It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Nazi Health-Care Plan Revolves Around Hastings, Agency of the British Crown's Eugenics Moveme

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
www.larouchepac.com...


June 4, 2009 (LPAC)—The Obama agenda — to get trillions of dollars for financier bailouts by denying medical care to the elderly, sick and poor, thus terminating their allegedly useless, expensive lives — is largely a product of the Hastings Center for euthanasia and of the Obama personnel associated with it. To destroy this program, is to destroy a major tool of the British empire, and the royal family itself.

The Hastings Center was created in 1969 to continue the British royal family's combined eugenics and euthanasia movement, only 30 years after Adolf Hitler had launched the killing of "useless eaters" based on that London-run propaganda movement.

Peter Orszag, now the White House Budget Director tasked with pushing through the drastic cuts, sent his deputy Philip Ellis to Hastings last May to assure the Center that the euthanasia advocates' "Comparative Effectiveness" would be the criteria for an Obama Administration's attack on traditional respect for human life.

Orszag then appointed his health policy advisor Ezekiel Emanuel, a Hastings Fellow, to Obama's new Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, where Emanuel and other Hastings associates are drawing up the list of procedures to be banned from use by American patients.

On the Hastings Center blog to instruct the Administration on medical cost savings, regular Hastings writer Henry J. Aaron has now written a demand for tough adherence to the Comparative Effectiveness doctrine. Aaron is Orszag's fellow "behavioral economist" and Orszag's partner on the Brookings Institution team for taking down medical care and Social Security.

Regular Hastings writer Anthony Culyer is Research Director for the British Crown's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE runs the rationing that has already killed thousands under Britain's National Health Service. Orszag in person assured the British Cabinet in London last year that NICE would be the model for the Obama program. As Hastings writer Culyer puts it, "NICE methods are destined to become a kind of world template for other jurisdictions to adapt for their own purposes."

Meanwhile Hastings Center founder and president emeritus Daniel Callahan is now appearing everywhere, as the most radical spokesman for the British and Nazi legacy which is being rammed through by Barack Obama. A summary history follows.


More later.

I was thinking that everything Obama does related to healthcare sounded like the eugenics movement, it was only a matter of time.




posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
LaRouche: "With This Statement From Him, The President Now Deserves Impeachment"
July 22, 2009 (LPAC)--U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a nationally-televised press conference at 8 p.m. on July 22nd, in which on five separate occasions he called for health reform legislation featuring the establishment of "an independent board of doctors and health care experts" to make the life-and-death decisions of what care to provide, and what not, based on cost-effectiveness criteria--exactly the infamous "T-4" policy imposed by Adolf Hitler in 1939, for which the Nazi regime was tried and condemned at Nuremberg.
cecaust.com.au...

I don't know much about this guy, you guys can fill me in , I have to work for a living.

Yea, that's it, slave all my life, pay my taxes, euthanasia awaits, that shall be my reward.

[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   


Hehe that 9/11 opened a # load of excuses for the elite, they are going to play on that card Every time they want to push an Agenda ..



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   
OK, so, I didn't know what the T-4 policy was,

en.wikipedia.org...


Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people[1] specified in Hitler's secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination",[2] but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums "who may appear incurable".[3]

The Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4[4].

The codename T4 was an abbreviation of "Tiergartenstraße 4", the address of a villa in the Berlin borough of Tiergarten which was the headquarters of the General Foundation for Welfare and Institutional Care (Gemeinnützige Stiftung für Heil- und Anstaltspflege).[5] This body operated under the direction of Philipp Bouhler, the head of Hitler's private chancellery,[6] and Dr Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician. This villa no longer exists, but a plaque set in the pavement on Tiergartenstraße marks its location.

The euthanasia decree, written on Adolf Hitler's personal stationery and dated 1 September 1939, reads as follows:

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].[7]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


So many thoughts come to mind.

[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Jul, 28 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


So many thoughts come to mind.

[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2009 by Stormdancer777]


Are you thinking of the forbidden words too






posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Obama-Care, Euthanasia, and The Boiled Frog Syndrome

www.canadafreepress.com...


The far-left radicals didn’t give up after the 1960s, many simply stayed on at the campuses that they had once so vociferously railed against. They stayed and spread their poison— loudly, and vehemently, or subtly and quietly. They became professors, and they taught.

