Back to Top

when the war starts shoot Communists first

More Communist Party usa Crap.

They were, by law, second-class citizens. On top of that, many Black families lived in fear for their lives, especially in the South, in the face of lynchings.Much has changed since then, but much has remained the same. Racism still exists, even though it is de facto instead of de jure. All statistics point to a simple fact: African Americans, and other non-white peoples, are forced into worse lifestyles, with more poverty,less access to healthcare, and so on, than white people in general.

But today, in much of the parlance of the political left, the words of the civil rights movement have given way to a new phrase—white privilege.

According to the website www.whiteprivilege.com (which displays the headline “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”), white privilege is “a right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by white persons beyond the common advantage of all others; an exemption in many particular cases from certain burdens or liabilities.” In short, white privilege is the denial of the rights of people of color for the benefit of all white people as a group in general.

But the term “white privilege” totally misses the point about what is behind the incidents of racial and ethnic discrimination against people of color. Can we really say that all white people benefit from racism?

Gus Hall, past presidential candidate and former General Secretary of the Communist Party USA, didn’t. In a 1987 collection of his work, Fighting Racism, Hall noted that,

Southern Black families earn 54 percent of what white families earn, whereas in the North, Black families earn 72 percent of what white families earn. If racism benefited white workers, they would be better off in the South. But look at the facts. In 1967 the average white family in the South earned $1,212 less than the average white family in the North. That means a total loss of $15 billion for all the Southern white families—most of whom are workers, of course.

What Hall was pointing out was that all workers suffer when one group is suppressed. It is simply harder to demand a wage increase from your employer if s/he can always get the job done cheaper by someone else.

Wage exploitation is not the only place where “white privilege” theory misses the point. We can see how racism, not privilege, is at play in other areas, where people of color are oppressed, causing working class whites to be deprived as well.

People of color are routinely relegated to failing schools and denied access to continuing education. When they do gain entry to universities, financial burdens often ban them from attendance. The student bodies of American institutions of higher learning are largely white, the Ivy League schools especially so. White privilege points to this as an example of white people gaining from racism. True, these white people do have it better than people of color, generally. This, however, is not the full story. Limiting access to education is the name of the game across the board.

The privatization, underfunding and closing of our public schools denies everyone without the finances to attend private schools a decent education. In addition, the overwhelming cost of a college education restricts virtually all working class people from full participation.

The majority of white people do not gain free and full quality education based on their whiteness, but must struggle along with all working and poor people to gain access. It is obviously ridiculous to the extreme to say that white people, even working class white people, don’t fare better than African Americans and other people of color. But the simple fact is that racism, which divides working class whites and Blacks from uniting to fight against an education system where really good schools are only available to the rich—not guaranteed to every single person—also harms white people. White privilege theory, far from being progressive and anti-racist, simply plays into that divide.

The same is the case with healthcare. Racism in our society has relegated people of color to the most under-funded under-staffed and ill-equipped hospitals and clinics. The health facilities in communities, of people of color are the first to face budget cuts and closings. Healthcare and coverage is by no means readily available to all whites either: over 46 million Americans were uninsured in 2006. That is not to mention those underinsured, numbering tens of thousands more. Can any of us say that all white working people have access to quality healthcare? The same dynamic is at play here: African Americans, Latinos and other minorities are specially oppressed, but this divides and harms working class white people as well.

In education, healthcare, workplaces and virtually everywhere else, the truly privileged group, the rich, enjoy all the necessities and pleasures available, and rake in billions in profits off of it all as well. On the labor front, like in Hall’s time, employers continue to pit white workers against their Black counterparts. They pit white workers against Black workers, those workers against immigrant workers, paying each section of the working class differently, in order to create animosity and division. Once again, the left should never play into this division—which is exactly what white privilege theory does.

So then, who is responsible for racism?

It is not these mythical masses of “privileged” working class white people sitting around on their benefits dreaming up ways to oppress others. It is, in fact, the corporations who use racism to divide working people from each other. A majority of these capitalists are white, but they are far from the majority of white people in the U.S. as a whole.

This highlights the main problem with the notion of white privilege. This concept directs us away from the root causes and functions of racism in a corporate dominated society. White privilege implies racism for racism’s sake, when in fact it serves a much more damaging purpose—to keep working people divided and blind to the big-business hand that’s keeping all working people down.

The notion of white privilege also alienates working class white people who, as we can conclude from the above, have a real, material stake in fighting racism. Even a first year activist knows that the crux for victory in every fight is unity. The fight against racism is no different. Unity in the fight for what all working people deserve is injured by the “divide and conquer” mentality perpetuated by the concept of white privilege. Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified this best in the campaigns of the Civil Rights Era. He proved time and time again, locally and nationally, unity proves victory.

It’s easy to see how and why many grasp onto this idea of white privilege. On the surface, it really does appear correct. White working people generally do live better than working people of color. But in the long run, this idea blurs the root problem, the real reason why whites are better off than others, and thus the real solution. If we want to get rid of racism; if we want to bring the living standards of racial minorities up to the levels of white working people, and all people up to a really decent level, we have to understand the nature of the problems we’re fighting. The terms we use must not only ring true to them, but it must also be true.

By Carl Lipscombe and Shane McEvoy

Socialism and Communism Q&A

This Q&A is from the Fuckwads at commie usp

Capitalism
Q: What is capitalism?

A: The control of commodities (goods and services) through corporations that produce only to make profits for their shareholders (the capitalist class). In contrast, socialism is the control of commodities through a government that produces only to serve people (the working class).
Q: Rich people deserve to be rich because they work harder. Why should they give up their money?

