Who Should Live And Who Should Die And Who Should Never Have Been Born In The First Place?

When the lefties are out of power, they are usually irritating, although sometimes they can be entertaining as well. But when lefties are in power, that’s when they get creepy. And judging by some of the attitudes that have effervesced to the surface lately, the left has grown quite inebriated with the unfettered power it now wields. And because the left does not have to fear an adversarial press, it has discarded its warm, fuzzy facade and allowed its true face to show.

During his ABC produced health care infomercial, Obama was told the story about a 100 year old woman whose life was extended for at least 5 years (so far) by a pacemaker. When asked if his vision for socialized medicine would deny such treatment to the elderly, he answered that maybe the old lady should have just contented herself with a painkiller instead and saved the health care system some money. Rather than judge the woman’s spirit, he would assign the task of deciding who lives or dies to the accounting department. If judging when life begins is above his pay grade, then deciding when it should end is below him. Have we ever had a president, or even a prominent politician come right out and say that the elderly should be denied healthcare to save money for the young?

As he well knows, Medicare is expensive. End of life care accounts for about three-quarters of Medicare’s costs. The Left has never shown much interest in trimming government spending, except when it comes to defense budgets. But Medicare spending prolongs the lives of voters who generally vote against Democrats. As Los Angeles Times columnist Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times remarked: “A majority of young people still approve of Obama's job performance, but a majority of seniors over 64 now don't (54%). Maybe they'll die before the next election.”

So the Left has two reasons to accelerate death among the old. A majority opposes him right now and history shows that the dead cast their votes almost unanimously for Democrats. And Obama has made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he means to hasten them on that path.

Not creepy enough? Then read on. You didn’t read this in your newspaper, or in Time or Newsweek. And you won’t see it on CNN or your network news. But Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to come down firmly on the side of eugenics. During an interview with the New York Times Sunday Magazine, Justice Ginsburg expressed her disappointment with the outcome of Roe versus Wade legalization of abortion. In particular she was troubled that federal tax money was not paying for abortions: “Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe vs. Wade]) was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”

Precisely which demographic was it that Ginsburg didn’t want too many of? Might these be the “undesirable social elements” that Pullman’s lefties believed that Wal-Mart would attract into our community? The New York Times’ interviewer didn’t find Ginsburg’s lament worthy of a follow up question and the rest of the mainstream media seems no more curious. Had a prominent conservative lamented the excessive fecundity of social undesirables, would the Times have been more curious?

Of course, the founding mother of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, made no secret of whose babies she wished to see aborted – African Americans.

I wonder what Justice Ginsburg thinks about forced abortions? How about forced sterilizations? Does she believe that drinking water should be spiked with infertility drugs?

It’s worth asking this question because Dr. John Holdren, Barack Obama’s new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, co-authored a book that advocated all those policies and more. His co-author for the book “Ecoscience” was the thoroughly discredited Paul Erlich, best known for an unbroken string of mistaken eco-alarmist predictions.

If you have any problems with this, be afraid. Be very afraid. Representative Alcee Hastings (D-Florida), the impeached former Florida judge whom Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, attached an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would give Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretionary authority to label opponents of government policy as hate groups or domestic terrorists.

Wasn’t dissent the highest form of patriotism?