They taught a mixture of Marxist, Rousseauian and Nietzsche-esque ideology, combined with French far-left philosophies. They taught that science was absurd, that logic and reason were meaningless, and that the truth was always relative—heck, everything was relative.

They put “the people” on a pedestal, but insisted that the individual person was subservient to the “general will.” They excoriated capitalism, free enterprise, and individualism; while glorifying a collective, narcissistic, nihilistic hedonism. And they taught, oh so much more.

My point here is that, while many students rejected this radical indoctrination, many did accept it, and then went on to become professionals in their various fields—law, teaching, etc. This has been going on for decades, and if you’re wondering where all these people with a far-left agenda come from, there’s your answer.

Add a thoroughly indoctrinated media/entertainment industry, and it’s no wonder that the Obamaites had the numbers needed to stage a bloodless coup, and take over the United States.



At first , I thought that AARP had merely done a leftist lapdog act, and rolled over at the command of the liberal elite, but the more I looked into it, the more convinced I became that they knew exactly what they were signing us up for.

In case you aren’t aware of them, please let me inform you of some facts.

Obama’s “health” czar is Rahm Emmanuel’s brother, Ezekiel. Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel has this sage advice for doctors treating the elderly, “Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost, or the effects on others.” Kind of warms the cockles of the heart, doesn’t it?

Not to put too fine a point on it, we’re talking about euthanasia here folks—i.e killing people deemed unfit to serve society, because of mental or physical infirmities. No joke. The “joke” is that AARP is endorsing euthanasia for the welfare of its elderly members.

Think I’m kidding, or imaging things? For some good info, and a chronological timeline that shows the steady growth of this insidious idea, check out Tree of Life: www.lifetree.org...



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Two Decades to an American Culture of Death

www.lifetree.org...

How a handful of progressive foundations and quasi-government agencies
set out to provide equitable distribution of health care,
and in the process, created a duty to die and a culture of death.
And how they hope to secure their legacy . . .

Featuring the collaboration of:
the Hastings Center, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF),
George Soros's Project on Death in America (PDIA), Institute of Medicine (IOM),
AARP, Choice in Dying, and a number of prestigious universities,
to name only a few.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

While RWJF provided the lion's share of the funding, Soros's Project on Death in America funded the leadership. The list of Open Society Institute/Project on Death in America grant recipients reads like a who's who of palliative care. In fact, many of the key project designers were Soros scholars, e.g., Diane Meier, Joanne Lynn, Christine Cassel, Charles von Gunten, Joseph Fins, and Frank Ferris.

Central to this history is Choice in Dying, a right-to-die advocacy organization in New York. While assisted-suicide activists in Oregon, California, and Colorado were aggressively pushing legislation and bringing suit to legalize PAS and euthanasia, Choice in Dying quietly reorganized as "Partnership for Caring." Partnership for Caring endorsed a more nuanced form of aid-in-dying than the lethal overdoses prescribed in Oregon. In 1994, as president of Choice in Dying, Karen Kaplan called the Oregon PAS legalization a pain control measure [see: "Dying for the Cause" by Rita Marker; Philanthropy; January/February 2001]. By 2001, Partnership claimed neutrality on the issue of PAS and euthanasia; but its president saw tremendous right-to-die potential in the Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill decisions:

"the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to legislate whether to ban or to permit assisted suicide. The Supreme Court concluded that the distinctions between assisted-suicide and either withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment were 'important,' 'logical,' and 'rational.' As a result, it is constitutionally permitted for states to allow competent persons to refuse life-sustaining treatments while banning physician assisted suicide."
[ M. Metzger JD, K. Kaplan MPH, Sc.D. Transforming Death in America: A state of the nation report. Washington, DC. 2001. Prepared for Last Acts.]

Thus, there have been two predominant wings of the right-to-die movement -- one very high-profile, and another less so. The lower-profile group is the primary focus of this timeline. With the help of multi-million dollar funding, they have made great progress in the past decade. We've flagged the two groups within the timeline:


Soros and Obama connection is well known.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   

1995 Nov Hastings Center Report (special supplement, paid for by RWJF; Nov.–Dec. 1995.) Dying Well in the Hospital: the lessons of SUPPORT.

Daniel Callahan worries that [bellicose] America is waging a "war against death." We must accept death. Outlines strategy for campaign against death-denying society:

Communication;
Institutional change;
Public engagement.


www.lifetree.org...



