2009
Jun – 1  7  10  26  30     December – 21 

2008
September – 12     October – 28     November – 7
February – 10     March – 9 11     August – 10  11  13
2007
April – 1  5  10  11  14  19  24  26     May – 2
January – 1  2  5  8  13  15  22  30     February – 7  8  12 
2006
December – 1  2  3  4  5  8  9  10  11  13  15  17  19  24  25  27
November – 19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30

Reid, Pelosi & Obama Planning Genocide
aka The New Democratic Job Creation Program
December 21, 2009

Murder is defined as “the premeditated killing of another human being (murder in the first degree), or the killing of another human being by intent but without premeditation (murder in the second degree).” For the purpose of this article, I will exempt war, lawful execution and elective abortion from the definition of murder. We can debate those controversial issues another time.

Self-defense is generally viewed as “the force someone uses to protect themselves because of a reasonable belief that another party intends to inflict great bodily harm or death. The popularized (and legally supported) justification for the use of deadly force in self-defense is a person’s belief or perception he or she is in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death.

In simpler terms, murder is killing someone against their will, and self-defense is killing first to prevent an assailant from murdering you. The use of deadly force in self-defense is an inherent right of Americans ever since the revolutionary war. That right has been sustained in countless court cases for hundreds of years.

Enter the Democrats with a new government health care proposal that poses an imminent threat or danger of great bodily harm or death to millions of Americans. Do the Democrats want you to die? Do the Democrats intend to kill you? Yes they do, provided you are older than 55; afflicted with AIDS; a woman past child-bearing age with breast cancer; or a person suffering from any number of possible medical conditions that necessarily require expensive medical treatments and follow-up over long periods of time. Are the Democrats taking considered and premeditated action to murder people? Yes they are.

The health care bill currently being inserted up our collective evacuation chutes by gloating Democrats lays the foundation for this mass genocide. For the record, genocide is viewed by most rational people as “murder.” How will the Democrats facilitate this mass genocide? Quite simply by establishing federal and state protocols that deny or limit medical treatment for people categorized as “undesirables” in the previous paragraph. The undesirables categories will be subject to modification based on political expediency.

The potential benefit of a campaign of genocide against seniors and sick people by the Democrat-controlled government is obvious. Deaths create job openings and the Democrats have promised more jobs. Better yet, deaths create revenue for the government in the form of death taxes. As you should know, the Democrats have already resurrected the full death tax. Now they merely need people to die. To the Democrats, there appears to be no downside to genocide; unless of course you happen to be one of the potential victims.

For a historical perspective, look at the Nazi campaign of genocide against the Jews. Murdering the Jews eased Nazi debt owed to Jewish-owned banks; freed up estate property to be confiscated for the coffers of the Nazi government and created sorely needed jobs for other Germans at a time when unemployment was a serious problem in the country. True, the Nazis didn’t murder Jews by denying them medical care (arguably). The “denial of service” attack is a new paradigm being tested and refined by England, Canada, Cuba and other countries looking for ways to bump off senior citizens, people with costly illnesses and possibly even other undesirables who don’t fully support their standing government.

As everyone has probably noticed, our “Unholy Trinity” (Obama, Reid & Pelosi), points repeatedly at countries with government-run medical insurance as an example of effective socialism, despite an overwhelming body of evidence that shows how those countries systematically discriminate against various classes of people by denying them life-sustaining medical treatment. You could call it government enforced survival of the fittest, with the government deciding who best meets the description of fittest.

Which brings us back to the concept of self-defense. What follows is a fictional story. Any similarity or resemblance of the characters in this story to real people is coincidental and unintentional. I do not personally recommend or endorse the story’s ending.

Envision if you can, an elderly woman walking from the supermarket to her car in the parking lot. She is accosted by an assailant who demands her purse and her car keys. She panics and repeatedly screams “help,” at which point the assailant pulls out a knife and and threatens to kill her if she doesn’t shut up. Grandma concludes the assailant really does intend to kill her. In an act of desperation, she drops her groceries, pulls a .25 caliber pistol out of her purse and shoots the assailant. The entire incident is recorded on parking lot surveillance cameras.

It isn’t important whether or not the assailant is killed. Grandma acted in self-defense in the purest sense of the concept and a court will acquit Grandma of all wrong-doing (provided she had a license to carry the concealed weapon). In fact, lets ditch the gun. Grandma needs it later. It was raining, Grandma was carrying an umbrella and she stabbed the assailant with it. When this case went to court, Grandma didn't even need a “good” attorney. Her court-appointed defense counsel got her off easily.

Now consider the same scenario, but an alternate ending. Grandma stabs with the umbrella and misses. The assailant runs away and Grandma (in all the excitement) trips and falls down. Grandma is after all, old and fragile. She breaks her hip when she hits the pavement.

Off to the hospital she goes in an ambulance. After a few days of medical evaluation and several X-rays (the insurance company won’t pay for an MRI), Grandma’s doctor recommends a hip replacement if she ever expects to walk again without assistance.

Grandma’s government regulated health insurer disapproves the surgery on the grounds Grandma is too old to justify the expense. What they don’t tell Grandma is that (in their subjective opinion) due to Grandma’s advanced age, her potential for further positive contributions to society doesn’t justify the expense. The only medical procedure the insurance company is willing to reimburse is “supervised pain control,” and a cheap walker.

Grandma ends up drugged into a half-stupor by medical marijuana, the least expensive pain mitigating pseudo drug she can afford. Grandma also has to spend a lot of time on the couch or in bed. Her leg becomes painful and starts to swell. She sees her doctor who confirms the presence of a blood clot in one of the large veins in her leg.

Grandma’s doctor recommends an angioplasty, but the insurance company won’t pay for it. They have exhausted the annual funds allocated to Grandma’s region for her age category. Her doctor’s only option is to place her on a daily dose of Coumadin in hopes of preventing further clotting. The doctor also tells Grandma to be careful because she can bleed to death if she accidentally cuts herself, takes too much Motrin for her pain, or sustains a severe blow to any part of her body from bumping into the corner of a table, falling out of bed, etc. Grandma has to make sure she doesn’t even bite her tongue too hard by accident.

Faced with these circumstances, Grandma suddenly realizes she is in imminent danger of bodily harm or death. If she can’t have the angioplasty, she’s probably a goner. And who is the assailant threatening her life? You guessed it; the insurance company. Just like the assailant with a knife in the parking lot, the insurance company is taking aggressive steps to kill Grandma with a denial of treatment. The insurance company will undoubtedly receive a bonus from the government for the resultant cost savings.

Unfortunately, that won't help Grandma. She doesn't own stock in this particular insurance company. Bottom line, the insurance company knows full well, the same as Grandma, that denial of service can result in her premature death. Is this what you want for your own Grandmother? Don't even think about paying for her to have an angioplasty to resolve the matter. That could result in stiff government fines for you, your grandmother and the doctor who performs the procedure.

Grandma loses all hope. She takes a taxi to the local office of her insurance company; shuffles into the reception area with her walker; pulls out the trusty old .25 caliber she thought she'd never need and shoots the receptionist and two other people who come running out of their offices when they hear the shots. (The other exec in the office suite is cowering under his desk.) The .25 caliber pistol jams (as they are apt to do), a wounded insurance company exec wrestles Grandma to the ground (re-fracturing her hip), the police are summoned and Grandma is taken into police custody to face charges of murder.

Is this the end for Grandma? I somehow doubt it. Grandma’s attorney only needs to introduce the generations-old tried and tested “self-defense” defense and Grandma is very, very likely to go free. If you disagree with me, please explain how this particular scenario does NOT meet the requirements for the use of deadly force in self-defense. After all, Grandma was being threatened with imminent bodily harm or death by her insurance company and she did fear the impending bodily harm or death. The contract Grandma signed with the insurance company that inferred they could deny certain treatments is totally invalid under the law because Grandma was coerced into signing it to begin with.

Could this happen? You answer that. The press would have a field day. The news would circulate quickly. Grandmas everywhere with denied treatments would begin to hunt down, stalk and kill health insurance company executives (in self defense). The Grandmas would be joined quickly by millions of gays and prostitutes with AIDS, adults with autism, women with breast cancer and other citizens and non-citizens with no potential for further positive contributions to society.

The movement would spread to other countries. Insurance company executives worldwide would quit their jobs out of fear of being hunted down and killed in self-defense. Governments would be forced to take direct control over administration of the national health insurance programs. Government insurance industry workers would then become targets for self-defense. Government employees assigned to insurance companies would begin quitting in droves. The health insurance industry would collapse entirely. And we could start all over.

In the meantime, all those sitting in jail awaiting trial for self-defense would finally receive their much-needed medical treatments for free because as everyone knows; prisoners in American jails get better medical treatment than Grandma ever would with her government insurance.

The solution? This is about as easy as Ron White’s Heightened States of Awareness. See a Doctor. Doctor bills the government. Forget the insurance companies. Nobody really needs them or their involvement? No insurance companies, no middlemen, no bureaucracy, no stress. Period. Imagine the potential savings in medical administrative costs.

If the government has a problem with unnecessary procedures or excessive expenses, let them take that up directly with the applicable doctor(s). Isn’t that easy? For all of us there isn't even any paperwork to fill out besides the customary medical history forms. No pre-approvals, no issues with pre-existing conditions, no claims processing. Just health care for everyone. Problem solved. See . . . I always have a recommended solution. Mine is not a vehicle speeding towards genocide.

If insurance companies want to stay in business, they can issue policies to cover mental health problems, chiropractor services and plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons. The government will pay for "legitimate medical treatment" and the insurance companies can handle everything else.

Yes, doctors could still be sued for malpractice, but a settlement ruling against a doctor would have to be paid by the government. That would force the government to monitor and enforce the quality and qualifications of doctors instead of leaving it in the hands of the AMA. Lets face it, there are incompetent doctors in the workplace. Hopefully not too many, but the AMA certainly isn't culling them out. This way, doctors wouldn’t have to carry malpractice insurance and we’d realize another reduction in the overall cost of medical care.

To those who argue this type of an arrangement would be opposed by the doctors themselves, I can only reply, “If the doctors don’t like it, why don’t they go to Cuba, or England, or Canada to practice. Doctors are needed everywhere. They should relocate to a country with a system they prefer. It’s a free country (at least for now despite the best efforts of Democrats); so the doctors can freely go anywhere they believe they'll be happy.”

One last suggestion to resolve the ever-present aggravation of frivolous medical lawsuits. The government must legislate a “three strikes” rule for attorneys. Any and all attorneys who lose a cumulative total of three medical malpractice cases in court are automatically barred from ever again participating in medical malpractice lawsuits. They also forfeit legal fees for every case they lose. If we’re going to clean up health care, there’s no reason we can’t start cleaning up the legal profession as well.

If you've read to this point and believe the warnings don't apply to you, just give it a few years. You'll be over 65 sooner or later, provided the new health care system hasn't already facilitated your early euthanasia. Once you reach 65 (55 if Congress gets its way) you'll be balancing on the edge of the sinkhole just like the rest of us.

TOP