At Notre Dame yesterday, Barack Hussein Obama demonstrated once again his belief that no issue is so important than it can't be talked to death. His constant refrain is, "Look not at what I've done -- and am doing -- but rather listen to what I'm saying." In his attitudes not only to the unborn but to the ailing elderly, Obama shows his contempt for the most vulnerable members of society.
If I had been at Notre Dame, I would have been arrested with Dr. Keyes, "Jane Roe," and many other patriots. Obama said that we "can't know" God's exact views on issues, blah, blah, blah. If we believe in the Judeo-Christian God, we do know that His views are that we should obey his Commandments and that we must, to the best of our ability, follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, who ordered us to love our fellow human beings, not to do away with them. Obama's supposed "faith" has led him to support infanticide (partial-birth abortion and even live-birth abortion) and unlimited destruction of the innocent..
If Obama believes that is God's will, then he has the Creator mixed up with the guy with the pointy ears. The people who applauded Obama at Notre Dame were celebrating the Emperor of Death. We need to oppose Obama with every fiber of our being.
I've been writing recently about Prof. Peter Singer, a supposed "bioethicist" at Princeton University (look him up in Wikeipedia). He's another Obama type. He supports abortion on this basis: the ones having the abortions are strong, while those being aborted are weak. He's doesn't deny that the embryos -- the unborn -- are living beings. But since they can't protect themselves, they have no right to life. Singer suggests that parents should be able to snuff out the lives of children up until the age of two.
In logic, that's called favoring a "slippery slope." In the Christian tradition, it's called -- or should be -- the Fast Track to Hades. At Princeton, the large Judeo-Christian group there calls Singer the "leave babies to die on the hillside man."
Remember Obama's "joke" about the young people in Special Olympics? Obama has a lifelong record of contempt for those who don't qualify, unlike him and Michelle, as "the beautiful people." Compare Obama with a decent person like Sarah Palin, who has proclaimed her son Trig to be "perfect." No, she doesn't mean Trig will ever be a brain surgeon, but rather that Trig's existence on earth is the fulfillment of God's will. "In His will is our peace."
What kindred souls like Obama and Singer are proposing is not morality. Rather, it is pure evil, and it is our duty to resist their worship at the altar of Death. (More later)
Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts
Monday, May 18, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Obama Healthcare: An American Disaster
Below, Sarah Palin holding a Down Syndrome boy who's carrying a sign that says, "Trig is Perfect." Bible passage from Psalms 50:2: "From Zion, perfect in beauty, God shines forth."
Jean Avery, a McCain-Palin stalwart and a young mother in Seattle, is a graduate of Princeton, and she put me onto "bioethicist" Professor Peter Singer, who is a very dangerous man. Singer doesn't believe in God, but he somehow feels he is qualified to BE god.
He's famous for believing that animals have rights (relax, I'm an animal lover), but he's not convinced that (all) human beings have such rights. If they're more trouble than he determines they should be, they're candidates for termination. (See Singer material on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)
Obama's comments on the "democratic decisions" (made by government employees and not including patients, their own doctors, their families, and their priests, rabbis, or ministers!) about when to deny care to terminal patients, truly was chilling. It didn't get a lot of attention from the media. He was saying what many people on the agnostic Left are thinking.
It's not an Obama paradox but rather a contradiction: In order to provide care, excessive in many cases, to all, government must deny it to the some, and the sick elderly are the first ones who will lose.
I'm not under any illusions that end-of-life issues are easy. Personally, I'm in favor of hospices and DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate forms signed by patients or their next-of-kin), as long as it isn't some bureaucrat signing the DNR. The problem with Obama's "statistical" approach to health care is that it turns out the statistics don't really apply to unique individuals.
As for Prof. Singer, his reasoning about it's being okay to euthanize severely handicapped people is a lot like some of the "moderately evil" Nazis, who looked at handicapped individuals (and other groups) as merely a cost-benefit question. In doing so, they were "enablers" for the "pure evil" Nazis.
Obama-care is going to impose unsustainable costs on the health care system, including payoffs to SEIU members (many of whom are hospital workers) and "cooperative" providers. Also, more and more patients are going to start demanding the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins rather than their local hospital. That will cause costs to skyrocket.
oon after, the government rationing will begin. The good news will be that we'll all have a "health care" card; the bad news it will be worth less and less.
He's famous for believing that animals have rights (relax, I'm an animal lover), but he's not convinced that (all) human beings have such rights. If they're more trouble than he determines they should be, they're candidates for termination. (See Singer material on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer)
Obama's comments on the "democratic decisions" (made by government employees and not including patients, their own doctors, their families, and their priests, rabbis, or ministers!) about when to deny care to terminal patients, truly was chilling. It didn't get a lot of attention from the media. He was saying what many people on the agnostic Left are thinking.
It's not an Obama paradox but rather a contradiction: In order to provide care, excessive in many cases, to all, government must deny it to the some, and the sick elderly are the first ones who will lose.
I'm not under any illusions that end-of-life issues are easy. Personally, I'm in favor of hospices and DNRs (Do Not Resuscitate forms signed by patients or their next-of-kin), as long as it isn't some bureaucrat signing the DNR. The problem with Obama's "statistical" approach to health care is that it turns out the statistics don't really apply to unique individuals.
As for Prof. Singer, his reasoning about it's being okay to euthanize severely handicapped people is a lot like some of the "moderately evil" Nazis, who looked at handicapped individuals (and other groups) as merely a cost-benefit question. In doing so, they were "enablers" for the "pure evil" Nazis.
Obama-care is going to impose unsustainable costs on the health care system, including payoffs to SEIU members (many of whom are hospital workers) and "cooperative" providers. Also, more and more patients are going to start demanding the Mayo Clinic or Johns Hopkins rather than their local hospital. That will cause costs to skyrocket.
oon after, the government rationing will begin. The good news will be that we'll all have a "health care" card; the bad news it will be worth less and less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
