(The original deconstruction of the right wing lies about the health care system is still here. You just have to click on the link at the top right… or you can click here… )
this in my e-mail Sunday (of all days). I'm having problems with formatting, so I apologize in advance. Not only is it sacrilegious on some
level, and should be seen as an affront to any actual Christian who claims a
belief in the words of Jesus Christ, but it also shows once again the lack of
an irony gene on the part of the right wing.
how can you call yourself “The Pray in Jesus’ Name Project,” and then tell out
right lies and swear to God on them? Think I’m exaggerating? Check out the signature
at the end. And then be sure to read about the guy who signs this crap "in Jesus' name."
Oh, and by
the way, look at what they include at the end of this thing. Faithful readers
of this blog will recognize it right away.
My Comments are in dark blue and bold…
please find a special message from one of our advertisers, The Pray In Jesus Name Project.
From time to time, we receive opportunities we believe you as a valued
customer may want to know about. Please note that the following message
reflects the opinions and representations of our advertiser alone, and not
necessarily the opinion or editorial positions of Human Events or Eagle
HOT NEW PETITION to STOP OBAMA'S SOCIALIST HEALTH CARE TAKEOVER.
Please select, sign, and WE WILL FAX your petition automatically to all
52 "Blue-Dog" House Democrats and/or all 100 Senators, right away
(saving you hours of labor!)
Washington Post confirms
Grandma faces Euthanasia under Obamacare
The Washington Post has
just confirmed as false two statements in the new White House video and AARP
emails, which had denied claims of Euthanasia in
"Obamacare" health bill HR 3200, that hostile,
socialist government takeover of your hospital, doctors, children, and
grandparents. An editorial by respected bioethicist and Wash. Post
Editorial Board member Charles Lane entitled, "Undue Influence: The
House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel," blasts the false claims by
AARP and The White House that HR 3200 does not push euthanaia on seniors.
1) Proof that
EUTHANASIA is pushed by Obama's socialist government "health" care.
President Obama had been
confronted by a North Carolina woman asking if "everyone that's Medicare
age will be visited and told they have to decide how they wish to die."
In response Obama joked
morbidly about euthanasia, that he hadn't yet hired enough bureaucrats to
conduct such an operation, yet he could not deny the New York Post's
discovery the House bill "compels seniors
to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if
they become sick or go into a nursing home) about
alternatives for end-of-life care" (pages 425-430). In
other words, your grandmother will be told, when insufficient resources are
rationed to young people, that her duty to die begins with mandatory
"end-of-life counseling," or as Obama explained,
"encourage the use of living wills" that terminate otherwise
salvageable lives prematurely through signed "do not resuscitate"
(DNR) legal releases that authorize "pulling the
plug" on Grandma.
Here’s what President Obama actually said to the lady
from North Carolina, according to an actual
have heard lots of rumors going around about this new plan, and I hope that
the people that are going to vote on this is going to read every single page
there. I have been told there is a clause in there that everyone that's
Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die. This
bothers me greatly and I'd like for you to promise me that this is not in
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I guarantee you, first of all, we just don't
have enough government workers to send to talk to everybody, to find out how
they want to die.
think that the only thing that may have been proposed in some of the bills —
and I actually think this is a good thing — is that it makes it easier for
people to fill out a living will.
Mary, you may be familiar with the principle behind a living will, but it
basically is something that my grandmother — who, you may have heard,
recently passed away — it gave her some control ahead of time, so that she
could say, for example, if she had a terminal illness, did she want
extraordinary measures even if, for example, her brain waves were no longer
functioning; or did she want just to be left alone. That gives her some
decision-making power over the process.
problem is right now most of us don't give direction to our family members
and so when we get really badly sick, sadly enough, nobody is there to make
the decisions. And then the doctor, who doesn't know what you might have
preferred, they're making decisions, in consultation with your kids or your
grandkids, and nobody knows what you would have preferred.
