Posted on 09/08/2009 2:24:47 PM PDT by HorowitzianConservative
Van Jones, one of President Barack Obama’s controversial czars, is out. Now, barely two days later, the radical views of another Obama nominee are coming to light. As reported Monday on Fox News by Brian Sullivan, host of Your World, Cass Sunstein, Obama’s choice to head up the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is advocating a plan whereby Americans would automatically have their organs harvested after death. (Sunstein has already raised eyebrows with his extremist views on regulating human behavior and his belief that animals should be able to sue humans).
Under Sunstein’s latest proposal, you could become an organ donor and not even know it.
The way organ donation works today, doctors and hospitals can only harvest your organs when you (or a spouse or relative of yours after your death) issue specific authorization (such as checking the organ donor box on your driver’s license) allowing them to do so. Sunstein wants to make it an "opt-out decision," whereby your organs would be taken after death whether it’s what you wanted or not, unless you specifically opt-out.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
I can guarantee that I can buy booze, women, and tobacco without assistance of public officials. In any country that you drop me in. 15 minute head start required if I don't have local cash.
SHORE LEAVE!
/johnny
here in California they automatically remove your cornea’s unless you opt out.
They give a BS sticker to place on the back of your license and it just falls off.
But, wait! What if they do not check your license or are unable to? To bad, organ harvesting begins.
This F-ing BS of telling us unless we opt, the government considers our wishes to implied consent!
We have to stop this crap. If we do not explicitly express our desire for something to occur after death then it should not be permissable.
Think of it like this: you have a will that expresses your last will and testament. There are no deviations to this and nothing is assumed that not spelled out.
They should offer a card that you can carry, that enables you to voluntarily donate, otherwise there would be no harvesting.
I mean seriously, what is the difference between grave robbing, pulling gold teeth and taking organs without permission from the dead or their family?
Which is worse? Pulling gold teeth, taking jewelry or swiping organs?
Why?
Why should we even be in the position of asking these questions?
In california they don’t wait for permission to harvest your cornea’s. It is automatic and when they have found out they did so, without permission, they merely shrug their shoulders and give a litany of reasons for the mistake and how they happen all the time.
I could list them but the bottom line is the state and federal government consider you property. They even issue you an inventory number SS#
The pedigree of this monster’s ideas stems from the obvious (Marx) and the not-so-obvious turn-of-the-last-century Yale law professor Wesley Newcomb Hohfield. Hohfield wrote that legal relationships can only exist between and among prople, not things. Hohfield was a big fan of Hegel, so his logic tended towards opposites and correlatives that no one could quite understand. In a nutshell, his work cast doubt on the relationship bertween a person and his own property. This totally suited the progressive tenor of the times. It may not have made sense, and it certainly wouldn’t have stood up to any real scrutiny, but it sure sounded good - to communists and utopian ‘progressives’. Hohfield’s work is embedded to this day in basic law school texts.
What flag is that?
It reflects the thirteen original colonies and the never more than 3 percent who fought for liberty in the first American Revolution. Look up ‘three percenter’. We should be able to do better than that this time around.
We have to “VAN JONES” Cass Sustein.
So how long til these maggots start harvesting organs from us “extremists”?
Way better.
I did not understand the III,
Thanks.
Thanks for the background.
One often wonders about the source of the various “schools” of thoughts, stuff like PC, multiculturalism, diversity, deconstructionism, etc. Who starts them, how they take root, who drives them and institutionalizes them, even against large public opposition? It would make a great research project and book.
Take multiculturalism - makes absolutely no sense, is logically inconsistent, intellectually bankrupt, people know it in their guts that is wrong, yet it has invaded every nook and crannie of our society like a silent San Francisco fog rolling in... and is killing us.
The government can have my prostate, damn thing keeps making me get up at night < / s >
Donating something like a kidney, of which a health person needs but one, is different from donating a heart or an eye.
It requires a compete abrogation of conscience and a total rejection of the notion of a higher authority to which even the king must bow. It is necessary to view people as things, as mere cattle.
And this is the natural outcome of the rise of the Will to Power that Nietszche foretold in the last days of he 19th century. Nietzsche believed that in the absense of any sort of moral authority, the Will to Power would produce a new kind of messiah, uninhibited by religious sanctions, without moral restraint of any kind, and with an unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind.
And here we are today... Nietszche - and Orwell - were right.
Absolutely we should. Below are excerpts from the book. It's the thinking behind the last paragraph that gives me the creeps. Link to a CNS News article here (some reader comments are interesting):
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534
They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”
“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”
Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.
We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.
Sunstein and others may believe what they do is good for everybody. But the result of their policies leads to the erosion of individual liberty. And what a flawed perspective it is. Obama surrounds himself with scholars, and in their world we are mice in a giant laboratory. Their core beliefs are not based on the individual, but only society at large, and they care little how their policies affect individual freedom. Fundamental to our American system of government is individual liberty, always tempered by the needs of the larger society.
People like Sunstein, Thaler and Ezekiel Emanuel have spent their adult lives sheltered by academia. What they have now is the opportunity to legitimize their life's work. Forgive me if I'm not in a hurry to surrender my life or my liberty just to soothe the egos of elitists wanting to engineer a socialist utopia.
“Over time, I’ve learned to take a look at the pedigree of the ideas that seem to motivate our keepers of culture and philosophy. In other words, why do these people think the way they do?”
I’ve pondered similar questions. The causal kernel I keep coming back to is the idea of “equality” and the possibility of genetics associated with it.
Much of the left and utopians equate justice with equality, and by equality they mean absolute equality, not just before God or the law but in actual existential terms. It’s as if though their nature is such that they are wracked by anguish and guilt at the sight of inequality - it insults their sense of justice to such an extent that it moves them to take up arms and cause untold other pain and suffering. I’m becoming more and more convinced that this is a genetic trait, and that therefore we’ll never eradicate it (calling genetic engineers).
But this gene is not sufficient to make a utopian. There also has to be a companion gene that limits their logical powers, because, were they logically competent and follow the consequences of their equality to the logical end they would realize that their utopia would be hell on earth.
Kurt Vonnegut wrote a great short story on the subject: “Harrison Bergeron”:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
And de Tocqueville made this great observation in his “Democracy in America”
“There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality that incites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
Orwell really had an epiphnay of understanding when he wrote 1984 these many years ago:
The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.
What pure power means you will understand presently.
We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods,but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.
Power is not a means; it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
The object of persecution is persecution.
The object of torture is torture.
The object of power is power".
It is the madness and cruelty of evil souls for whom no amount of power, neither an ocean of blood nor an Everest of skulls will ever be enough. They are insatiable, and they know no bounds. Recent human history becomes perfectly, horribly understandable when seen in the light of that remorseless logic.
This is who we're dealing with today. And it should scare us at a primal level. We're dealing with monsters.
Next thing you know, some guy will write about a gubmint that harvests organs from convicts of capital offenses. Soon the demand for organs will create the need to call even minor traffic infractions a capital crime.
Wait, I’m a half century late. I believe some guy wrote several books long ago.
Whether it’s power for power’s sake or power to assuage their wracked souls, the result is the same - hell on earth!
By the end of four years, they'll have to rename the White House "Arkham House", and move the Capital to Dunwich, MA.
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.