollars to school districts who don’t comply with her demands. This environment has led to schools actually spending time monitoring not just student lunches – but lunches brought from home. This has even led to some schools initiating bans on lunches made by good old Mom – no more brown bagging it for school kids in the healthy at all costs age of Michelle Obama. Further influence by the Obama government has been brought down upon the heads of the restaurant industry to make their menu options “healthier”.

But what of Michelle Obama herself? A just released report of yet another recent lavish White House party reveals the First Couple devouring a smorgasbord of high calorie food that is in direct contrast to the First Lady’s public campaign of healthier eating. Such “do as I say not as I do” stories have become increasingly common of late – but here’s another menu list to prove yet again the repeated hypocrisy of the people currently inhabiting the White House:

White wine

Bread and butter

Crab mac and cheese

Ribeye steak 12oz

Creamed spinach

Garden salad

Pear tart with ice cream

Ribeye steak 12oz

Creamed spinach

Garden salad

Pear tart with ice cream

It all sounds quite delicious – though hardly a menu that lends any semblance of credibility to Michelle Obama’s goal of forcing Americans to shape up. Apparently she is pleased enough with her own shape to continue eating away at that steak, butter, and crab mac and cheese – with a bit of ice cream to wash it all down at the end.

It all fits so well with what the Obama administration has been spoon – feeding America from the moment it took office…BULLSH-T.

Source:  The Ulsterman Report

Related: The Obamas… “Let Them Eat Cake” or Is That Drink Tea? – Updated

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

With all that's going on with the Catholic Church and the President right now, this has become a huge hot button topic. But why is this so important to progressives? Rush Limbaugh keeps saying that "abortion is the sacrament of liberalism." What makes this so? Let's ask Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, In her book "Women and the New Race", Sanger explains the purpose of birth control:(Page 229)

Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is 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. So, in compliance with nature’s working plan, we must permit womanhood its full development before we can expect of it efficient motherhood. If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman. Then and then only can the mother cease to be an incubator and be a mother indeed. Then only can she transmit to her sons and daughters the qualities which make strong individuals and, collectively, a strong race.

Ok, now it makes sense. Birth control is the sacrament of eugenics.

h/t to ProgressingAmerica – http://tinyurl.com/727ter6 and to AJ

It is time that people themselves read the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) and demand that their Congressman and Senators read it and work to repeal and replace it.

If for no other reason… A vote for any of the 4-GOP candidates, whoever becomes the nominee, will guarantee the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare and removal of the government from our HealthCare! A vote for Obama is a vote for socialized medicine, rationing and a long list of surprises yet to come. 2012 will be the last chance to get rid of ObamaCare because of the way its tentacles will spread.

Jack Lew appeared on Fox with Chris Wallace this morning and said there would be no additional compromise on the mandatory birth control mandate… “We have set out our policy” said Lew.

WALLACE: You say it’s consistent. The Catholic bishops are clearly not satisfied with it — if I may, sir. They have issued a statement that says that they view the decision by the president, the revision, with grave moral concern.

Let’s put up their statement on the screen.

“Today’s proposal involves needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion — government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions.”

And, sir, they call on Congress to block the president’s policy.

LEW: No, I think the president’s policy does not do that. It does not force an institution that has religious principle to offer or may for benefits they find objectionable. But it guarantees a woman’s right to access. We think that’s the right solution.

There are others who opposed women’s access to contraception. They have different views than we do. I’m not going to speak to the motives of any of the parties. But it’s quite significant that a range of Catholic organizations has embraced this.

We didn’t expect to get universal support of the bishops or all Catholics. I think that what we have here is a policy that reflects bringing together two very important principles in a way that’s true to the American tradition. And that’s what the president is trying to do.

There are others who want to have a clash over it. We want to bring these two principles together.

WALLACE: But you say you’re not going to get universal support. There are others — this is the conference of Catholic bishops. This is the most powerful statement by the Catholic Church in this country. They deal with grave moral concern and they say it should be turned around.

LEW: I can’t speak to the differences within the Catholic Church.

WALLACE: How do you respond to their statement that this government coercion?

LEW: I would point to the statement put out by the Catholic Health Association, which knows a fair amount about what it requires to health care in this country. They thought this was a very good solution. They understand what the policy is.

WALLACE: So, the bishops –

(CROSSTALK)

LEW: I think our policy is the right policy. I think that there’s broad support, but they’re not universal support for it. And we think this is right way to go.

WALLACE: So, you’re not going to change despite what the bishops say.

LEW: Our policy is clear.

WALLACE: Your policy is clear. Meaning, no revisions to the revisions?

LEW: We have set out our policy.

WALLACE: And that’s it?

LEW: We’re going to finalize it in the final rules. But I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties. And, you know, we think that that’s the right approach.

WALLACE: Mr. Lew, I think it’s fair to say this is precisely why so many people and I understand, you can argue whether it’s the majority or minority — but why so many people are opposed to Obamacare, because they are concerned with the idea that the government can mandate what people have to do, what private businesses have to do, what even religious institutions have to do.

LEW: I think the notion that this is about should we provide basic health care to all Americans is not the issue. You know, there are differences to whether or not the Affordable Care Act is the right approach. We think providing coverage to tens of millions of Americans and making sure that we have a health care system that provides the kind of care that people need that will help drive down the cost of health care in this country is a very important thing.

This is — this question of the impact on religious institutions is something we took very seriously right from the start. That’s why when the policy was announced; we said it would take 13 months to transition it in a way that would be respectful of those differences.

So, I think we’ve addressed that. I think that this concern is one that people can disagree, you know, on the margins about. But we have addressed the core issue — no institution that has, non-profit institution that has religious principles that we violated has to pay for or directly offer these services. But women have access to the kinds of care that they are entitled to.

We think that’s the right approach.

· Obama administration struggles to contain uproar over birth … – Since this piece was written the AG’s of 12 states have joined the suit being prepared and expected additional states of join the fight.

· U.S. News – Catholic TV network sues US over birth control mandate

Related:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama Is Losing the Contraception Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Let us not forget who is behind this bill… Here is Ultra Left Wing HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ Spin (Remember, Sebilius was an ardent supporter of murdered partial birth abortionist, Tiller and her extreme record on abortion has sadly been ignored (or hidden) by the media.)

Senator Rand Paul stood-up and blasted the HHS mandate as ‘authoritarian’ and ‘totalitarian; “Gloves are off”, he said!

Rubio Crushes Obama and His Contraceptive Mandate At CPAC; says it is a Constitutional issue!

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

ObamaCare… Hits, Misses and Perhaps a Look into the Future

Bilderberger Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN… a Concept He Has Been Found to Promote Many Times Before…

Cross-Posted at Ask Marion the Daily Thought Pad to Knowledge Creates Power and to True Health Is True Wealth!! at 2/11/2012 10:59:00 PM

Shock Article: Bioethicists Suggest Killing Someone With ‘No Autonomy Left’ Is Not Morally Wrong

What has Glenn Beck so fired up that he said on his radio show “If this doesn’t wake your a** up this morning, then nothing will?” How about this quote from prominent bioethicists comparing killing a human being to pulling weeds from a garden.

Two bioethicists — one from Duke University, the other from the National Institute of Health — bring up the question “What makes killing wrong?” in the latest issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Using their definition of killing, the authors conclude if the person is “universally and irreversibly disabled” and has “no abilities to lose” then killing them to take organs for donation in order to save the lives of others should not be considered morally wrong.

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong from Duke University (Photo: Duke University)

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a professor of practical ethics from Duke, and Franklin Miller, a senior faculty member in the NIH Department of Bioethics, state in their abstract ”What makes an act of killing morally wrong is not that the act causes loss of life or consciousness but rather that the act causes loss of all remaining abilities.“ They argue that if no abilities remain then the ”dead donor rule,” which is the ethical practice that a person must be declared dead before removing vital organs, should apply to patients whose hearts have stopped and are being removed from a respirator.

This discussion has been ongoing for several years and continues with this article. BioEdge, a publication discussing bioethical news, brings a few segments from the subscription-only journal in which Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller publish their opinion. BioEdge reports that the authors are seeking to make a case for organ donation after cardiac death when a person is taken off of a respirator. Once off the respirator, the person’s organs would be immediately harvested, but even at this point, BioEdge states, Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller believe the person is not yet dead because there is the possibility that his or her heart could start beating again.

Miller has written on this topic before for the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s some of what was written in his co-authored piece from 2008 “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation:”

Over the past few years, our reliance on the dead donor rule has again been challenged, this time by the emergence of donation after cardiac death as a pathway for organ donation. Under protocols for this type of donation, patients who are not brain-dead but who are undergoing an orchestrated withdrawal of life support are monitored for the onset of cardiac arrest. In typical protocols, patients are pronounced dead 2 to 5 minutes after the onset of asystole (on the basis of cardiac criteria), and their organs are expeditiously removed for transplantation. Although everyone agrees that many patients could be resuscitated after an interval of 2 to 5 minutes, advocates of this approach to donation say that these patients can be regarded as dead because a decision has been made not to attempt resuscitation.

In the more recent Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller article, BioEdge reports the authors as stating that “these patients are not known to be dead at the time of organ procurement.”

Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller argue that the dead donor rule is already being violated in many cases and that recognizing this violation and stopping organ donation in these conditions would drastically reduce an already limited number of donor organs for those in need. They suggest sidestepping this issue by rethinking the “norm of killing.” BioEdge has more from the authors:

“[T]he dead donor rule is routinely violated in the contemporary practice of vital organ donation. Consistency with traditional medical ethics would entail that this kind of vital organ donation must cease immediately. This outcome would, however, be extremely harmful and unreasonable from an ethical point of view [because patients who could be saved will die]. Luckily, it is easily obviated by abandoning the norm against killing.”

[...]

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

BioEdge clarifies that the authors seeks to better define just what is considered killing. It adds that the authors suggest killing someone with “no autonomy left” cannot be considered “unfair” or disrespectful because it “if it does her no harm.”

Franklin Miller of the National Institute of Health. (Photo: NIH Department of Bioethics)

While Sinnott-Armstrong and Miller make this argument, BioEdge reports in a separate article that several doctors have called for a moratorium on donated organs in the event of cardiac death until the issue is resolved from an ethical standpoint. The doctors state this opinion in the journal Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine.

In the abstract, these doctors calling for a moratorium write:

Many believe that the ethical problems of donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) have been “worked out” and that it is unclear why DCD should be resisted. In this paper we will argue that DCD donors may not yet be dead, and therefore that organ donation during DCD may violate the dead donor rule.

[...]

Moreover, some arguments in favor of DCD, while likely true, are “straw-man arguments,” such as the great benefit of organ donation. The truth is that honesty and trustworthiness require that we face these problems instead of avoiding them. We believe that DCD is not ethically allowable because it abandons the dead donor rule, has unavoidable conflicts of interests, and implements premortem interventions which can hasten death. These important points have not been, but need to be fully disclosed to the public and incorporated into fully informed consent. These are tall orders, and require open public debate.

The issue, however, isn’t an isolated incident. The Blaze has recently published articles about a disabled man in the U.K. who is seeking the “right” to die and a 3-year-old whose parents were told she couldn’t have kidney transplant because she was “mentally retarded.” And last year, we posted the disturbing video of a British advice columnist who said if a child were disabled a loving mother would “put a pillow over its face” to smother it. Watch that clip:

Related:

Eugenics in Action