ADOLPH HITLER: The Real Father of Universal Health Care

ADOLPH HITLER: The Real Father of Universal Health Care

Otto von Bismarck, the Chancellor of Germany and a dictator in his own right, started socialized healthcare in 1883 with the Reichsversicherungsverordnung or Reich Insurance Act. However, only certain segments of the society were insured at that time. It was Adolf Hitler, who actually imposed socialized healthcare on the entire German population, as a part of nazification of the healthcare industry, and for that reason he should rightly be called the *real* father of universal healthcare. This collective universal healthcare concept was called “racial hygiene.” This is history that people have largely forgotten, because it is inconvenient for many to remember it.

Hitler also literally rolled out, via panzer, his now universal healthcare to occupied France, Belgium and the Netherlands — those countries with mainly “Aryan” populations. Hitler put universal healthcare in place in those very countries that he wished to aryanize and perfect by eliminating physical/mental defects in the populations via sterilization and medical killing.

The point is that universal healthcare gives any Government enormous power that can be misused, if the wrong people are in control, not that it is adminstered the same now as in Nazi Germany. This is too much power to centralize in the hands of the Government, because governments sometimes go bad.  The first mass murders of the Holocaust were carried out in the socialized German hospitals and the techniques for mass murder were developed there. Several hundred thousand handicapped and mentally ill persons were murdered in Hitler’s universal healthcare system. Retarded and mentally ill children were euthanized and the T4 project did the same for handicapped, mentally ill and elderly adults. In his orders permitting medical killing, Hitler called them “mercy killing” and “lives not worth living.” In this way Germany produced great savings in healthcare, not only due to the extermination of existing patients, but many ill persons (and their families) became afraid to even check into the hospitals.

Robert Jay Lifton, author of “The Nazi Doctors, points out that the extermination of the Jews and others of different ethnic groups was itself seen as a medical solution, a medical procedure for the collective healing of the Aryan race by elimination of the Jewish infection of Aryan blood. So, the entire Holocaust can be seen as an extension of Hitlercare. From that point of view, it is estimated that about 10 million people were murdered under Hitlercare, including six millions Jews. The Nazi plan was ultimately to exterminate about 25 million Jews and Slavs in Eastern Europe in fulfillment of the so-called “racial hygiene” principle of the the German universal healthcare system.

Because resources are limited, the concept of Universal Healthcare requires the Government to make decisions on the distribution of healthcare that will determine the survivability of different groups in society. That is, the welfare of the collective and government priorities are placed above that of the rights of any individual.

Once you have given the Government that much power, there is no natural barrier between you and the Holocaust of the Nazis. It is only a matter of degree, of how far they want to take this concept that social welfare trumps individual rights. This is the inherent evil of universal healthcare. It gives Government the right to decide life and death for entire classes of society, as opposed to individuals contracting for their own healthcare. This is why Hitler liked universal healthcare so much that he imposed it on conquered countries, not because he was so concerned for the well being of the subjected peoples, but because it gave him the right over entire classes of people to decide, who lives and who dies. It gave him the power to engineer the composition of society to his own malicious requirements. Entire classes of people can be killed — or, allowed to die — with no judicial process being necessary. (This is death panels on steroids.)

This is also the reason that Obama and others in the Government want universal healthcare so desperately. The socialist elite need to be able to ignore the rights of the individual to engineer their new utopian society. For that purpose, the same kind of centrally-controlled healthcare system that Hitler used is required.

News You Missed 9.27.13

The pursuit of Constitutionally grounded governance, freedom and individual liberty

"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily." --George Washington                                       

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

White House to Send Millions to Detroit

Even as the nation sits on the edge of a financial crisis driven by the need to incur more debt, the White House has found $300 million to send to mismanaged, financially beleaguered Detroit, according to CNN.

The money is being taken “from programs that are available for cities across the nation, not just Detroit.” The action amounts to a backdoor assistance plan that effectively circumvents Congress, which would not support a bailout. A White House official was vague on how the money had been cobbled together. According to an AP story, which had stated the total at $100 million:

Gene Sperling, chief economic adviser to President Obama, said the administration scrounged through the federal budget and found untapped money that “either had not flowed or had not gotten out or not directed to the top priorities for Detroit.”

How it is that there is $300 million lying around for Detroit is unclear.

~~~~~~

The Republican Endgame  by Mark Alexander

Despite all the Leftist rhetoric about ObamaCare being "the law which must now be funded," it was wholly rejected by Republicans in the Senate and House, along with many House Democrats. Thus, proposals to defund it, delay it or amend it are exactly in line with what our Founders expected legislators to do in the interest of defending and sustaining Rule of Law.

After 41 previous attempts to delay or amend this behemoth, House Republicans attached a "defund" DemoCare condition to its Continuing Resolution legislation (CR being that "pass the buck" gimmick to fund government without actually passing a budget -- which has not been done since George Bush's last year in office). Using the CR to make their case against nationalized health care effectively elevated Republican objections above the political din -- thanks in large measure to the much-maligned efforts of Sen. Ted Cruz. Republicans had no intention of "shutting down government," but have used the CR to force Democrat votes on defunding, delaying or amending key ObamaCare mandates.

Here is the Republican endgame (yes, there is one, even if GOP "leadership" is trying to catch up with the rank and file): There is a growing grassroots storm brewing in opposition to socialized medicine, now that the reality and consequences of ObamaCare are starting to sink in. Accordingly, some non-establishment Republicans in the House and Senate have thrown up a DemoCare dare, a measure to defund this job-killing budget-buster, which is really a strategic long shot effort to delay implementation of the "individual mandate" until after the 2014 election when Republicans believe they will have generated enough political opposition to the plan to significantly modify major portions of the law. Indeed, Obama has, for political expediency, already unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) delayed implementation of the employer mandate.

Of course, the House "defund tactic" won't pass the Demo-controlled Senate, so Republicans are banking that Demo Majority Leader Harry Reid will strip that measure from the current Continuing Resolution and send it back to the House, where Republicans will return a clean CR, but then replace "defund" with "delay" as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, which we hit sometime between 17 and 22 October. Additionally, they will return the debt ceiling legislation to the Senate with a "wish list" of other amendments, which should include one requiring that all members of the House and Senate and their staffs will be subject to all provisions of ObamaCare, as well as other items to include tax reform, approval of the Keystone pipeline, regulatory and entitlement reforms including means-tested Medicare, and a "chained" Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The delay measure, and most if not all of the other Republican amendments, will be rejected by the Senate, at which point Republicans should get out of the way and let the Senate send the Continuing Resolution and the upcoming debt ceiling legislation to Obama, thus allowing the ObamaCare mandates to go into effect as scheduled. (There is an old adage: When your adversary is defeating himself, don't interfere.)

The net effect of the Republican strategy is that, in advance of 2014, Democrats in the House and Senate will have to vote on a lot of measures and then will have to defend those votes ahead of the 2014 elections. In regard to the measure to "delay" the implementation of ObamaCare, Demo votes against that "compromise" will be judged harshly in states and districts with only modest support for ObamaCare, amid growing grassroots protests against Obama's socialized medicine scheme.

What will drive those grassroots protests?

Obama, the consummate narcissist, having embraced the name "ObamaCare," will himself, along with current and future generations of Democrats, suffer a reversal of political fortunes after ObamaCare is implemented. Why? Because every American of every political stripe who has any issue with health care, whether a hangnail or heart transplant, a delay in a doctor's office or in critical care for a loved one, will tie blame for their discontent like a noose around the necks of Obama and his Democrats, who were solely responsible for forcing this abomination upon the American people. No matter how Fab-Tastic ObamaCare may be for some Demo constituencies, Democrats are going to be the target of every health care complaint.

Even Demo National Committee chair and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz can see that pitfall from her perspective in the House. She is insisting that Democrats "must not treat every minute provision in the law as sacred." She added that Demos "should be open to suggestions for improving the law." If Republicans successfully herd the inevitable consumer dissatisfaction and anger toward Democrats, the electoral awards will be substantial in 2014, 2016 and beyond. Of course, given that establishment Republican have a propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, that's a big "if."

~~~~~~

How Liberals Hijacked The Word “Extremist” To Scare Voters   By Frank Camp

What is extremism? To most of us, the word extremism evokes images of Nazis, the KKK, radical Islamists, and other such groups that take their beliefs to the outermost edges. Because of the association between the word “extremist,” and acts of radical violence, the concept of taking an idea to its outer edges is generally viewed as dangerous or unnecessary. However, this is all a cultural concoction, based on fear. The word “extremist” has been hijacked, as well as the core concept of standing on one end of a spectrum of ideas.

I was watching CNN yesterday at the gym. Anderson Cooper was speaking with several guests about Ted Cruz’s 21 hour filibuster. One of the guests began to speak at length about how the American people have become afraid because the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists. His tone suggested that he not only viewed Ted Cruz as an extremist, but that Cruz, by nature of being labeled as such, was inherently bad.

In his book The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,  Jonah Goldberg writes about how the word “extremist” has been painted as evil. He argues that centrists think themselves more sophisticated than so-called extremists. The following is an excerpt:

“There’s a certain Goldilocks bias to discussions of politics: If Papa Bear’s porridge is too hot and Mama Bear’s porridge is too cold, then Baby Bear’s is always just right. It must work the same way in politics, right? Centrists, moderates…independents: they all suffer from variants of this confusion. The ‘extreme’ Republicans argue 10. The ‘extreme’ Democrats argue for 0. Therefore the smart, sensible, reasonable position must be 5. Well, the Wahhabis want to kill all the gays and Jews. The Sufis don’t want to kill any gays or Jews. So the moderate, sensible position must be to kill just the gays, but not the Jews…the point is that sometimes the ‘extreme’ is 100 percent correct, while the centrist position is 100 percent wrong.”

Goldberg goes on to claim that self-titled “independents” are simply not paying attention. He argues—and I agree—that behind the faux sophistication of centrists lies a confusion and a slap-dash understanding of politics. The Democrats are great at labeling. They create slogans and campaign phrases designed to keep voters from actually thinking. In addition, they use the word “extremist” to demonize Conservatives. What does holding “extreme” views actually mean? According to Liberals, it means that Conservatives stand on the fringes, or outer edges of opinion, far away from the center, which—according to their made up rules—means that Conservative beliefs are far from “normal.” And if Conservatives aren’t normal, they must be weird, and probably wrong.

Using the center as the definition of normal or typical is completely arbitrary! First, the Democrats are certainly not in the center. Second, why is the center so sought after? There are valid reasons to take sides. Most issues have such stark differences that to have an opinion at all means taking a side. For example, you either believe abortion is murder, or you don’t. Where is the middle ground on that? You either believe in socialism or capitalism; they are not compatible. There are those who claim otherwise, but they are wrong. Those who attempt to meld bits and pieces from each philosophy into a cohesive whole have no idea how the world works. Centrism is naïveté at its height.

The word “extremist” has been hijacked by the Left to scare voters away from Conservatism. But when broken down, extremism simply means having an opinion. Labeling the center as “normal” is beyond arbitrary, it’s incorrect. Once we set aside the foolish idea that the center is political ground zero, extremism suddenly doesn’t mean much—and it doesn’t sound that scary.

~~~~~

"The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men." –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21, 1787

Top of Form

† † † † † † † † † † †

How Liberals Hijacked The Word “Extremist” To Scare Voters

How Liberals Hijacked The Word “Extremist” To Scare Voters   By Frank Camp

What is extremism? To most of us, the word extremism evokes images of Nazis, the KKK, radical Islamists, and other such groups that take their beliefs to the outermost edges. Because of the association between the word “extremist,” and acts of radical violence, the concept of taking an idea to its outer edges is generally viewed as dangerous or unnecessary. However, this is all a cultural concoction, based on fear. The word “extremist” has been hijacked, as well as the core concept of standing on one end of a spectrum of ideas.

I was watching CNN yesterday at the gym. Anderson Cooper was speaking with several guests about Ted Cruz’s 21 hour filibuster. One of the guests began to speak at length about how the American people have become afraid because the Republican Party has been hijacked by extremists. His tone suggested that he not only viewed Ted Cruz as an extremist, but that Cruz, by nature of being labeled as such, was inherently bad.

In his book The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas,  Jonah Goldberg writes about how the word “extremist” has been painted as evil. He argues that centrists think themselves more sophisticated than so-called extremists. The following is an excerpt:

“There’s a certain Goldilocks bias to discussions of politics: If Papa Bear’s porridge is too hot and Mama Bear’s porridge is too cold, then Baby Bear’s is always just right. It must work the same way in politics, right? Centrists, moderates…independents: they all suffer from variants of this confusion. The ‘extreme’ Republicans argue 10. The ‘extreme’ Democrats argue for 0. Therefore the smart, sensible, reasonable position must be 5. Well, the Wahhabis want to kill all the gays and Jews. The Sufis don’t want to kill any gays or Jews. So the moderate, sensible position must be to kill just the gays, but not the Jews…the point is that sometimes the ‘extreme’ is 100 percent correct, while the centrist position is 100 percent wrong.”

Goldberg goes on to claim that self-titled “independents” are simply not paying attention. He argues—and I agree—that behind the faux sophistication of centrists lies a confusion and a slap-dash understanding of politics. The Democrats are great at labeling. They create slogans and campaign phrases designed to keep voters from actually thinking. In addition, they use the word “extremist” to demonize Conservatives. What does holding “extreme” views actually mean? According to Liberals, it means that Conservatives stand on the fringes, or outer edges of opinion, far away from the center, which—according to their made up rules—means that Conservative beliefs are far from “normal.” And if Conservatives aren’t normal, they must be weird, and probably wrong.

Using the center as the definition of normal or typical is completely arbitrary! First, the Democrats are certainly not in the center. Second, why is the center so sought after? There are valid reasons to take sides. Most issues have such stark differences that to have an opinion at all means taking a side. For example, you either believe abortion is murder, or you don’t. Where is the middle ground on that? You either believe in socialism or capitalism; they are not compatible. There are those who claim otherwise, but they are wrong. Those who attempt to meld bits and pieces from each philosophy into a cohesive whole have no idea how the world works. Centrism is naïveté at its height.

The word “extremist” has been hijacked by the Left to scare voters away from Conservatism. But when broken down, extremism simply means having an opinion. Labeling the center as “normal” is beyond arbitrary, it’s incorrect. Once we set aside the foolish idea that the center is political ground zero, extremism suddenly doesn’t mean much—and it doesn’t sound that scary.

The Republican Endgame on Obamacare

The Republican Endgame  by Mark Alexander

Despite all the Leftist rhetoric about ObamaCare being "the law which must now be funded," it was wholly rejected by Republicans in the Senate and House, along with many House Democrats. Thus, proposals to defund it, delay it or amend it are exactly in line with what our Founders expected legislators to do in the interest of defending and sustaining Rule of Law.

After 41 previous attempts to delay or amend this behemoth, House Republicans attached a "defund" DemoCare condition to its Continuing Resolution legislation (CR being that "pass the buck" gimmick to fund government without actually passing a budget -- which has not been done since George Bush's last year in office). Using the CR to make their case against nationalized health care effectively elevated Republican objections above the political din -- thanks in large measure to the much-maligned efforts of Sen. Ted Cruz. Republicans had no intention of "shutting down government," but have used the CR to force Democrat votes on defunding, delaying or amending key ObamaCare mandates.

Here is the Republican endgame (yes, there is one, even if GOP "leadership" is trying to catch up with the rank and file): There is a growing grassroots storm brewing in opposition to socialized medicine, now that the reality and consequences of ObamaCare are starting to sink in. Accordingly, some non-establishment Republicans in the House and Senate have thrown up a DemoCare dare, a measure to defund this job-killing budget-buster, which is really a strategic long shot effort to delay implementation of the "individual mandate" until after the 2014 election when Republicans believe they will have generated enough political opposition to the plan to significantly modify major portions of the law. Indeed, Obama has, for political expediency, already unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) delayed implementation of the employer mandate.

Of course, the House "defund tactic" won't pass the Demo-controlled Senate, so Republicans are banking that Demo Majority Leader Harry Reid will strip that measure from the current Continuing Resolution and send it back to the House, where Republicans will return a clean CR, but then replace "defund" with "delay" as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, which we hit sometime between 17 and 22 October. Additionally, they will return the debt ceiling legislation to the Senate with a "wish list" of other amendments, which should include one requiring that all members of the House and Senate and their staffs will be subject to all provisions of ObamaCare, as well as other items to include tax reform, approval of the Keystone pipeline, regulatory and entitlement reforms including means-tested Medicare, and a "chained" Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The delay measure, and most if not all of the other Republican amendments, will be rejected by the Senate, at which point Republicans should get out of the way and let the Senate send the Continuing Resolution and the upcoming debt ceiling legislation to Obama, thus allowing the ObamaCare mandates to go into effect as scheduled. (There is an old adage: When your adversary is defeating himself, don't interfere.)

The net effect of the Republican strategy is that, in advance of 2014, Democrats in the House and Senate will have to vote on a lot of measures and then will have to defend those votes ahead of the 2014 elections. In regard to the measure to "delay" the implementation of ObamaCare, Demo votes against that "compromise" will be judged harshly in states and districts with only modest support for ObamaCare, amid growing grassroots protests against Obama's socialized medicine scheme.

What will drive those grassroots protests?

Obama, the consummate narcissist, having embraced the name "ObamaCare," will himself, along with current and future generations of Democrats, suffer a reversal of political fortunes after ObamaCare is implemented. Why? Because every American of every political stripe who has any issue with health care, whether a hangnail or heart transplant, a delay in a doctor's office or in critical care for a loved one, will tie blame for their discontent like a noose around the necks of Obama and his Democrats, who were solely responsible for forcing this abomination upon the American people. No matter how Fab-Tastic ObamaCare may be for some Demo constituencies, Democrats are going to be the target of every health care complaint.

Even Demo National Committee chair and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz can see that pitfall from her perspective in the House. She is insisting that Democrats "must not treat every minute provision in the law as sacred." She added that Demos "should be open to suggestions for improving the law." If Republicans successfully herd the inevitable consumer dissatisfaction and anger toward Democrats, the electoral awards will be substantial in 2014, 2016 and beyond. Of course, given that establishment Republican have a propensity for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, that's a big "if."