think the idea there is to simply make sure that a living will process is
easier for people — it doesn't require you to hire a lawyer or to take up a
lot of time. But everything is going to be up to you. And if you don't want
to fill out a living will, you don't have to. But it's actually a useful tool
I think for a lot of families to make sure that if, heaven forbid, you
contract a terminal illness, that you are somebody who is able to control
this process in a dignified way that is true to your faith and true to how
you think that end-of-life process should proceed.
don't want somebody else making those decisions for you. So I actually think
it's a good idea to have a living will. I'd encourage everybody to get one. I
have one. Michelle has one. And we hope we don't have to use it for a long
time, but I think it's something that is sensible.
Mary, I just want to be clear: Nobody is going to be knocking on your door;
nobody is going to be telling you you've got to fill one out. And certainly
nobody is going to be forcing you to make a set of decisions on end-of-life
care based on some bureaucratic law in Washington.
Note that he says there aren’t enough government workers
to conduct so many interviews, and he’s not just joking; he’s pointing to the
absurdity of the government forcing itself into the position the right wing
You should also note that neither President Obama nor the
woman from North Carolina even addressed the editorial noted by these pseudo-Christian
liars. The editorial they refer to is one I’ve addressed previously, by one
Betsy McCaughey. If you see this woman’s name on anything having to do with
health care, you can assume it’s a lie, as I pointed out
in a previous post. That must be why they didn’t
include a link to the New York Post editorial. That’s okay, because I’m
putting a link right here…
House made a quick video to refute claims of euthanasia in the health care
bill, but interestingly they deleted Obama's quote about living wills, and
AARP sent emails claiming rumors about euthanasia in the bill were generated
by conspiracy theorists. But then a respected bioethicist
wrote a scathing editorial in the Washington Post,
confirming that euthanasia is initiated by the government in the bill.
in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary.' To me, 'purely
voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233,
however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money
— to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist. Patients may refuse
without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated
authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling
order right then and there."
Lane agrees the legislation mandates the doctor 'shall' discuss living
wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses: "Section
1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the
measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit
doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their
associated providers, professions and organizations. You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that
state can't afford to pay for grandma's hip replacement? Obama's
plan turns her doctor into a lawyer, paid by Uncle Sam to persuade her to
sign a DNR, explaining her hastened duty to die, and obtaining her signature
legally absolving him of all guilt. Lane
says he personally has a living will, but doctors shouldn't be paid extra by
the government to push them on seniors. Euthanasia begins when
socialism replaces capitalism.
Okay, first of all, never EVER
accept an editorial as PROOF of anything. But I urge you to actually read
the editorial itself, anyway.
I love how these people pick and
choose which sentences they choose to quote, and feel free to remove all context
from everything they quote.
Here’s the entire section, as it
appears in Lane’s editorial:
Though not mandatory, as some on the right
have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite
"purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To
me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests
one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives
them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to
Patients may refuse without penalty, but
many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the
bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then
and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in
situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they
would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.
What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some
length, the content of the consultation. The doctor "shall"
discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and
considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to";
"an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney,
and their uses" (even though these are legal, not medical, instruments);
and "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers
and their families." The doctor "shall" explain that Medicare
pays for hospice care (hint, hint).
He does claim (in his opinion) that
the meetings aren’t “purely voluntary,” but he DOES say they are “not
mandatory.” Note that his statement that “[p]atients may refuse without penalty”
is left out of their critique. I would
also note that these pseudo-Christian liars also claim this as “proof” that
the government would initiate euthanasia. Lane’s concern is that doctors
might initiate some discussions about end-of-life issues for monetary concerns,
which is probably a valid concern. But in no way does he claim the GOVERNMENT
will force anyone to do anything.
As for the “state” going bankrupt,
all I can ask is, who’s bailing whom out these days, really?
AARP LYING TO SENIORS TO PROFIT FROM OBAMACARE?
The seniors advocacy group AARP
defended Obamacare, stating in emails to seniors: "FACT #3: There is
no provision of any piece of legislation that would promote euthanasia of any
kind. The rumors out there are flat out lies…It is not mandatory and it has
nothing to do with euthanasia." But since the House bill includes
the legal term "shall," the Dean of Liberty University School of Law
Mat Staver disagrees. "I just went back and re-read the bill. The end-of-life counseling is mandatory and there is a
5 year requirement that it must occur every 5 years. The bill is
on our website and people can read it for themselves. It
is not new that AARP favors killing their own members. They…do not
have the best interests of their members in mind."
Attorney Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel had
stronger words. "AARP is lying. See
pages 424, 425 and 426 of HR 3200. The government 'consultation' that seniors 'shall' get if they have 'not had such a consultation
within the last 5 years' is clearly designed to encourage them to get out of
the way and to just go ahead and die already."
Widely respected Minister Rick Joyner wrote, after reviewing
Mat Staver's detailed analysis of H.R. 3200 "Health" care bill,
voicing his strong opinion that this bill "is about euthanasia, the
power to determine who lives or dies in America. Hitler and Stalin would
have loved to have had a means such as this for dispatching the millions they
killed-it would have made their job much easier, and probably given them
the ability to kill many more than they did. THIS BILL IS THAT SINISTER. This
is not a joke." You can read Mat Staver's line-by-line analysis of
the 1000 page health care bill at the bottom of this email.
Once more, they lie
about what the bill says. Here’s the section mentioning the 5 years:
‘‘Advance Care Planning Consultation
(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term ‘advance
care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a
practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if,
subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a
consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the
That’s the definition, and the five years clearly means that the
patient is only entitled to such a consultation once every five years. It just
means the government won’t pay for it if you change your mind every year.
Although there is also an exception for those whose health has taken a dramatic
turn for the worse. But I challenge anyone to read that section of the bill and
find anything mandating anything. It’s not there. You don’t have to have a
living will, even if you’re terminal. And even though Lane has a valid point,
that some doctors might try to coerce you into such a thing for a few extra
dollars, right now, many more doctors are talking people into doing it for
free. Now, they’ll get paid. Should we dump a necessary component of health
care just because a few unscrupulous doctors might take advantage? And if we’re
worried about that, why are we NOT worried about the unscrupulous things
private health insurers do now?
2) Tax-payer funded ABORTION on demand is another guaranteed result.
Last week several so-called "pro-life Democrats" executed a bait and
switch that will fully fund abortion on demand in the new Obamacare
"health" bill. Led by compromiser and ex-pro-life Congressman
Tim Ryan (D-OH), who was recently booted as an advisor to Democrats for Life of
America for his lack of principle, the liberal House Democrats overruled
conservative Republicans 30-28 to pass the hideous "Capps Amendment"
to H.R.3200 in the Energy and Commerce Committee. This amendment now
deceptively creates a phony accounting scheme that
gives the false impression your tax-payer dollars will not subsidize abortion,
while it simultaneously nationalizes free abortions for low-income urban
neighborhoods, fulfilling the dream of Margaret Sanger (and her protege Ruth
Bader Ginsburg) that African American babies will be the first exterminated in
the government funded ovens that weed out "Populations that we don't want
to have too many of."
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) explained the Capps Amendment: "It's one of the
most deceptive amendments I have ever seen. The bottom line is that money
is fungible, and the plan itself will be subsidizing abortion-on-demand, with
taxpayer funding commingled, and the numbers of abortions will go up
This is the
dreaded Capps Amendment.
Basically, it’s designed to reinforce that the current bill does NOT pay for
any abortions that the federal government is forbidden from paying for, which
right now is pretty much none. No one accepting the public insurance option
will be able to make a claim for an abortion that is not absolutely medically
necessary to save the life of the mother, just as Medicaid does now. Though
there is nothing in the bill itself that even mentions abortion, Rep. Capps,
who is pro-choice, thought to include this amendment to appease the wingnuts.
But these people – who claim to be Christians – so hate the idea of covering
everyone with health insurance, that they’re willing to claim that an amendment
that forbids abortion actually creates a mandate for it.
3) Obama will REMOVE Christian prayers and symbols
from Government-run hospitals
The hostile socialist government takeover of Catholic or Christian hospitals
will eventually result in atheistic silencing of religious expression (and
removing all Christian symbols) from the very place where faith in God is
critical to sick and dying patients. For example, look at the Veterans
Hospitals, already government-run, who are busy removing crosses and
Christian symbols from their chapels (like in Iowa), because easily-offended
atheist complainers have successfully intimidated hospital administrators
with threats of lawsuit, by demanding separation of church and state.
Just imagine more atheist lawsuits, when all Catholic and Christian
hospitals are seized in the same way Obama took control of General Motors,
inviting easily-offended atheist complainers to demand we change the name of the hospital from "St. Luke's
Memorial" to the "Obama Government" hospital, falsely
claiming tax-dollars cannot subsidize religion. But if St. Luke's refuses
government subsidies, they will be drummed out of business, and Christian
doctors' licenses revoked.
Can a government-run hospital still allow Christian chapels, or pay
Christian chaplains, or permit Christian doctors to pray Christian prayers with
their willing patients, or even allow Christian parents to control the
health care options forced upon their dying children? Just ask Florida Hospital
Chaplain Danny Harvey, fired last year from Leesburg Regional Medical
Center because he prayed "in Jesus name" at a public memorial
service. Ask Christian Pharmacists who Washington has already
forced to dispense "Plan-B" abortion pills against their conscience,
or doctors denied a "conscience clause" to opt out of abortions when
Obama refused to renew Bush's pro-life executive orders. Ask Nurse
Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo, who recently was forced
to participate in a second-trimester abortion against her will, and is
now suing Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan for "blatantly" violating
her rights under a 35 year old federal law that protects health care workers
with religious objections from being forced to assist in murderous abortions.
Ask Pentecostal Ministers Dale and Leilani Neumann, who were charged
with second-degree murder of their 11-year-old daughter, because they
refused to trust the power of a government hospital to heal their
little girl who tragically died with diabetes. Can you say mandatory
godlessness in "health" care? If
government has power to dictate your health care options, they also have power
to seize your children when you refuse. Think
about it. Will you dare refuse the H1N1 vaccine when ordered to poison
your children? No religious exemptions for doctors, patients, or
parents are readily apparent in the current Obamacare bill. So take
action with me…
These people are blithering
idiots. There is no mention of religion in this bill. And it only pays for
medical procedures. Why would the government care if a hospital had a chapel
or was run by a religious group? Medicare money has gone to religious hospitals
for years. In any case, this bill does NOT create a national health care
delivery system; it only creates a privately funded insurance option for
people who choose not to be covered by private insurance. In other words,
just as Medicare has never denied coverage for people who are treated at
religious hospitals, neither will this new health insurance plan. Once more,
it creates ZERO government-run hospitals. NONE.
Now, when it comes to the
second issue, I’m sorry, but if you are a pharmacist, you have a solemn duty
to fill every prescription given by a doctor to its patient. Period. You
ethical duty goes beyond your own personal belief system. And there is a
choice in the matter. If you can’t bring yourself to dispense birth control
pills to a woman who comes to you with a script, don’t become a pharmacist. I
feel slightly different about doctors, in that no doctor should have to
perform an abortion if it’s not medically necessary, but if it is, no doctor
should be allowed to refuse. Again; you know this going in; if you can’t
handle it, then you don’t need to be a doctor. Or you can become a proctologist
or dermatologist or something.
And if they want examples of
people dying at the hands of the status quo, dominated by private insurance
companies, well… I’ll have a post for them next week…
4) Homosexuals free $50,000 tax-funded sex-change
surgery not excluded by Democrats.
My friend Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel made phone calls to several
Congressional staffers, and Democrats from the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep.
Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health all
refused to give, very simply, 'an assurance that the proposed health care plan
will not allow taxpayer funded gender reassignment
surgeries or hormone therapies.' Instead, they affirmed page 972
of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) which provides for
"standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health
and health care" based on "sex, sexual orientation [and] gender
identity." The Senate draft likewise requires the Department of
Health and Human Services to "develop standards for the measurement of gender." (i.e., officially
recognize subjectively self-determined "transgender" or
"transsexual" gender identities). It further mandates
"participation in the institutions' programs of individuals and groups
from…different genders and sexual orientations." Democrats want more than 2 genders included the bill.
In your townhall meetings, ask them how many? Forgive me,
but I was raised on a farm, and there was one simple test for "measuring
the gender" of mammals. They're either male or female. Just
The bottom line? Your tax-dollars will pay for
preferential hiring of homosexual hospital administrators, who distribute
$50,000 grants to gender-confused activists for unneeded elective surgery to
mutilate their own genitals, (and force Christian doctors to perform it.)
And nobody has yet offered an amendment that excludes this. Let's
get started, by asking your Congressman in your town
hall meetings this week, "Will you sponsor an amendment that
excludes elective sex-change operations from tax-payer funding?"
Some media complain conservatives hire thugs to challenge Congress with
tough questions, but we don't. So please just read the bill summary
far below, get informed, and show up to speak Truth at town hall.
Meanwhile I will do more research for you myself.
I can’t wait to see
it. The only coverage the public option offers is for “medically necessary”
procedures. Nothing else is covered. Boob jobs are not covered under this plan,
so why would elective gender reassignment surgery? There are a few cases where
medical professionals might consider it medically necessary, but it’s not very
much. But this bill doesn’t approve or prohibit anything that specific, anyway.
It simply establishes a system, and authorizes a commission to determine
exactly what will be covered.
But don’t you love the
bigotry in the above? Here’s a clue, pseudo-Christians; most homosexuals will
never even want gender reassignment surgery. And most of those who do, don’t
consider themselves homosexual. Not they they’ll be able to get their tiny
little brains around that…
let me summarize Obama's health care plan: 1) Euthenizes grandma, 2)
Mandates funding murder of innocent children, 3) Empowers atheist litigants to
outlaw the healing power of the Christian faith, 4) Refuses to exclude funding
May I summarize? Nothing in
HR 3200 or any amendment “euthanizes” anyone. (Lie!) Nothing in HR 3200 or
any amendment authorizes federal funds to be used for abortions. (Lie!)
Nothing in HR 3200, or any other law forbids government money to be used for
a medical purpose, even at a hospital run by a religious group. (Lie!) And
this bill doesn’t specifically exclude ANY specific medical procedure of ANY
kind. It merely authorizes a commission to decide what coverage will be
included. Just curious; does Medicare authorize sex changes? I’m not actually
sure. (Not a lie; but a pretty huge straw man…)
We all gasped when
the federal government seized control of General Motors, and Obama effectively
fired the Chairman and replaced the board with government bureaucrats selected
by Treasury Secretary Geithner. Now Obama and his liberal Democratic
House allies want to replace your doctors with bureaucrats, hasten grandma's
demise, abort and kill children in urban neighborhoods, cut doctors' pay and
control their religion, and transform Christian hospitals into
government-controlled atheist bureaucracies. Does any of this remind you
of Communism? I won't stand idly by to allow this. I will fax
Congress to say, "no to Obamacare." Will you? Please
sign our petition and I'll send your faxes now. Then please forward
this email to all your friends who care about our beloved country, especially
those senior citizens who may be at greatest risk.
Bless you, in Jesus' name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt