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.

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]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by ChemBreather

---

So many thoughts come to mind.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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?

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

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.

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.