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Ok I came and looked over the stuff you posted.





"the Supreme Court upheld the right of states to legislate whether to ban or to permit assisted suicide. The Supreme Court concluded that the distinctions between assisted-suicide and either withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment were 'important,' 'logical,' and 'rational.' As a result, it is constitutionally permitted for states to allow competent persons to refuse life-sustaining treatments while banning physician assisted suicide."
[ M. Metzger JD, K. Kaplan MPH, Sc.D. Transforming Death in America: A state of the nation report. Washington, DC. 2001. Prepared for Last Acts.]



Of all the information posted in this thread, that segment was the only one of any import.

Until there is a major shift in the Supreme Court and in state legislation countering the above quote, the euthanasia of America isn't going to happen.


As a result, it is constitutionally permitted for states to allow competent persons to refuse life-sustaining treatments while banning physician assisted suicide.


The key words here are 'competent persons' which is to infer: Mentally inadequate, people without living wills, people in coma's, the young, and so on; will -not- be assisted in dying or euthanized by medical personnel.

And before you jump to a conclusion and say that the NWO/Government/Obama/or any other official is going to try and force doctors to slap 'incurable' tags on patients willy-nilly, so that those that fall in to the 'unprofitable to heal' category go home and die.... It's simply not going to happen, doctors (collectively) simply are not that inhumane.

It's also impractical from the workforce standpoint, killing off the drones so the hive dies or starves... vastly impractical. It would be like saying: "Ok you have a cancerous polyp we're just going to let it go untreated until you die in a few years." When if treated they can get another 20-30 years work out of you. Not to mention all secondary industries that are tied into treating the sick that would lose money if such a euthenics program was emplaced... and we all know how the Pharm's love their money.

So from the perspective of that, eugenics isn't going to happen in America, not while there is money to be made with keeping us alive. Big Pharm isn't going to give up their cash cow, nor are the doctors (collectively) likely to become insensibly inhumane and buy into killing people. (Barring a few murderous sorts like say possibly MJ's Doctor.)

Personally I live in/ fall under the 'socialized' medical system (AKA the VA), and while they could do better, the system largely works. Frankly as long as folks who want to use their own medical insurance can, -and- those that need the 'socialized' medical system can get treated; all the screaming one way or another is just noise and posturing for self aggrandizement and profiteering.

After all it is an election year.

M.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Well thank you Mosh.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





Until there is a major shift in the Supreme Court and in state legislation countering the above quote, the euthanasia of America isn't going to happen.


You think someome said the same thing about abortion?



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





Of all the information posted in this thread, that segment was the only one of any import. Until there is a major shift in the Supreme Court and in state legislation countering the above quote, the euthanasia of America isn't going to happen.


Obama is appointing a questionable Supreme Court Justice. Also "who lives, Who Dies" has already been made a Standard Operating Procedure.




Emergency Preparedness and PWD #25: Who Lives, Who Dies? ... guidelines for who would get treatment if an epidemic sweeps the country and the world. Emergency Preparation


Yes I know it is only for epidemics, but it is a first step of boiling the frog.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

One of the more interesting members of the Hastings Center is the animal rights activist Peter Singer. Here’s a quote from his paper “Taking Life: Human,” “...the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that...collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.”
www.utilitarian.net...

“The doctrines about the sanctity of human life collapse as soon as they are questioned.” Really? Gee whiz, I didn’t know that. And, gosh, I could’ve sworn that you sound a whole lot like a Nazi-style Eugenics nut. Thanks for setting me straight Doc.

According to Chaitkin, “Singer advocates the killing of handicapped infants, to stop them from being a burden to parents and a cost to society. He believes that humans have no right to life above that of beasts, and that it may be more appropriate to do medical experiments on disabled, unconscious people than on healthy rats.”

Heinrich Himmler, the man in charge of Hitler’s extermination camps, was, like Singer, an animal rights activist. I’m not implying anything, I’m just saying… I just find it an interesting coincidence, is all.


I am still sorting through all of this.

According to the article,

Our “health” czar, Dr. Emmanuel, is also a member in good standing of the Hastings Center. How’d you like to be “a fly on the wall” during a chat between Emmanuel and Singer at the Hastings Center? It would be an eye opener, no doubt. Probably a jaw dropper too.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Obama Science Advisor Called For “Planetary Regime” To Enforce Totalitarian Population Control Measures

In 1977 book, John Holdren advocated forced abortions, mass sterilization through food and water supply and mandatory bodily implants to prevent pregnancies

Obama's Biggest Radical

www.frontpagemag.com...


Pelosi said, “Well, the family planning services reduce costs. . . the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”

George Stephanopoulos the host of the program asked Pelosi if she had any apologies for the money going for that purpose and for her statements about it being a cost control measure, Pelosi said:

“No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.”


What better way to get rid of old white christian conservatives.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Moshpet
 




Until there is a major shift in the Supreme Court and in state legislation countering the above quote, the euthanasia of America isn't going to happen.


You think someone said the same thing about abortion?



Quite frankly I think abortion is a good option. I live in a border city where it is not unheard of to see -1- (extended) family with 30 members enter a store. (A mild exaggeration.) Without getting into the religious side of the coin, I have no doubt that they are having to get by via welfare and every thing they can scrape up, due to the 'ethical mores' they follow. The screwy thing is that they will turn around and teach their kids it is 'right and just' to do the same thing.

Aside from the global population problem and the economic problem this sort of 'education' leads to or if you will has lead to; there is a woman's right to do what they will with their body.

Not to split hairs, there is also times when a child will be born so damaged that it would be a mercy to abort the child before it will even get to that stage. If you don't think so Google Depleted Uranium and birth defects / cancer and then look at the images of the infants and still borne children.

Now do I think anyone has a right to decide for the mother/father of the child in such cases, no. It's solely up to the parents, it's their karma if you will, or how much they can bear.

My wife and I decided one child is enough, (more than enough
) for us to raise and educate. Unless something takes our daughter away from us, (Gods forbid), we won't be trying to create another child. Should there be an oops, the morning after pill or abortion will be likely be our choice; but that isn't up for debate


Frankly I think people have the right to decide that question for themselves, and that no one has a right to force them to chose against their will.

And no I don't see Obama as the 'Nazi' you paint him as.

M.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I am still speechless with anger reading your Singer link...and there is too much to quote and be disgusted about...especially the view that maybe a disabled infant should be killed in order that a woman can have another healthy baby...
or this...



killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.


I can't remember which of these nutjobs said that a baby becomes a human being only if a certain set of requirements are fulfilled. Shame that didn't appear to happen with these men then isn't it?
And I am stunned at this comment...



Recall thalidomide: this drug, when taken by pregnant women, caused many children to be born without arms or legs. Once the cause of the abnormal births was discovered, the drug was taken off the market, and the company responsible had to pay compensation. If we really believed that there is no reason to think of the life of a disabled person as likely to be any worse than that of a normal person, we would not have regarded this as a tragedy. No compensation would have been sought, or awarded by the courts.


Yeah, moron it would and should as disgusting and corrupt drug companies gave a drug knowing full well that it would disable...

Yes, disability is awful and hard for some, and yet some have very happy and fulfilling lives despite their physical problems.
These men have no right to decide who will live and who will die because on the basis of their nazi views people like Stephen Hawking, a brilliant world reknowned physicist, totally paralysed for 30 years would be killed. And yet he has given more to the world of science than any of these nutters ever could even though he cannot move a muscle.

but he does point out a truth here;



Many, like Lorber, worry about the power that a program of active euthanasia could place in the hands of an unscrupulous government. This worry is not negligible, but should not be exaggerated. Unscrupulous governments already have within their power more plausible means of getting rid of their op- ponents than euthanasia administered by doctors on medical grounds. 'Suicides' can be arranged. 'Accidents' can occur. If necessary, assassins can be hired. Our best defence against such possibilities is to do everything possible to keep our government democratic, open, and in the hands of people who would not seriously wish to kill their opponents. Once the wish is serious enough, governments will find a way, whether euthanasia is legal or not.


Quite...and it's about to happen on a grand scale.

I think on the grounds of being of benefit or even a cost to 'society' then the lives of the elitist scum, the corrupt leaders and their advisers, the greedy bankers, the evil and plotting rich, those that have no empathy but some psycopathic approach to their fellow man should be the first to go, painlessly or otherwise.
They make me sick.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


oops

[edit on 053131p://bSaturday2009 by Stormdancer777]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Sadly, many people feel the same way you do, and I don't think at this point in history I will be able to change any minds.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join