ABC, Obama and The One - Sided View

The Debate That Never Was

Last Wednesday night ABC held a town hall meeting promoting President Obama’s health care agenda. ABC and other liberals want you to believe that this was a debate on how to fix costs within the health care industry. But, for there to be a debate there must be more than one view presented. And that didn’t happen. Commercials were not even allowed to be purchased to show opposing or different ideas on the health care debate. Debate is a very good thing when you are trying to figure out how to fix a system that is broken. The fact that ABC wants to pretend that there was debate and discussion regarding the health care industry is a crock of s**t. One view equals no debate for it is clearly not possible. There was a question and answer session where Obama answered citizens’ questions about his nationalized health care plan.

-

Obama to Jane: Your Ma Ma is so Old . . .

There was one question and answer that peaked my interest. For Obama’s answer was so cold and appalling that I thought that he was Frankenstein talking about a robot or a mannequin, and not an actual person. Here is the dialogue between Jane Sturm and President Obama:
Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: "My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, 'I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.' I said, 'Go for it.' She said, 'Go for it.' But the specialist said, 'No, she's too old.' But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, 'I'm going for it.' That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?"

Obama: "I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's 'spirit.' Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers. 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, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller."

-

Obama to Obsolete Human Robots-Take a Pill and Drop Dead

Jane explained to Obama that her mother has lived an additional five years after the pacemaker was put in her mother’s heart. What was stunning to me was that in Obama’s response he was clearly stating that the procedure which extended her mother’s life should have never happened. Even after knowing the outcome Obama states that retroactively this procedure should not have been performed, because under his plan, we’re going to make those decisions means that the Govt. will be deciding in your old age whether a procedure is worth it or not, whether it is cost effective to save your life or not. Should we really be letting the government decide on our outcomes based on the dollar? A life is more precious and valuable than the almighty dollar. From Obama making this statement I surmise that he believes that money is worth more than a human life and displays that he believes life is dispensable. Well, there are other humans to take your place so why spend so much money to keep you alive? Maybe the family members want their loved one to stay around as long as they can. With a private insurance there are options. A person and their loved ones, and the doctors can make the decision whether the procedure should be done and whether the costs are worth it or not depending on the procedure, specifically, whether it should be paid for out of pocket if the insurance company refuses to cover it. Nationalized heath care such as that proposed by Obama, and practiced in Canada and England, eliminates the latter option.

Like Obama said, there must be rules that will not account for subjectivity or one’s spirit. It’s just the hard, cold reality that the rule must be followed even though a person could have been saved if it wasn’t for a certain rule. Does Obama believe that human lives are like robots one and the same? He states that end of life decisions should not be subjective, but yet the elderly should be subjected to rules like on a production line, like a product. Humans are not mere products or inanimate objects, humans are living beings who are subjective and need to be treated in that manner when making health related decisions. Human beings are not to merely be treated as robots following rules. He implied even though her mother has lived longer because of the surgery, she would have been better off just taking pain medication. In fact, Obama basically said that she, as an elderly woman, should not have been allowed to have the surgery because it was not cost effective.

e7j5s9bmuv

Are the Families of Victims of 9/11 Getting Shafted by Obama Administration?

I gained my information from an article posted by Worldnet Daily on June 1, 2009:

"The Obama administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to protect Saudi Arabia and four of its Princes from being held accountable for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks which killed 3,000 Americans according to a report in Joseph Farah's Bulletin."

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act(FSIA) generally protects a sovereign state but there are exceptions that can be invoked. The Obama administration under FSIA have requested for the Saudis to be immune from prosecution even though there is ample evidence of complicity that both the Saudi Government and named Princes had knowledge that the charities they were funding funneled money in support for Al-Qaida's attack on 9/11.

In 2006, families of the 9/11 victims' filed a lawsuit against Saudi Arabia and four Saudi Princes that allege that they donated to charitable organizations with the knowledge that the charities diverted funds to Al-Qaida. The Saudi Government cited FSIA in their defense, and the court sided with the Saudis and the 2006 case was dismissed. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2008 upheld this decision, citing FSIA and that the exceptions to immunity did not apply to Saudi Arabia since the U.S. had not designated a state sponsor of Terrorism.

Now the Obama administration has filed a court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to deny a petition for a higher court ruling by families of the victims of 9/11 in their effort to sue Saudi Arabia and its Princes.

"The families of victims of 9/11 have expressed outrage at the Obama administration."

Do you think that Saudi Arabia and its four Princes should be able to use FSIA in order to gain immunity for their accused actions? Do you think that the Obama administration should be interfering in the Saudi court case? Or should the Obama administration have let the court case play itself out without trying to influence the court in any way? Do you think that exceptions to FSIA should only apply to nations that are denoted by U.S. government as state sponsors of terror? Does the Obama administration have an obligation to the families of victims of 9/11 to allow them to pursue justice against the Saudi government and its Princes for their alleged role in the 9/11 attacks? Do you think that the families of victims of 9/11 have every right to be outraged at the Obama administration? Do the families of 9/11 victims have a right to pursue justice?

OPINION: One problem I have with these court rulings is that the court ruled that a country can only be held accountable for a terrorist attack against the United States if the country has been identified as a state sponsor of terrorism. I also believe that the families of victims of 9/11 are due their justice and just compensation for grievances caused by the 9/11 attacks. I believe that FSIA should not apply to the Saudis and its four Princes since the prosecution had ample evidence of complicity that both Saudi government and its four Princes had knowledge that the money they were donating to charities was being funneled to Al-Qaida for the terrorist attacks. I don't think the Obama administration should be interfering with the court process in order to benefit the Saudis.