A: Capitalists gain their wealth from the labor of others–not from their own work. The workers who actually create the wealth-by picking the crops or assembling the engines, for example-should get a fair share of the wealth they create. Why should someone be a millionaire, with three houses, a private plane, and the like when other folks can’t even afford enough to eat?
Q: Aren’t people greedy by nature?

A: No. For example, in capitalist countries, little children quickly learn to share and cooperate, but they are later taught to take more than they need compete viciously in “the real world.”
Socialism and Communism
Q: How can communism be achieved in the US?

A: Unity of the working class will be needed. Workers will have to realize that capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates and that it is only beneficial to the few who own the factories, mines, press and government. Hopefully, we will achieve this in the voting booth; but if the capitalists attack, we will defend ourselves and our system.
Q: Can people decide what job they want in communist countries?

A: Yes, and better than under capitalism. Now, you get a job based on the education you receive, and the people you know: poor education + bad connections = a poor job, generally. Communism will allow people who have aptitudes for certain work the education–for free–to learn the skills it takes to do that work.
Q: Why would anyone be motivated to work hard under communism? If you work harder, shouldn’t you get more?

A: People can learn to be motivated by working for the common good. If we help each other, we both gain. Capitalism encourages us to fight against each other for crumbs, while the very few stuff themselves on the pie.
Q: Why don’t you like democracy, why is communism better?

A: Democracy and communism are not opposites. Communists believe in TRUE democracy, as opposed to our “bourgeois democracy.” What that means is when you only get to choose between millionaires running for election, working class people (the vast majority of society) aren’t really represented. Elections in a capitalist system are almost always decided by who can get the most corporate money. True democracy will be realized under communism because everyone will have an equal say in society.
Q: The world has never been fair, so how can the communists make it fair?

A: Fairness is a function of how wealth is distributed. Under capitalism, workers receive only a small percentage of the wealth that they create. Under socialism, workers receive a larger share. Under communism, workers (all people) will receive everything.
Q: What is the difference between communism and socialism?

A: The short answer is socialism is “from each according to their ability and to each according to their DEEDS,” and communism is “from each according to their ability and to each according to their NEEDS.” The longer answer is socialism is the step between capitalism and communism. Socialism still has people working for wages, therefore monetary equality has not be reached. Socialism is the society that will pave the way for a communist society by setting a foundation of co-operation and sharing of all things in common. Communism is the realization of these goals.
Q: What would be the benefits of socialism in the US?

A: Just to name a few there would be jobs for all at living wages, full equality and an end to racism, sexism and homophobia, health care for all, a right to a clean healthy environment, equal rights for immigrant workers, free public education form nursery to university, peace and solidarity.
Q: Is socialism inevitable?

A: If the human race is to survive–yes, it is. Capitalism cannot solve the problems it creates. For example, the capitalists want to pay workers less and less so they can have more and more for themselves. But when the workers have less, they can buy less, which means the capitalist end up with less as a result. It’s a vicious circle that has no solution under capitalism.
Q: Does socialism automatically end exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia?

A: No. These societal ills are products of capitalism, but they will not vanish immediately with socialism. They have been around for centuries, and will take generations of the humanistic system of socialism and a constant struggle to cure. But, socialism will make ending these problems possible, while capitalism encourages them. At the same time, we can’t wait until “after the revolution” to fight these ills. The fight against exploitation, racism, sexism and homophobia is a crucial part of the struggle for socialism.
Q: How can you have communism and still have individual freedom?

A: By limiting bureaucracy, establishing human-rights laws (the CPUSA and YCL have always advocated bill-of-rights socialism), and reminding all workers that they need to remain involved in union and civic activities.
Q: How free are the people in communist countries? What kind of rights do they have? Can they think for themselves and make their own choices?

A: These things vary according to each socialist country. Generally, no one has the right to become wealthy or spread capitalistic propaganda. In capitalist countries, we have only illusions of freedom and democracy because the media is owned by only a few corporations and the political campaigns are financed by the billionaires.
Q: Are there taxes in communist countries?

A: Generally no. However some socialist countries levy taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.
Q: How can people get ahead in a communist country?

A: Ahead of whom? Under capitalism, people get ahead of other people. Many poor and working class people in this country consider putting food on the table being ahead of the game. Under socialism, and eventually communism, all people get ahead together with basic necessities and luxuries.
Organizing, communists, and the YCL
Q: I support what the YCL stands for, but why use the name communist?

A: By calling ourselves communists, we acknowledge certain aspects of our lives and work like the need to build working class unity and struggle for immediate needs like health care, jobs at a living wage, affirmative action, social welfare programs and much more. The fact that all of these daily stuggles fit in the overall fight for Socialism, USA makes us young communists.
Q: Why is unity so important?

A: It’s the best tool the working class has, we have strength in numbers. We are the majority in this country and world wide.Without unity, we fight each other for the crumbs while the capitalist takes the majority of the pie. With communism we each get an equal share of that pie.
Q: Do communists believe in god? Do they outlaw religion?

A: Some communists believe in god, some don’t. Gus Hall, the former chair of the CPUSA says, “Our fight is not with God, but with capitalists.” Freedom of religion would continue under communism–as long as the organized religion does not seek to destroy the system and replace it with capitalism or any other earlier system (such as slavery or feudalism).
Q: What has the YCL ever done to improve this country?

A: It has always worked to help raise class consciousness in the working class, and organize the unorganized. Along with our fraternal organization, the CPUSA, and organized labor, we have been leaders in the fights for the right to organize, unemployment insurance, social security, affirmative action, and civil rights, as well as the fights against english-only laws, immigrant bashing, hate crimes, and the like.
Q: Why do people join the YCL?

A: They see the present conditions that have been wrought by capitalism. They want to fight against racism, sexism, exploitation, homophobia, and immigrant-bashing. They want to make the US and the world a better place by fighting for jobs, justice, education and equality.
Q: Do people treat you differently if you are a communist?

A: Yes. Even those who disagree with our politics respect our work and commitment to the class struggle. Many bless us, a few curse us, but no one ignores us.
Q: Why is the working class so important?

A: We are the majority class. It is our work which creates the wealth which allows a very few people to live in obscene luxury. Because we are the majority class, we have the real power to transform society.
Q: What kind of people are in the YCL?

A: Those want to change the world into a much better place. Young people of all races, genders, religions, sexual orientations, and nationalities are in the YCL. Many types of working class youth, students and young workers of many interests like music, theater, sports, dance, visual arts and more…
Q: Do I have to be a communist to join the YCL?

A: No. If you are sincere about fighting the effects of capitalism, like racism, sexism, exploitation, lousy schools, unemployment, homelessness, and so on, you should join the YCL right away, whether you are a communist or not.
International Issues
Q: Has there ever been a communist society that succeeded?

A: Technically, there never has been a communist society. Some socialist societies, such as China, Vietnam, and Cuba are succeeding. Communism is the long term goal; just as the world has evolved from feudalism to capitalism, so it will evolve from capitalism, first through socialism (in which the working class is dominant), then eventually to communism (in which there are no classes). Our job is to hasten that evolution.
Q: What communist countries still exist?

A: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos and Cuba are socialist states.
Q: Was the Soviet Union a real communist country?

A: No. It was a socialist.
Q: Why did communism fail in the Soviet Union?

A: There are many reasons why socialism fell in the Soviet Union. One reason was because of the Cold War. Capitalist countries were able to spend more on the cold war and the Soviet Union tried too hard to compete. For example, Reagan was able to build a greater military force by obscenely increasing our national debt. Overall it is very hard for a socialist country to survive with imperial powers breathing down their necks. There were both errors that the Communist officials made within the country and forces from outside that tainted the gains of the revolution.
Q: Why do so many people want to leave Cuba?

A: Relatively few want to leave. They have all suffered due to our 40-year blockade, but most do not believe that they can become wealthy capitalists by leaving Cuba.
Q: Is Cuba a dictatorship?

A: No. Although the Cuban people have a strong central government, they are very active in local and national democratic elections, especially through their union activities.

 

Sergeant Bowe R. Bergdahl

On 30 June 2009, militants belonging to the Haqqani network, an Afghan insurgent group which is allied with the Taliban, took twenty-three year-old United States Army  captive.  This ill-fated day was a Tuesday.

sgt-bowe-bergdahl-us-army1

We all know how fast a week passes.  Often almost before we barely realize it, we’re marking another month off the calendar.  But time doesn’t feel like it moves so fast when you’re a prisoner who is fearing for your very life every single day.  How difficult it is to imagine the emotions that Sergeant Bergdahl must feel as he sees the sun rise, and then later set, putting him one day longer away from the people and things that he holds dear.  

A group of Bowe supporters were discussing this very scenario one day and came to the conclusion that there needed to be a way to raise awareness about how the days of Bowe’s captivity had evolved into weeks, months and now years- a way to connect to Bowe’s experience in some small way. The idea of BOWE TUESDAY was born.  For over two years, the practice of taking extra steps to acknowledge Bowe Bergdahl each Tuesday, the day of the week that he was taken captive, was practiced by these supporters.  But the time came when it was clear that there needed to be a way to include more people in the BOWE TUESDAY movement, a way that would reach more people than could be reached via email chains and word of mouth.  One of the people in this group of  Bowe supporters said “have you ever noticed on Facebook, all the different people who you don’t know whose profile pics pop up and it says ‘people you may know’? And with that new ticker thingy that’s just coming out, you’ve got this stream of profile pictures flowing by on the side of your Facebook home page- what would happen if every Tuesday, a significant number of the profile pictures people saw around Facebook  featured Bowe Bergdahl?  That would get people’s attention, people would want to know who this Bowe Bergdahl person is- people who aren’t even aware that America has a soldier who is being held as a prisoner of war would find out about Bowe.” The next step in the BOWE TUESDAY movement was clear.

We decided to take the idea of BOWE TUESDAY and translate it to Facebook.  And although this is an easy event for those wishing to support Bowe to participate in- the commitment is just twenty-four hours once a week, the potential for raising awareness about Bowe is dramatic.  It’s such a simple thing to do yet it will be extremely powerful when many people feature Bowe’s picture as their profile image all at the same time. You’ll not only catch the attention of the people on your own friends list, every time your profile picture appears in a “People You May Know” list, people who are friends of friends will see a message about Bowe.  So will people with whom you share the same workplace, hometown, current town, school and page interests with.  WOW! That’s a lot of people! Imagine this: It’s a Tuesday, a person clicks on the “Find Friends” tab or runs a search using a person’s name and nearly everyone that’s shown in the results has the BOWE TUESDAY photo as their profile picture. Now if that doesn’t get their attention, nothing will! Let’s make this our goal.

We created the image featured below with BOWE TUESDAY in mind.  Some supporters have chosen to also feature Bowe on their Facebook cover picture.  We’ve created some images that work nicely as a cover photo which can be found in the Artwork & Image File.

We hope that you’ll join us in the future for BOWE TUESDAY. Only one day a week until Bowe comes home- that’s all we ask you to commit to using the BOWE TUESDAY image as your profile picture. All you have to do is right-click on the image and save it to your computer. Be sure to click on the image to enlarge the picture so that you will be able to save the best image possible. Many of Bowe’s supporters who use twitter have taken the idea of BOWE TUESDAY one step further and are using the following set of hash tags several times during the day each Tuesday in their tweets: #bowetuesday, #Bowe #Bergdahl, #POW, #supportbowe.  Thank you so much for joining us in this weekly event to help bring attention to Bowe Bergdahl’s story. Δ

From http://supportbowe.org/

 POW-MIA flag

Algore: We Have Ten Years Left Before Earth Cooks

see the countdown at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algore_we_have_ten_years_left_before_earth_cooks

RUSH: Try this one from yesterday’s stack. I don’t know if you people know this or not, but Al Gore has been out at the Sundance Film Festival out there in Park City, Utah. This is one of Robert Redford’s big do’s, and apparently Al Gore is working on a movie that — what is the name of this movie? Oh, that’s right, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and the movie will document his efforts to raise alarm on the effects of global warming, and so he brought Tipper and the kids out there.

He’s attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans. He’s enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel’s soir?e. He’s palling around with Laurie David of Curb Your Enthusiasm, who is the husband of Larry David, who drives the Prius and then flies the GV. Larry David says, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”

Now, the last time I heard some liberal talk about “ten years” it was 1988, Ted Danson. We had ten years to save the oceans; we were all going to pay the consequences, which would result in our death. Now Al Gore says we’ve got ten years. Ten years left to save the planet from a scorching. Okay, we’re going to start counting. This is January 27th, 2006. We will begin the count, ladies and gentlemen. This is just… You have to love these people — from afar, and from a purely observational point of view.

 

THANKS RUSH

Posted in Education, Rush Limbaugh|

The most important article you will read: What to do after a defensive shooting | The Daily Caller

By Dan Meadows, The Shooting Channel

————————

911 Operator – “911… What’s your emergency?”

Unknown caller – (Pause) – Silence on the phone…

911 Operator – “Hello, can you hear me?”… “This is 911, what’s your emergency?”

Unknown caller – Deep and labored breathing heard on the phone…

911 Operator – “Hello, do you need police, fire or ambulance?” “Hello!”

Unknown caller – “911… I… I just shot someone.”

Calls like this happen far too often. However it is an unfortunate but true fact that many of our police departments and our 911 dispatchers will receive calls like this on a regular basis. Actually, almost on a daily basis for some departments. Geographically speaking, large cities, especially cities that tend to restrict certain gun ownership rights seem to be the worst. Like Chicago.

As a former police officer, homicide detective and periodic dispatcher for the law enforcement departments that I served over the years, I have personally taken my fair share of these types of calls.  None of them are the same, and yet all of them are seemingly alike.

For many of us, we will sign up for a concealed carry firearms course, take a home defense class or even attend a local martial arts school in order to learn how to protect ourselves from the wolves of our society. Either that or we can listen to our “sheep handler politicians” by hiding or cowering in our homes, underneath our desks in our offices, or in a closet within our schools, hoping that the police will arrive in time.

This article, as written, hopefully will help bring us a sense of order and understanding on how to better prepare ourselves for handling, or even responding to a shooting event and its aftermath.

Here are the 15 steps that are designed to get you on the other side of a defensive shooting event:

(1) How Did We Get Here – Preparing To Survive A Defensive Shooting Event

“The only way to survive a potential threat is to prepare ourselves to survive that threat.”

Mind, Body, Training, Tactics, Preparation

Mind: Begin by preparing your defensive and survival mindset. Prepare mentally.

Body: Get and keep yourself into physical shape. You must be physically fit to survive a fight or an altercation with your attacker.

Training: Train with firearms, edged weapons and in self-defense. You can never train enough. Practice often with your firearms, knives and hands/feet for close range encounters.

Tactics: There is no such thing as a fair fight. Use every method and every tactic available to you to survive the threat.

Preparation: Combine the four previous methods, mix generously, and overcome your attackers with determined effort.

(2) Defensive Gun Usage – How To Survive The Threat

“Stand your ground, shooting only when there is an imminent threat against you, or that of others.”

While At Home: Engaging the Threat – Surviving The Encounter

  • Harden your home defense with alarm systems, locks and lights. Use them if you have them and get them if you don’t.
  • Create a home defense plan. Know the plan. Drill the plan.
  • Have a go-to zone / safe room in your residence. Engage your “stand your ground” tactics accordingly.
  • Have a safe and loaded firearm ready. Take it with you to the go-to zone / safe room.
  • Keep a charged cell phone nearby. Take it with you into the go-to zone / safe room.
  • If someone enters your residence, take charge. Think, react and control the situation.
  • Work the home defense plan. Rush or retreat to the go-to zone/safe room. Dial 911.
  • If threatened or attacked, you must engage your threat. Shoot center mass and continue to shoot until the threat has been stopped. Reload and re-engage your threat again if necessary.
  • Stay in your go-to zone / safe room as long as it is safe to remain there.

 

While In Public: Engaging The Threat – Winning The Encounter

  • Know and plan your course of travel.
  • Harden your soft target defenses.
  • Travel with a friend.
  • Everyone should be alert and responsive to threats.
  • Wear clothing that creates easy access to your firearm or other carried weapons.
  • If possible, disengage from the threat, seek cover and monitor the threat.
  • If your attacker is an imminent threat to you or others, if you are armed – engage your attacker by shooting center mass.
  • Continue to shoot your attacker until the threat has been stopped.
  • Reload and re-engage your threat again if necessary.
  • Remain in a safe (cover) area if it is feasible to do so.

 

(3) Beyond The Shooting – The Immediate Aftermath

“Just beyond the threshold of danger lies the realization of what has just taken place”

  • Stay put, unless it is more dangerous to remain in-place. Do not approach the threat.
  • Keep a visual of your suspect, in case they are only wounded.
  • If your suspect is wounded, keep your firearm aimed at the intruder. Only engage them again if they threaten to harm you or others, or continue their attack.
  • Ensure that you have an adequate amount of ammunition loaded into your firearm; reload as necessary, however do not traverse to another area to gather more ammo if doing so will place you into further danger.

 

(4) Calling 911 – Reporting the Incident

“Calling for help has purpose and meaning. But how you report it may determine your fate”

  • Call 911 (if not already on the telephone with them). Do not wait. Call them immediately. Tell them that you just shot an intruder or attacker and that you were in fear of your life.
  • Tell 911 who you are and how you are dressed.
  • Tell 911 where you are located, and who is with you.
  • Give the 911 Operator a description, if available, of your attacker, and their location.
  • If your attacker was armed, describe what type of weapon they had, or you observed.
  • Tell 911 that you are still armed and that you will set your firearm or weapon down once the police have arrived and when you are safe from the suspect’s threat.
  • If requested by 911, stay on the line with them.
  • Give no additional statements, admissions, comments or apologies at this time. You are being recorded

 

(5) Waiting for the Police to Arrive – Securing the Scene

“The wailing of sirens sounds so close, yet seem to take forever to arrive”

  • Remain on the 911 call if instructed to do so by the 911 operator.
  • Just like law enforcement officers do, and if it is safe to do so, you need to secure the scene to the best of your ability and for your safety.
  • Don’t move any evidence and don’t move the suspect’s body. Keep the integrity of the shooting scene intact.
  • Remain vigilant for others who may be associates or additional attackers.
  • Watch out for crowds forming. They may be friends or acquaintances of the subject you just shot.
  • Watch out for onlookers or associates who might attempt to remove evidence, (i.e. gun, knife, weapon) from the scene of the shooting event. Identify them if required.
  • If evidence is taken, describe it and its location to the best of your ability to law enforcement officers.
  • Upon police arrival, place your firearm or weapon in a recoverable place (such as safely on the ground in front of you), and inform the responding officers of your firearms or weapons location. Identify it to officers without pointing it at them.
  • Comply with officers instructions. You may even be handcuffed. They are trying to protect themselves and they do not need to also get into an encounter with you. Remain calm.
  • Direct the officers to the offenders/ attackers weapons (if there was one).
  • Identify the suspect or suspects as the person or persons who attacked you or threatened you with bodily harm or death.

Next, Talking to the Police

Read the rest here The most important article you will read: What to do after a defensive shooting | The Daily Caller.

United States Was a place of free and prosperous people.

Before the Civil War, the states were all separate. People used to say “United States are.” Wasn’t until the war ended, people started saying “The United States is.” Under Lincoln, we became one nation.  Now we are moving to the United States Was. as in the United States Was a place of free and prosperous people.

Posted in Blog page| Tagged |

Best Daily Caller comment

HOW TO INSTALL A SOUTHERN HOME SECURITY SYSTEM

1. Go to a secondhand store and buy a pair of men’s used size 14-16 work
boots.

2. Place them on your front porch, along with a copy of Guns & Ammo
Magazine.

3. Put four giant dog dishes next to the boots and magazines.

4. Leave a note on your door that reads:

“Bubba,

Bertha, Duke, Slim, & I went for more ammo and beer. Be back in an hour.
Don’t mess with the pit bulls; they attacked the mailman this morning and
messed him up bad. I don’t think Fang took part, but it was hard to tell
from all the blood. Anyway, I locked all four of ’em in the house.

Better wait outside. Be right back.

“Cooter”
Ray – Jesus is the Son of God.  Ken_NY

commented on this story at http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/16/call-to-arms-texas-am-law-prof-says-its-time-to-repeal-second-amendment/#

Noting her own outrage that Americans continue to tolerate gun violence, Penrose asked audience members to raise their hands if they thought laws intended to prevent gun violence have been successful. No one raised a hand.

SO MORE LAWS WILL HELP???  OH just one more law NO GUNS

“The beauty of a ‘states’ rights model’ solution is it allows those of you who want to live in a state with strong restrictions to do so and those who want to live in a state with very loose restrictions to do so,” the professor explained.

RIGHT LIKE ABORTION rowe v wade should be ousted in favor for States to VOTE  like she said.

Classic Version of the Hippocratic Oath


Classic Version of the Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art – if they desire to learn it – without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.

Posted in Education|

The Gunpowder treason and plot; Kill The King aka Big Govt

Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England’s overthrow.
But, by God’s providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James’s sake!
If you won’t give me one,
I’ll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn’orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

As soon as the noose settled around his neck, Guy Fawkes broke free from the hangman and jumped off the scaffolding — guaranteeing a quick drop with a stop sharp enough to break his neck cleanly.

Sudden death seems like an odd goal for a man to reach in a hurry. Until you consider the alternative…

(Ironically, in a way, it’s an early example of government not being able to get anything right. Not even a hanging.)

Guy had just watched his fellow English-Catholic conspirators hanged until nearly dead (with emphasis on nearly.) Then they were cut down. Their most private parts and entrails were removed and burned before their eyes. Finally, they were beheaded.

This all would have happened to Guy Fawkes, too…except wily Guy made sure he was too dead to notice.

What offense warranted this extreme torture and dismemberment?

Guy and his co-conspirators felt that the crown made life miserable for the Catholic minority in England. In truth, the crown was doing exactly that.

So on the 5th of November, 1605, Guy and his buddies planned to ignite the three-dozen barrels of gunpowder they’d packed under Parliament. Their plan was… simply enough… to blow up the king.

Known as a man “highly skilled in matters of war,” Guy’s job was to light the match. Afterwards, he planned to escape across the Thames. But an anonymous letter warning of the plot was sent to the King.

When the Master at Arms went to check out the dwelling beneath Parliament, he discovered Guy, a set of matches, and a whole lot of gunpowder.

The conspiracy was uncovered and thwarted. Torture, confessions and painful executions followed. This was the end of the now-famous Gunpowder Plot. And the end of Guy Fawkes.

For centuries afterward, Londoners have organized a curious bonfire on the Nov. 5th anniversary of Guy’s bust. They even gave it a catchy phrase…

“Remember, remember the fifth of November,” they chant.

Posted in Blog page| Tagged |

kill the enemy as one would a rabid animal

Best Blaze Comment
This brings back the painful memory of a cook in my unit in Germany the day our chaplain broke the news that his brother was on PanAm flight 103 that was also taken down by a Libyan terrorist’s bomb. One of my subordinate’s was also in the Berlin disco that was bombed by Libyan terrorists (the Libyan government). He survived and still has shrapnel working it’s way out of his back.

My son deploys to Afghanistan later this month. He knows to remove the politics from his mind and understands that the innocent deaths of thousands of Americans are a just and proper cause to let loose hell on those that perpetrated these acts or plan future acts of terrorism. He understands to remove the emotion that clouds judgement and kill the enemy as one would a rabid animal: You don’t hate the animal, but kill it nonetheless because it is the right thing to do and not lose a seconds sleep over it.

ABM4CG

Nov. 4, 2013 at 2:38pm

Posted in Best Blaze Comment, Islam, Muslim| Tagged |

The Lone Star State

Spanish explorers, including Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca and Francisco Vásquez de Coronado, were the first to visit the region in the 16th and 17th centuries, settling at Ysleta near El Paso in 1682. In 1685, Robert Cavelier, Sieur de la Salle, established a short-lived French colony at Matagorda Bay.

 

Americans, led by Stephen F. Austin, began to settle along the Brazos River in 1821 when Texas was controlled by Mexico, recently independent from Spain. In 1836, following a brief war between the American settlers in Texas and the Mexican government, the Independent Republic of Texas was proclaimed with Sam Houston as president. This war was famous for the battles of the Alamo and San Jacinto. After Texas became a state in 1845, border disputes led to the Mexican War of 1846–1848.

 

Possessing enormous natural resources, Texas is a major agricultural state and an industrial giant. Second only to Alaska in land area, it leads all other states in such categories as oil, cattle, sheep, and cotton. Texas ranches and farms also produce poultry and eggs, dairy products, greenhouse and nursery products, wheat, hay, rice, sugar cane, and peanuts, and a variety of fruits and vegetables.

 

Sulfur, salt, helium, asphalt, graphite, bromine, natural gas, cement, and clays are among the state’s valuable resources. Chemicals, oil refining, food processing, machinery, and transportation equipment are among the major Texas manufacturing industries.

 

Millions of tourists spend over $50 billion annually visiting more than 100 state parks, recreation areas, and points of interest such as the Gulf Coast resort area, the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in Houston, the Alamo in San Antonio, the state capital in Austin, and the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains National Park.

 

The 2011 drought gave Texas its hottest, driest 12 months on record. The drought brought up the same questions of water supply as the state’s seven year drought back in the 1950s. With the state’s population predicted to double by the year 2060, Texas began researching new water sources in 2011.

 

Capital: Austin

State abbreviation/Postal code: Tex./TX

Governor: Rick Perry, R (to Jan. 2015)

Lieut. Governor: David Dewhurst, R (to Jan. 2015)

Senators: John Cornyn, R (to Jan. 2015); Ted Cruz, R (to Jan. 2019)

U.S. Representatives: 36

Historical biographies of Congressional members

Secy. of State: Hope Andrade (apptd. by gov.)

Comptroller: Susan Combs, R (to Jan. 2015)

Atty. General: Greg Abbott, R (to Jan. 2015)

Entered Union (rank): Dec. 29, 1845 (28)

Present constitution adopted: 1876

Motto: Friendship

State symbols:

flower bluebonnet (1901)
tree pecan (1919)
bird mockingbird (1927)
song “Texas, Our Texas” (1929)
fish guadalupe bass (1989)
seashell lightning whelk (1987)
dish chili (1977)
folk dance square dance (1991)
fruit Texas red grapefruit (1993)
gem Texas blue topaz (1969)
gemstone cut Lone Star cut (1977)
grass sideoats grass (1971)
reptile horned lizard (1993)
stone petrified palmwood (1969)
plant prickly pear cactus
insect monarch butterfly
pepper jalapeño pepper
mammal longhorn
small mammal armadillo
flying mammal Mexican free-tailed bat

Nickname: Lone Star State

Origin of name: From an Indian word meaning “friends”

10 largest cities (2010 est.): Houston, 2,099,451; San Antonio , 1,327,407; Dallas, 1,197,816; Austin, 790,390; Fort Worth , 741,206; El Paso, 649,121; Arlington, 365,438; Corpus Christi, 305,215; Plano, 259,841; Laredo, 36,091

Land area: 261,797 sq mi. (678,054 sq km)

Geographic center: In McCulloch Co., 15 mi. NE of Brady

Number of counties: 254

Largest county by population and area: Harris, 4,092,459 (2010); Brewster, 6,193 sq mi.

State forests: 5 (7,314 ac.)

State parks: 115 (600,000+ ac.)

Residents: Texan

2010 resident population est.: 25,145,561

2010 resident census population (rank): 25,145,561 (2). Male: 12,472,280 (49.6%); Female: 12,673,281 (50.4%). White: 14,799,505 (71.0%); Black: 2,404,566 (11.5%); American Indian: 118,362 (0.6%); Asian: 562,319 (2.7%); Other race: 2,438,001 (11.7%); Two or more races: 514,633 (2.5%); Hispanic/Latino: 6,669,666 (32.0%). 2010 percent population 18 and over: 72.7; 65 and over: 10.3; median age: 33.6.

from http://www.infoplease.com/us-states/texas.html

Posted in Texas| Tagged , , |

Give Grandma A Pill: The complete lives system

#Obamacare How It Will Kill You: The complete lives system discriminates against older people…

The proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely,DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable. Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Objections
We consider several important objections to the complete lives system. The complete lives system discriminates against older people.
Age-based allocation is ageism.
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.
Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not. Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resource

 

[xyz-ihs snippet=”7″]

Ezekiel Emanuel: COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM

ObamaCare means rationing of health care services. Obama dodges and weaves on that, trying to avoid admitting that care will indeed be rationed.


He, of course, doesn’t want the public to understand what government-run health care would really entail.

At his alleged town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire yesterday, (actually, it was more like a campaign rally), Obama extolled the wisdom of “expert health panels” and their role in government-run health care.

OBAMA: In terms of these expert health panels — well, this goes to the point about “death panels” — that’s what folks are calling them. The idea is actually pretty straightforward, which is if we’ve got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take — these aren’t going to be forced on people, but they will help guide how the delivery system works so that you are getting higher-quality care.

Obama touts the judgment of these “expert health panels.”

One such “health expert” is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a top adviser to Obama.

Ezekiel Emanuel has a system for determining how to allocate health services. (Allocating, in effect, is rationing.)

Emanuel promotes the “Complete Lives System” as a way to decide who gets treatment and who is denied.

From The Lancet, Volume 373, Issue 9661, Pages 423 – 431, 31 January 2009, Emanuel writes:

The complete lives system

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. As such, it prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants. Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones, even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis, since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits.

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. In a public health emergency, instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving. Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated. It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, DALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accurately from identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health that the sickest-first allocation creates.

Objections
We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.
The complete lives system discriminates against older people. Age-based allocation is ageism. Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable.

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income.1 As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. As Amartya Sen argues, justice “does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”.

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Legitimacy
As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actual allocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject to public discussion and revision. They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like the UNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are difficult to understand, easily corrupted, or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test.

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions on its own. Although fair procedures are important, substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation.

Conclusion
Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations, it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

Age-based priority for receiving scarce medical interventions under the complete lives system

Emanuel, WHITE HOUSE HEALTH CARE POLICY ADVISER, has some very scary ideas about who’s fit to live and who’s life has been full enough. 

Look at the chart. Determining whether to permit medical intervention on a curve?

Should older Americans be concerned about this? I think so. The very young are also targeted.

At his event in Portsmouth yesterday, Obama tried to convince Americans that rationing won’t occur under his single payer plan.

But we’ve seen how socialized medicine works. It doesn’t raise the standards of care for everyone. It creates scarcity. Quality care? Forget it.

Obama mocked opponents who point out that a government-run health care system bent on trimming expenses will mean cutting services.

OBAMA: Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for “death panels” that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t — it’s too expensive to let her live anymore. And there are various — there are some variations on this theme.

The Complete Lives System does “pull the plug on grandma.”

Emanuel is an “expert” Obama admires.

As Obama said in Portsmouth, “[W]e’ve got a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations.”

These same experts also will provide guidelines to doctors about what procedures will not be allowed.

Remember what Obama said on ABC during his health care infomercial in response to this question from Jane Sturm: 

OBAMA: We’re not going to solve every difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going to have to be we as a culture and as a society starting to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves.

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that exists in the system, that’s not making anybody’s mom better, that is loading up on additional tests or additional drugs, that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know, and your mom know, that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

If the “expert health panel” deems certain treatments not cost effective, the government will be pulling the plug on “grandma.”
_________________

euthanasia for children motivated by compassion and protection WTF LIBS

Coming to an Obamacare program near you. Should children have the right to ask for their own deaths?  This is what the Liberals have been up to while you weren’t looking. I seam to recall that Hitler started out like this “kill the infirm” for “compassion” to “Kill the Jews” for the “country”. From the Unborn to the Born from the Infirm to Me and You the Liberal Nazis will KILL anyone that is an inconvenience to them.

site_baby

reet-TheObamaPlan8 

 

 

 

 

 

Associated Press,

In Belgium, where euthanasia is now legal for people over the age of 18, the government is considering extending it to children — something that no other country has done. The same bill would offer the right to die to adults with early dementia.

Advocates argue that euthanasia for children, with the consent of their parents, is necessary to give families an option in a desperately painful situation. But opponents have questioned whether children can reasonably decide to end their own lives.
Belgium is already a euthanasia pioneer; it legalized the practice for adults in 2002. In the last decade, the number of reported cases per year has risen from 235 deaths in 2003 to 1,432 in 2012, the last year for which statistics are available. Doctors typically give patients a powerful sedative before injecting another drug to stop their heart.

Only a few countries have legalized euthanasia or anything approaching it. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is legal under specific circumstances and for children over the age of 12 with parental consent (there is an understanding that infants, too, can be euthanized, and that doctors will not be prosecuted if they act appropriately). Elsewhere in Europe, euthanasia is only legal in Luxembourg. Assisted suicide, where doctors help a patient to die but do not actively kill them, is allowed in Switzerland.

In the U.S., the state of Oregon also grants assisted suicide requests for residents aged 18 or over with a terminal illness.

In Belgium, the ruling Socialist party has proposed the bill expanding the right of euthanasia. The Christian Democratic Flemish party vowed to oppose the legislation and to challenge it in the European Court of Human Rights if it passes. A final decision must be approved by Parliament and could take months.

In the meantime, the Senate has heard testimony on both sides of the issue.

“It is strange that minors are considered legally incompetent in key areas, such as getting married, but might (be able) to decide to die,” Catholic Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard testified.

Leonard said alternatives like palliative sedation make euthanasia unnecessary — and relieves doctors of the burden of having to kill patients. In palliative sedation, patients are sedated and life-sustaining support is withdrawn so they starve to death; the process can take days.

But the debate has extended to medical ethicists and professionals far from Belgium. Charles Foster, who teaches medical law and ethics at Oxford University, believes children couldn’t possibly have the capacity to make an informed decision about euthanasia since even adults struggle with the concept.

“It often happens that when people get into the circumstances they had so feared earlier, they manage to cling on all the more,” he said. “Children, like everyone else, may not be able to anticipate how much they will value their lives if they were not killed.”

There are others, though, who argue that because Belgium has already approved euthanasia for adults, it is unjust to deny it to children.

 

“The principle of euthanasia for children sounds shocking at first, but it’s motivated by compassion and protection,” said John Harris, a professor of bioethics at the University of Manchester. “It’s unfair to provide euthanasia differentially to some citizens and not to others (children) if the need is equal.”

And Dr. Gerlant van Berlaer, a pediatric oncologist at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussels hospital, says the changes would legalize what is already happening informally. He said cases of euthanasia in children are rare and estimates about 10 to 100 cases in Belgium every year might qualify.

“Children have different ways of asking for things but they face the same questions as adults when they’re terminally sick,” van Berlaer said. “Sometimes it’s a sister who tells us her brother doesn’t want to go back to the hospital and is asking for a solution,” he said. “Today if these families find themselves (in that situation), we’re not able to help them, except in dark and questionable ways.”

The change in the law regarding people with dementia is also controversial.

People now can make a written declaration they wish to be euthanized if their health deteriorates, but the request is only valid for five years and they must be in an irreversible coma. The new proposal would abolish the time limit and the requirement the patient be in a coma, making it possible for someone who is diagnosed with Alzheimer’s to be put to death years later in the future.

In the Netherlands, guidelines allow doctors to euthanize dementia patients on this basis if they believe the person is experiencing “unbearable suffering,” but few are done in practice.

Dr. Patrick Cras, a neurologist at the University of Antwerp, said people with dementia often change their minds about wanting to die.

“They may turn into different people and may not have the same feelings about wanting to die as when they were fully competent,” he said. “I don’t see myself killing another person if he or she isn’t really aware of exactly what’s happening simply on the basis of a previous written request (to have euthanasia). I haven’t fully made up my mind but I think this is going too far.”

Penney Lewis, a professor and medical law expert at King’s College London, agreed that carrying out euthanasia requests on people with dementia once they start to worsen could be legally questionable.

“But if you don’t let people make decisions that will be respected in the future, including euthanasia, what you do is encourage people to take their own life while they have the capacity or to seek euthanasia much earlier,” she said.

In the past year, several cases of Belgians who weren’t terminally ill but were euthanized — including a pair of 43-year-old deaf twins who were going blind and a patient in a botched sex change operation — have raised concerns the country is becoming too willing to euthanize its citizens. The newest proposals have raised eyebrows even further.

“People elsewhere in Europe are focused on assisted dying for the terminally ill and they are running away from what’s happening in Belgium,” Lewis said. “If the Belgian statutes go ahead, this will be a key boundary that is crossed.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Sheik Gleefully Smashes Statue of the Virgin Mary

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” – Barak Huessin Obama

SHEIK GLEEFULLY SMASHES STATUE OF THE VIRGIN MARY IN SYRIA: ‘ALLAH ALONE WILL BE WORSHIPPED…’Oct. 31, 2013 12:30am Erica Ritz The Blaze

Radical Islam,SyriaSheik Omar Raghba was caught on video gleefully smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary in the Yakubiya village of Syria, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute MEMRI.In video posted on the Internet on October 23, Raghba remarked with a smile: “Allah willing, Allah alone will be worshiped in the Levant, which will be ruled only by the law of Allah. The idols will be worshiped no more in the Levant, Allah willing.”“We shall accept nothing but Allah, his religion, and the Sunnah of his prophet,” he continued.And at that the man hurled the statue to the floor, where it was smashed to bits.Photo via MEMRI-TVPhoto via MEMRI-TV“Say ‘Allah akbar!’” the group urges as the sheik saunters away.“Allah akbar,” he obliges with a wave.Watch the complete video below, courtesy of MEMRI-TV:-

via Sheik Gleefully Smashes Statue of the Virgin Mary in Syria: ‘Allah Alone Will Be Worshipped…’ | TheBlaze.com.

Posted in ASS WAGON, Barack Obama, Blog page, Islam, Muslim, Obama| Tagged |
%d bloggers like this: