The History and Practice of Eugenics
So
what kind of things are going on now during President Obama's
administration?
Dr.
Ezekiel Emanuel was the chair of the Department of Bioethics at the
US Institutes of Health. Bioethics is basically euthanasia education.
Now he is working for President Barach Obama and is seen as being
responsible for the "death council" that has made the list
of medical practices that will deny care to the elderly, chronically
ill, and poor. Ezekiel's brother is Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm
Emanuel.
In
1953, The American Eugenics Society joined Rockefeller funded
Population Council. Daniel Callahan was given a grant from the
Rockefeller Foundation in 1668-1969 to found the Hastings Center in
Garrison, NY. The Hastings Center is a bioethics center, Theodore
Dobzhansky, geneticist and evolutionary biologists, was a founding
director of the Hastings Center and was also chairman of the American
Eugenics Society. And Daniel Callahan was a director of the Eugenics
Society. Ezekiel Emanuel is a Hastings Center fellow, and so is his
wife Linda Emanuel. Ezekiel Emanuel's deputy director of the Federal
Department of Bioethics, Christine Grady, is also a Hastings fellow
and director of the Hastings Center.
Dr.
Emanuel wrote a book in 2008 called Healthcare, Guaranteed. In he he
advocated a National Health Board to oversee and cut healthcare and
to approve all payments and procedures. "To reduce political
interference and allow the necessary tough choices to be made. But he
believes this board should not have any pressure from elected
officials, Congress or the President, and that they should be funded
independently from Congressional appropriations. Basically, this
board would be autonomous and would not have to answer even to
Congress and they would be getting their money from rich backers and
we the voters would be at their mercy.
Senator
Tom Daschle was at one time the pick to be basically a health czar
for Obama. He too, wrote a book in 2008, called Critical: What We Can
Do About the Healthcare crisis. He feels that anyone who signs up for
Medicare should have to sign a document that says to what degree they
consent to be killed in an end of life situation.
You
can read some of the papers written by him here:
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/PIIS0140673609601379.pdf
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdfhttp://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
He
advocates prioritizing adolescents and young adults as far as
healthcare goes, at the expense of the very young and the very old.
He says that adolescents have had a lot of education and parental
care invested in them whereas infants haven't got much invested in
them yet. So adolescents if not saved would be a waste of that
investment. He is talking about a hypothetical healthcare emergency,
but the problem is, it's not so hypothetical. We could easily find
ourselves in some sort of pandemic, and what he is saying is that
people between the ages of 15 and 40 would get medical treatment
before anyone else. While he says this shouldn't be based on their
economic background, it would quickly degenerate to just that.
Because he also says that "instrumental value" could also
be used as criteria for deciding who gets an organ or a vaccine. This
means someone is going to be deciding how useful you are to society.
In
the second paper, he says that people who have dementia or children
with learning disabilities, should not have basic healthcare
guaranteed to them, because they are irreversibly prevented from
becoming participating citizens. But healthcare should be guarantee
healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning
skills, and ensure full and active participation of citizens in
public deliberation. Again, the more valuable you are deemed to be to
society, the more likely you will be to get medical care, so that you
continue to be valuable to society.
President
Obama also has a man named John Holdren working for him. He is
referred to as his Science Czar, because he is his senior advisor on
science and technology, because he is Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology, and Director of White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and he co-chairs the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology.
Before
going to work for the Obama administration, he was director of
Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at Harvard
University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and
Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard as
well. He also served as Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.
His
was trained in aeronautics, astronautics and plasma physics. He
focused his energies on environmental change, and energy technologies
and policies, how to reduce dangers from nuclear weapons, and science
and technology policy. So his whole life has been dedicated to
changing our national policies with regard to science. He also served
on President Bill Clinton's President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology.
He
testified before Congress during his confirmation hearing that he
doesn't believe that the .government should have a role in population
control and that he never supported forces sterilization.
But
he has written, " if the population control measures are not
initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can
bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." He believes
that we should lower our population increase below replacement
because, "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is
likely to be much too many." He co-authored a textbook titled,
Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, with Paul R. Ehrlich,
and Anne H. Ehrlich. In this book they cover family planning,
enforced population control, forced sterilization after a
predesignated number of children, birth control and abortion. They
call these things possible options that could be implemented. They
suggest the idea of putting drugs into the drinking water to cause
sterilization. They feel that teen and single mothers should have
their children taken from them and given away to others to raise.
Rather than calling people degenerate or unfit, they refer to them as
people who, "contribute to social deterioration" and say
that they "can be required by law to exercise reproductive
responsibility."And he is in support of a One World Government.
He called for a "Planetary Regime" that would take control
of the economy of the world and government in general, and the method
of doing this would be an international police force.
After
his and the Ehrlich's book laid the groundwork by saying that it is a
fact that we are overpopulated, on pg. 837 of Ecoscience, it says
this: "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory
population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory
abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the
population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the
society." By using phrases like "it has been concluded"
he avoids taking responsibility for making the conclusion, probably
so that he would meet with less criticism and was therefore able to
testify in Congress that he had not supported forced sterilization.
Page
786 is the source that says children should be taken away from single
mothers. "one way to carry out this disapproval might be to
insist that all illegitimate babies be put up for
adoption--especially those born to minors, who generally are not
capable of caring properly for a child alone. If a single mother
really wished to keep her baby, she might be obliged to go through
adoption proceedings and demonstrate her ability to support and care
for it. Adoption proceedings probably should remain more difficult
for single people than for married couples, in recognition of the
relative difficulty of raising children alone. It would even be
possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions,
perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the
society."
Now
given that it has basically been the agenda of the elite for the last
100 years or better to undermine the traditional family, by
encouraging a relaxation of morals that resulted in more children
being born to single mothers, and through women's liberation,
encouraging women to think that fathers are not necessary, and they
are now condemning women for having children out of wedlock, they are
basically showing the ultimate aim; to make as many children as
possible wards of the state. This would result in easily
indoctrinated and trained drone type citizens for the future world
they are working diligently towards. While doing away with the legal
bonds between mother and child or father and child or man and woman,
they have forgotten to factor in the emotional bonds that were
provided by nature. Children are irrevocably changed by being
wrenched from their mothers' arms, and the mothers themselves are
devastated, often in a way that they never recover from. But they
want us to be robotic machines, so they convince themselves that we
already are beneath feeling human emotion, in order to absolve
themselves of any responsibility toward human decency and kindness.
By
proposing enforced abortions, he is effectively going to the opposite
extreme from anti abortion. Because he is taking away choice, just
for a different reason. And his reason has nothing to do with any
consideration for the sanctity of life. There is anti abortion at one
extreme, pro choice in the middle and enforced abortion at the
opposite end of the spectrum. Both extremes take away choice. Anti
abortion supporters want to protect the rights of the unborn child.
Those for enforced abortion take away both the rights of the child
and the rights of the mother by forcing a medical procedure upon her.
Even if a woman supported abortion, it would be horribly traumatic to
be forced to undergo one. And no surgery is without the risk of
complication and death.
He
discusses involuntary fertility control on page 786-7, "A
program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,
despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than
vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be
implanted under the skin and remove when pregnancy is desired opens
additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule
could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official
permission, for a limited number of births."
When
this book was written, in 1977, we didn't have those implants, but we
do now, in the form of Norplant; and when they first came on the
market, the first women they were marketed to were young teen black
women. Baltimore was the first city to begin offering Norplant in
their high schools in 1993. And it was implemented without adequate
testing.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-08-27/news/1993239014_1_norplant-clinic-public-schoolRight after it came on the market in 1991, judges and legislators
started trying to mandate its use. Some states began telling women
that were convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy, that
they either got the implant or went to jail. Some of the bills that
were introduced in some states offered financial incentive to women
to get them to have the implants inserted. What that means is that if
they wanted to receive public assistants, which they might need for
the survival of their family, they would have to get the implant. The
ACLU holds that forcing women to get these implants violates a basic
constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by
interfering with the decision of whether or when to bear children and
by forcing a medical procedure upon them, because they are not in a
position to reject it.
The
ACLU says that these policies are based on the notion that low income
women have children indiscriminately. But according to their figures,
in 1990 just before Norplant came on the market, low income families
had 1.9 children, which was no larger a family than those who were
better off financially. They also bring up the point, that Norplant
would stop a woman from conceiving, but not stop her from using drugs
or abusing her children, so really does not address the problem. I am
of the opinion that what they state the problem is, is just their
public spin on their real aim, which is finding legal excuses to
sterilize women. The ACLU also says these laws discriminate against
women, because men are not punished for drug abuse or child abuse by
being forced to have vasectomies. They also say straight out that the
fact that low income women and especially women of color are targeted
by this type of sentencing, is overt racism and eugenics.
(http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abusehttp://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/norplant-new-contraceptive-potential-abuse
On
page 787-8, he discusses adding drugs to the water supply to
sterilize people. "Adding a sterilant to drinking water or
staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than
most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed this would
pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to
say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists
today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable,
such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements:
it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received
by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and
sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or
unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the
opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock." There
is no mention of whether or not it poses any moral questions. And
animals seem to be more important than humans.
Page
838 of Holdren's book says that people who cause social
deterioration, should be sterilized. "If some individuals
contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children,
and if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to
exercise reproductive responsibility- just as they can be required to
exercise responsibility in their resource consumption patterns-
providing they are not denied equal protection."
If
you could understand his argument on the basis of degeneracy, you
still can't possibly agree that having more children than some would
like makes you a degenerate. He is reverting back to the eugenics
term "degeneracy" but he is broadening the definition to
include someone who chooses to have a large family as degenerate.
Implying that people wouldn't be denied equal protection under the
law is meant to show that he wouldn't be racist in determining who
had to be sterilized. That just means that they wouldn't just be
limited to race in their ability to determine who has to be
sterilized. They just need to show that you are degenerate, which
would be relative to the person making the determination. They need
to make that distinction about "equal protection under the law"
because there has already been a Supreme Court case, Skinner vs.
Oklahoma, that determined that the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment prohibited state sanctioned sterilization being
applied unequally to certain types of people. It's hard to do away
with a Supreme Court decision, it is easier to maneuver around one by
giving the appearance that you are not being racist in your
decisions.
On
page 838, he suggests that if the law can tell you how many spouses
to have it should be able to tell you how many children to have. "In
today's world, however, the number of children in a family is a
matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly
personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one
spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person
from having more than two children?"
You
might wonder if he has trouble understanding the constitution or
something. But the fact is, he would like to do away with the
government we have and establish a One World Government. He thinks
the UN should be able to make the decisions on population and on how
all the world's resources are used. This effectively does away with
US sovereignty, and makes constitutionality a mute point."Perhaps
those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population
agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort
of an international super-agency for population, resources, and
environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the
development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all
natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as
international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the
power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but
also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross
international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The
Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all
international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs,
and including all food on the international market.
The
Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the
optimum population for the world and for each region and for
arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits.
Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each
government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the
agreed limits."(page 942-3) Food, commerce on the oceans,
because they are a source of resources, and all of the economy that
is based on our resources, would then be under the control of the
"Regime."
In
case he wasn't clear enough there that he wants to do away with our
sovereignty, on page 917, he says it straight out. "If this
could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed
international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many
people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it
remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to
be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender
of sovereignty to an international organization."
When
the book was published in 1977, he said we had to stop overpopulation
by the year 2000. It must get his gall to know that he didn't quite
meet his goal. And it probably makes him even more fanatical in his
desperation to see his plans implemented. "Humanity cannot
afford to muddle through the rest of the twentieth century; the risks
are too great, and the stakes are too high. This may be the last
opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing
to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it
must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much
better world." (page 944)
You
can look up the book yourself. I have given citations. If you think
that John Holdren didn't himself say the things in the book, ask
yourself, if he doesn't agree with the ideas within the book, then
why did he allow his name to be put on the book? Why are the
acknowledgments in the book to people at Berkeley, where he worked
and to his wife? Ecoscience is not the only book he has written
though. He has written other on his own. You can go to Google books
and look them up. The Obama administration tried to do a spin on
him, by issuing a press statement to the Washington Times, that said
that the book was "a three-decade-old, three-author college
textbook. Dr. Holdren addressed this issue during his confirmation
when he said he does not believe that determining optimal population
is a proper role of government. Dr. Holdren is not and never has been
an advocate for policies of forced sterilization." I won't cut
him any slack for the book being old, if he felt these things
strongly enough to make sure they were being taught in a text book,
and he has changed his mind, he should feel strongly enough about his
supposed new opinion to see that it is taught from text books. And he
should hold himself highly responsible for any student who was
influenced by his older opinion.
His
co-author Ehrlich said that the book was an encyclopedia and that
these things were descriptions and not necessarily endorsements of
the things that were defined in the book.
Which
thing do you give more weight to, an opinion that they felt strongly
enough to put in print and leave in print so that people could be
taught from, or Holdren's reply when asked whether he believed the
government should determine optimal population, "No, Senator,I
do not." Has he written a book titled, No Senator I Do Not? If
he thinks his earlier opinion was wrong, he should correct that
wrong, and it should have taken precedence over a job on the Obama
Administration.
Their
more recent statements make as much sense as a child pornographer
putting out a movie that depicts deviant behavior and then saying
they don't endorse the behavior, but just thought people ought to be
aware that it was an option.
Another
point to be made is this, if John Holdren is not eugenicist in
philosophy, then why does he consider Harrison Brown to be more or
less his hero? H has said that Harrison Brown's book, The Challenge
of Man's Future changed his personal philosophy and was the impetus
for him making a career in science and population policy. Harrison
Brown was a eugenicist. In 1986, John Holdren edited and co-wrote a
book about Harrison Brown titled, Earth and the Human Future"
Essays in Honor of Harrison Brown. I would think that if he worked on
a book to honor Brown, then he must honor him.
Interestingly, his comments in the book
on Brown, prove my point. "Harrison Brown’s most remarkable
book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, was published more than three
decades ago. By the time I read it as a high school student a few
years later, the book had been widely acclaimed. … The Challenge of
Man’s Future pulled these interests together for me in a way that
transformed my thinking about the world and about the sort of career
I wanted to pursue. I have always suspected that I am not the only
member of my generation whose aspirations and subsequent career were
changed by this book of Harrison Brown’s. … As a demonstration of
the power of (and necessity for) an interdisciplinary approach to
global problems, the book was a tour de force. … Thirty years after
Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to
improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges
we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s
Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping
schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was
(and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force
with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of
the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short,
that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious
analysts."
He straight out says, that reading a
book transformed his thinking and that he believed that the book
changed the aspirations and career choices of not just him, but many
others of his generation. Now he can't claim that his book might not
have had the very same effect of people who read it. And so, he is
responsible for it. The book by Harrison Brown that Holdren praises
so highly calls for the sterilization and birth control of the
degenerate and feeble-minded.
" The feeble-minded, the morons,
the dull and backward, and the lower-than-average persons in our
society are out-breeding the superior ones at the present time. …
Is there anything that can be done to prevent the long-range
degeneration of human stock? Unfortunately, at the present time there
is little, other than to prevent breeding in persons who present
glaring deficiencies clearly dangerous to society and which are known
to be of a hereditary nature. Thus we could sterilize or in other
ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further
and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them
from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of
physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness,
or absence of limbs. … A broad eugenics program would have to be
formulated which would aid in the establishment of policies that
would encourage able and healthy persons to have several offspring
and discourage the unfit from breeding at excessive rates."
His co-author Ehrlich said that people
should read some of their other books if they wanted to know what
they believe in. I guess he was right. This book sure seems to make
it clear.
The most bizarre thing about this whole
issue of eugenics and Obama care is that people always thinks that if
they support the government it will never turn on them. The
Emmanuels, Rahm and Ezekiel are Israeli born Jews. And I read
somewhere, that they have a sister born with cerebral palsy. How does
a Jew support eugenics? They think it will be the other guy that is
sterilized, that's how. There were Jewish scientists that worked for
the Nazis too.
As a society, we have to make some
decisions. They have been claiming for 150 years that the world was
on the brink of a disaster because of overpopulation, and that the
more valuable elements of human society were going to be extinct
because they were being out bred by those deemed degenerate. So far,
we haven't had this predicted catastrophe. So the first decision we
have to make is whether or not they are right that the world as a
whole, really is overpopulated.
If,
and that is a big if, you believe it is, then the next thing we have
to decide is whether or not we want people in positions of power who
believe that the only thing that can stop overpopulation is the use
of totalitarian government force.
Or
you can decide to go for social reform and education policies. These
would be designed to get people to voluntarily comply with birth
control measures. In 3rd world countries where population is said to
be leveling off, it is believed that better standards of living and
better education are responsible. But there is a hidden danger here;
education and social reform have been the method consistently used to
push the very same communist/socialist agenda that was implemented by
force in China, the Soviet Union and other places. Just the very
suggestion that social reform and education needs to be used, smacks
of people saying, "get them to decide to do it for themselves,
because it is easier than pointing a gun at them, for all concerned."
It indicates that we are being brain washed to believe that
overpopulation exists, when it really doesn't.
So
is there any evidence that that is true? How about the fact that
China, which was supposedly so severely overpopulated, now has
another type of crisis on it's hands. They are expected to have as
many as 24 million men than women between now and 2020. The Pulitzer
Center reports that it will lead to a population of life-long
bachelors the size of Texas by 2020. Again governments and scientist
forgot to factor in the human element. Even though it is against the
law for Chinese couples to do genetic testing to see if the child is
male or female, it is still routinely done in rural clinics. Some
rural villages are so disproportionately male that they are called
"bachelor villages." This results in other social problems,
like women being sold by their families in poor regions. Because
women are scarce, they have become a commodity. It has been predicted
that a marriage economy could develop due to the trend of families
building up large savings in order to attract women to marry their
sons. And lower class families could seek upper class husbands so
they could raise the status of the family. And some people predict
that sexually frustrated men in such large numbers could lead to
social unrest.
http://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriagehttp://pulitzercenter.org/projects/china-population-women-bachelor-marriage
If
the ACLU feels, as I do that forced abortions and sterilization in a
violation of constitutional rights, which are equivalent to human
rights, in the US, then they are a violation in China. The system in
China is so oppressive that one women takes her life every three
seconds there.
Last
month, May 16, 2012, CNS News reported a story about Chinese human
rights activist, Chai Ling testified during a House Foreign Affairs
Subcommitteeon Chen Guangcheng, the blind Chinese activist, who fled
to the US Embassy iin Beijing. He was imprisoned by China because he
was fighting for human rights for women.
Chai
Ling told the story of a woman named Deng Lourong. She was the second
of 3 girls. Her parents wanted a boy bad enough that they violated
the one-child policy. Chinese officials tore down their home and took
all their belongings.
The
mother and father both fled, and left the three girls with their
grandmother. The grandmother was subsequently imprisoned. The girls
had no one to be their guardian, and Lourong was raped at the age of
12. Because this happened, her grandmother was released to take care
of them but died soon afterward. The man who raped Deng Lourong one
served five days for it.
Deng
Lourong was sold as a child bride three years later, and her sisters
were sold by traffickers and no one can find them. The man who Deng
Lourong had to marry, prostitutes her out to bachelors, and as a
result she is mentally ill.
(http://cnsnews.com/news/article/human-rights-activist-woman-takes-her-life-every-three-seconds-china)
Even
if you believe we are overpopulated, should we do things that result
in even greater harm to mankind? I think not. The ends never
justifies the means.
In 2009 Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the
comment that, "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was
decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly
growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So
that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for
abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into
having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the
court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I
realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
That sounds rather elitist, but she
then went on to say, "The basic thing is that the government has
no business making that choice for a woman." That sounds like
she believes women should make the choice, but do the two comments
taken together mean she thinks that poor women or whatever she was
referring to as "populations we don't want goo many of"
should be encouraged to make that choice?
At the time the interview was taken,
Obama's pick for a new Justice was Sonia Sotomayor.
Her detractors have pointed out that
she is a racist. While making a speech at a gathering of La Raza Law
Journal, she said, “Whether born from experience or inherent
physiological or cultural differences … our gender and national
origins may and will make a difference in our judging. … I would
hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male
who hasn’t lived that life.”
You
could interpret that to mean that since she is from a minority race
and a woman, which is often another minority, that she would be
doubly compassionate in her decisions, because she had been in their
shoes. But you have to consider the circumstances the statement was
made under. La Raza, means "The Race." If some white
lawyers had a Law Journal and called it "The Race," it
would be considered arrogant at best, and racist at worst. The point
is, in our world and in our country, racism and reverse racism,
happens in all walks of life, and everyone thinks they are justified
in it, and that they will personally should never be the victim of
it, and everyone else can fend for themselves.
On
December 25, 2010, the NY Times reported that Obama's healthcare plan
would pay doctors who encouraged or advised patients on options for
end of life care, which may include advance directives to forgo
aggressive life sustaining treatment. When this stuff came up before
Republicans like Sarah Palin said that the government was going to
use the healthcare bill to cut off care for the critically ill. Obama
denied it saying that they weren't going "to cut off grandma's
life support." But the final version of the bill that President
Obama signed, has Medicare coverage of "voluntary advance care
planning," to discuss end of life treatment, as part of the
annual visit. Doctors can provide information to patients on how to
prepare an advance healthcare directive. I really don't understand
what's to cover. They have been making those little pamphlets that
explain the whole procedure to people for years, and you can download
and print one off the internet. Unless they mean they will cover the
cost of printing those up, there's nothing to cover. So what it
appears to really mean is that they will pay doctors and nurses for
their time explaining and encouraging old people to get one set up.
When someone feels bad and someone in a white coat comes at them with
a bunch of pressure to make a decision, they could easily fall victim
to what they perceive as a person of authority. Older persons can
have trouble making decisions on a good day and sometimes need more
time than a younger person to think over the pros and cons of
something and work it out in their mind what they are going to do.
But doctors could easily get them to agree to something like a DNR
order right there on the spot, especially with a financial incentive.
There is nothing in the bill that says doctors are not permitted to
get an older person to make up their mind. One of the things doctors
have to explain is that Medicare pays for hospice care. And
basically, that is keeping a patient comfortable until they die, but
no medical intervention. Who are the persons or organizations on the
list of helpful resources that doctors are to tell their patients
about? They might give you the address for the Hemlock Society or
something.
As
messed up as that seems, if you don't have something in writing, the
doctors get to make the decisions rather than you and your family. I
chose personally to get a Medical Power of Attorney. In my state that
is the better way to go. But the states around me use the advance
healthcare directives. When you go to the hospital for the slightest
thing, they want to know if you have one, and they frown if you tell
them you have a medical power of attorney. But that is a much better
way of handling your wishes and it is what is required in my state
anyway. I imagine that if you don't take care of things yourself, you
could be encouraged to do all sorts of things by the doctors
providing the information to you. With a Medical Power of Attorney,
someone you trust is making decisions when you can't. You just do not
want some doctor or doctors doing that for you, when a situation not
described in an advance directive or living will comes up. When I had
mine made up, no one was paid to influence me. I told my lawyer what
I wanted and asked if that was legal, he said yes, and made up the
paperwork which was signed and notarized.
Whether
or not the end of life counseling will result in the government
forcing death on people, there are other aspects of the bill that do.
In July 2014, there will be an Independent Payment Advisory Board
that decides how much Medicare gets reduced by if it goes over the
limits of annual growth rate stipulated by the Obama administration.
There is a set amount of money that can be spent for Medicare every
year, and after that this board gets to decide who gets what.
I
can't find the actual London Times story, but there are websites and
blogs all over the internet, that say that in May 2009 they covered a
story saying that , Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, Ted Turner, David
Rockefeller, Warren Buffet, George Soros, and Michael Bloomberg, met
at the New York home of Sir Paul Nurse, a Nobel Prize winning
biochemist and President of Rockefeller University.
The
purpose of the meeting was to discuss population reduction. A quote
from Patricia Stonsifer, who formerly headed the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, said that these people would continue to meet over
the next few months. They were supposed to be discussing population
issues as a possible environmental, social and industrial threat.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/99105/
I
did manage to find an article on Market Watch at the Walls Street
Journal on the meeting.http://articles.marketwatch.com/2009-09-29/commentary/30802021_1_global-warming-collapse-bomb
Let's
address the opinions, policies and actions of some of these people.
In a CNN interview March 5, 2010, Bill Gates said that child deaths
and sicknesses are not the only benefits of vaccinations. And
population control is another benefit of vaccinations.
The
$800 million dollars that his and Melinda's foundation gives yearly
for global health is almost as much as the UN WHO annual budget and
is close to the amount that the US Agency for International
Development spends to fight infectious disease. He pays 17% of the
world budget for eradicating polio. In 2005 his foundation gave the
Global Alliance for Vaccines and immunization $750 million dollars.
He gave $27 million to the Children's Vaccine Program, which is run
by the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health in2003. This was
supposed to vaccinate against Japanese encephalitis. This vaccine
reportedly causes sterility. They gave the University of Washington
Department of Global Health, $30 million to found the department.
They have given $287 million to HIV/AIDS research. They gave $280
million to Aeras Global TB Vaccine Foundation. In 2012 he pledged
$10 billion to provide vaccinations to children world wide.
During
a speech that he gave at the TED conference in Long Beach California
in 2010 he said that vaccinations, healthcare, reproductive health
systems, could lower the population caused use of Co2 by 15 percent.
Reproductive health systems means abortions and birth control. He
also recommended reporting every birth by cell phone. Vaccines will
be the key. If you could register every birth on a cell phone—get
fingerprints, get a location—then you could [set up] systems to
make sure the immunizations happen.” He thinks that in rural areas
of the world, cell phones would be instrumental in insuring that
people get vaccinations and take their TB medicines. “Malaria and
TB are going to be the first things where you say, ‘Wow, without
this mobile application, all these people would have died."
I
guess now we are going to have an app for that. He told the audience
that there is "no such thing as a healthy high population growth
country." "If you are healthy, you are low population
growth." He has a weird idea that if parents have healthy
children, then within five years, they will decide to have less
children, and that is the basis for his push for vaccinations. OR so
he says. He thinks that robots are the next big thing in healthcare.
He suggested that C-sections are routine, so a robot could perform
them. Having had a C-section, I cannot imagine how surreal it would
be to be drugged up and have a robot cut into your body from your
belly button to your pubic bone and extract the life that you have
carried an nurtured for nine months. It makes my incision scar hurt
to think about it. Let's change the subject.
The
Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation
(David Rockefeller) created GMO biotechnology, and are financing The
Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa(AGRA). Former UN chief,
Kofi Annan heads it. It's board has people from both foundations on
it.
The
Rockefeller Brothers' Fund and George Soros sponsor the Center for
American Progress, which cooperates with Common Purpose. As I
pointed out earlier, the Rockefeller Foundation, as well as the Ford
and New World Foundations fund the Hastings Center. I won't get into
what all it does here but the Rockefeller's are tied to the Council
on Foreign Relations.
The
film maker Aaron Russo was friends with Nick Rockefeller and told
Alex Jones that he said the Rockefeller's bankrolled women's
liberation because half of the population wasn't being taxed and if
they entered the work force they would be. And their children would
have to enter the public school system earlier, which would make it
easier to indoctrinate them to accept the state as their primary
family. Their aim was to break up the traditional family model. He
also said that Rockefeller talked about the need for people to be
ruled or controlled by the elite, and one of the ways of doing this
was through population control. Population needed to be reduced by
half. He also said that Rockefeller wanted people implanted with a
chip to control their brain. This idea comes from trans humanism and
post humanism. They think technologies could be used to create
simultaneously better humans and more easily controlled humans.
This
video will give you a little more visual understanding of what I am
trying to get across. I found it after I finished writing this.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2615496775977574586
