Obamacare: The Real Agenda

Mark Alexander of Patriot Post makes some very strong points in this week essay. I blogged about Sanger and Obama almost a year ago. This essay bears reading and then one should ask the question , who are the "unwanted " of Sanger and Holdren? Surely not the Leftist voter base, at least not yet, or could it be those who oppose the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America". I will leave it for you to decide for it is certainly a question that needs to be asked, soon, very soon.

Alexander's Essay – 16 July 2009

Team ObamaCare: Sanger, Ginsburg and Holdren

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Now that Barack Hussein Obama has undermined free enterprise by nationalizing major financial and manufacturing sectors of our economy, he has set his sights on the health care sector, which comprises almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

This shouldn't surprise us. After all, he did promise a "fundamental transformation of the United States of America," and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did cite the current economic crisis as the means for doing so. "Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Emanuel said. "They are opportunities to do big things."

Of course, there is NO constitutional authority or precedent for this massive government intrusion into the private sector. But then, when do Leftists look to any authority higher than themselves?

Considering the prospect of Socialists in charge of dispensing health care from cradle to grave, I was reminded, by none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that when one is in need of health care, one should not depend on folks who advocate a "culture of death."

In an interview last week, Ginsburg said that she thought "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."

This comment was not some senile blunder from an aging jurist noted for nodding off during High Court deliberations.

In fact, Ginsburg's candid assessment of the Left's advocacy for abortion as a means for controlling propagation of undesirable ethnic groups is based upon the writings of atheist social activist and leftist icon Margaret Sanger.

Some 50 years before Roe v. Wade, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood, now the largest perpetrator of abortions in the U.S.

Sanger asserted that ministry to the poor, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, is responsible for excessive numbers of "unwanted" ethnic breeds. "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste."

Ah, yes, "human waste."

Sanger characterized the poor as "human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger insisted that women create an enormous "debt to society [by] creating slums, filling asylums with the insane, and institutions with other defectives. ... Poverty and the large family generally go hand in hand. ... The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Of blacks, Sanger wrote, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

She advocated policies that ensured "more children from the fit, less from the unfit" in order to "to create a race of thoroughbreds." (Remember this quote the next time a liberal tells you that Fascists and Socialists have nothing in common.)

Sanger was certainly the 20th century's most noted American proponent of racist eugenics. However when we remind our liberal friends of the origins of Planned Parenthood, they sputter on about Sanger's support for eugenics being an anomaly of another time and context.

But Sanger's advocacy for the extermination of the "unwanted" is the basis of today's culture of death. Indeed, one of the adherents of eugenics now directs BHO's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the co-chair of Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

John Holdren may not be openly advocating racial selection, but he clearly advocates mass sterilization and abortion in order to control human impact on the environment. This is nothing but a contemporary interpretation of Sanger's eliminating "human weeds" and "reckless breeders."

Holdren's modern day eugenics program is outlined in a book he co-authored, "Ecoscience," in which he calls for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime [in order to] control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

One solution, writes Holdren, is "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods" which would help weed out those "who contribute to social deterioration."

As for the constitutional authority, Holdren writes, "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."

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children," insists Holdren, "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."

I suppose Holdren is Obama's "Czar of Compelling Needs."

As for global solutions, Holdren writes, "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. 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."

Holdren is of course careful about how his "Planetary Regime" might enforce these limits, but given the common bonds of Fascists and Socialists, a contemporary global solution with much more efficient ecological results than dismembering children in the womb would be to release a biological agent targeting mass populations in developing regions of Asia and Africa -- something like strains of Swine or Bird Influenza. After all, AlGorites consider climate change to be a crisis of global proportions, and such a crisis requires innovative solutions.

Holdren concludes, "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."

In 1931, futurist H.G. Wells wrote of Sanger's proposed regime, "The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time. When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."

Apparently, Obama's director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is prepared to do his part to sustain Sanger's legacy.

Given Holdren's musings about population control, should these folks be in charge of determining who receives what medical care?

Circling back to that same interview with Justice Ginsburg last week, here is how she defended a woman's right to end the life of her unborn child: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

But in regard to ObamaCare, I doubt that Ginsburg would apply a similar standard: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice."

The Hippocratic Oath, until recently the de facto position of medicine, established the fundamental principle that a physician should "First, do no harm." Perhaps BO himself should take that oath -- not that he has shown any penchant for honoring the one he took for his current job.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

"My first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews." --Adolf Hitler, 1922

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." --Barack Hussein Obama, 2007

SURFS UP

This article by Charles Colson was just too good to pass up and not post for others who may not read Mr. Colson’s daily take on things. For those who believe that the chief occupier can stop the rising seas they need to especially pay close attention to the story told in Mr. Colson’s writing. Unfortunately the leftist will ignore the story and call it “folklore” and continue with their foolish plans to “stop the warming”.

Mr. Colson ends his article with this: “Eventually, the tide will come in. Let’s pray that it’s only our vanity that gets washed away.” I might add and perhaps those foolish enough to believe they can stop the “tides”.

Surf's Up!
Climate Change and Hubris

July 14, 2009

As the story goes, the courtiers of the 11th-century Anglo-Scandinavian king, Canute, told him that he was “so great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back.”

Knowing that this was nonsense, Canute, a pious Christian, had his throne moved to the beach. As the waves came in, he commanded them to desist. When the waves paid him no mind, he proclaimed, “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey.”

Twenty-first century governmental leaders could learn a lot from this 11th-century Viking king.

At the recent G8 summit, the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized economies agreed to stop the world from getting too warm. Really. In their communique, they said that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius].” Or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Just like it’s one thing to command the waves the desist and another to literally stem the tide, saying that temperatures ought not to rise and actually making that happen are entirely different matters.

By way of making that happen, the G8 communique calls for the 32 industrialized nations to cut CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050. As you no doubt realize, 32 nations are more than 8 nations. That means that the G8’s plans to limit the world’s temperatures require that other countries join them in standing athwart the climate and saying, “Go back!”

Or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it, “even if all G8 countries cut their emissions, we will not meet the 2 degree goal without the emerging economies.”

And the problem is that the emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil have no interest in yelling, “Go back!” Brazilian president Lula spoke for many when he said, “We don’t want to continue to be second-class citizens. We want to go to the top floor.” For that matter, Russia, a member of the G8, has said that it won’t “sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction.”

Nobody knows how, or even if, the kind of cuts being discussed can be made without sacrificing economic growth.

What is certain is that simply declaring that the world shouldn’t warm up more than we want won’t magically solve the technical and economic challenges.

To be fair, not everything about the pronouncement was Canute-like. For one thing, I am fairly certain that nobody was seated on a throne when the communique was released.

But while the Viking king knew the limits of his authority and competence, the hubris of world leaders today, in contrast, has us imagining that we can control the weather. As the G8 was setting the global thermostat, Bill Gates and others claimed to have developed a technology that suppresses hurricanes. I’m serious.

It isn’t only the weather. We also speak about “directing our evolution” through biotechnology. Our confidence in our ability to control nature knows no bounds.

Eventually, the tide will come in. Let’s pray that it’s only our vanity that gets washed away

See You Later, Joe

I haven’t really been up to writing much on the blog the last few days. I have needed time to grieve the death of a dear friend by the name of Joe Dennison. Joe left this world on July 3.

Joe lived in Greensboro, NC, with his much-praised wife. He was retired from the VA where his work with Veterans will be recorded as outstanding. He was indeed dedicated to those who faithfully served this country and seemed, at times, to have been lost in the system and forgotten by the very ones they served to protect. Even in retirement, Joe was dedicated to “his Vets” as he often called them in our correspondence. He did studies on why vets sometimes became homeless; why they turned to drugs and/or alcohol; and why their lives often landed on the junk heaps of society. Joe questioned everything and everyone trying to find the answers so that he could in some way stop the cycle and improve the quality of life for every Veteran, not just the lost souls.

Joe was also a professor at High Point University where he taught Social Work for a number of years prior to and after his retirement. He was as passionate about making better social workers of those who passed through his classes as he was in improving the lives of veterans. He would often write in e-mails about the number of papers left to grade and how long it took to grade papers that required students to think and write. Joe was not one who gave much credence to the multiple choice types of tests, I am sure. He would fight his way through them and, a few days later, I would get an e-mail of, "WHOOPEE, I’m finished. Now where were we in our conversation?" and so we would continue where we had left off.

Joe was the type of man who made you think and to sometimes adjust your own thinking. And if you presented an argument containing good evidence, then Joe would say, “I’d never looked at it that way, but, indeed, you are right. Thank you for presenting such a well thought out argument.” Few men I know would admit, as Joe did, "Hey, I was wrong," and then thank you for changing his mind on the subject.

It was probably back in 2003 when Joe and I first met on the News and Record Letter to the Editor Blog. Of course, I don’t think they called it a blog in those days, but it was fun just the same. We met online, and through the years, we kept our conversations going on the blogs and via e-mails. During that time, we shared our happy times, our sad times, thoughts and ideas on a variety of subjects, but one was our favorite and that was the plight of Veterans.

Joe was one of the few people who asked me to share my thoughts on the Vietnam War who was not just a curiosity seeker or trying to find some way to criticize. I was cautious at first, but as I became more and more comfortable, I was able to share thoughts and ideas with Joe that I had never even shared with family. I guess that may sound strange to some, especially considering all I knew was an e-mail address and what he has shared with me about his personal life. It was enough.

Joe could bring happiness through a smile, even a smile expressed only in words. He could enthuse one to write something better simply by a few words expressed in an e-mail. He had an infectious manner about him that one could clearly feel, even in the words of an e-mail or words on a blog. I guess I could say that Joe made you feel like he cared.

There is a poem called The DASH that recalls the line between the dates of birth and the dates of our death. The dash represents everything one has done between those two dates. The dash is a person's life. I know for certain that that dash will be crowded in Joe's stats, for he certainly left his mark on many, many people during his stay on this earth. He certainly made an impact on me.

I never got to see that smile or experience the pleasure of his company, but Joe was, indeed, my dear friend, and he will be sorely missed. Joe will not get to read this post on his computer, but I will send it just the same, just one last time. I will cherish the times we shared via our computers—the smiles, the tears, the joy, the enthusiasm, and most importantly, his love for God, his family and his country. I didn’t get to meet Joe here on earth as we had planned, for God had other plans for Joe on July 3rd, but I do know this: One day I will meet him, and we will hug like long-lost brothers, and then I will enjoy the warmth of his smile.

Below are just a few remarks that others have left about Joe. I hope that each of us will have a Joe in our life as we pass through this world.

He was a brilliant man who, with his kindly smile, subconsciously and infectiously brought comfort and joy to people around him. I will miss my friend Joe. (a former student and friend)

He had a passion for what he did that was contagious. (a former student)

He was so enthusiastic in his work for the veterans. I will miss his infectious smile and positive spirit. (a former worker at the VA where they worked together)

Joe was a kind, loving, and special person, and we are blessed having encountered him in this life. (a neighbor)

Joe enriched the lives of many people as he shared his love of God, family, and community. (a friend)

So long, Joe! You will be missed.