America's New Jews
sho...@home.com
*By* *Stuart Schwartz* <http://www.americanthinker.com/stuart_schwartz/
They are objects of derision. Influential government officials refer to
them as unproductive, of less value than others in society. The
political party running the government aggressively denies them access
to health services while putting in place bureaucracies devoted, in
effect, to ending their lives.
The Jews in Nazi Germany? In the Soviet Union of Stalin? In a socialist
paradise set up by the rabidly anti-Semitic United Nations? No...seniors
in a United States governed by the party of President Barack Obama and
his allies on the Democratic left.
The Democratic Senate health care bill makes it official: Seniors are
America's new Jews.
An exaggeration? Yes and no. In no way do I wish to trivialize the
horrific slaughter of Europe's Jewish population by the Nazis, nor the
systematic oppression of Jews in history. However, Obama and the
Democratic Party have embraced a worldview
that allows them to go after seniors in much the same manner that
tyrants (and the United Nations) have used Jew-bashing as a tool to
accumulate power and steal wealth.
Seniors are the new go-to group for this radical president and
Democratic congress as they pursue power, wealth, and the cultural
transformation of the United States. Every version of the Democrat
health care bill -- with all senate Republicans opposing this war
against seniors -- relies on drastically reduced access to the services
for which seniors have paid through taxes over a lifetime, or upon which
they may choose to spend personal resources.
The party and government of Barack Obama is astonishingly brutal about
the value of that lifetime. A "senior moment" should be just that, they
say: a brief period rarely extending beyond the 60s (for us, of course,
not them).
This is government by those who consider themselves the intellectual
elite, thinkers who insist that a free-market economy that has enabled
the elderly to live longer violates the rights of
the younger by disproportionate consumption of health care resources.
The president's health care czar views the optimal age for
societal worth as somewhere south of sixty years. The Democrat approach
is philosophically founded upon the work of
Ivy League academic Dr. Daniel Callahan, who mentored Obama health
policymaker Ezekiel Emanuel and who advocates medical resource rationing
as a simple and powerful solution to the "dilemma" -- lack of
usefulness in the community -- posed by market-enabled longer lives.
Simply put, the utility of a citizen's life to an Obama government is
defined by the amount of one's work that can be taxed versus the
resources consumed, and the government-defined value of the group to
which the individual belongs. Seniors are just not useful, says Tom
Daschle, the prominent Obama Democrat who continues to play a key role
in shaping Obamacare, and it is time for them to accept the "pain" of
less access to health care.
Too many Jews...uh, seniors? Okay -- let 'em die.
What Sarah Palin termed "death
panels" are only a small part of a new bureaucracy
that will stand between seniors and life. Small wonder /The Wall Street
Journal/ characterized Obamacare as an "assault" on seniors, while a British
newspaper,
surveying events across the pond, starkly stated that "the elderly might as
well have a
bull's eye painted on their backs. ... Creepy, right? It's totalitarian,
it's ugly, and it's
not the American way."
But it /is/ the American way in a nation governed by Obama, who has a
vision that requires some to have less so that others may be given more.
And the vast middle class of seniors -- almost forty million strong
with a lifetime of work and paid taxes behind them -- are the ideal
scapegoats to fund a radical Democrat vision.
James Lewis describes </2009/04/obama_alinsky_and_scapegoats.html> the
Obama team's approach with devastating clarity: they have perfected
scapegoating, an "emotional high explosive that you can direct at will."
And not just Will -- we're talking Bernice, Fred, and Gladys, the
fifteen percent of the population who have the audacity -- an Obama word
-- to age.
Seniors now find themselves the official go-to group for a president
intent on taking both life and property and giving to those who are
younger, to people who are more diverse, to illegal immigrants, and to
Democratic Party allies. Consequently, the Obama-led Democrats, with the
help of intellectual and media elites, have declared open season on
grandma and grandpa, with /Newsweek/ going so far as to feature a cover
<http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291> detailing "The Case for Killing
Granny."
In Obama's America, wrinkles are about as trendy as white belts and
polyester slacks, and gray is the new Jew.
Democrat health care is one of many "audacious visions," a Georgetown
University professor wrote, to replace a Judeo-Christian culture with a
statist worldview.
The founders were wrong, Obama says, when they unashamedly founded a nation
based, as Thomas Jefferson put it, upon
the belief in the dignity of each individual -- regardless of age --
possesses "personal liberty" given "by the Author of nature."
/Newsweek/ president and editor Evan Thomas, who called
Obama "sort of God," takes issue with the view of seniors dictated by
the "Author of nature," that rock of Judeo-Christian culture who
demands in His Word (in Deuteronomy) that humanity "Honor your father
and your mother as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days
may be long..."
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob views long life and respect for
seniors as a blessing. But the Democratic Party health care bill is no
Deuteronomy. Long life is viewed as a market-driven curse, and for
Barack Obama -- the god of Harry, Nancy, and Evan -- seniors are expendable.
It is not hard to imagine President Obama standing at a window of the
White House, watching the Tea Parties and streams of protesters. He
observes the multitude of seniors in the crowds, smiles a smug smile,
and quietly whispers in their direction:
"If the Jew fits, wear it."
*/Stuart H. Schwartz is on the faculty at Liberty University in Virginia./*
David Z
--
--
<sho...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8Z6dnW28X_dI36XW...@giganews.com...
Oliver
> Can you say "hyperbole?"
Can you say "batshit-crazy, sore-loser, fucking wingnuts"?
Piper
A load of horseshit.
Drak'rrth Ssekmith
just one person's opinion, and things are always more complex than
they seem.
I'm not familiar with Barack Obama's policies, not being a US citizen
myself, so I won't comment on that, but I feel that comparing them
with anti-Jewish events may be taking it a bit far. Often, politicians
have to find a balance between pragmatism and idealism, as well as the
left and the right. Sometimes, it pleases neither one, thus articles
such as these appear.
I feel that this article is strongly pro-Republican, in an unfair
manner. It portrays the bill as killing senior citizens, and then it
portrays the bill as a Democrat bill - ergo, the Democrats are killing
senior citizens. It does not cover the opposite viewpoint at all,
instead simply pushing forward a single opinion without taking into
consideration others and explaining exactly why this opinion is better
than the other.
Also, taking into account the situation - Mr Schwartz was speaking on
the faculty at a Virginian university - he is trying to get people to
support his viewpoint, thus he will naturally omit others. The strong
words used - "killing", "Jew-bashing", among others - are to incite
outrage towards the Democrats and, thus, polarize the audience - which
is, even now, working in this discussion. So it is advisable to take
his words with an open mind and a good supply of other sources.
I also note the use of Biblical quotes here, which I find are often
associated with the right-wingers. Besides that, however, it also
assumes that everyone would be religious enough to actually believe in
and follow it. Not to offend any religious dragons here (is there such
a thing?), but the world is currently multi-religious, and as such I
feel that such quotes are likely to offend people whose religions do
not concur with this viewpoint. If Mr Schwartz was truly intending to
offer a serious analysis, he would note this and take it in mind,
instead of straight-out Bible citing.
An objective analysis would analyze both sides' arguments and the
different opinions out there, and then dissect the bill into its
components, do a breakdown of the entire bill - minus all the legal
jargon - and then present it and the implied consequences straight-
out, without siding one side or another.
For the record, I am supportive of the left-wingers myself, but I am
willing to compromise with right-wing policies if I feel that it is
better as a whole, judging by my own morals and aims. Thus, I believe
myself to be open-minded and able to refrain from hurling vulgarities
everywhere.
I do encourage moderation in views on this topic, since radical views
with no tolerance is likely to lead into a massive flame war, which
would be highly undesirable by what I believe would be the vast
majority of us.
Tathar
So this isn't just another spam post?
Mike & Carole Curtis
Mike
"Piper" <pi...@gatesofdawn.com> wrote in message
news:4b3942c3$0$14410$6d36...@usenetnewsserver.com...