Eagle

Home

News
Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report

DONATIONS

Articles
Testimony
Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Books
Order Books

Cyrus
Rednecker

Search

About
Comments

Links

 

Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

atient "A" was a very active 90-year old male who was experiencing extreme difficulty urinating. A prostate cancer survivor, he prematurely halted his own radiation treatments a year or so earlier because the radiation made him sick. His prognosis was not good. The cancer was back, and it had spread. As is the case with patients construed to be "terminal," the hospital moved him from the Intensive Care Unit [ICU] to the "Transitional Care Unit," or TCU. "Transitional Care Unit" is a benign synonym for "Terminal Care Unit." Every hospital has one. That's where those who are expected, and usually helped, to die are taken to await death out of the public eye. They are allowed to "pass" privately—with "dignity"—out of the view of gawking eyes from passersby visiting their own family members recuperating in ICU.

Other than knowing his cancer was inoperable, and knowing he was very likely going to die within a few weeks or, perhaps, a couple of months, Patient "A" was healthy enough to be released from the hospital. He decided if he was going to die, he was going to die in his own bed. But, that was not to be. When he called and told her he had asked to be released from the hospital, his wife—not the mother of his four children who had died almost seven years earlier—but a late-life partner, told him he should stay there because she couldn't take care of him. The call seemed to take the life out of him. He just gave up. A day later he was on a morphine drip. Two days later he was gone.

Patient "B" was an elderly female. She was in excellent health at the time of her death. Her reason for going to the hospital was a fractured left knee. Hospital admissions records, written by the RN who examined her, indicated the woman was alert and oriented upon admission. Her only complaint was the injury to her left knee. Within 48 hours, the patient was in a coma. The coma was, in fact, unconsciousness induced by morphine. According to the nurses at the Minneapolis hospital who attended the elderly woman, she would awaken between pain medications, saying: "I don't want to die. I want to live to see Johnny ordained. I want to see Greta walk..." (Johnny was her grandson who was studying for the priesthood in Rome. Greta was her new great-granddaughter.) Her medical records indicate the patient was receiving morphine for pain. Usually broken bones are treated with Tylenol-3 or Darvocet, and if the pain is extreme, either hydrocodone or hydromorphine. Morphine drips are usually reserved for catastrophic injuries or diseases which cause unbearable pain. The next day she was transferred to a hospice. She died a day or so later. Her medical charts said she had a stroke and was in renal failure. The woman was legally euthanized.

When Congress enacted the Heath Insurance Portability Act of 1996 [HIPAA] which theoretically gave American workers the right to take their company health insurance with them when they left their job, that legislation included a provision which obligated hospitals and other healthcare facilities to push those being admitted—particularly those with catastrophic injuries or illnesses—to sign a living will or, if they opted to refuse, to sign an advance medical directive (i.e., a medical power of attorney) stipulating which family member or caregiver would be designated to make life and death decisions on their behalf if they were unable to make those decisions on their own. The law went into affect in January, 1997.

Scores of times during the floor debate on the healthcare portability legislation, Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle invoked the name of Terri Shiavo, who was executed by Pinellas County, Florida Circuit Court Judge George S. Greer on March 18, 2005 when he sentenced the brain-damaged woman to death for refusing to die in order to convenience her husband who wanted to marry another woman. It took 13 days for Greer's death sentence, pronounced on a woman who had committed no crime, to be carried out. Shiavo was denied any nourishment, including water, because Michael Shiavo testified in court that, at one time, his wife told him she would never want to live as a vegetable.

Terri Shiavo died a horrible, agonizing death at 9:05 a.m. on March 31, 2005 as a moral nation watched the sentence of an immoral judge carried out while Congress argued for or against the concept of a living will. Had the Democrats controlled Congress in 1996, its an almost certainty they would have enacted the Terri Shiavo Living Will Act of 2005 which would mandate that every living person have a living will. Living Wills, like most things dreamed up by Congress, provide the opposite of what its name implies. Living wills are, in fact, death wills. People who write living wills are giving tacit approval to be euthanized if their condition is construed by their caregivers to be terminal.

When Public Law 104-191, the Heath Insurance Portability Act of 1996 was enacted on Aug. 21, 1996, the media hawked it only as a measure that would safeguard the rights of the American worker to take their healthcare with them when they left one job in search of another. No mention was made that a poison pill, a living will provision, was buried in the bill. The law mandated that all healthcare providers be required, under federal law, to secure a living will from every patient or, at the least, an advance medical directive designating one family member to make live and death decisions for the hospitalized family member. It's important to understand the difference between a living will and an advance medical directive. Living will are specifically designed to accomplish the withholding or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment if the patient is construed to be in a terminal or non-reversal condition. It is important to understand that old age is construed to be a terminal medical condition because the medical problems associated with old age cannot be reversed. In most States—at least up to the debate on the America's Affordable Health Care Choice Act of 2009—a medical power of attorney could prevent medical care providers from "pulling the plug."

You might think that when, or if, you experience a life-threatening illness or catastrophic accident of any type and sign a living will, that the document become null and void when you recover and leave the hospital. Since January, 1997 they don't. Under HIPAA, living wills become a permanent part of your medical history—ready for your next hospital visit. The living will you sign today is permanently archived in a Living Will Registry where it can be used at any time in the future that it might be needed.

There are multiple problems by having what may have become a permanent living will—particularly one that includes a "Do Not Resuscitate" [DNR] order—especially if you are young. Young healthy people, like elderly people, can suffer a cardiopulmonary event. Elderly people are not the only ones who suffer cardiac arrest. A living will with a DNR means if you suffer cardiac arrest—even if you are 25-years old and otherwise in perfect health—you will not be resuscitated. Elderly people without irreversible chronic or terminal diseases should think twice about signing a living will because they are giving the hospital the right to euthanize them. Young people who sign DNRs, and who would likely have recovered and live another 50 years had they been defibrillated, will likely become organ donors instead.

The HIPAA rules were revised in the Federal Register on Jan. 16, 2009 [74 Federal Register 3302]. The rule change went into effect on Mar. 17, 2009 with a final compliance date of Jan. 1, 2012. By that time, all parties covered by the law will be required to electronically post not only all living wills, but all advance medical directives in the HIPAA database as well. All medical care providers in the United States will have access to that registry. If you ever signed a living will—even if you have since recanted it—it may determine whether you leave that hospital in a family member's car or a hearse.

Here it is in a nutshell. Let's suppose you were in a serious car accident a few months ago and, fearing that you might become a human vegetable, you signed a living will at the hospital to make sure you wouldn't become a financial drain on your family. Or, not wanting someone pulling the plug simply because they could, you gave some family member medical power of attorney to make healthcare decisions for you should that fateful moment arrive. Thank God it didn't. And, that time, you walked out of the hospital a whole person. That was then. This is now. Are the rules the same?

Let's assume you're one of a small handful of Americans who was smart enough to actually read all 1,100 pages of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. And, let's also assume you didn't fall asleep reading it and actually saw the mandatory euthanasia provision behind the rationing smoke and mirrors within the bill.

Now, having a pretty good idea what's coming down the pike for people with living wills, let's suppose that both you and your wife wisely decide to revoke the living wills you previously invoked. Too late. Your signed livings are now part of a national living will database. Effective on March 17, 2009 all living will registries were required to provide all living will and advanced medical directive databases to HIPAA. On Jan. 1, 2012, the government will begin assessing civil penalties on those not in compliance with ICD-10-PCS. This will happen even if the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, or some other piece of universal healthcare legislation with a poison pill clause fails to be enacted. Those on Medicare, Medicaid or the VA will still be affected by these guidelines, and at some point at the end of their life—even if they want to continue breathing—that document will be used to end their lives.

What Does All Of This Mean?
Until you grasp the reality af its purpose, the collection and physical archiving of hundreds of thousands if not millions of Living Wills by the federal government will never make sense. And, of course, if it doesn't make sense, most of us will logically choose not to believe three is anything sinister about the practice. To understand what "the intent" means you have to turn back the pages of history to the Reagan Administration.

As Democrats greedily grabbed the greenbacks in the Social Security Trust Fund with their liberal left hands as they hurriedly scribbled I.O.U.'s with their greedy right hands, their disdain for the GOP began to show as they falsely accused the Republican Party of trying to dismantle Social Security in order to deliberately economically harm Medicare. In 1983, when Congress demanded an increase in the Social Security tax, Reagan used Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to shore up the Social Security Trust Fund which the Democrats had raided to fund Lyndon Johnson's Great Welfare Society. As Reagan signed the legislation into law, he said "...this bill demonstrates for all time our nation's ironclad commitment to Social Security." That commitment lasted exactly ten years. In 1993 President Bill Clinton raided the Social Security Trust Fund again with sleight-of-hand rhetoric using what was left of the Trust Fund to put the government in the black. The progressives claimed it Clinton's sound fiscal management balanced the budget. He didn't balance anything. He stole America's retirement trust fund and put the money in the general treasury, creating the illusion he had balanced the budget. The fact that, by law, the Social Security Trust Fund cannot be placed in the general treasury has not stopped any Democrat since Lyndon B. Johnson from doing just that. (Since Social Security was created by the Democratic New Deal in 1935, the Democrats have viewed the Social Security Slush Fund as their personal piggy bank. I'm amazed the Democrats picked the ass as the symbol of their party rather than the hog, since the hog fits them better than the ass. I have met only one Democrat whose personae does not fit either symbol.

His name is Zell Miller. He is a former governor and also a former US Senator from Georgia. Miller most closely resembles the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, and the patriot Thomas Jefferson. . Miller has the determination of George Washington, and the fortitude of Andy Jackson. Zell Miller was a man history destined for greatness, but being a simple-hearted man who, like the Founding Fathers, he saw politics as a responsibility not a career. In Feb., 2007 I had an opportunity to speak briefly with Sen. Miller at a function in Washington. I suggested to him that he owed America an obligation to run for President in 2008. He smiled, replying that he thought the job was already taken. "Hillary Clinton will easily take the nomination," he said.

"I'm not talking about your running as a Democrat," I told him. "I'm talking about your running as a Republican. You run as a Republican, and I promise you, you will be the 44th President of the United States." Miller smiled politely, and said, "There are two problems with your theory. First," he said, "If I told my wife I was going to run for President, she'd kill me. Second, I'm a Democrat. I was born a Democrat, I will die a Democrat...and I would only run for office as a Democrat. And, as I said, I think that job's already taken." Sen. Miller, it turned out, was far more wrong than even he realized when he decided not to seek reelection in 2004. It could not have dawned on him in a lifetime of politics that there was a Manchurian Candidate in the wings, backed by the world's wealthiest free enterprise money baron, David Rockefeller, and the world's nastiest anti-American communist money trader named George Soros joined forces to make Mikhail Gorbachev's promise to destroy America come true.

The communist far left looks at our former presidents and considers the greatest of those as they who came closest to destroying the Constitution—beginning with the Jacobin Republican's first President, Abraham Lincoln, who had a 39% "mandate to govern." Lincoln's election caused the secession of seven States and triggered the raid on the US armory at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina and its surrender on April 14, 1861. Lincoln was the second president to suspend the Bill of Rights. (The first to do so was John Adams who enacted the Sedition Act of 1791 that made it a crime to speak negatively about the President.) Third worst, but listed among as one of the best in the far left was Thomas Woodrow Wilson who destroyed our Republican form of government, and sold his integrity to JP Morgan. Wilson traded our Republic for a socialist democracy more to Morgan's liking (and Obama's) with the illegal ratification of the 17th Amendment. At the end of his second term, Wilson left the White House through a side entrance much the same way Franklin D. Roosevelt entered it in March, 1933—partially paralyzed in a wheel chair.

FDR, the nation's third communist president ( Wilson was first and FDR's cousin Teddy Roosevelt—who seeking his third term as a socialist—ran twice as a Republican was the second. The fourth Progressive was Harry S. Truman who also ran as a Democrat. Truman, a globalist, announced to the United Nations General Assembly on in Oct. 24, 1950 that "...the men who died for the United Nations in Korea...died in order that the United Nations might life." . The fifth Socialist was Jimmy Carter and the last one was Barack Obama whose role appears to be the dissolution of global national sovereignty and the collapse of the American economy in order to weaken America's role of the mightiest power of Earth.

What makes Obama a unique politicians (aside from the fact that he is the most accomplished liar in the industrialized world) is the fact that he is an Islamic communist much like Iran's former Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini even though he pretended to be a Christian throughout the his political campaigning 2007-08. Obama knew Americans would not knowingly elect a Muslim to the White House after 9-11. (For two years I tried to warn the American people that Obama was both a socialist and a practicing Muslim. But a man who has spent his entire life lying about who he was, and what he believes, finds lying to be second nature—an an audience of idol worshippers who want to believe that the "change" Obama promised was the change they wanted.) Obama is the perfection of what the Muslims call a "Kazzaab"—a liar!

On Sept. 10, 2009, during a joint session of Congress when Kazzaab Barack Obama addressed Congress to sell America on the "merits" of stealing what is now about 1/6th of the US economy in order to control the US economy and actually be able to determine who lives and who dies—and when —in America. After listening to about a half dozen blatant lies easily proven to be distortions by simply reading HR 3200, Congressman Addison Joe Wilson [R-SC] had enough and shouted out: "You lie!" In July, 2008 when Obama addressed the 100th annual convention of the NAACP and made scores of anti-white racial remarks which brought cheers from the African-American attendees, Zell Miller made a comment (accused by black leaders to be racist remarks because he mentioned the words "Gorilla Glue," Miller told Obama Chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel that "...our globe-trotting president needs to take a break and quit gallivanting around," adding that Emanuel, "...needed to put Gorilla Glue on his chair to keep him in the Oval Office." Wilson should have made the same remark to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader and Vice President Joe Biden. Obama's standing at the podium spouting one lie after another did not lend credibly to the Kazzaab whose lies are as obvious as the time at high noon.

Today, the left is deliberately sacrificing Medicare on the altar of communism in order to economically enslave everyone. To prove that Medicare is cost-effective (thus implying that Obamacare would be, too, Congressman John Carter [D-TX] revealed, in July, a covert plan on the part of the Democratic House leadership to strip Medicare Advantage benefits by $157 billion in order to make it appear the government was able to provide healthcare for illegals—and then tax middle class taxpayers for the coverage by radically changing the rules under the State Children's Health Program [SCHIP] by mandating that children in families earning up the $82,000 qualify for coverage. Once they force the children of middle class families with qualify healthcare programs of their own, into the system, step two: forcing their parents into the system, becomes easier. The $157 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts will do two things. First, it will force the middle class (which never participated in 'welfare insurance") to participate; and at the same time, it will strip 3.2 million elderly Medicare participants of their Medicare Advantage benefits, arguing its not fair to provide long term hospital care for terminally ill elderly patients while million of children go without coverage. Those with Medicare Advantage will experience $8.8 billion in benefits cuts under Medicare Part A—that will include both the elimination of rehabilitation services and long term hospital care.

As Democrat Carter began releasing some of the negative facets in the HR 3200 which has been combined into HR 3963, Congressman . Pete Sessions [R-TX] released some of the more interesting "lie-catchers" referred to by Joe Wilson when Obama addressed the Joint Session of Congress and told one lie after another about Obamacare, beginning with his statement that if you liked your current insurance plan, you can keep it. On page 94 of HR 3963 Obamnacare states : "Prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies,. beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase co verage through the federal government." So much for keeping your private healthcare plan. In case you didn't know this, all health insurance plans self-renew annually. If you are a member of a group plan at work, you'll note that each year your company renegotiates rates and terms of coverage every year. You will lose your group plan at the end of the first year and you will be among the first to enroll in Obamacare. I sure hope you're healthy enough to stay out of a hospital.

Remember Obama hee-hawing about the use of taxpayer dollars under Obamacare to pay for abortions? Page 110 in HR 3963 makes it clear that federal dollars will be used to pay for "necessary" abortions under any federally-financed health care plan. And, if the Hyde Amendment is not renewed when it expires next year, federal dollars will also pay for any "elective" abortions (i.e., "playpen" abortions) Playpen abortions come from "Oops" sex.. On the following page, 111, HR 3963 goes an extra step and mandates what types of insurance plans private individuals who wish to opt out of Obamacare will have to buy in the private market in order to avoid Obamacare. Then, so the consumers won't immediately see the bait-and-switch, on page 211, the bill "...establishes a new government run coop health plan that, according to one actuarial group, the Lewin Group, will cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage to the coop," which will then simply be absorbed into the main Obamacare plan. Then to suggest that the plan encourages members of Congress to give up their sweetheart healthcare plan, Page 235 permits but does not require, or even pressure, Congress to enroll in the government run health care plan.

They think the American people are so stupid that they will see that and actually think some members of Congress will see how much better Obamacare is than the federal plan that treats federal employees like princes while the taxpayers will be treated like the paupers they will become once the new taxing authority under the Affordable Health Care for America Act of 2009. (When you vote next November, remember these thieves, since they created the theft of liberty known as HR 3963: Charlie Rangel ([D-NY] who's already overdue with his depositions with the US Attorney's office, the IRS for income tax fraud and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Rangel, who has become used to living off the taxpayers should spent the rest of his life in a federal prison where I will gladly pay my share of his room and board there for the rest of his life. Next is weasel-nosed Henry Waxman [D-CA] who is in bed with the heads of the medical companies that manage Medicare and Medicaid. Writing in an article in the Washington Examiner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich charged that even though the Government Accounting Office has uncovered $32.7 billion in improper Medicaid payments were made in fiscal year 2007 alone, Waxman has refused to hold hearings and call his campaign contributors to task for what appears to be the theft of $32.7 billion in made-up claims. On top of that, Waxman added the provision into HR 3963 that eliminates verification of citizenship, identity and income verification in Waxman's new Medicaid bill which will guarantee that illegal aliens will receive taxpayer-funded medical care at the expense of an already overburdened US taxpayer. Also on your hit list for job repeal (regardless what party you belong to), because once you pass 65. You become one of those who will be invited to the morphine drip party at your local hospital when they start double-dipping and make the mistake of getting sick enough to have to go to a hospital. So, the next snake-in-the=grass who added your name to Obama's death list to help shore up Social Security, is George Miller [D-CA] whose been in Congress for 18 terms—about 17 terms, or 34 years too long. This man couldn't be more institutionalized if he'd spent that time in San Question. Nor, could he have learned more how to steal from public. Miller, like Waxman is in bed with the special interests that are trying hard to nationalize our healthcare system because they're the guys who will become billionaires from it. (Remember the princes and the paupers?) George's friends won't be the paupers. That would be you. George, Henry and Charlie all belong in the same cell. Maybe they can get one large enough to include their Medicare friends. That way there will also be room for Fortney Stark,[D-CA] Frank Pallone [D-NJ] and Robert Andrews [D-NJ]. If any of these Congressmen, or any Congressman or Senator who votes for Obamacare still has a job after the election, every voter who voted for them, or failed to vote against them, deserves the morphine drop that is going to kill them (or their parents or grandparents) they next time they go to the hospital. None of the Congressmen who sponsored HR 3963 believe there is any fraud of Medicare or Medicaid. None of them will investigate their friends and campaign contributors n the medical industry.

So, now that you now know what you know, what are you going to say when the SEIU or the AFL-CIO knocks on your door and tells you that you have to vote for the Democrats because, after all, they gave you free healthcare and they single-handedly saved Social Security. Not a single Republican voted for the plan!

