Monday, March 2, 2009

I'm not the only one who sees it

Kevin McCullough has recently penned a longer, more provocative account of the Obama administrations intentions to cram murder into the hands of our nation's doctors.  His parallel is precise and obvious.  I've pasted a lengthy excerpt and placed a link at the bottom of the excerpt for all to read the full article.  

Obama as...
by Kevin McCullough

...In the 1930's and 40's as Hitler wished to use his captive “lesser-humans” for "experiments" in his final solution. He too forced doctors to do things they did not wish to do. Everything from injecting living humans with horrible chemicals to see the effect, to trying differing grades of poisonous gases in what eventually became death chambers. These doctors, who were purveyors of those things that helped save lives, were suddenly forced to use the medical knowledge they had of death--to end them.

In today’s scenario Obama wants doctors to exterminate “lesser humans” for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment. And he wishes them to do so regardless of whether or not they are compelled by the higher call of morality on an individual basis.

Put another way Obama's policy shift would be the equivalent of forcing those who believed slavery to be immoral and never even owned slaves, to begin purchasing them, beating them, raping them, and exploiting them.

This policy shift that Obama has attempted to slide under the radar screen is grossly immoral, and doctors should disobey it and run a medical mutiny against the administration if it becomes law.

The President did this, as he has done most things since coming to power as a pure, pragmatic, political move to pay off the campaign favors of those special interest groups he railed against during his campaign. In this case the abortion industry which is increasingly under attack from the next generation who understand the taking of innocent life to be horrific.

As to all the comparisons that the left made in 8 years of the previous administration, they never once had such a clear comparison that so vividly laid out the exact parallel between the dictator who thought it moral to gas people in chambers, and now a President who believes that live babies should be left to starve in soiled utility closets of hospitals, even if it violates the voice of God telling the doctor to do otherwise.

This stroke of the policy pen, moves the administration into its first conflict with the first amendment right of religious belief and expression, and he should be penalized for it quickly. ...


  1. How does Obama's reversing the Provider Refusal Rule, which just went into effect, translate into his wanting "doctors to exterminate 'lesser humans' for the purpose of immediate solutions to his social experiment"? What evidence is there to justify such a statement?

    I find McCullough's article dishonest and frankly damaging to pro-life efforts. Describing Obama as someone who "wants" doctors to kill human beings doesn't persuade Obama supporters or advocates of abortion rights to change their minds. The description is so over-the-top that it's much more likely to inspire ridicule from and be dismissed by the people McCullough needs to persuade if pro-life legislative victories are ever to last longer than election cycles.

  2. Kyle, I do contend that the agenda McCullough and I are claiming is real. I also see your points, both here and in the earlier post/comment, that this specific step isn't taking us there yet.

    I would offer as evidence two things for the moment:
    1. That this follows just like the Mexico City Policy which he rescinded (that policy once prevented the US from supporting abortion promoters/providers in other countries)...both were being "slipped" in on Fridays, which even NPR identifies as a tactic to get unpopular things in "under the radar."
    2. He has promised to sign FOCA into law as soon as possible...this act, vetoed by Bush-who I think set up the conscience clause impediment to slow down the arrival of FOCA, the documents that I have received on FOCA indicate that the elimination of conscience clauses is at its very again I think Bush's clause was the antithesis of FOCA and rescinding that clause is the necessary step to passing and signing FOCA

    --I did a bit more reading following your comments and realize that I should make mention that Bush's conscience clause was about more than just abortion, it included artificial contraception and other grave matters.

    --Also, the evidence I listed are by no means smoking guns to prove my earlier posts, but placed in context with his pragmatic-flippancy and campaign promises, I do believe this sort of Friday afternoon breeze-way tactic bespeaks of something more.

    --Sen. Coburn of MO had a short interview with a web-interviewer and made the same leap, and it is a leap to some degree, as myself. He is an OB/GYN and immediately stepped up to say that he is prepared to go to be prosecuted and go to jail if this goes through. Given Coburn's status as US Senator and OB I think he the benefit of fuller knowledge.

  3. President Obama clearly intends to promote legislation that undermines current laws that prohibit the abortion procedure and that firmly establishes in the law a right to an abortion. He wants abortion to be legal, but wanting something to be legal isn’t tantamount to wanting something practiced or wanting to force people to practice that legal act. FOCA, for instance, prohibits the government at any level from interfering with a woman’s right to an abortion; nothing in the actual text of the legislation speaks of requiring private individuals or institutions to offer abortion.

    The tactic of releasing potentially damaging information on a Friday is common to both major political parties. Politicians release information dangerous to them when they think the timing will best work in their favor. They’re a calculating bunch.

    I am of the opinion that the only way the pro-life movement will ever achieve permanent success is for it to convince abortion rights activists to embrace the pro-life cause – to the point where an effective pro-choice movement no longer exists. As long as there is a pro-choice movement, any pro-life victories will be fleeting. Roe can be overturned, but it can also be reinstated. I therefore believe that the pro-life movement must be persuasive and use rhetoric that encourages listening—on both sides. Demonizing pro-choice people, even ones so adamant as Obama, doesn’t persuade. Rather, it alienates them, shutting them off to what the pro-life movement has to say. The same problem occurs when pro-choice advocates depict pro-lifers as anti-freedom or oppressors of women. I think pro-lifers would do well to realize that Obama isn’t some crazed demonic figure who enjoys killing babies. He’s dreadfully wrong on abortion, but that doesn’t make him Moloch. As far as I can tell (and prove), he’s trying to do good, but is terribly mistaken about what the good is.