|
Posted on 03/21/2009 10:55:55 PM PDT by Scanian
President Obama's crack about his bowling acumen being worthy of the Special Olympics has raised a few hackles. Normally I'd say "lighten up," but this time some examination is in order.
George W. Bush was called "Hitler" virtually every day, with no real basis for the accusation other than that liberals said so -- and liberals are like, really smart, so it must have been true.
But Obama's comment, for me anyway, means that we're just a few weeks into the new administration and the new president is already more worthy of a Hitler comparison than Bush ever was.
Obama's Special Olympics comment may have been merely a clumsy attempt at self-deprecating humor. But the likelihood exists that it was a sneak peek at the heart and mind of The One who has a philosophy that cannot work unless human beings are gauged based upon their usefulness to the state -- and for any leader attempting to construct those kinds of underpinnings, the helpless and handicapped are as undesirable as governors who won't accept stimulus money.
Obama the politician is smart enough to know he never should have said that, but Obama the Grand Visionary of Exemplary Communities obviously isn't. That Obama is vehemently pro-abortion, even during late term up to and including the moment of natural birth, is Hitleresque in its design as well, and tends to take away any humor of his Special Olympics joke
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“he helpless and handicapped are as undesirable as governors who won’t accept stimulus money. “
maybe that’s why he wants to cut down on those non profit charities
The vast majority of us wound never say what Obama said.. In fact it wouldn’t even pop into our minds! This shows who Obama is and what he is made of.. and it’s not Presidential material.
As I said to someone the other night, he's the smug ahole at a party who makes a comment like this, others laugh so as not to cause an even more awkward scene and because of the affirmative-action mentality so many have been brainwashed with, but who stands out as a complete ahole.
And let’s not forget, Hitler and the Nazis were Leftists.
The DNC has adopted many of their platform points.
Read Johan Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism.”
Don’t let libs brand you as a Nazi for being conservative. THEY are the heirs to Nazism.
And when that philosophy is united with government control of health care, the result is rationing of medical attention, based upon a "social (read, "government")-benefit triage order.
Productive, tax-paying, politically-connected? Go to the head of the line at the better clinics. Get prompt appointments for expanded treatment, follow-up care, referrals, or therapy.
Retired, low-income, politicially contentious or in the opposition? Get in line. Referrals are delayed, totally inconvenient to the point of obstructionist, or multiple obstacles dissuade the patient from seeking medical attention.
It also establishes the rationale for a national ID card.
bookmark
I don’t really like “Nazi” being thrown around but in this case the words , methodology , actions and goals make comparisons inevitable.
but they’ll easily get back at you because they also hate the nazis. The way to drive a liberal nuts is to compare them to stalinists. After all, they secretly agree with them but don’t want to admit it.
That's it exactly. It what people say off the teleprompter that shows who they really are.
Hey, you're right! I just tried that one on and, yep, it wouldn't even occur to me to go in that direction. It's like Al Gore's chromosome comment. These people make my skin crawl.
But they are fascists, and as such are NAZI’s not Stalinists.
FDR, Obama’s hero was an admirer of Hitler’s brand of socialism, fascism. It is exactly what we have been pushed towards for years. But because idiots mislabeled what they were doing only a few of us knew the truth.
|
...and get on the ACORN bus Election Day.
Isn’t it amazing? 0bama and the left do exactly what they accused President Bush of
Whenever I hear someone refer to a conservative as a Nazi, here is the argument I offer:
“I’m going to give you a list of characteristics that define an ideology and the founder of that ideology. There’s a quiz at the end of it so listen carefully:
1. A Socialist who believes all business should be run by the State and all profits made by business should be the property of the State.
2. Despises personal profit as greedy and against the good of the state.
3. Believes in a strong, state-run education system to instill the ideologies of “the party” counter to the teachings of parents and families.
4. Has full run of the media and used it exclusively to propagandize the views of the party.
5. When their economic system weakens, they seek to tighten regulations on business and to absorb the economies of others to compensate.
6. Anti gun and even implements and then enforces a national confiscation of firearms.
7. Pro abortion.
8. Pro euthanasia.
9. Pro eugenics.
10. Animal-rights activist.
11. Vegetarian.
12. Believes personal sexual fetishes are fine and a private matter, especially for politicians.
13. Hates Christianity and is anti-religion in general, though tries to use the church for political support when needed.
14. Vehement anti-smoker who wants to ban all smoking nationally.
15. Believes in national healthcare as part of their Socialist platform.
16. Tries to enforce national exercise programs for both the physical and fiscal health of the State.
I’ve just highlighted some of the traits of Hitler and his Nazi party, which roughly translates as the ‘National Socialist Party.’ Here’s the quiz: Does this sound more like today’s American Christian conservative, or the left wing of the Democrat party?”
LOLZ
They’re both greenies and greenies would love to see fewer people using the resources of our planet so your skin should crawl.
Obama should have learned lesson from Tuskegee scandal
(http://www.southtownstar.com/news/eaton/1481907,031809eaton.article)
March 18, 2009
T he further we move along into America’s “Obama years,” the more disturbing the president’s direction. Last week he determined American scientists would no longer be guided by George W. Bush’s restrictions that tax dollars not be used to fund experimentation on stem cells, and on embryos in particular, which are essentially tiny humans.
Doesn’t anyone else find that kind of change troubling? Isn’t anyone concerned about government scientists experimenting on those unable to consent?
After all, it’s been 34 years since 399 African-Americans were released from Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute, where for decades they had been ill-informed syphilis victims who were taken advantage of and forced to endure unethical experimentation at the hands of U.S. government researchers.
After the Tuskegee scandal, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research came up with “The Belmont Report,” which provided guidelines for scientific experimentation on human subjects. The report called for social justice in medical research on vulnerable persons.
“Injustice may appear in the selection of (medical research) subjects, even if individual subjects are selected fairly by investigators and treated fairly in the course of research,” the 1979 Health and Human Services’ report said. “Thus injustice arises from social, racial, sexual and cultural biases institutionalized in society.” Don’t ever mistreat fellow humans for the sake of science, they scolded.
Today, perhaps we’d encourage the report authors to add another bias, based on age or stage of development, and who should determine when a human reaches the stage deserving protection against scientific abuse?
Just before signing his executive order last week, Obama said, “The full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells (some of which will come from embryos) may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions —”
Isn’t it possible the Tuskegee scientists held the same rationale when experimenting on those 399 African American men? Is it possible that even in 1932, when the Tuskegee experiment was launched, those researchers considered their lab specimens to be sub-human, as well?
And why wouldn’t members of a group that’s been tragic victims of social injustice in the past be especially sensitive to and protective of other vulnerable research subjects who have no voice and no one to protect them?
Not only did Obama set on course unprecedented government-funded experimentation on tiny humans, state Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago) proclaimed his support research on embryos. Hendon was the only African-American to promote the idea of embryos being experimented upon for the sake of science and medical developments during an emotional Nov. 18, 2004, Senate floor debate.
“So, am I going to, you know, turn and be the child of the devil because I want to save some lives? I don’t think so,” Hendon said. Then he proceeded to demean the embryos as frozen or discarded and therefore available for the betterment of others.
“We’re taking some cells and doing the research to see if we can cure some of these diseases that are taking people’s lives that are already here, that have jobs, want to see their grandbabies grow up,” he said. “If you were in that situation, if it was your life or your mother, your baby, wouldn’t you want every opportunity to save them?”
How would Hendon have argued if the “greater good” was brought up in the Tuskegee experiments?
Proponents of embryo research argue thousands of tiny humans sit in lab freezers, serving no purpose whatsoever. Critics answer many of those embryos are waiting to be placed in their own mother’s wombs or to be adopted by someone else. All they need is the right environment and time, and they would be functional human beings.
One undeniable truth is that the human embryos in question are tiny black, white, yellow or brown babies, not undeveloped calico cats, wild raccoons or farm chickens. As fellow humans, they should be respected, cherished and protected. Life itself is sacred, and when one puts him or herself into position of determining the greater good for all at the detriment of the weak and defenseless, we’re not just headed down an ethical slippery slope, we’ve almost hit bottom.
That’s what then-Sen. Rick Winkel (R-Urbana), who debated Hendon in the Senate debate, said when he quoted American political theorist Russell Kirk: “Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. True politics is the art of apprehending and applying the justice which ought to prevail in a community of souls.
“So it’s not a new idea, it’s kind of transcending, a long-lasting sort of idea in which (Kirk) describes society as joining in perpetuity by a moral bond among the dead, the living and those yet unborn,” he said.
After five years, we as a nation may be growing weary of this discussion, but it isn’t over yet. Congress still has a key decision to make. Will they choose to allow new cell lines to be developed and used to further science?
Congress’ response to this dilemma will result from what the people in their districts tell them. Convey Winkel’s warning: Such public policy would reveal the wolf of disrespect for the sanctity of human life in the sheepskin of medical science.
Let’s learn something from the Tuskegee travesty.
Fran Eaton is a south suburban resident, a conservative activist in state and national politics and an online journalist. She can be reached at featon@illinoisreview.com.
He is funding Planned Parenthood to go overseas and kill dark skinned fetuses. That fits the definition.
Forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions - that also fits.
There is more to this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
In the future, everyone will be Hitler for fifteen minutes.