The Watermelon Society:
Changing Demographic Needs
The left can't see or mentally accept what they construe to be wasting money treating people they believe are going to die anyway. This is one time they are going to have a lot of trouble convincing the seniors they plan to eliminate by blaming their agenda on the Republicans since no Republicans except Olympia Snowe [R-ME] , Susan Collins [R-ME], and Democrat turncoat Arlen Specter [D-PA] voted for the measures that will ration healthcare to the elderly. In addition, under Medicare Part B, SCHIP will strip the elderly of an additional $6.5 billion for in-home nursing, $9/6 billion for portable oxygen and brachytherapy and $11.1 billion for end-of-life care of patients suffering from a myriad of slow progressing terminal illnesses.

Most of the money taken from the elderly who have paid into both Social Security and Medicare for most of their adult lives will probably not live long enough to grasp the reality that the Obama Administration plans to use the money they paid into the system for their old age to treat the children of illegal aliens who have more value to the Obamaites than citizens whose tax dollar built the greatest nation in the history of the world since 39.8% of the American people no longer contribute to the system. In fact, the bureaucracy view them as a drain on two separate revenue streams that will become a financial tsunami if the drain was not plugged before American runs out of money since, with each passing year, fewer and fewer nations will buy our debt. Our currency will have value with the Chinese only if their factories start manufacturing Monopoly games for Parker Brothers and they use colorful new US dollars to replace the Monopoly money in the games.

On the day Bill and Hillary Clinton entered the front door of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Social Security became a keynote issue with the Clinton Administration for two reasons. First, there was a ton of money in the Social Security Trust Fund that Hillary wanted to use to fund her economic agenda. Second, no President wants to be at the helm of the USS America when Social Security hits the shoals and sinks the US economy. That's why even though the Social Security system had become the world's most nefarious Ponzi scheme, no President, Senator or Congressman from either party is willing to admit, out loud, that the fund is bankrupt.

Social Security is such a farse that instead of imprisoning Bernie Madoff, White House occupant Barack Obama should have named him Social Security Czar because next to the US Treasury, no one understands the Ponzi system we call Social Security better than Madoff who is even better than the Democrats at making it appear that Social Security was at least as safe as the money invested by Madoff's suckers. For more years than most of your grandkids have lived, the Democrats have been very adroit at conning senior citizens (who now represent 38.9% of the population) that their money is safe). The bad news for Uncle Sam is that only 12% of those eligible for full benefits under Social Security and Medicare are still in the full time work force.

Hillarycare...the practice run
As they raided the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the welfare system for over 30 years from 1965 to 1995, Congress changed the law on how benefits would be paid to future recipients in 1978. Prior to 1978, workers earned 4 quarterly credits per year (providing they earned at least $50 per quarter). Beginning in 1978 the quarterly system was dropped and Social Security earnings were based on the total income you earned per year. Let's say, in 1979 you were a seasonable worker. You paved roads in Minnesota, or you built summer homes in the Catskill Mountains. You earned as much, if not more, in 6 months than most full time employees earned in a year. You were fully vested. As Uncle Sam continued to raid the Trust Fund, Congress continued to change the amount of earnings you needed, and how much you needed to earn per quarter, to qualify.

Since everyone assumes they're covered by Social Security, and Uncle Sam periodically gives seniors cost-of-living-increases, everyone assumes the benefits continue to raise as well. When, in point of fact, the only thing that changes is what you have to do to qualify for benefits. In 2009, how much you need to earn per quarter to earn a "credit" changed again. Remember, in 1978, you earned a SS credit if you paid Uncle Sam $50 in Social Security taxes in one quarter. Now to earn that quarterly credit, you need to pay Uncle Sam $1,090.00 for that credit. Four quarters of credits means you've paid Uncle Sam's legal ponzi scheme $4,360.00. In 2010, the quarterly rate increases to $1,130.00 and the amount for the four quarters increases to $4,480.00. The rate you pay from that point on will increase by at least 10% per year, and perhaps more as fewer workers support more recipients. That's what happens when too few workers are required to support too many recipients. Everyone gets less money

Prior to 1978, benefits paid to Social Security recipients were based on your best 40 consecutive quarters of employment over your work life. For example, let's assume your highest earnings occurred between age 45 and 55. At 55 your employer sold the company and new manager viewed you as an old duffer on the way out. Your higher paying position was given to a younger man, and your income dropped by 25 to 30% for the last ten years you worked. You retired at age 65 in 1975. Your best 40 quarters occurred from 1945 to 1955. Your Social Security income would have been based on your best 40 consecutive quarters. Same guy. Same company. Only, he needs to work an additional ten years because he still has a mortgage to pay off before he can retire. His retirement income is now based on his entire work history, not his best earning years. What does that mean? He gets less money per month.

This example shows why. I got my first part-time job washing dishes in a restaurant as a wet-behind-the-ears, skinny 14 year kid in 1955. I earned the grand sum of $270.00. I don't know what I was doing at age 15, but I only earned $37 doing it. Hope I enjoyed myself that summer. Okay, skipping everything in between and leapfrogging to the last two years, we're looking at incomes of $101,042 and $104,130.00. To minimize the math (and, remember as a teenager, my best earning year was $669 and as an adult (21 or older) by worst year was $3,7736.

This shows how your teen years, or those years busing tables while you went to college, dilute the income you earned during your productive adult years. Let's play with the first two and the last two years and see how Uncle Ponzi changed the system to penalize you and benefit them.

Let's imagine for a moment that the four years I used in my example actually represented an accurate composite of my whole earning history. During my worryfree teen years as a 14- or 15-year old who was wholly supported by Mom and Dad, that money isn't really "income." It barely reached the threshold of the word "allowance." Yet, to Uncle Sam, it was "annual income" and, to the IRS, it was an important part of my income history because it was the part that reduces the amount of money I get from Uncle Ponzi when I retire, or lose when the system runs out of money and is replaced with the next generation of government largess.

Every decade from the 1930s the Treasury's actuaries have been tabulating the receipts going into the Social Security Trust Fund and, until the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, nobody was losing any sleep over Social Security because the government assured them it would be there when they needed it. And, if you can't trust the government, who can you trust?.

Identifying the problem...two
decades late too late to stop it.
The first president to identify the problem was Ronald Reagan. Realizing Social Security was running like a freight train down a steep grade with no engineer or brakeman to slow it down, Reagan's actuarial's assured the President than by the end of the century not only would Social Security and Medicare be broke, so would the US Treasury—and the Fed. If something wasn't done to stop Congress from robbing the Fund, the entire US economy was going to collapse, taking down every central bank in the world. There would not even be any ashes left to sweep up.

Reagan enlisted team of economists headed by two Democrats: Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and economist Alan Greepspan who would replace Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve two years later. Again, the actuaries told them to save Social Security the tax was have to at least be tripled. If that happened, the system would probably last another 50 years without an increase—providing the tax and spend liberals were prevented from raiding the trust fund. Otherwise, they warned Reagan, what they nation would witness, they said, would look like a "...rabbit being devoured by a python." Using Moynihan and Greenspan to lobby the Democratic leadership in Congress while Reagan lobbied the GOP, they saved Social Security and Medicare for another day. Then the Clinton's came to town. And King Bill and Queen Hillary weren't interested in saving anything. Washington was Rome, and Bill brought the fiddle (only, in his case, it was a horn and he knew how to amuse an audience with the music he played)..

Of all the fables that came out of Washington during the Clinton years, the one which claimed that Bill Clinton actually balanced the budget and eliminated the deficit is one that made wooden Pinnochio noses grow. Never in the history of Washington was a lie told with such a straight face. The Washington Post and several other liberal newspapers claimed that Clinton, whom they admit "borrowed" $667 billion from the Trust Fund" to balance the budget did not actually take the money. In fact, they claim President George H. W. Bush "borrowed" $100 billion from the fund as well. That may be true. But, these are the facts. The Clinton Administration transferred the Trust Fund into the general fund which federal law prohibits. He "borrowed" the funds at a time when the Social Security Trust Fund was already in mortal peril since Clinton had already signed NAFTA into law.

NAFTA was a program that would destroy not only the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds by transferring factory after factory out of the United States and creating literal ghost towns out of large portions of the industrial Northeast, Midwest and Southern states before he left office. No other outcome was possible. The Clintons destroyed the ability the taxpayers to replace the lost funds by eliminating the jobs those now-empty factories once produced. As the Clintons exported our factories, they exported over 25 million middle income jobs—creating the massive tax deficits that now exists within the Social Security system.

Lying like only a Democrat can, the Democratic National Committee claimed that through wise money management, Clinton and Treasury guru Robert Rubin somehow managed to balance the budget and pay off a chunk of the national debt, attributing the "saving of America" to Clinton's boldness and Rubin's money skills. (Did someone say "money shill?") If it wasn't so tragic, it would have been comical when Hillary Clinton was campaigning for the US Senate in 2000 and, in upstate New York, blamed Republicans and former President George H.W. Bush for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Buffalo, Uticia, Rochester, Syracuse and Rome, New York, leaving the United States through the swinging batwing doors in Larado,Texas into Nuevo, Mexico.

As the caretakers of the Oval Office, the Clintons and the Democrats on Capitol Hill knew something about Social Security and Medicare that the public didn't know—or simply refused to believe. Social Security was broke. You can't throw away 25 to 40 million middle class jobs, then retire 45 million elderly workers and expect there will be enough taxes coming into the system to cover the retirement incomes of the baby boomers who hit retirement age between 2005 and 2010 (even with the government changing retirement age from 65 to 70, and within another two years, to age 72 and then 75.

In 1993, First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had no constitutional authority to write legislation, inserted a poison pill clause in the Health Security Act of 1993 to "fix" the plan. In fairness to Hillary, it wasn't an original idea when it found its way into the Health Security Act of 1993. All 28 European nations which have universal healthcare contain demographic euthanasia provisions that allow the State to euthanize the old when they become a financial drain on their society. Think of it as a real life form of Solyent Green. Only, in Solyent Green, the starving masses have to eat the dead after they've been converted into tasty green chips. Give the far left their carbon dioxide free world, and you'll find those green chips on the supermarket shelves sooner rather than later since carbon dioxide is the food that all plantlife lives on. The excrement of plantlife is oxygen. Oops...I think we need that to live, too. In fact, if you want water, you have to have carbon dioxide for that, too since two hydrogen and one oxygen molecule equals water.

Tell me something. Since they are wrong virtually 100% of the time, why do we listen to the fathead liars in Washington, DC? More important, why do we reelect them? If we keep them there much longer they are going to kill all of us.

Particularly since the final version of Obamacare, HR 3962, that they will try to sneak through over the weekend when people are thinking of other things, several things that not even Hillary was brazen enough to insert in her bill in 1993 have been surreptitiously added at the last minute to this bill. For example, on page 297 you find a 2.5% surcharge assessed to all individuals who do not want to purchase Obamacare. This tax will apply to all taxpayers with incomes under $250 thousand, thus breaking Obama's tax pledge not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250 thousand. Page 313 imposes an 8% per job tax on small employers who can't afford to buy Obama's coop insurance. That's a real job killer. Harvard Professor Kate Bakcker estimates that one tax will kill several millions of new jobs in mom and pop companies, converting Obama's recession into Obama's Depression. Try as he might, Obama will not succeed in making Bush-43 the scapegoat although the liberal media will doe their best to make the case stick. Page 336 adds another job killer tax. This one is a half-trillion dollar surcharge that will hit small businesses. The job loss here is estimated at 5.5 million jobs.

Then, what is in every other Obamacare bill, we find it in HR 3962 on Page 774. A new Center for Comparative\ Effectiveness Research (like there is already an old one?) affirms that "...there are no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to lifesaving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain;s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000." (You should note, excluding the cost to the surgeon who performed my triple bypass, George Washington University Hospital charged my insurance company $86,000 to perform that operation. Throwing the costs paid to my two cardiologists and the cardiac surgeon who did the procedure, we are looking at costs of slightly over $100 thousand. My wife's surgery for ovarian cancer (including the surgeon's costs) was about $60 thousand. £35 thousand is roughly equivalent to $58 thousand. She may have gotten her surgery, but I'd be six feet under the ground under Obamacare.

Now the political game has a taken a deadly twist. Now its not just about lying—it's about dying. Not Congressmen or Senators dying. They have their own healthcare system that guarantees they will always get the best doctors in the nation who will fight to keep them alive regardless how much of our money it takes.

The healthcare plan those same Congressmen have in mind for us—Obamacare—requires the medical system to euthanize us once we become double dippers. Double dippers are those of us who drain Social Security by taking the benefits we've earned over a lifetime of work. We become double dippers by also using Medicare—which, of course, our tax dollars also paid for. If recently departed US Sen. Ted Kennedy had been a private citizen under Medicare instead of a very powerful politician under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, he would have been denied the $500 thousand surgery on his brain tumor simply because removing the tumor would have only prolonged his life for a couple of weeks.

Under Medicare, common ordinary senior citizen Teddy Kennedy's oncologist would have sent him home to die. Ordinary citizen Ted Kennedy would have been told that regardless what they did for him, within a few weeks he would be dead. And, even if the cancer was operable, his age—77 years—would have preclude the new Medicare system from authorizing the surgery since his life span at 77 was construed to be six months or less even if he slipped on ice on his sidewalk this winter and broke his hip. He was going to die, anyway. The deadliest medical disease today is old age. Statistically old age is now construed to be the leading cause of death in senior citizens. Of course, that doesn't surprise anyone because when you read the obituaries, 90% or more of those listed in the obits are 65 or older. What should surprise us is that old age is now listed as a "terminal illness." Think about that for a moment. Try to buy insurance when you have a terminal disease.

Medicare officials no longer feel its financially prudent to spend the taxpayers money to treat elderly patients with terminal illnesses, or those whose quality of life would not be sufficiently enhanced by surgery or a non-surgical medical procedure—including lifesaving pharmaceuticals This is the foundation of the rationing of the healthcare Is the concept of rationing of healthcare starting to make more sense, now?

While both sounded like it, Hillary's healthcare bill, like Barack Obama's healthcare bill weren't about providing or preserving healthcare. Both are about very surreptitiously fixing a problem the bureaucracy created by stealing the Social Security Trust Fund money to finance their social agenda (and make millionaires out of their friends and campaign contributors). Obamacare, like Hillarycare begins with what each views as an absolute necessity to ration healthcare to seniors. Why? Because roughly 39.8% of the population of the United States has reached, or shortly will reach, retirement age. In 5 more years, seniors 65.5 to 70 years of age will begin drawing Social Security as the politicians continue to surreptitiously advance the age when recipients will be eligible to draw benefits. Logic suggests that without a major drop in retirement age seniors, the government will begin awarding free vacation dream golfing vacations for double dipping seniors at resorts environmentally called "Solyent Green Acres."

Five years ago, early retirees could collect about 65% of their benefits at age 62 or the full amount at age 65. Today, in 2009, those who have reached age 65 years and 6 months can file for reduced benefits, or, they can wait, they can collect full benefits at age 70. There will be radical changes in the system before 2017 because that's "D-Day" for Social Security—Deficit Day. In 2017, unless the government can find about 45 million new middle class tax payers to fill the deficit, or quadruple your FICA taxes, that will be the year Uncle Sam pays out more in Social Security benefits than it takes in. This problem will be severe enough to collapse not only the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve System, but the interlocking central banks of the industrialized world as well.

George W. Bush was not the Rockefeller-Republican his father was. Nor was he the "neo-con" the antiwar far left (posing as the progressive far right) branded him. Bush-43, like Herbert Hoover before him, were honest men who appeared on the world stage for their roles in history at the wrong moments in time. Bush-43, like Hoover, was completely out of his element since both were surrounded by men who were owned by the money barons—even their most trusted advisers. Their closest aide-de-camps were loyal hirelings of the money barons whose job it was to steer the ships-of-state that bore their names by the rudders as the Presidents stood, proudly and presidential, at the helm, looking like Head of States who actually knew where the ship-of-states were headed. Neither did.

In 2006, Congress enacted a law, signed by Bush-43, to build a 700 mile razor-wire fence along the Mexican border at a cost of $2.7 billion dollars. Instead of building the fence to keep illegals out, Bush flip-flopped. Without explaining the logic of his reasoning to the American people, Bush hustled Congress for an amnesty bill that would provide 25 to 30 million legal and illegal Hispanics with immediate US citizenship. Without mastering English, each applicant would only be required to possess one thing: a valid US Social Security card.

They would be required to pay taxes on all future incomes earned in the United States, but they would receive tax amnesty from paying taxes on all previously earned incomes in this country. When this announcement was made, scores of websites fanned the rumor that Bush-43 was promising to pay Social Security benefits to illegals as a means of enticing them to come to the United States. Bush's mistake was in not leveling with the American people and telling them that when the initial 25 million Baby Boomers retired between 2005 and 2010, he needed to be able to replace them with 25 to 30 million middle class taxpayers who were already paying into the system. By 2017 another 22 million or so Baby Boomers will drop off America's corporate time cards, and without 45 million new workers to replace them, Social Security will collapse. At that point, in 2017, there will no loner be enough money in the Social Security Trust Fund to cover the Social Security checks that Uncle Sam will mail out each month. That's what Bush-43 should have told the American people in 2006 when he discovered it, but he lacked the guts to fight the battle that would have ensued when AARP called him a liar and rallied the seniors against GOP candidates that year.

Bush knew the Social Security stats. And, he knew how the progressives planned to fix the problem. He read most of Hillary Clinton's Health Security Act which was adroitly shuffled like an deck of playing cards before being sequestered piecemeal in various boxes in the National Archive to make it virtually impossible for anyone who didn't know where the various pieces were hidden to reassemble the draft legislation. Bush knew that had Hillarycare been enacted, American senior citizens would be dying at a much faster rate not because of a rash of fatal diseases, but due to a rash of expedited deaths of people who shared a common affliction: they were all "double dippers."

Double dippers are elderly people who receive pensions under Social Security and healthcare benefits under Medicare Bush, if you recall, tried to get Social Security privatized in order to save the program. The far left, which knew as well as Bush just how bad off Social Security was, denounced Bush-43 as a fearmonger in an election year. The Association for the Advancement of Retired People [AARP] which purports to be the senior's advocacy, ruthlessly attacked Bush and warned the elderly not to believe him. AARP, by the way, is a paid lobbyist of the federal government. They receive approximately $83 million from five different government agencies that provide services to the elderly. When Bush tried to get the Republican-controlled Congress to privatize Social Security in 2005—and remove the ability of Congress to "borrow" the trust fund for general fund projects, AARP spent $10 million advocating against Bush. AARP insisted that privatizing Social Security would destroy the system.

Today, the only thing that will save Social Security is a tax so extreme your income taxes with the the smallest tax deduction on your paycheck . Add Obamacare to the list of taxes you pay each month and when you get your first post-Obamacare "public option" paycheck, you're going to be shocked when you realize you will have no take home pay to speak of. I guess that's why Obama called what he was doing "Change." His "change" will theoretically return us to the 10th century—a society of lords and serfs, princes and paupers. The princes and lords of today realize that that worst mistakes made by their 17th and 18th century ancestors was to allow the development of the middle class. Obama, the Manchurian Candidate, was hired to restore balance to the world by erasing the middle class and returning the world to its 10th century glory of princes and paupers..

The Plan to Euthanize America
When First Lady Hillary Clinton—who actually had no constitutional authority to write laws, was "appointed" by her husband to head a legislative task force to structure what would become the Health Security Act of 1993. The Clintons—husband and wife—were convinced they had found a fool proof way to fix the Social Security dilemma before it reached critical mass. Hillary's "solution" would target the elderly. Obama's solution mirrored Hillary's which mirrored the Canadian solution, which mirrors the solutions of all 28 universal healthcare shortfall solutions. Why is it this not surprising? Particularly in a worked with a population replenishment rate of between 5.1 to 7.0. There are simply too many old people in the world for he industrialized nations to have the same type of robust work force that fueled the industrial revolution.

Because the progressives are equally influenced by the elite money barons who paid for the creation of the 20' tall granite Georgia Guidestones, in what is now commonly being referred to as the American Stonehenge, pledges to reduce the population of the world to a maximum of 500 million people, claiming that level of population places "people" in balance with "Earth."

The capstones weighs 12.5 tons. The architect of the monument was Joe Fendley, Sr., of the Elberton Finishing Co., who was contracted in 1978 by a man named Robert C. Christian to create the monument. Wyatt Martin, president of the Granite City Bank swears he met Christian when the deal was struck. The most frightening statement on the hieroglyphics is the pledge by the nations who survive whatever holocaust we face is to limit the population of this planet to a maximum of 500 million people.

Thus, Hillarycare and Obamacare utilized the same solution that has been very adroitly crafted into both universal healthcare plans. Nor was it surprising to discover that all of the 28 nations which offer their populations unrestrained access to socialized medicine contain the same poison pill solution to contain costs that were found in Hillarycare in 1993 and in Obamacare today. None of the 28 nations which mandate universal healthcare will openly admit the purpose to f ration healthcare to the elderly, yet all of them do it regularly. They have, however, developed a hundred platitudes on how to help the elderly die with dignity when what they really want is the elderly to die cheaply—and in rapidly increasing numbers.

The governments of the industrialized nations screwed up when they bought David Rockefeller's population rhetoric in the mid-1960s. Rockefeller needed the working class working. He didn't see a whole lot of need for babies who simply added to the population numbers. Eliminating the unborn, the elitists said, culled the population most painlessly by simply preventing those not yet born from being born. As 45 million working class people aged their way towards retirement, the 67 million workers who should have been there to take their jobs and pay the taxes to support the pensions of those leaving the work force to join the ranks of the retired were never born. Instead of prosperity perpetuating prosperity in the greatest nation on Earth, we created a world whose demographics are suddenly upside down because we listened to evil people who think only of money. We destroyed not only our own futures an the futures of our children, we actually set into motion the mechanism that will destroy us.

In February, 2002, I wrote an article entitled Choice...At both ends of the age corridor. After 29 years of legalized abortion, the elitists realized they created a problem that was going to become a demographic nightmare. In 50 years, the world's elites caused to have hacked, slashed and burned the skin off more than 49 million babies, convincing themselves they had saved the world from starvation. Suddenly, the world has a population replenishment level of between 5 to 7, meaning for every 10 people who die of old age, only 5 to 7 were born. What the elites have actually done was to lead the world down the road to self-extinction. I saw my first TV commercial advocating the abortion of the elderly on Jan. 30, 2001. Killing off the helpless at both ends of the age corridor. The ad ran on ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC. The NARAL spot (The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) was advocating that older people had a right to decide at what point life becomes too tedious for the elderly, and they should have the right to go to any hospital for assistance to abort what remains of their life. The NARAL spot confirmed what Gerald Ford new in 1975, what Jimmy Carter knew in 1979, what George H.W. Bush knew in 1989 and what Bill and Hillary Clinton knew, and tried to implement in 1993 with the Health Security Act of 1993 that would have began the process of rationing healthcare to the elderly who were not willing to voluntarily end their own lives.

The world, listening to the elitist money barons, have upset the demographic balance of nature created by God. Today there are too many senior citizens s in the world's population and not enough young adults. The native populations of the 28 nations which legalized abortion because that's what the rich wanted, now have live birth rates far below the levels needed to replace their own native populations. To get the young workers needed to support their tax bases and keep their social programs alive, all of the European nations have been forced to open the doors to their nations and take immigrants from anywhere. As a result, most of the immigrants knocking on their doors are Muslims. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. Within two decades at the most, all of the governments of Europe—including the European Union Council—will be controlled by Islam and Shaira law will rule the industrialized world.

Over the last 37 years in the United States we have not only allowed, but encouraged as a rite of passage, the slaughter of 49,589.993 innocent babies whose only crime was being conceived by two willing adults who believe copulation is just about sexual gratification and not about bringing life into the world.. Add to their deaths the 20 million children they did not grow up to conceive, and the United States has a population shortfall of approximately 69 million pre-35 year-old taxpayers who would have replaced the 59.7 million 55+ year old men and woman in today's rapidly greying society who will have no one in the work force to pay the taxes needed to fund their retirement benefits under Social Security, or pay the taxes that will provide their medical care under Medicare Is the haze clearing up yet?

During the Clinton years, the Democrats had little trouble convincing the elderly whose votes they needed to get elected that the Social Security villains were the GOP. The Democrats had no trouble convincing the elderly that they were protecting Social Security, and money owed to the elderly would be there, ready for them when they retired. Only, as they lied to the elderly, the Democrats continued to raid the Social Security Trust Fund faster than the taxpayers could replenish it as America prospered exorbitantly from 1945 to 1964.

As greying America continued in the workforce, their incomes rose at a much faster rate than those just entering the work field. To the bureaucrats who only grasp the picture of how tax revenues are created one frame at a time, there seemed to them to be even more money in the Trust Fund. The part of the picture the bureaucrats couldn't see was that the Social Security Trust Fund was like the Goose that laid the golden egg. When you kill all the gooselets, and the original goose that laid the golden eggs dies or retires, there simply are no more golden eggs.

To salvage what's left of Social Security and whatever acronym universal healthcare becomes known as before the world's elderly come to the Social Security office to collect their due, the United States desperately needs to implement major idiosyncratic age demographic adjustments before the system collapses due to an untenable amount of taxpayers supporting an even more untenable number of social security and Medicare recipients.

We are dealing with a demographic time bomb which is ready to explode. The United States can no longer meet its pension obligations. Not in the public sector, nor in the private sector. During the last 14 years since NAFTA gave US industry an escape route from the government-protected Labor Unions—with a return visa that welcomed non-labor union, slave labor goods, the industrialists broke their pension contracts with their former employees, paid them small settlements and divorced themselves from those whose sweat equity made them giants in the shrinking world.

Today some of those former employees have filed for early retirement under Social Security. Some aren't old enough and are struggling in a world without job opportunities for 60-year olds with 40-years of solid business experience that no one wants. As the world continues to shrink and more cheap foreign products fill the shelves of US stores, our government now faces a dual problem—not only meeting current pension obligations with shrinking tax revenues as the 65-plus slice of the age demographic pie continues to grow, and the 25-to-64 slice of the pie shrinks. And, in the meantime, the 0-to-21 slice (which is comprised almost entirely of minorities) is now the second fastest growing demographic segment in the nation. What makes this segment problematic is that this is the poverty class that will not complete high school, and perhaps not even middle school. Only a small percentage of these people (most of whom will not be citizens) will earn incomes above the poverty level. When you are looking for your slice of the proverbial American apple pie a decade from now, you will receive one of these three slices. Which slice you get depends on how well your government solves this problem. Based on history, if the follow the patterns of the past and listen to the rich, they will screw things up so badly that only Armageddon will remain in our future.

All of the healthcare plans proposed by the Obama Democrats, including the most recent 1,990 page version of HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, suggest that any of the slices of that pie will be too tart for everyone's taste. All of the healthcare plans offered by the Democrats thus far have a fly in the filling. That "fly" is the living will every elderly patient will be forced to sign. If they decline, the medical facility will designate a family member, usually the eldest sibling, with power of attorney to act on behalf of the elderly parent.. Usually the medical facility personnel will pressure the elderly patient by suggesting to them that they don't want to force their children to make a life or death decision for them. In reality, living wills are not "life or death" choices. They are death choices because that's all they are used for. They give the medical facility legal authorization to euthanize the patient.

World Net Daily reported on Dec. 4, 2000 that between 14% to 60% of elderly patients transferred from hospitals to either hospices or nursing homes are euthanized annually. In 2009, WND reporter Jane Cheastain noted that the Netherlands, which simply ignored the laws of the land, euthanized of the elderly for decades. Their Parliament just passed a bill in its lower House 104 to 40 to legalize euthanasia. Cheastiain predicts the bill will pass the upper chamber sometime early next year. The vote, however will be a mere formality since the Dutch Parliament enacted a law in 1993 that approved doctor assisted suicide and forbade the prosecution of physicians who assisted those who wished to end their own lives. The Dutch have been helping their double-dippers enter eternity for a decade but, with abortion still rampant, it will not alter the demographic equation. As long as abortion is legal on the birth end of the age corridor, euthanasia will be required on the senior side of the age corridor.

As more and more Americans read the growing number of legislative proposals for Obamacare, many of them are reading deeply enough into the latest version of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, HR 3962, to discover some very disturbing facets about Obamacare and the totalitarian controls this plan will place over the American people. But the most frightening aspects of nationalized health care deals with the assumed right of government to determine at what point, and to what degree people are deemed to be productive members of society based what how much, or how little, they contribute to society-at-large. And most of all, the question needs to be poised, and answered, at what point does government have the constitutional authority to deny people the right to continue living because they, the bureaucracy, have squandered the money which belonged to the people and was supposed to provide food and comfort for them during their old age?

In closing, let's take one final minute to regress back to March 18, 2005, 13 days before Terri Sciavo was savagely murdered by a sitting Florida judge. Terri Schiavo committed no crime. She had not been charged with committing any crime. In fact, the only party in the Shiavo tragedy who could be accused of wrongdoing was her estranged husband, Michael Schiavo who took a common law wife, Jodie Centonze and raised children in that common law relationship. If Florida law had allowed Schiavo to divorce his physically and mentally-disabled wife, the Schiavo execution would never have happened because Michael Schiavo, who wanted to marry his common law wife, would simply have divorced Terri Schiavo and married Jodie Centonze. Since Florida law denied him the right to divorce her, he went to the court of Judge George S. Greer and asked the court to kill his wife so her could marry another woman. Coarse, isn't it? But, it's true.

Did the Judge ask the husband what capital offense his brain-damaged wife had committed that would legally allow him to sentence her to death—a death so barbaric that had any court in the land sentenced the world's worst mass murderer to such an execution that every civil rights organization on the planet would have risen to defend the mass murderer's right to a more humane form of death. Yet there were no outcries over the barbaric form of euthanasia ordered by the judge who sentenced an innocent woman to death to convenience her husband. Still ignored today is the fact that a court in the United States of America sentenced to death a woman who had committed no crime. When she was deprived of liquids, Terri Schiavo's body stopped filtering toxins from her body. As the toxin buildup began her body's chemical balance was disrupted. This disrupted the body's electrical system that controls the body's muscles—including the heart. Eventually the heart was short-circuited and she stopped breathing. She died. While the doctors consulted by Judge Greer seemed to think, because it was claimed she was in a vegetative state, she would feel no pain. At least one of those doctors should have volunteered to be a guinea pig. Several doctors were convinced that Terri Schiavo, who had lost 50% of her body mass, was conscious and would have felt horrific pain. Her death would have been proceeded by anxiety, seizures, erratic blood pressure, confusion, fear and finally, coma and death.

But, we're still missing two point here. The first point is this: Terri Schiavo committed no crime. And yet, because it was convenient for some element of society, she was sentenced to death by a progressive US judge in a progressive US court of law. The second point is this: Yesterday it was a brain-damaged woman whose husband wanted her dead who was painfully euthanized. Tomorrow it's going to be 45 million American elderly double-dippers whom our government can no longer afford to pay money it owes to those people because progressive politicians wanted to use their money to fund a socialist political agenda in the United States. Under Obamacare, thousands of elderly Americans will be admitted to hospitals, many with conditions as minor as broken hips, arms or legs to appendicitis, and of course, to more serious conditions like prostate cancer, pancreatitits and heart disease. In the case of broken bones and appendicitis, most elderly patients will be admitted to the hospital for treatment. As the histories of other countries with universal healthcare systems, their conditions will quickly deteriorate and patients who fully expected to be up and around and be fairly mobile within weeks, will end up in a hospice or nursing home where they will continue to worsen. Each will be defined with a terminal illness and family members will be told the elderly family member has, at best, three to six months to live. The fatal illness? Undefined symptoms of old age. To help them rest, the hospital, hospice or nursing home will suggest a sedative with a mild pain killer. The patient will be hooked up to a morphine drip. They will slip in and out of consciousness for a few days, then they will be gone. Victims of old age

 

Just Say No
Copyright © Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved.