The Brown Shirts are alive and well, and they have inhabited America’s Democratic Party. And to think that they referred to President Bush as Hitler.
The debate over how to fix our health care problem has gone beyond politics and has become a battle against the forces of pure evil. President Obama is out and out lying to the American people about the details of the National Health Care bill, hoping that it will be passed into law before the average American can find out what is in it.
America has its new Hitler, and he takes up residence in the White House. Wake up America; put down the Kool-Aid before it’s too late!
Read the warning from Rick Joyner, the founder of Morning Star Ministries:
SPECIAL BULLETIN
NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE
By Rick Joyner
“When I read the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill that is now being presented before Congress, I could not believe I was reading something that was actually being considered in the United States of America. This is not about money or government mismanagement—this is about something far more diabolical than that. As incomprehensible as it may seem, this is about the power to determine who lives or dies in America. This is not a joke—this is actually the nature of what is being proposed in the National Health Care legislation, and it is the obvious reason why the Obama Administration wants to ram it through Congress before anyone gets a chance to read it.
I have resolved to always be as generous as I can toward people with opposing views of my own. I do this because I believe it is the mandate of I Corinthians 13 to always believe the best about people, rather than the worst. I know this opens me up to be misled by some, but I consider that a small price to pay to not become cynical. I also do it because I think it is wise to always try and understand the position of my opponents—to be open to consider their positions and not be too rigid or inflexible to change because we all ‘see in part,’ and ‘know in part.’ Because of this, I have been chided for being too generous by giving those I do challenge grace by believing that they had not thought through the consequences of their proposals, or had other good intentioned reasons for doing what they were doing. However, after reading the brief on this health care bill, I don’t see how anyone could not see that there is profound evil and evil intent at work here. I just do not see any way to be any more generous with those who proposed this bill than that. It is that bad.
This bill is obviously designed to put the authority to determine who lives and dies in America into the hands of government bureaucrats. As outrageous as that seems, it is true—you can read it yourself. It even gives the government access to all of your accounts, and the authority to make withdrawals. I know this is hard to believe, but you can read it yourself.
Do you want a government bureaucrat to determine if your mother or father can receive treatment, even in life and death cases? Would you want a government bureaucrat to determine if your child, or you, could receive treatment, even when it means life or death? Think of the best experience that you ever had working with a government bureaucrat, and then think about them having the power to make a potentially life or death choice for your child, your parents, or for you. This is actually what is being proposed.
Add to that chilling thought the fact that this bureaucrat does not have to know one thing about medicine to be in that position. In fact, this bill proposes letting the government define what quality health care is and impose that definition on health care workers. Nowhere does it even specify what training, expertise, or qualifications this all-powerful government bureaucrat has to have to be placed in the position to make such ultimate decisions for the health, well-being, and even the lives of Americans.
Am I being too hard on bureaucrats, or the Obama Administration’s intentions? Certainly there are many bureaucrats who are sincere and true public servants. I agree that such are deserving of our appreciation and respect. The modern world could not exist without them. Think of the most noble and conscientious there are. What kind of position would we be putting them in to have to go to work every day and decide who is going to get treatment, who is going to have to go on a waiting list and for how long, and who are they going to have to just let die?
Who could live with such a job? There are many who could, who would just see it as paperwork, and those are the ones who would be in that position because the truly noble ones could not endure it. Hitler found many who could dispatch thousands each day, and then go home and enjoy their own families at night. There are people with that kind of moral disconnect. These jobs will be filled and by the very ones we would never want in such positions.
It is beyond anything I thought I would ever see in my lifetime that such a bill could ever be seriously considered in the U.S. Congress. This bill has the potential for totalitarian control to be imposed on America to a degree that Hitler and Stalin could not have even imagined. With the technology available now, totalitarian control can very quickly be imposed to a degree far beyond what was attained by either the Nazis or the Communists, and this bill has provisions in it for just that. It mandates the sharing of all of your personal information, from just about every conceivable source, with the new health care bureaucracy being set up to implement this national health care system. The penalties for trying to escape this web are serious. You do not have to take my word for it—read it for yourself. Below I will include a brief on this bill so that you can look it up, chapter and verse.
I am a pastor and a watchman, and I therefore have a mandate to watch out for the people, and to sound the alarm when I see a threat. I have never seen one like this before. Even so, I have prayed for restraint and calm as I address this, and do not want to exaggerate anything. In spite of this terrible evil that is manifesting itself through the Obama Administration, I am resolved to pray for our government leaders, and I try to pray for the President every day. My sincere hope is for a spiritual awakening for him and for those in every government position, and for the Lord to give them wisdom and help for the most difficult task they have. However, with all due respect (and I mean this), what is coming out of the Obama Administration is evil, more evil than anything I thought I would ever see in America. It is time to call it what it is."
Please read it all.
26 comments:
What a crock of misbegotten crap!
Read it yourself. This guys is just making stuff up wholesale. And then gives you the "I'm a pastor; God commands you to listen to me and respect what I say!"
I heard a very telling stat yesterday:
Of the 100 most-highly educated counties in the U.S., 78 voted for Obama.
Of the 100 least-educated counties in the U.S., 88 voted for McCain.
Coincidence? I think not! Stupid people will believe anything told to them by a "religious eader". That saves them the brain -strain of trying to think for themselves.
It's interesting that Joyner says he read "the brief on what was contained in the National Health Care bill". "The brief"? WHOSE brief? Who wrote that brief? And which "National Health Care bill"? There are several different versions out there right now, being debated and amended, and none of them is entitled the "National Health Care bill."
If Joyner knows so much about this proposal, how come he doesn't cite a single specific clause in the entire proposal? He says it's "about euthanasia" but that word and that concept never appears anywhere in the proposal.
This is all about some Bible thumper, slamming his hand onto his pulpit and thundering to his congregation "God will damn you to hell for this abomination!" He's making crap up and scaring people into believing it, when he hasn't even looked at it himself.
WHY WOULD HE DO THAT?
What's his motivation?
Same as yours, Ms. Moore: he hates blacks, he hates Muslims, he hates Obama (because all "true believers" know that Obama is a black Muslim from Kenya)... so anything that Obama wants, you and he "know" it's inherently evil. And you'll preach against it. And make sure you throw in a good ole Nazi reference; that always gets 'em squirming in the pews!
The ends justify the means.
I'll make you this deal, Ms. Moore: you find ONE CLAUSE that says exactly what the Rev says it says, and I'll stand corrected.
Not only can you not do it, but you won't even try. Because you KNOW what you're trying to scare people with is a lie.
Forget all the politics. What you and your ilk are trying to do is the true EVIL in America.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/euthanasia.asp
Read it yourself: these rumors are a crock of lies.
Diogenes, you need to calm down. I honestly don’t think my blog is good for your health. You and I are not going to agree on Obama Care. But, let’s get one thing straight: I have never lied about anything I have written. Perhaps, I may have been misinformed about something I have written, but I never lied. First of all, if I did lie, God would bring heavy conviction upon me, just as he did in past situations when I apologized on my blog.
I’m not accusing you of lying, either. Some of our politicians are lying, however. We each believe our different sources of information, and that’s our prerogative. I’ll believe a man of God over Obama any day.
As to the poll about highly educated voters going for Obama and the lowly educated going for McCain, that doesn’t surprise me in the least. The intellectuals have been liberal ever since I can remember. Yet, there is a difference between head knowledge (and I’m not insulting knowledge) and wisdom and common sense.
Obama is a perfect example of this. He is intelligent and highly educated, but has little common sense. I would imagine these same brainy individuals, who have no need for God and their morals show it, voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and 1980, and look where that got us. You can have the liberal elitists; I’ll stand with the everyday America-loving patriots throughout the heartland who may not be highly educated, but have godly wisdom and common sense.
As to me hating blacks, that’s ludicrous being that I have had nothing but praise for retired Lt. Col. Allen West, who happens to be black. I could care less what color Obama is; it’s his politics I despise.
Regarding Obama Care, you’re missing the point that private healthcare plans won’t be able to compete with govt. programs because govt. programs need not make a profit. Of course, they don’t use the term “euthanasia”. Health care rationing will happen because our healthcare system cannot accommodate the enormous increase of patients, and the elderly will suffer.
You forgot to mention that Snopes is getting their info from liberal groups like AARP.
Read the proposal. Tere is nothing REMOTELY like what these clowns are saying. At the very least, it ought to make you wonder if you're getting the right story on this euthanasia nonsense. Doesn't it bother you even a little to think that you may be responsible for spreading misinformation of this type?
Here's the proposal, Ms. Moore:
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Go to page 425. Look what it says. Look at what Snopes says it says. Look at what the good Rev says it says. See who's right.
And why would the American Association of RETIRED PERSONS be advocating for euthanasia of the elderly? Wouldn't that be very very self-destructive of them? "The first thing we do, let's kill all our members!"
Use a little common sense, Ms. Moore, and tell us what you see.
I read several pages of the bill. No, it does not say anything using the term "euthanasia", but it certainly makes it possible that a govt official could encourage a terminally ill patient to not take the necessary measures to live as long as he could with medical treatments. That govt official would be looking out for the costs to the govt who hired him. His advice may not be in the best interest of the patient.
It disturbs me that the govt is getting involved in personal decisions that should be made by family members when an individual nears death.
As to AARP, they are a strongly liberal organization and will trust anything the Democrats tell them. Therefore, I'm skeptical of anything they say. With the baby boomers beginning retirement, AARP will have plenty of customers.
That's what I see.
If you actually READ the applicable clauses, you would have seen that all it does is define what a "covered expense" is under Medicare, that it will include the charge made by a medical professional who can offer advice about living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. It has NOTHING to do with any sort of cost-benefit analysis, to decide if it would be cheaper for the government if you died rather than receive further treatment. Not only is that thought in and of itself disgusting, but the fact that you're insinuating that that's what the proposal says is even MORE disgusting.
You made the bald assertion that the proposal "certainly makes it possible that a govt official could encourage a terminally ill patient to not take the necessary measures to live as long as he could with medical treatments." WHERE? Where are the words that you read in the proposal that "certainly make it possible" for that to happen?
If you're so "certain" then it should be really easy for you to point out those loathsome words.
We'll wait.
Diogenes, I'm just trying to look at this from the govt's perspective. The healthcare plan will be very expensive for them, and they will want to keep costs down. Therefore, they are likely to try to get out of any "unnecessary" costs to them--just like a private company tries to keep costs down.
In the process, they MAY try to avoid paying for certain medical treatments. I didn't say they necessarily WOULD, but that chance exists, and it could be a risky chance. That's what disturbs me. Our govt does not truly care about us.
Don't equivocate, Ms. Moore. You've printed, repeatedly, that this healthcare reform proposal has clauses that mandate visits from a government official every five years to encourage people to let themselves die. And I've challenged you to cite even ONE specific clause that remotely says that. You haven't. You can't. And now you sputter about this "Well, the government will look to save costs, so OF COURSE they will do this, because the system will be expensive."
Nonsense. Pure, unadultered nonsense, Ms. Moore. And I can prove -- EASILY -- how stupid your theory is.
It's called "Medicare", Ms. Moore. It exists now. It's existed for a loooooooong time. And it covers old people, and totally disabled people, for their medical costs. It's not any less expensive than the government option for healthcare would be. Have you heard about government officials running around, trying to get people to die, Ms. Moore? They could (in theory) do it right now, or anytime in the past, and it would have saved the government as much money then as it would in the future. AND IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
Paying a doctor or nurse practitioner, once every five years IF YOU WANT IT, to tell you about living wills, durable POAs, etc doesn't open the door to any of the nonsensical stuff you're trying to scare people with.
We're still waiting, Ms. Moore. Give us ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of what you claim is being proposed.
Diogenes, the comment from Obama medical adviser Ezekiel Emanuel is reason enough for concern. I read about the socialized medicine in Britain and Canada, and they have rationed care. Why would we be any different?
Besides, they are talking about Medicare cuts. How exactly are they planning to accomplish these cuts? We all know there is corruption and waste in Medicare, but they never cut back on that.
No, no, no, Ms. Moore, you don't get to backpedal like that. We're not talking about "rationing". Your people -- the people you cite as experts -- have been saying that the current proposals call for euthanasia, they call for mandatory death consultations, they call for this, they call for that. And those claims are LIES.
And since you keep printing their lies like a mindless little parrot, I've challenged you to show ONE instance -- anywhere in the proposal-- that says anything remotely like what they claim is there. And you keep ducking and dodging and backpedalling.
You're more than entitled to say that the proposals aren't a good thing for America. But when you have to lie to people AND you resort to scaring elderly people with false claimsm that's wrong. If the proposals are as bad as you say they are, you shouldn't have to make up lies to bolster your arguments.
What kind of "Christian" lies like that, Ms. Moore? What kind of "Christian" unnecessarily lies to scare elderly people, Ms. Moore.
JUST ONE EXAMPLE, Ms. Moore.
We're still waiting.
"AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics
Commentary by Betsy McCaughey “rife with gross, cruel distortions.”
WASHINGTON—AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.
“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions.
“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research. She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’ In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.
“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.
“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives. While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.
“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.
“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests. Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.
“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care.
“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions. It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives—both physical and financial—that different treatments can mean for them and their families.
“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families. Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden—emotional, physical and otherwise—on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort. Either way, it should be their choice.
“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.
“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives."
http://www.aarp.org/aarp/presscenter/pressrelease/articles/mccaughey_statement.html
Still awaiting that ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE that substantiates this "euthanasia" nonsense, Ms. Moore.
*crickets*
*DEAFENING crickets*
To quote that fine American, Adlai Stevenson, during the United Nations debate on the Cuban missile crisis:
"I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over"
Read this:
http://exposingliberallies.blogspot.com/2009/08/reality-of-obama-care.html
As to comments from AARP, they are nothing more than Democratic talking points.
To reiterate what I wrote earlier:
"No, no, no, Ms. Moore, you don't get to backpedal like that. We're not talking about "rationing". Your people -- the people you cite as experts -- have been saying that the current proposals call for euthanasia, they call for mandatory death consultations, they call for this, they call for that. And those claims are LIES.
And since you keep printing their lies like a mindless little parrot, I've challenged you to show ONE instance -- anywhere in the proposal-- that says anything remotely like what they claim is there. And you keep ducking and dodging and backpedalling."
There you go again, Ms. Moore! Backpedaling, dodging, weaving, changing the subject.
I don't care about your opinion as to the efficacy of Obamacare. You're entitled to your opinion. But you've posted LIES, Ms. Moore, and I have challenged you repeatedly to give us just ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE where the healthcare reform proposal advocates anything remotely close to euthanasia. No, I don't expect it to use the term "euthanasia", but just give us one instance where it even hints at it. Your dear Ms. McCaughey and your precious Pastor Rickie say the terms of the proposal are MANDATORY re: end-of-life consultations. Prove it, Ms. Moore.
Just one little measly specific from the text of the proposal.
Just one.
I'll compromise with you, Diogenes. Maybe, the term "euthanasia" is not an appropriate word for what the govt. has planned. I took out the part about "euthanasia" and a few of the harsher statements by Joyner.
But, I will not back down to my claim that Obama Care will cost the lives of seniors due to rationing and Medicare cuts. Look at what is going on in Britain and Canada. Lives will be lost, and many of them will be elderly. It may not be something the Dems have intentionally planned. But, nevertheless, it will be the result. And the comment by Ezekiel Emanuel is terribly alarming, and he is an Obama medical adviser.
As to Betsy McCaughey, I listened to the two videos by her that I posted earlier, and I did not hear her use the term "euthanasia".
McCaughey clearly says that the "Advance Care Planning Consultations" in the proposal are MANDATORY, that goevrnment bureaucrats will force people to have these consultations "learning how to die" every five years. That is clearly, CLEARLY a lie. It's totally voluntary; if you want it, Medicare would pay for it, if the proposal as written is adopted. If you don't want it, you don't get it. PERIOD.
It's intended to be a nice educational opportunity for people, to find out how they can go about putting their wishes down on paper, to avoid multiple recurrences of the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Instead, McCaughey and Rick Joyner and others are trying to play this as a government official coming into your home and issuing an order that you are slated to die within X months, because it's just not worth it, economically, to keep you alive anymore. That isn't just a lie, it's simply OUTRAGEOUS. It's offensive. And you've chosen to perpetuate this monstrosity of a lie, scaring poor old people, for your own personal partisan politics.
I don't understand how your politics or your religion could allow you to do such a thing, Ms. Moore. Once again, I am very thankful that God created me in His image and not yours.
Still awaiting your confirmation that there are no mandatory consultations, even though you and your rightwingnut friends claimed there are.
Are you sticking by that lie, or are you willing to concede that you "overstated" that position, too?
Not backing down on that one.
Then prove where it says that.
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
The provision in question starts on page 425. Tell us exactly where it says the consultations are mandatory. Page number and line number, please.
America awaits!
That's the page I am looking at. It does not say "mandatory", but it also does not say "optional". Being that our "friends" in the govt are power-hungry, the "mandatory" will more than likely be the result.
Diogenes, you are too emotionally tied to Obama to see the truth about the man. I'm frankly tired of this give-and-take with you on this subject. I'm not going to change your mind, and you will not change my mind.
It doesn't say "optional" because all that clause does is define what kind of expense would be paid for by Medicare. All sorts of expenses are paid for by Medicare; that doesn't mean they're "mandatory". It's required that Medicare PAYS for it, but it's not mandatory for any given patient to receive such services.
An absurd example to show how absurd your false contention is: Medicare is required to pay for the amputation of a patient's arm, as it is a covered expense. That does not mean that a government official comes barging into every Medicare recipient's home with a chainsaw!
What you're doing -- and not even by impication, any more, but by outright reference -- is portraying healthcare reform as jack-booted Nazis barging into homes and killing old folks. That's a lie, it's reprehensible, and it deserves to be called out every single time you rightwingnuts raise that false spectre.
You cannot simply fantasize ideas in your head and claim they are facts. You have absolutely no basis in fact for what you're saying, and since you don't, you're lying to give yourself some sort of "justification".
If your ideas are wise enough and your logic compelling enough, you wouldn't need to lie to convince people you're right. And the fact that you are so willingto lie also should tell people how weak and inaccurate your ideas are.
And this has nothing to do with Obama, just so you know. I'm not ssaying that the current proposals are the be-all-and-end-all, that they're our only hope of starting to fix our healthcare issues. But they are a start, and they are a heckuva lot better than anything forwarded from the right side of the politicval spectrum, so far, which is nil. You want to argue that it will lead to "rationing"? Fine, do it. But quit lying to bolster your argument and, in your case, quit quoting liars as gospel to promote your own political agenda.
You said I'm "too emotionally tied to Obama to see the truth about the man." I respond this way: it's not ABOUT the man, it's about the issue of healthcare. I'm not emotionally tied to Obama. I'm emotionally tied to the truth. In your mind, however, everything -- every issue, domestic or foreign -- IS tied to the man, a man you despise. And you can't seem to get past that, ever.
And if I'm wrong, answer this simple question: why are 99.99% of your posts about Obama?
Because he is destroying this country by trying to take over every aspect of our economy. And you are helping him do it.
By exposing YOUR lies? LMAO
I just now realized the psychological "projection" in you blog's title!
It's about time you got a sense of humor.
Thanks.
But we're still waiting for your citation of the place in the proposal where it says that the consultations are mandatory.
Take your time.
I'll even offer a suggestion: when you find it, go ahead and start a brand new thread on this issue, so you can show people how us libs are lying.
And when you CAN'T find it, just stay silent. It'll be our little secret.
Post a Comment