Obamacare & Eugenics 101: Princeton Professor “Quite Reasonable” To Murder Disabled Babies? (VIDEO)

Fotor01016224251Ct Patriot: Let me ask you something? Is this 1938 in Nazi Germany? It sure seems like it to me. I am sure anyone who escaped the horrors of Hitlers Reich and made it to America that is still alive today would be more than glad to explain to the sheeple of our nation that this is exactly what happened in Germany in the late 30’s. Good ole’ Adolph nationalizted health care as well. And whom were the first people he decided to remove from society? the handicapped and “simple minded” as they liked to say. Just like this Princeton professor is saying, But its not him I am worried about. Its In the Law, Yes there are Death Panels people. So they start with the weakest among us, those who cannot defend themselves. The unborn and born with problems. Then I am sure the Veterans, are true heroes are next. You can already see what Obama has done to the VA hospitals. So after Obamacare removes them from the burden on the socialist utopia he has created. Who is next? My guess Christians and anyone else who doesn’t fit into Obama’s brave new world. Can’t we see where this is all going before it is too late? If it is not already?  Are we now a country without a spine? A soul? A conscience? Take a look below and let me know what you think about Obamacare’s Nazi-ish Eugenics Program?

download

ETHICS PROFESSOR SAYS IT’S “QUITE REASONABLE” TO KILL DISABLED BABIES VIA OBAMACARE

Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t exactly…ummm….ethical?

by DAISY LUTHER

THE ORGANIC PREPPER

APRIL 21, 2015

download (4)Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t exactly…ummm….ethical? At least the ones who get quoted, anyway.

A professor at the highly esteemed Princeton University doesn’t want his Obamacare premiums to increase because of caring for severely disabled babies. Dr. Pete Singer, who teaches ethics (but perhaps needs a little refresher on what the word “ethics” means) argued during a radio interview on Sunday that America should be more accepting of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”

First, a definition:

Ethics:  that branch of philosophy dealingwith values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightnessand wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness ofthe motives and ends of such actions.

In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Singer, a longtime mouthpiece for eugenicists everywhere, has previously drawn fire for his belief that the right to life is directly related to a person’s intelligence and  ability to feel pleasure and pain, is back in the spotlight.  In 1993, wrote a treatise called “Practical Ethics: Taking Life: Humans.”

Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.” (source)

images (6)He clearly hasn’t changed his mind. During the interview he argued that it was “quite reasonable” to ration healthcare for disabled infants:

I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicade.”

For full article click here please

Eugenics & Obamacare – The Ultimate in Political Manipulation

January 1, 2014

Eugenics. It’s a word we don’t hear much these days, but its results are all around us. Back on the farm we called it “selective breeding.” Every dairyman or herdsman or Kentucky Derby contender selects the best of his herd as breeding stock. Can the same principle be applied to humans? Of course. Adolph Hitler used the practice to create what he called a “master race.” Loretta Lynn and Conway Twitty recorded, “You Are the Reason Our Kids are Ugly.” Nobody wants ugly kids, so in this enlightened era of single motherhood, sperm banks catalog their inventory according to eye color, hair color, nose shape, etc. Eugenics? Of course. Harmless? Probably. But are more sinister uses possible? Certainly.

images (4)Is the concept new? Of course not. The founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, felt that the softness of civilization had prevented the kind of natural selection occurring in Darwin’s Origin of Species from happening in humans, thus creating an unnaturally high number of weak and feeble-minded people. So it was up to governments to augment natural selection through the practice of selective breeding — or eugenics. At that time it was felt that desirable citizens tended to be white, athletic, intelligent, and wealthy, and those it considered to be undesirable tended to be black, Jewish, disabled, or poor. So the power of the state was, and still is, encouraged to promote increases in the number of desirable citizens (positive eugenics) and decreases in the number of undesirable citizens (negative eugenics).
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/eugenics-obamacare-ultimate-political-manipulation/#ij5JUfjLycD8p25B.99

images (1)

Rand Paul Exposes: Die! Baby Die! Female Democrat Head For Aborting Baby At 9 Months! (VIDEO)

Fotor01016224251Ct Patriot: I support fully what Rand Paul is saying here. But are any of you shocked by the DNC response to this? Do you really not see what the abortion agenda is in America? Women’s rights? So now women can commit murder? Abortion at 9 months is inexcusable. And if you think 9 months to abort a life is bad then you’ll be even more sicked when you see that some of these so called Democrat “progressives” are for aborting children up until the age of 3 yrs old. Just as much as the want grandma and grandpa to die as quick as possible. they love when a viable life is not allowed to breath its first breath outside of it’s mothers womb. As a father of 3 beautiful children, who has gone through all 3 of the pregnancies and births. Including the ultrasounds. I can tell you that if you can see your child and hear its heart beat and you still don’t think its alive. There is something very wrong with you not the baby. they call is a fetus to limit your emotional link to it. But its a baby, a child, a living human being. Don’t all lives matter? Now I am not even getting into the whole abortion debate right yet, Or the satanic sacrifice aspect yet. But a late -term abortion is murder. If you disagree then have the balls to look below and see what a late term “fetus” looks like after being aborted. It looks like a dead BABY to me….now tell me

download (11)

RAND PAUL EXPOSES DNC HEAD: “IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE’S OK WITH KILLING A 7-POUND BABY”

Presidential candidate wants to know if Democratic Party supports late term abortions

by STEVE WATSON

INFOWARS.COM

APRIL 9, 2015

2016 Presidential candidate Rand Paul yesterday made his position on abortion crystal clear, and forced the hand of the DNC Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, goading her into an admission that she is in favor of limitless abortions, including late-term abortions, up until the day of birth.

When Paul was asked by a partisan AP reporter about his views on abortion recently, and what exemptions to a ban that he would support, he responded by noting how the debate is always framed to shoot down his opinions.

download (9)“Here’s the deal—we always seen to have the debate waaaaay over here on what are the exact details of exemptions, or when it starts,” said Paul, moving his hands to the left.

“Why don’t we ask the DNC: Is it okay to kill a seven-pound baby in the uterus?” Paul added.

“You go back and you ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz if she’s OK with killing a seven-pound baby that is not born yet. Ask her when life begins, and you ask Debbie when it’s okay to protect life. When you get an answer from Debbie, get back to me.” the Senator noted.

Wasserman Schultz DID reply, giving the following answer to reporters:

download (13)“Here’s an answer,” said Schultz. “I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women — but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ’shushing’ me.”

In an appearance on CNN, Paul stood his ground and told Wolf Blitzer it appeared the Democratic leader wasn’t opposed to late-term abortions.

“Sounds like her answer is yes, that she’s okay with killing a seven-pound baby,” he said.

download (10)Paul added that “even most of my friends who are pro-choice are opposed to such abortions.”

“But Debbie’s position, which I guess is the Democrat Party’s position, that an abortion all the way up until the day of birth would be fine, I think most pro-choice people would be really uncomfortable with that,” he added. “So I don’t know — I really think she’s got some explaining to do.”

The procedure for late term abortions is horrific, but it gives some context to note what it entails. The unborn child is rotated until it is facing feet downwards, then the body is yanked out of the uterus, with the exception of its head, and out of the woman’s body. A hole is then punctured into the base of the fetal skull, and the brains are sucked out through a tube.

for full article please click here

download (14)

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.: You Taxpayers Have an ‘Obligation’ to Fund Abortions

Congresswoman: Taxpayers Have an ‘Obligation’ to Fund Abortions

TheBlaze.com
September 29, 2010
by Meredith Jessup

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., not only believes that women should be able to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but also favors a full repeal of existing federal policy which limits taxpayer funding for abortions. According to the Illinois Democrat, “there’s no evidence” that increasing access to abortion services encourages people to get abortions.

CNSNews.com‘s Nichola Ballasy caught up with the congresswoman today during an event on Capitol Hill sponsored by the Center for Reproductive Freedom to ask her about call for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. When asked about whether access to abortion may encourage more women to take the drastic step, Rep. Schakowsky replied, “No, there’s no evidence of that around the world, where access to abortion is more available but somehow women are more inclined to get one.”

“What happens is that women who don’t have access resort, as we heard today, to very dangerous, self-inflicted kinds of things in order to end, terminate the pregnancy,” she said. “And so, you know, we go back to back alley abortions. We go back to coat hangers. And, I mean, is that what we want?”

“Women who are desperate enough to do that to themselves are going to somehow – going to try to abort that pregnancy. We don’t want to do that. We don’t want to put women at greater risk.”


  • ctpatriots feed

  • an Edgy new school Conservative blog
  • FREE CtPatriot BUMPER STICKER

  • the lacs

  • KRS 1 On Obama and the New World Order

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • The Savage Nation

  • ctpatriots archives

  • Ronald Reagan on Socialism & Liberalism

  • Louis Farrakhan – “Murder by Injection”

    I can't bleiev it but he's right ...
  • Glenn Beck talks about New World Order with Ron Paul

    Is Glenn Beck yanking our chain or is he sincerely worried about the prospect of a New World Order and a One World Currency?

  • And Why does Rush Limbaugh Agree WIth Farrakahn??? Because its true?

    If  i can agree with them both  ... it makes too much sense

    Only in an Obamanation could this Occur.

  • Alex Jones The EndGame .. full version

  • Blog Engage Blog Forum and Blogging Community, Free Blog Submissions and Blog Traffic, Blog Directory, Article Submissions, Blog Traffic
  • The Obama Deception…full version

  • the Mike Church Show

  • “lil” Jimmy Norton Kills….

    How small is Jimmy???
  • Blog Catalog

    Conservative  Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
  • the Ron & Fez Show

  • RevueLink .com

  • Entertainment blog
  • Dr. Bill Deagle

  • Rense.com

  • Star Trek 2009

  • Dave Hodges: Common Sense Show

  • Submit URL @ OptionAdd Search.  
  • Follow A Ct Patriot's Blog on WordPress.com
  • Infowars.com

  • Jesus or Muhammad