The American Spectator

crisinmi| 8.18.09 @ 6:14AM

You forgot to mention that Grandma has refused Medicare, a government-controlled insurance system...she has, right?

sagman44| 8.18.09 @ 6:46AM

It is not hypocritical to accept Medicare and simultaneously acknowledge the program is unsustainable in its current form.

It is not hypocritical to accept Medicare and warn against the public option as Medicare on steroids.

Are you being a hypocrite for enriching the oil companies every time you drive or accept a delivery of home heating oil?

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 7:20AM

"It is not hypocritical to accept Medicare and simultaneously acknowledge the program is unsustainable in its current form."

Medicare is a single-payer socialist healthcare program. If you support Medicare then you support socialism. It is not hypocritical to support Medicare but oppose Obamacare, but it IS hypocritical to oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it is socialist while at the same time supporting the single-payer socialist healthcare program Medicare.

I've asked AmSpec readers the following question in the "The Great Regrouping" comments section, and I'll ask it again here: do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans? Because if you support the GOP - which supports all of these socialist programs including the single-payer socialist health-care program "Medicare" - but oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it is "socialist", then that either makes you a hypocrite or a liar.

GOP supporters actively support socialism - that really is an inarguable fact, as the GOP actively maintains socialist government programs. I, of course, oppose the socialism of the GOP along with the socialism of the Democrats.

Can anyone else here make the same claim, or are you all de facto socialists?

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 7:25AM

"It is not hypocritical to accept Medicare and simultaneously acknowledge the program is unsustainable in its current form."

Medicare is a single-payer socialist healthcare program. If you support Medicare then you support socialism. It is not hypocritical to support Medicare but oppose Obamacare, but it IS hypocritical to oppose Obamacare on the grounds that it is socialist while at the same time supporting the single-payer socialist healthcare program Medicare.

I've asked AmSpec readers the following question in the "The Great Regrouping" comments section, and I'll ask it again here: do you support a party that wishes to eliminate socialist programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or do you support the socialist-program-loving Republicans? Because if you support the GOP - which supports all of these socialist programs including the single-payer socialist health-care program "Medicare" - but oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it is "socialist", then that either makes you a hypocrite or a liar.

GOP supporters actively support socialism - that really is an inarguable fact, as the GOP actively maintains socialist government programs. I, of course, oppose the socialism of the GOP along with the socialism of the Democrats.

Can anyone else here make the same claim, or are you all de facto socialists?

Indiana Alex| 8.18.09 @ 8:38AM

Dear Liberal Trolls,

I, and certainly most conservatives would support a program where we are allowed to "opt out" of social security and medicare.

President Bush offered a similar program with social security and liberals went apoplectic, believing there's no way Americans should be allowed to take care of themselves.

As i understand it, these are mandatory programs now, with no way to "opt out", as then liberals and government would have no control over seniors, and that would not serve their aims.

Worst of all these programs hurt the working poor, who could have something to show for a lifetime of work, and some assets to pass to their next generation. Instead they get dependence to pass on. The liberal's dream.

Tim| 8.18.09 @ 8:57AM

Grandma isn't the only one who should be worried: Rotten Kid has it coming, NHS gives it to him.

A 22-year-old British man who became an alcoholic as a teenager has died after doctors refused to give him a liver transplant.

Gary Reinbach began binge drinking when he was just 13 and ended up with severe cirrhosis of the liver.

He was admitted to a London hospital in May but died after doctors refused to give him a liver transplant amid fears he would not stay sober for six months after the operation.

Mr Reinbach's distraught mother Madeline Reinbach said her son had been in great pain and scared before his life support machine was turned off on Sunday.

"When Gary was told how ill he was and how long he had left, I just held him and we both cried," she told the Daily Mail.

"Gary wanted to live so badly - he did everything he could to co-operate with the doctors...
...The NHS Blood and Transplant service said Mr Reinbach's case highlighted the dilemma faced by doctors because of a shortage of donated organs.

"They have to make tough decisions about who is going to get the benefit and who is going to take best care of this precious gift," the NHS said.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25816364-401,00.html

R Martin| 8.18.09 @ 9:04AM

S.L. Toddard presents a very specious argument and reveals a misunderstanding of socialism. In socialism the private sector is eliminated. That's what Obama and the leftists want to do with medical insurance, and that's why so many of us are opposed to his plan.

Medicare is government supported insurance, but it is not mandatory. Well, perhaps Part A is mandatory or at least involuntary in that everyone who turns 65 in enrolled in Part A automatically without additional cost. Part A only covers hospital room and board and for a limited time. The rest of Medicare is optional and requires payment of premiums and includes limits and co-pays. A healthy senior who visits the doctor irregularly finds Medicare expensive and not a good deal. However, most seniors want insurance against unforseen catastrophic illness and the related expense. Such insurance, called Advantage Plans, is written by private insurance companies and available only if one opts into and pays for the Medicare option called Part B. Hardly socialism.

Medicade is a state-run program providing health care insurance to the financially disadvantaged. It is medical welfare. That one might support such welfare on humanitarian grounds is not, per se, an embrace of socialism. Far from it.

Social Security is also involuntary. We all pay the taxes while working and receive benefits upon retirement. Conservatives have long argued that the program is a bad deal financially for the tax payers and have sought other options, including privatization. Liberals have opposed any changes. A social security recipient is not, de facto, a socialist.

And so, S.L. Toddard, astute readers know sophistry when they see it. Which of us is more engaged in hypocracy, perfidy or, to be kind, ignorance, I'll leave to other readers to decide.

Robyn| 8.18.09 @ 9:10AM

Democrats just don't get it, Mr. McCain, and maybe they never will. We are the people in "We the people," like it or not. BY THE WAY, someone already has put up t-shirts like the one you suggest at http://www.cafepress.com/GaffeCzar.

Kevin| 8.18.09 @ 9:14AM

Social Security is a forced retirement plan; it starts at the age of 16, and confiscates 15% of one's income over an entire lifetime of employment. It is managed in a way that would get a private citizen life imprisonment, and is insolvent.

In order to withdraw one's own contribution from Social Security, you are FORCED to sign up for Medicare.

This is thuggery, pure and simple.

So to all of you intellectual lightweights who think that you have found some "gotcha" over that fact that seniors participate in Social Security and Medicare . . . . This is like saying that those who pay protection fees to the mob must be supporters of organized crime. The individual cannot take on the state. However, individuals can collectively resist further tyranny from the state!

JerseyJ| 8.18.09 @ 9:14AM

Toddard incorrectly states ... "If you support Medicare then you support socialism."

Could you please advise where the opt-out provision of Medicare taxes is on my W-4?

We are not given a choice whether we support Medicare or not. If you pay payroll taxes then you pay for Medicare. A promise was made to Grandma that she'll have coverage under Medicare so she's using it. It doesn't mean she supports it because the goverment has rigged it so there's no option. I'm sure if the government returned all the money she and her spouses and her employer (on her behalf) paid into Medicare over her working life ... with interest ... she'd be just fine paying her own medical costs.

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 9:58AM

"In socialism the private sector is eliminated. That's what Obama and the leftists want to do with medical insurance, and that's why so many of us are opposed to his plan."

In socialism the entire private sector is eliminated - ownership of the means of production is transferred to the public at large, who have equal access to goods and services. None of the proposals "eliminate" the private sector, ergo Obamacare is, by your own definition, not "socialism". Nor has Obama expressed any desire for his plan to "eliminate" the private sector - that is pure speculation on your part. Although to be fair there are myriad different strains of "socialism". Social democrats are not, strictly speaking, "socialists", though their policies could fairly be described as "socialistic". I would be perfectly willing to accept your premise though, in which neither Obama, nor the Democrats, nor their policies can be described as "socialist", and therefore Obamacare still cannot be opposed on the basis that it is "socialist".

"We are not given a choice whether we support Medicare or not"

You are not given a choice whether you support it financially - you *are* given a choice whether you support it with your vote, by voting for candidates or parties that vote to support, fund, and extend Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

jeremias| 8.18.09 @ 10:21AM

this mob has assault rifles, not pitchforks. they will win and obama will fail. hurrah! no changes in the health care system. hurrah! the government is paralyzed. hurrah! economic catastrophe. hurrah! epidemics of untreatable TB, typhus and plague in the homeless camps. hurrah! alaska secedes and the heartland closes off the roads from the coasts. hurrah!

R Martin| 8.18.09 @ 10:21AM

...None of the proposals "eliminate" the private sector, ergo Obamacare is, by your own definition, not "socialism". Nor has Obama expressed any desire for his plan to "eliminate" the private sector - that is pure speculation on your part.

S.L., may I direct your attention to Obama's speech to the AFL-CIO in which he SPECIFICALLY advocated a move to a single payer system. That is elimination of the private sector in health insurance making Obamacare, ergo, socialism. Even Obama admits it, why can't you?

Exchange| 8.18.09 @ 10:24AM

Democrat: "Beat it, or I'll call an angry mob!"

Granny: "I'm on an angry mob!"

Democrat: "You are an angry mob?"

Ned| 8.18.09 @ 10:44AM

For all you young punks - Medicare is not only not optional on the payment side, it's not optional on the participant side... when you pay all your life into Soc Security, and begin drawing benefits at whatever age, you are automatically enrolled in Medicare. And you are given no 'opt out' choice,
it's mandatory.

Ray| 8.18.09 @ 11:06AM

"Because if you support the GOP - which supports all of these socialist programs including the single-payer socialist health-care program "Medicare" - but oppose Obama's plan on the grounds that it is "socialist", then that either makes you a hypocrite or a liar. " ASs other have pointed out, we don;t have a choice concerning Social Security and Medicare/Medicade. We rae reqquired, by law, to support them through our taxes. You must know this as you pay the same federal taxes the rest of us do. So, hypocrite, why are YOU supporting these programs if, as you claim, you are against these very same programs? The truth is, you don't have a choice, do you? Of course you don't.

Your question should to be: Do you support the people who enable these programs? Judging by the losses of Republicans in office the last few years, I would say that the majority of Conservatives DON"T support them as they didn't reelect the people who enable these programs. Does that answer your question?

Ray| 8.18.09 @ 11:12AM

"Nor has Obama expressed any desire for his plan to "eliminate" the private sector - that is pure speculation on your part."

Obama, during his campaign, stated several times that he wants to create a single payer system. This by necessity, would eliminate private competition, that private sector you mentioned.. So how can you claim that this is speculation when Obama, himself, expressed his desire to create a single-payer system?

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we've got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the Senate, and we've got to take back the House.""

Those are Obama's own words, so where's the "speculation" you mentioned?

DukeD| 8.18.09 @ 11:26AM

Just a little history note. I think that people may be forgetting what it's like when the baby boomers get excited about something. Maybe the Obamaites (read Rohm and Nancy, et al) don't remember but I sure do. Witness the protests in the late 60's, remember the outrage and uprising over the Vietnam nonsense. This group is not afraid to speak their mind nor are they timid about raising the debate to a new level. I guess the only thing that's different now is that they're no longer in their twenties and they've got a lot more money now to sustain them in their cause.

Diane Smith| 8.18.09 @ 11:39AM

If only there were some way to"incite angry mobs" than the constant reference to killing grandma - a euphemism that is growing old.

My 7 year old grandson is taking it quite personally. His beloved Poppy, my husband of 63 years, died in March and we are all very sad and miss his presence in our lives.

Much of my time is spent reassuring my grandson, who stays with me from 7 in the morning to 5 in the evening - that no one is coming to kill me and I am not going to die like Poppy. Yet.

I guess it would be asking too much of the general population not to deal in cliches on such a serious subject.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 11:42AM

Whether Medicare is optional or not, it is still socialism. In fact, this past Sunday, Dick Armey said that he thought Medicare and Social Security should be eliminated. Imagine what grandma would say if you told her that Republicans wanted to eliminate her social security and Medicare and that stopping Obamacare was the first step in that effort. I'm surprised the Dems aren't using that line.

In point of fact, these programs were supposed to be safety nets, and they've exploded into much more as income disparity has grown. The only way to save these programs is to revert back to their original purpose and limit their use dramatically. I have no problem with the principle of a safety net as that does result in lower crime rates and more consumer spending. But now, for the majority of seniors, these programs support their lifestyle.

From a societal POV, the issue is whether we have a culture where young people will save for retirement instead of heading for the bong, drinking, partying, etc. And if they don't, what would be the cost to society when they get old?

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 11:55AM

"S.L., may I direct your attention to Obama's speech to the AFL-CIO in which he SPECIFICALLY advocated a move to a single payer system."

That is nice that he advocated that at an AFL CIO meeting. I also recall him advocating a return to the rule of law and adherence to the Constitution. Talk being what it is, I don't put much stock in the promises of politicians.

Getting back to the matter at hand, though, please provide any quote in which Obama plans for the proposal that is up for consideration to accomplish that, or indeed any passage from the bills themselves which "eliminate the private sector".

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 12:01PM

"Whether Medicare is optional or not, it is still socialism"

I don't know. I think R Martin has a point, semantically at least. "Socialistic" is probably a better adjective to use to describe Obamacare, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security than "socialist".

Amanda| 8.18.09 @ 12:06PM

1) When turning 65 one cannot stay on your
regular health plan; one has to go on Medicare.
2) We all pay into medicare; it is a payroll
deduction. Look at your W2's!!!!!!!!!!
Where did all that money go?
1) lawyers and recipients of lawsuits
(we need tort reform!)
2) cheaters of the systems...both Medicare
and Medicaid...doctors/patients alike

Diane Smith| 8.18.09 @ 12:06PM

I notice references to "accepting" Medicare in posts above. You don't accept Medicare. You subscribe to and participate in.

Medicare "recipients" have a monthly deduction from their Social Security checks. Whatever it is, they pay it. Medicare has the option to charge more, if they want or need to.

I speak only for myself, but until this year, when I had cataract surgery - at age 82, I never satisfied the deductible until around September or Novemeber, leaving two months before I would find myself at January, needing to pay the freight on office visits - few though they were - until I satisfied the deductible. Same with my secondary insurance. I pay for that monthly from a pension. And I satisfy a deductible on that, too. I m not breaking anybody's bank! I know, I know, The argument is, "But you will, lady, if we let you live."

I am sure there are many beset with many ills requiring expensive and ongoing treatment. I doubt I am the only one in the United States who enjoys good health and also knows that everything is not fixable and a lot of things that are, doctors don't fix.

That young, upwardly mobile couples across the street from me, drive Lexus cars, have bamboo floors installed over perfectly good hardwood floors, have plasma TVs the size of my garage door, have garbage cans overflowing with take-out food cartons because they prefer that lifestyle - -- and who do not have health insurance "because it is too expensive" is of no consequence to me. I just wish they would not begrudge the elderly Medicare. Being old is tough enough for the infirm, without being labeled a drain on the economy.

Has anyone ever done a study on "early croakers" who pay into Social Security for perhaps forty five years and upon reirement, unexpectedly die without ever enjoying the largesse of Medicare? What happens to that jackpot they didn't get to collect?

I have my theories about why Medicare is going broke. Administratiaon of any function of government is fraught with waste. But, sh-h-h-, mention that and Waxman will appoint an investigative panel - costing millions.

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 12:12PM

A question: why do you think Obama didn't just propose extending Medicare to people of all ages rather than take the course he did? Wouldn't that have made it more palatable to the people (they are already familiar with Medicare etc) while forcing the GOP to attack Medicare itself (a program they support in its current incarnation), thus giving all the old timers the shivers?

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 12:22PM

Diane, it is not the young or left that begrudge you having Medicare, it is the right. Again, Dick Armey said this Sunday that he would like to abolish Medicare because it is a socialist program. Would you still vote Republican if that was part of the platform?

The financial problem with Medicare is one of demographics. The money you and I paid into Medicare is not enough to cover our needs at today's prices. Furthermore, there is no trust fund. They didn't put our monies into reserves to pay our bills, but they spent it. Therefore, our Medicare is financed by the payments of younger workers today. If this were done in an insurance or investment firm, it would be called a Ponzi scheme -- it would have made Madoff proud.

But the real funding issue in addition to costs rising faster than wages is that we are living longer and older people are hooked up to machines longer in their last year of life. If we indexed age, you wouldn't get Medicare until you were about 73. That would solve the funding problem, but are you willing to make that change? About 40% of Medicare costs go to those in their last year of life. A decade ago, only about 10% of Medicare was used for that purpose.

These are the issues politicians do not have the gonads to discuss -- and certainly they will not recommend solutions. In fact, since seniors were the only segment in which Republicans had more votes than Democrats, I would be surprised to see a Republican advocate spending cuts in Social Security or Medicare.

L. Ross| 8.18.09 @ 12:54PM

Well, Bob, I couldn't agree more, the demographics of this nut are hard against us. Old people vote, and old people like their free money. Something that is funny, and many people don't realize, is that old people also, as a demographic, have the most money. They have had a lifetime to accumulate wealth.

I do think that some kind of means testing for Social Security benefits is inevitable, which sucks. The kind of Social Security reform that GWB was promoting back in the 2003/2004 campaign made a lot of sense, would have worked well for the country and well for our workers. It is a models which has been tested overseas, and done wonders for the nation of Argentina, I believe.

So, Bob, buck up. Republicans have tried to reform Social Security before, and sooner or later, the hand of the politicians will be absolutely forced, and they will have to do something. I'm hoping it would be to privatize Social Security, but if not that, it will be means testing.

Regarding Medicare/Medicade/Health Care Reform, Republicans have been pushing for high deductible health insurance backed up with medical savings accounts for years. This program, coupled with the ability to buy out-of-state health insurance might just fix our current problem.

To all you nay-sayers out there, yes, these old fogy benefit plans are the third rail in political discourse, but Republicans have put on their rubber gloves and attacked them in the past. We can get through this.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 1:05PM

L. Ross -- while I agree on most of your comments, buying out-of-state health insurance is not the solution. It is competition that brings down prices. If you nationalize insurance, then Blue Cross in all of the states will also nationalize into one entity. If you don't nationalize and allow people to buy insurance across state lines, then the rates will equalize. Those in the high rate NE will get lower rates and those in the South will get higher rates. You see, rates are based on costs, and medical care is cheaper in the South than in the Northeast. The irony here, is that with Republicans being primarily a Southern party now, it is the Republican base that will pay rates as much as 50% HIGHER than they are now. So be careful what you ask for.

As for privatizing Social Security, while I'd like to see that done, it may well have disastrous consequences as our savings rate is still low as a country and the vast majority of people, with lower wages and higher unemployment, will not invest in their future. The first time we'd have a stock market crash, the people would cry for non-privatized Social Security -- and you know it. The solution to privatization depends on individual responsibility. I just don't have enough faith in Joe Sixpack to believe at 25 years old, he will save very much.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.09 @ 1:20PM

Folks, great insights!

One thought: The elderly elderly will be swamped by we young (baby-boomer) "elderly" quite quickly.
We baby boomers get a lot of flack, but you know, we have paid our dues into medicare and social security for a working life time. Our government has spent our money (and interest on our money) on entitlements for the young for long enough..........
They have spent our monies on whatever vote getting scheme they could devise.

Compound interest should allow every baby boomer to live quite comfortably in retirement thankyouverymuch...but our monies have already been spent. Our "seed corn" has been eaten.
I began contributing ten lousy dollars a month to my own retirement since I became full time employed at age 23. (New York Life Ins.)
a lousy $120 per year and $4,800 total. I will get back, IN CASH, OVER $60,000 in an annuity beginning at age 65 thru my expected death age.

If our so-called governors did only ONE FOURTH as well as custodians of the money I paid SS. My SS check would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000 per month for my expected life span. (I have always paid the max and I might get $950 per month.)

Yeah...government is the answer all right!

JerseyJ| 8.18.09 @ 2:45PM

Toddard asks ... "please provide any quote in which Obama plans for the proposal that is up for consideration "

We'd be glad to, once you advise where the proposal actually is. There really is no "proposal" per se, just a bunch of promises and slogans and ads which are in direct conflict the several bills currently making their way through the House and Senate. Please give me the actual text of any true Proposal and we'll go to town picking it apart.

Toddard continues with ... "why do you think Obama didn't just propose extending Medicare to people of all ages rather than take the course he did? "

Because he's busy channeling Billy Mays with his sales-pitch that Medicare is unsustainable the way it's going despite speaking out the other side of his mouth telling us how great it is and how well it works. With $30T in unfunded liabilities, one of the few things he's got right is that it is about it collapse under it's own weight. Where's the Medicare "Trust Fund" I keep hearing about?

Bob takes a page from the libby playbook with ... "Diane, it is not the young or left that begrudge you having Medicare, it is the right"

Naturally ... the left wants you completely dependent on them so you continue to vote them more power. Conservatives have no intention of pulling the plug on Medicare for those that have paid into it and relied on the promise of it (however misguided that promise was), that's simply a dem scare tactic.

No, when speaking of fixing Medicare, Conservatives take into account the utter unsustainability of Medicare in it's current form, bloated over time with pols trading increased coverage for votes. We want to see it reformed going forward not trashed in-place with everyone on it left out in the cold. We would allow those now entering the workforce to opt-out into better, more sustainable options and let those currently on Medicare or who have already paid significantly into the system continue until they've all moved on since they have the promise that Medicare would be there for them. (This would be a good use of that "Trust Fund" LBJ promised, but no, it's all just smoke and mirrors)

We don't begrudge the elderly relying on the promises of Medicare. I personally don't deny even the need for some form of subsidized health insurance for the elderly since adverse selection occurs due to the high cost of health care in the latter stages of life. I do have a problem with seizure of assets of one group of people, whether it be the young, the healthy, the rich or whomever and redistributing it to others using government power and influence.

I also have a problem with people expecting every single thing to be paid for by insurance. It's contrary to the very concept of insurance. Insurance is designed to pay for the costly losses of the few by pooling small amounts of money from the many. Actuarily speaking, not everyone suffers large losses. Simple math dictates that if everyone incurs large expenses which are more than they personally pay in premiums, the system goes broke.

This "reform" should be very simple ... eliminate coverage for the medical equivalent of oil-changes, reform tort so doctors and hospitals can charge less, let people keep more of what they earn by cutting taxes and have people pay directly out of pocket for normal, average, everyday healthcare expenses and let insurance pick up the tab for the big-ticket items. Allow for purchase of insurance across state lines, give the same tax-credits to those buying individual policies as people get when buying in an employer sponsored plan. The solutions such as these, many of which have been presented by Republicans yet have been virtually unreported by the media and completely ignored by our teleprompter-in-chief, are true "reform", addressing the problems individually and not trashing the entire system.

All this said, this whole issue is not about Healthcare at all, it is about government unconstitutionally seizing power. If it was about healthcare then there would be an actual written carefully thought out proposal and not a mishmosh of promises, off-the-cuff statements and multiple different bills. If it was about healthcare, there would not be lies about 47M Americans without healthcare. If it was about healthcare there would not be an all fire rush to pass something ... anything ... before we could even read it. If it was about healthcare there would not be all the mis-direction about mobs, unions, nazi signs, guns at rallies, un-American protesting, special interests blah, blah, blah. If it was about healthcare there would be mention of curbing the costs of frivolous lawsuits, the need for defensive medical testing and the cost and avialability of malpractice insurance.

And most importantly, if it was about healthcare, we would get the truth from our elected representatives and not a bunch of rhetoric and vaporous promises.

sorry for the rant.

David| 8.18.09 @ 2:53PM

Let's solve the whole Medicare mess right now - with 'means testing".

Peter McGrath| 8.18.09 @ 3:33PM

Medicare-eligible seniors are denied all Social Security benefits if they do not enroll in Medicare Part A.

This is government policy. Without this coercion/blackmail, millions of seniors would be perfectly happy to opt out of Medicare entirely and rely solely on their own resources to pay for private insurance. Medicare would be bankrupt in a few years were that to happen.

As it now stands, Medicare is scheduled to go broke around 2018. By then, $886 billion in annual outlays will be required to keep it funded.

The government-run system is broken. States don't have the money to fund federally mandated Medicaid, and Medicare is demographically doomed, even now being held together by flimsy, absurd requirements which steal Social Security benefits from seniors to fund Medicare.

Socialism, or not, Medicare is doomed.

The choice is either (i) to let it die, or (ii) totally rewrite the social contract and give the government absolute control over provision of healthcare, leaving the healthy as tax slaves with a far lower standard of living, and the sick and elderly waiting in line for crummy, inhumane "care" doled out by piece of sh*t government bureacrats.

For me, the choice is obvious.

Government must get out of healthcare entirely. The American people, if allowed to remain a free people, will somehow manage just fine, just as we have for hundreds of years before Godless utopian liberals began hatching.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 3:46PM

Peter, you do understand that many more people died when we didn't have good health care. Life expectancy in 1850 was 38. In 1900 it was 48 and by 1965 when Medicare was introduced it was 68. The costs of keeping people alive rose dramatically as medicine advanced. With the advent of Medicare, life expectancy is now 76.

Thus when Medicare was introduced -- on average, it only paid out for 3 years. Now it has to pay out for 11 years -- or almost 4 times the cost even without inflation.

So, yes, people did manage just fine -- but they died a lot earlier. Those liberals must be Godless to keep these people alive for so long....

FeralCat| 8.18.09 @ 3:51PM

Please Mr. Obama, I don’t wanna go
Hey, Mr. Obama, please don’t make me go
I had a dream last night about my comin’ medical care
Somebody said “What you’ll get is ObamaCare!’”
And there I stood with a rag in my mouth upon which to bite.

Look at them waiting lines there, they’re hardly even movin’
And there’s a bureaucrat at every one
Hey, Mr. Obama, you mind if I be excused the rest of the decade?
HEY GRANDMA, DUCK YER HEAD!!
(Sound of bureaucrat’s clipboard whizzing by)
Hmm, you’re a little bit late on that one, Granny
Whooh, I bet that smarts!

Please Mr. Obama, I don’t wanna go
Listen, Mr. Obama, please don’t make me go
There’s a bureaucrat a’waitin’ out there, just fixin to decide my fate
A complainer I’ve been called cuz I don’t wanna wind up screamin’ or dead

I wonder what the Kenyan word for friend is
Let’s see-friend– kemo sabe, that’s it!
KEMO SABE!, HEY OUT THERE-KEMO SABE!
Nope, that itn’t it
Look at them durned power mad control freak fascists
They’re runnin’ around like a bunch of wild Mengeles, Emanuels and Kevorkians-heh, heh, heh

Simon Templar| 8.18.09 @ 3:51PM

Toddard..up to your old diatribe, again?
Medicare is a single-payer socialist healthcare program. If you support Medicare then you support socialism. >> Medicare is not socialism..this is ridiculous..now I guess your an expert on Socialism, Marxism, and every other subject on the earth. Medicare is a government run insurance program based on employment taxes and individual contributions. Lets not be ridiculous. You better go back and re read Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto.

Cheshire Cat| 8.18.09 @ 3:57PM

When Granny comes home with some pills in a plastic bag
Hurrah! Hurrah!
Obama will give her a hearty high five then
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Emanuels will cheer, the Kevorkians will shout
The eugenicists they will all turn out
And the old folks will all be dead by Christmas time next year!

Get ready for the Ezekiel Emanuel Jubilee
Hurrah! Hurrah!
He’ll give Dr Obama three times three
Hurrah! Hurrah!
The Doctor of Life and Death degree is ready now
To place upon Obama’s Godly brow
And he will feel so happy and gay
When Pallbearers carry Grandma and Grandpa to the funeral home

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 4:04PM

Simon -- actually, you are wrong. An insurance program takes in premiums that are actuarially calculated to pay claims. There is a reserve created to pay the claims from the premiums. That is insurance.

With Medicare, there is no reserve and the premiums are not calculated to pay the claims. Therefore, Medicare payments are made directly from your tax dollars within the Federal budget. Therefore, it is clearly socialism and NOT an insurance program.

If you believe that Medicare is an insurance program, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Northern Rebel| 8.18.09 @ 4:06PM

I continue to ask: will we need to have the mark of obama to get health care?

The Radical| 8.18.09 @ 4:57PM

This website is a convocation of racists and fools.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 5:03PM

JerseyJ --

You may be "sure" if the government returned grandma's dough she'd be fine, but you'd be wrong.

Wouldn't be the first time someone that was "sure" was also wrong, but I guess with you guys faith means everything.

Grandma's on Medicare, jackass, because no private insurance company will take her.

That's the free market way: insurance companies only want to be on those they think have a low chance of getting sick.

Why would they want to do otherwise?

The question is this, setting aside all the bullshit on this thread and every thread on Am Spec:

WHY will not one single solitary Republican stand up and advocate an end to Medicare?

If you all are so in love with the private sector, how can you tolerate your representatives refusing to live by your "principles"?

Frankly, I just don't believe you. I don't believe you people don't like government.

I think you don't like government that helps people you think are different from you.

But one of your congressmen can prove me wrong any day.

Let him stand up and say it: the Republican party does NOT support Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. We think it should be abolished.

Then at least you'll have some integrity. Until then, I'm amazed you can show your faces in public.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.09 @ 5:21PM

A young sergeant just came home.

Please fellow Americans, kick back and appreciate the video!

These young men are dying for us. MAN UP AND WOMAN UP!
http://blip.tv/play/AYGJ5h6YgmE

God's speed!

Peter McGrath| 8.18.09 @ 5:26PM

OK, Bob, I'll bite.

Life expectancy between 1850 and 1965 rose from 38 to 68 (i.e, an average life span increase of 30 years - or 45% - over a century).

Since the Kennedy/LBJ geniuses started socializing medicine in 1965, life expectancy has advanced from 68 years to 78 years (i.e., an increase of only 10 years - or 15% - over a 45 year period).

Why do you suppose the increase in average life spans has slowed so precipitously since the advent of socialized medicine?

Is it because, maybe, that government-run bureaucracies suck the incentive out of the air for medical researchers and healthcare administrators to develop new cures and procedures?

In a free market health care system, incentive abounds for the development of new cures and procedures. What incentive is there to improve healthcare when government pays the bills, and removes the profit motive from healthcare?

Answer: NONE.

Count on life expectancy, and quality of life for most Americans (except the few elite fascist technocrats who run the system) to drastically decline under a government-run system.

I can think of nothing more awful, and Un-American, than this crap Chicagobama is ramming down our throats. One can only hope the sheople of this once-great land wake up and realize that tyranny is just around the corner, and begin fighting back.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.18.09 @ 5:35PM

Peter
Please copy and watch the video above.
We MUST preserve his country...in his absence.
Best regards

Peter McGrath| 8.18.09 @ 5:41PM

OK, Bob, I'll bite.

Life expectancy between 1850 and 1965 rose from 38 to 68 (i.e, an average life span increase of 30 years - or 78% - over a century). [wrong % in previous post]

Since the Kennedy/LBJ geniuses started socializing medicine in 1965, life expectancy has advanced from 68 years to 78 years (i.e., an increase of only 10 years - or 15% - over a 45 year period).

Why do you suppose the increase in average life spans has slowed so precipitously since the advent of socialized medicine?

Is it because, maybe, that government-run bureaucracies suck the incentive out of the air for medical researchers and healthcare administrators to develop new cures and procedures?

In a free market health care system, incentive abounds for the development of new cures and procedures. What incentive is there to improve healthcare when government pays the bills, and removes the profit motive from healthcare?

Answer: NONE.

Count on life expectancy, and quality of life for most Americans (except the few elite fascist technocrats who run the system) to drastically decline under a government-run system.

I can think of nothing more awful, and Un-American, than this crap Chicagobama is ramming down our throats. One can only hope the sheople of this once-great land wake up and realize that tyranny is just around the corner, and begin fighting back

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 5:42PM

Peter -- Life expectancy increased prior to 1965 due to increased infant mortality rates and the fact that most babies were born in hospitals. My point going back that far is to show that going back to earlier times means much lower life expectancies. However, the increases after 1965 were do primarily to people living longer -- i.e., Medicare. Therefore, your conclusion is erroneous.

I see you've never worked in a health insurance company. What you do is create policies that deliver minimum mandated provisions while denying claims as much as you can. That is how you make a profit. How that leads to new cures and procedures is beyond me. In fact, most new cures/drugs are very expensive and denied by private insurance. Therefore, I'd make the claim that private health insurance actually inhibits new developments.

As we've seen in other countries, life expectancy should increase under a government run plan, because those that are uncovered and not receiving good care will add to the totals. However, service levels will decrease as costs are controlled.

Most employers now offer premium plans costing, on average, $12K per family per year. As costs increase, watch employers offload more to employees to pay as well as go for policies that offer less. Furthermore, watch for small companies to continue to drop coverage. It is simply a matter of profits.

That said, I'm fairly libertarian on this issue. I think you should pay for a certain amount of coverage and if you happen to need more, sell your home and file bankruptcy. Does that work for you?

Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 5:50PM

Peter McGrath

Your reasoning is so flawed I scarcely know where to begin.

If these are the grounds you are going to attack Medicare on, good fortune to you.

Meanwhile, EVERY industrialized nation in the world has universal health care -- except the United States.

There are basically three ways to achieve universal health care.

1. Social medicine. In this system, the government does everything: it hires the doctors, runs the hospitals, and so on. England has social medicine, and it works well but imperfectly; France has a kind of hybrid social medicine and its health care system is outstanding -- probably one of the best in the world. (No, we're not even close.)

2. Single payer systems. Canada has a single payer system, and it works pretty well, although there are some problems. In a recent poll, 75% of Canadians were satisfied with their health care; over 90% (!) said they would NOT want to exchange their health care system for one like ours.

3. Insurance coverage. Switzerland achieves 100% coverage via private insurance companies and it works pretty well. They spend more than England or France and their results are not as good, but they're doing a hell of a lot better than we are.

France, Switzerland, Sweden and many other countries all contribute to "innovation" and discoveries. The notion that the US does this alone by virtue of its free market system is ludicrous. (Most of our innovation, anyway, happens in PUBLIC FUNDED universities, but that's besides the point.)

Social medicine doesn't have a snow balls chance in hell of existing in the U.S., although the VA is a good example of it.

Single payer would be best for us, with people able to opt out for private coverage if they wished.

Peter McGrath| 8.18.09 @ 6:30PM

Single payer (i.e., the taxpayer) won't work. Government will mandate coverages for private insurance, anyway, making private insurers simple book-keepers of a government-dominated system. The Government will easily regulate and overwhelm private insurance companies due to costs (which will escalate out of control) which the Government (i.e., the taxpayer) will pay due to the "unlimited" funding of the Government. Single payer = death of private insurance (not to mention, death of the American way of life).

Private insurance companies are not evil-doers. They are companies providing a service to policy-holders and trying to make a profit for shareholders. I don't see why private insurance companies cannot be more reasonably regulated (as to to premium increases but not coverage) similar to the way public service agencies monitor utility companies and property insurance companies.

Let the insurance companies do their thing. If they don't deliver quality, consumers will find a better company that delivers better service.

Get the Government out of it. They don't do much, very well at all, because it's not held accountable for its (lack of)service, profit and losses. Check the postal service for quality service and profits.

There is no better example of how rotten Government handles health care than Medicare and Medicaid. These programs are bleeding red and will bankrupt the entire United States economy. In the private sector, the ass-clowns running these programs would be summarily fired, then jailed (see Enron). But nope, these idiot programs are continuing to run along on auto-pilot, right over the cliff, because of feckless cowards who either exploit or run away from the truth about the way Government has screwed up healthcare.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 6:36PM

Peter --

Some of what you say may be true, but it is COMPLETELY FALSE to say, absolutely, "single payer does not work."

It works in other countries very well.

What absolutely does NOT work is our system now.

Liberal Reader| 8.18.09 @ 6:38PM

Medicare and Medicaid are actually pretty stable, and they're not "bleeding red."

However, they are going to run into trouble in about 10 years, if something's not done to correct them.

What's going wrong?

HEALTH CARE COSTS are going wrong!!!!!!

Obama's trying to bring those costs down: on behalf of YOU, on behalf of the middle class, small businesses, AND MEDICARE.

Bob| 8.18.09 @ 6:48PM

Peter, the vast majority of people cannot change their private insurance because it is chosen for them by their company. So that is an irrational argument. Furthermore, if you buy insurance on the open market, you will pay almost twice what employers pay so that is not a rational argument. That's why talking about competition makes very little sense. Furthermore, given current mandates, the policies don't differ much between companies so for the same demographic, the price is the same -- actuaries will see to that. Remember that insurance is highly regulated unlike most other product categories.

Actually, seniors are very happy with their Medicare, and if they understood that it was a single-payer government plan, they would probably support Obama's plan. As you correctly point out, however, cost is the issue. Remember that 40% of Medicare costs are for the last year of life. If you want to control Medicare costs, you must ration health care in the last year of life and say no to a lot of procedures. Remember that a 75 year old could not afford a private health policy.

So while I don't like the option of a government plan, your beliefs and logic just don't hold any water. The reason we should object to a government plan is the inability for government to provide incentives to employees to provide good management for anything, i.e., it is an inefficient way of doing business.

That said, people must understand that all of these beliefs and untruths that you and others have is just nonsense, and, in the end, will not lead to a better solution.

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 6:59PM

"These young men are dying for us. MAN UP AND WOMAN UP!"

No, he didn't die "for us". He died because elites in Washington sent him away from his family and the country he's sworn to defend, and because the fat, slothful, selfish and servile American citizenry are having too much fun prancing around waving their little flags to demand he come home.

S.L. Toddard| 8.18.09 @ 7:11PM

"It is competition that brings down prices."

That may be the case, but the US spends far more per capita than any other country on earth. This is due to the U.S. healthcare industry not truly being a "free market" - people don't really have a "choice" - we get what our companies offer.

Tom Fleming may be on the right track when he recommends: "break up the government regulated insurance monopolies, set up Health Savings Accounts, provide low-cost basic treatment for the poorer classes".

Whatever the solution is, everyone needs to keep the following in mind: Americans pay far more per capita for healthcare than any other people, and our healthcare system is consistently ranked near or at the bottom in terms of quality when compared to the rest of the industrialized world.

david williams| 8.18.09 @ 7:23PM

It would appear best to read these comments in the morning (or at least early afternoon) before the sort of respondents above have had time to hone their critical thinking at the pub. Cheers,

obama is of the tribe of dan| 8.18.09 @ 7:40PM

obama is of the tribe of dan.

that's why he wants to kill grandma.

when will the tribe of benjamin rise again?

he whose name is saul? or is it paul?

and the lion of judah?

Marc Jeric| 8.18.09 @ 7:53PM

Today an employed professional pays about $6,500/year to Social Security; he also has to pay income tax on that tax - about $2,000. His employer pays for him directly another $6,500 to the SS instead of to him, so the total cost to that employee of his SS contribution is really $15,000/year. Now I went back in time to 1962 when I started working and calculated all my "contributions" over the years, investing those moneys in the ordinary Dow-Jones Index. By the time I retired in 1965 I would have accumulated about $2,200,000 in capital. But the government stole that money of mine and gave it out to buy votes, and today I am getting only $1,400/month (taxable again, of course). A crazy fiction writer could not have invented a bigger Ponzi scheme than our Social Security system!

JimE| 8.18.09 @ 8:49PM

Why trust the government, Ted Kennedy had 40 years to fix healthcare and the only time it was important to him was election time. He didn't gave a shit about the US and neither does the magic negro, it's about control. Introduce tort reform, raise the standards for medical students, cut taxes and then we can talk about health care reform.

Deborah| 8.19.09 @ 2:27AM

To S.L. Toddard|

Yes, I would support a candidate who proposed to get rid of Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security and most government run programs. I think we need only pay for defense of our national borders and protection of our constitutional rights.

States have been blackmailed into the federal system to my dismay. No federal taxes except defense and transportation. Let states provide what they like and if those citizens don't want to pay, then they can move to another state.

UGG Claasic| 8.19.09 @ 3:48AM

no changes in the health care system. hurrah! the government is paralyzed. hurrah! economic catastrophe. hurrah! epidemics of untreatable TB, typhus and plague in the homeless camps. hurrah! alaska secedes and the heartland closes off the roads from the coasts.

John| 8.19.09 @ 5:08AM

Arguing about this is futile. The DNC couldn't give a rat's ass about your health care or your granmother's health care.

They want CONTROL pure and simple.

Does anybody understand this?

They saw that giving illegals the right to vote was going to provoke a mutiny, so then health care "reform" became the next "crisis" that requires the immediate restructuring of our lives that coincidentally handed over votes and power to the Dems.

Your debate is worthless.

This ain't about health care, it's about POWER, plain and simple.

Appleby| 8.19.09 @ 10:58AM

If they want a fight, they have come to the right place. Boomers not only know how to fight, we also know how to vote. And since we are retired or nearing retirement, we have just as much time as the slackers and rent-a-mobs who live off the public t*tty.

So don't you think it would be a good time to stop teasing the attack dog and notice whether or not he's on a chain?

Texas Dar| 8.19.09 @ 1:05PM

"The American People" Have Voted ! "NO-BAMA-CARE"

Put it on every e-mail you send.......... Tex ! Copy & Paste it every time. I have 3 e-mails ready for this reason, please use any of them.

Check-It-Out ! "Kick Them All Out.Com" The Real Answer-2- Change in "2010"

Life aint-a-right.......! "Life Is-a-Choice"

Texas Dar| 8.19.09 @ 1:56PM

Ken (Old Texican) Good vid. Canada dose the same thing for thier fallen soliders. The sad part is NONE OF THEM had to did.They did becouse the IMF said they did so they could make a lot more money.

Its time we put a stop to this killing of our kids. These 3 vids tell how and why nobody need'ed to die from the 1st world war on...........................

http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Zeitgeist_PartI

http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Zeitgeist_Part2

http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Zeitgeist_Part3

Trouble| 8.19.09 @ 2:18PM

Nobody is opposing Obamacare purely because it's "socialist". We oppose it because:

1. It would add trillions to the national debt in order to fix a problem which is (a) much smaller than advertised and (b) fixable without expeditures from the public purse.

[Automatic Internet c%ck-punch to anyone who rolls out the old apples/oranges 'trillions for a war' trope.]

2. It does nothing to address process costs, which are a seemingly obvious target for savings.

3. It would fundamentally re-define the relationship between the Sovereign Individual and the State in a way which will be very difficult to un-do when (not if, but when) it becomes necessary to do so.

You can assign any "-ism" to this monstrosity you want; in the end it's a debate over semantics. We oppose Obamacare because it is a terrible idea.

Does that clear things up?

Jewish Ritual murders| 8.19.09 @ 7:31PM

Jewish Ritual Murder
Tagged Under : civilization, jewish, murder, ritual
At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people are know to the world as Jews. Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews “a fossil people.”

In so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood). As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of example of ritual murder by the Jews are cited in official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all the European nations.

It is the official historian of the Jews, (Josef Kastein, in his History of the Jews, who gives the underlying reason for this barbaric custom. On page 173, he says, “According to the primeval Jewish view, the blood was the seat of the soul.”

Thus it was not the heart which was the seat of the soul, according to the stone-age Jews, but the blood itself. They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities. Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history.

Jewish Murder Plan Against White Christians Exposed
The Murderous People: The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over, and for good reason. Anyone who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely see the Jews as “a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses,” is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation which has been raised against the jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people of Satan. (John 8:44)

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing White Christian Children (and sometimes blacks to keep them under control - and if necessary they will run black children down in the streets with automobiles to show the blacks their power, and that the blacks had better mind their manners or the same will happen again and again. We all witnessed this a few years ago in New York city when the car of Rabbi Shneerson ran over a black child. And as usual the Jews bought of the blacks who were inciting the mobs against them; if they had been unsuccessful in this they would have had the blacks who dared not be controlled murdered) and at time White Christian adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleaven bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against non-Jews

Ritual Murder
The knowledge of Jewish ritual murder is thousands of years old. It is as old as the Jews themselves. Non-Jews have passed the knowledge of it from generation to generation, and it has been passed down to us thorough writings. It is known of throughout the nation. Knowledge of ritual murder can be found in even the most secluded rural villages. The grand-father told his grand children, who passed it on to his children, and his children’s children, until we have inherited the knowledge today from them.

It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is loudly raised immediately, anywhere int he world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. This accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of nations, tribes, and races live on this earth, but no one ever thought to accuse them of the planned murdering of children, or to call them murderers. All nations have hurled this accusation only against the Jews.

And many great men have raised such an accusation. Martin Luther wrote in his book “Of The Jews And Their Lies:”

“They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children…The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: ?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning…”

“He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots.” (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249)

Swine flu| 8.19.09 @ 7:38PM

Jewish Murder Plan Against White Christians Exposed
The Murderous People: The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over, and for good reason. Anyone who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely see the Jews as “a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses,” is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation which has been raised against the jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people of Satan. (John 8:44)

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing White Christian Children (and sometimes blacks to keep them under control - and if necessary they will run black children down in the streets with automobiles to show the blacks their power, and that the blacks had better mind their manners or the same will happen again and again. We all witnessed this a few years ago in New York city when the car of Rabbi Shneerson ran over a black child. And as usual the Jews bought of the blacks who were inciting the mobs against them; if they had been unsuccessful in this they would have had the blacks who dared not be controlled murdered) and at time White Christian adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleaven bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against non-Jews

Ritual Murder
The knowledge of Jewish ritual murder is thousands of years old. It is as old as the Jews themselves. Non-Jews have passed the knowledge of it from generation to generation, and it has been passed down to us thorough writings. It is known of throughout the nation. Knowledge of ritual murder can be found in even the most secluded rural villages. The grand-father told his grand children, who passed it on to his children, and his children’s children, until we have inherited the knowledge today from them.

It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is loudly raised immediately, anywhere int he world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. This accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of nations, tribes, and races live on this earth, but no one ever thought to accuse them of the planned murdering of children, or to call them murderers. All nations have hurled this accusation only against the Jews.

And many great men have raised such an accusation. Martin Luther wrote in his book “Of The Jews And Their Lies:”

“They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children…The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: ?Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning…”

“He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots.” (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249)

The Struggle of Der Sturmer: The only newspaper in Germany, yes, in the entire world, which often screamed the accusation of ritual murder into the Jewish face, was Der Sturmer. For more than ten yeas Der Sturmer led a gigantic battle against Judaism. Which caused Der Sturmer to be under constant attack by the Jews. Dozens of times it has been confiscated and prohibited.

Its workers, most of all its editor Julius Streicher, were dragged into court hundreds of times. They were convicted, punished and locked into prison. Der Sturmer came to know the Jew from the confession which Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft:

“One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish.”

The Der Sturmer was not stopped for several years. Just in Nuremberg alone there have been fought dozens of Talmudic and ritual murder cases in the courts. (Now you know why the Nuremberg trials were held against the German Military leaders, it was retribution by the Jews on their hated enemies the Germans). Because of the Jewish protests the attention of the world was focused on these cases. Thereafter heavy convictions followed. At first no judge had the courage to expose the Jewish problem. Finally in 1932 (court case lasting from October 30th to November 4th) Der Sturmer won its first victory. The jury found the following:

Der Sturmer was not fighting against the Jewish religion; but against the Jewish people.
The Talmud and Schulchan aruch are not religious books. They have no right to be protected under the religious paragraphs.
The laws of the Talmud which are quoted and published in Der Sturmer are exact quotations from the Talmud.
The laws of the Talmud are in harsh contradiction to German morals.
The Jews of today are being taught from the Talmud.
With this verdict Der Sturmer brought about the first big breach in the Jewish/Roman Administration of Justice, which was given the job before the National Socialist revolution to protect Judaism and its government. The jews, of course, became greatly agitated about this. But for De Sturmer this success was an omen of the victory yet to come. Of course, Der Sturmer did not stop half way. It knew what had to be done. It was their duty, or so they believed. To frustrate the gigantic murder plot of Judaism against humanity. It was their duty! To brand this nation before the world, to uncover its crimes and to render it harmless. It was their duty! To free the world from this national pest and parasitic race. Der Sturmer would fulfill its mission. It would, for a time, light up the darkness with the truth which shall eventually rule the world. And it would always direct itself according to the following proverb: “He who knows the truth and does not speak it truly is a miserable creature.”

The Laws of The Talmud: If one wishes to learn and understand why the Jews can commit such insane crimes as ritual murder, they must know the Jewish secrets. They must know the teachings of the Torah (The Talmud), and the Schulchan aruch. These laws and teachings are proof that the Jews feel themselves superior to all nations, that it has declared war on all other races, and that it is the sworn enemy of the whole of non-Jewish humanity. Even Tactius, the Roman historian who lived shortly after Christ (55-120) A.D.) wrote:

“The Jews are a race that hate the gods and mankind. Their laws are in opposition to those of all mortals. They despise what to us is holy. Their laws condone them in committing acts which horrify us.” (Historian V. 3-8)

The Jew knows that when the non-Jewish world knows his laws and sees through his plans that he is lost. Therefore, by threat of death he forbids their translation and publication. A well known Jewish scholar (Dibre David) writes:

“If the Gentiles (non-Jews) knew what we are teaching against them, they would kill us.”

The Jewish secret laws are based on the fundamental principle which states: Only the Jew is human. In contrast all non-Jews are animals, they are beasts in human form. Anything is permitted against them. The Jew may lie to, cheat and steal from them. He may rape and murder them. There are hundreds of passages in the Talmud which the non-jews are described as animals. Some of them are as follows:

“The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.” (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)
“The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum.” (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22
30)
“Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an
animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form.” (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)
“A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal.” (Coschen Hamischpat 405)
“The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs.” (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)
“Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human.” (Schene
Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)
So that the Jew will never forget that he is dealing with animals, he is reminded by eating, by death, and eve by sexual intercourse constantly. For The Talmud teaches:

“If you eat with a non-Jew, it is the same as eating with a dog.” (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)
“If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant of maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell to the Jew:
?God will replace ?your loss,’ just as if one of his oxen or asses had died.” (Jore Dea 377, 1)
“Sexual intercoms between non-Jews is like intercourse between animals.” (Sanhedrin 74b)
It is written in the Talmud about the murder of the non-Jew:

“It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew.” (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)
“It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud - Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud).” (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)
“Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God.” (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)
These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were back then. This is how the Jews are taught from childhood. The results of this stands before us. It is Jewish Ritual Murder.

The Jews’ Bloody History: The Jew is not only the murderer of the Christians in theory. His history proves that he practices what he preaches. The history of the Jewish people is an unbroken chain of mass murders and blood-baths. It started before Christ and has continued with Linen, Trotsky, Sinowjeff, Stalin and etc., up to today:

1). The extreme to which the Jews will go was shown in Persia where the Jew Mordecai and the Jewess Esther had 75,800 Persians murdered. They hanged the Persian King Xerxes’ minister Haman along with his ten sons. They celebrated this bloody victory and to this day still celebrate it during the Feast of Purim. (Book of Esther 9:6)

After Christ in the years 115-117, on the island of Cyrene, the Jews revolted under their leader Bar Kochba. They murdered 220,000 Romans, sawed and chopped them, drank their blood, and ate their bloody raw flesh. (Dio Cassius: Roemische Jeschichte XVIII, 32)

The Jews revolted in Russia in 1917 and established bolshevism under the leadership of Trotsky, Sinojeff and other Jews, a total of 35 million Christians were shot, slayed, tortured, and starved to death. In Hungary, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Jew Bela Kuhn, a horrible massacre was prepared in which tens of thousands of Christians were murdered.

“‘The Jewish Establishment”: ‘In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers. How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime’s persecution. Would that paper’s respectability have been unimpaired several decades later? There you have an epitome of what is lamely called ‘media bias.’ The Western supporters of Stalin haven’t just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call ‘the McCarthy era,’ to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself. Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as ‘anti-Semitism.’ But there isn’t even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don’t censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America. It’s permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don’t look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately.” (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue)

In Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Russia mass murders are even now (1997) are being carried out. The executioners are mostly Jewish men and women. In inventing new methods of torture the Jews are past masters. To let Christians die under torture give them the greatest pleasure. English reporters write that the Chinese executioners frequently would not carry out their tortures and executions; they shouldered and could not continue. Therefore, Jews and Jewesses took their place.

“The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.

“Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.

“Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: ‘The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.’” (Defender Magazine, October 1933)

The history of the Jews is written in the blood of Christians.
“Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.” (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Judah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: ‘It was a Jew who said, ‘Wars are the Jews’ harvest’; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.’ The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180)

The history of the Jews is written with Christian blood. Their history proves that the Jew is extremely cruel and at the same time a coward. The Jew is not a born soldier; he is a born sadist and murderer. (John 8:44)

The Law of Human Sacrifice: For a long time the newspaper Der Sturmer endeavored to find the actual law of ritual murder, the law of human sacrifice. It finally succeeded in doing so. In a trial in which Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were being tried (because of “offending the Jewish Religious Society”) it was proposed that they call as witness Dr. Erich Bischoff. Dr. Bischoff appeared.

He was the leading German expert on the laws of the Talmud. He had dedicated his entire life to the study of the Jewish law books. Dr. Bischoff brought with him a translation of a secret Jewish law, which clarified with one stroke the question of ritual murder. It comes from the book of Sohar. This book is considered to be holy by the Jews.

“You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel for certain is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred…We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow…We who have posed as the saviors of the world…We are nothing but the world’ seducers, it’s destroyers, it’s incinderaries, it’s executioners…we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in leading you to a new hell…There has been no progress, least of all moral progress…and it is our morality which prohibits all progress, and what is worse — it stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours…I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness: I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness…” The eastern Jews especially conform to its laws. In the book of Sohar (a companion of the Talmud). The English translation related:

“Further there is a Law concerning the slaughter of foreigners, who are the same as beasts. This slaughter is to be carried out in a lawfully valid manner. The ones who do not follow the Jewish Religious Law have to be offered to God as a sacrifice. It is to them that Psalm 44:22 refers: ?Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Thikunne Sohar, edition Berdiwetsch 88b)

Dr. Erich Bischoff declared himself ready to offer an opinion on this expressed law of ritual murder. However he was rejected. He was not admitted by the court for “fear of bias.”

The Catholic priest Dr. Gottsberger took his place. The defendants handed him the above mentioned law in Hebrew and German. Dr. Gottsberger was embarrassed and confused.

After a long consideration he stated that he would not be able to deliver an opinion on the law of human sacrifice. Due to this Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were sentenced to several months imprisonment. Later on, however, Dr. Bischoff (in the trial of 30th October - 4th November 1931) established the correct translation of this law.

This translation and publication of the law of human sacrifice is the greatest blow ever struck the Jews in this controversy. This Law commands the Jews to Butcher Christians and non-Jews. This is to be done in a “Lawful Valid Way.” This means that Christians are to be sacrificed in the same way as animals. They are to be sacrificed to the Jewish God Baal (Lucifer, Devil, Satan). Therefore, we are dealing with a law which doesn’t only permit the practice of Ritual Murder. But commands it.

Jewish Confessions: A further and irrefutable proof of the existence of Jewish Ritual Murder are the numerous Jewish confessions. They come from trials, voluntary statements and from confessions by former rabbis. The confessions were made in two court cases. One of them took place in Trent in 1475, and the other one in Damascus in the years 1840 - 1842.

The voluntary statement was made by the young Jewess Ben Noud who made it to the French Count Durfort-Civrac. The confessions were made by the following rabbis who truly converted to Christianity: Drach and Goschler, Fra Sifto of Siena, Paolo Medici, Giovanni da Feltre and by the former chief rabbi Neofito, who later changed his name to Teofito and became a monk. These men more or less confirmed the existence of Ritual Murder. In 1803 the former rabbi Neofito published a sensational book in the Moldavian language. In it he gives details about the terrible Jewish secret of the blood mystery. This book was translated in 1843 into Greek and later in 1883 into Italian, under the title “Il sangue cristiano nei riti ebraici della moderna Sinagoga,” causing the Jews to become very excited the world over.

On page 19 of this work the Jew Teofito confesses how he was initiated into the knowledge of Ritual Murder. And how the Jews for thousands of years have concealed it from the Christian and non-Jewish world. Teofito writes:

“This secret of the blood is not know to all the Jews, but only to the Chakam (doctors) or the rabbis and the scholars, who therefore carry the title ?Conservatori del mistero del sangue’ (Conservators of the mystery of blood!). They pass it on by word of mouth to the Jewish fathers. They in turn reveal it to their sons who regard this as a great honor. At the same time they make terrible threats of punishment if one of them betrays this secret…

“And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hope of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us Christians as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther. O how they love that book Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope!When I was 13 years old, recalls Teofito; mother took me aside, led me into a room, where nobody could listen and after he described to me the hatred of Christians, he taught me that God ordered the Christians to be slaughtered and to collect their blood…’My son,’ he said (as he kissed me): ?With this confession I have placed my trust in you.’ With these words he put a crown on my head and explained to me the Blood Secret, adding that Jehovah had revealed it to the Jews and commanded them to practice it …I was in the future, possessor of the most important secret of the Jewish religion…

“Thereafter followed the curses and threats of punishment if I should ever reveal this secret to anyone, neither my mother nor my sister nor brothers or future wife; but only to one of my future sons who was the most wise, eager, and most suitable. In this way the secret shall be inherited from father to son until the farthest descendant.”

Original Content by Willie Martin.
Posted by admin in jewish | | Read more
Comments:
12 Responses to “Jewish Ritual Murder”
Pam Johnson on 21 Oct 2008 at 10:40 pm #

We Christians in America have been taught in the churches that if we desert “God’s chosen people, He will retaliate. Our welfare is connected to that of the Jew. Our Bible, containing the Old Testatament, is the history of the Jews. Our religions have been tied together, and our ministers continue to cry “We must support Israel.” Bible Prophecy, written by a number of scholars predict the Messiah’s return within a generation of Israel’s becoming a nation. Our leaders unfortunately support Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinian, although more recently I have heard some of them say that “Palestinians should have their own state.” Most, however, reveal no compassion as they feel this whole territory belongs to “God’s chosen people.” Only recently, in my 60’s have I seen the horror of what we have been taught. I can only pray that others in our country will awaken to the terrible damage done by the Jews. Our Congress is is literally terrified by the Jewish lobby, many of them constituting the Evangelical Christians who do make up a considerable amount of the voting population. So, besides the money by which they control us, there is also the religious tie along with the threat of God’s retaliation. It is this “Bible Prophecy” story which makes it almost impossible for our churches to see the truth. Although I have stated my opinion on some of Israel’s injustices, Christians I believe see me as Satanic. However, it is high time people wake up to what kind of people they really are.

ben power on 8 Dec 2008 at 11:42 pm #

THIS IS UTTER BOLLOCKS
i am a jew and i dont drink blood
or have a compelling urge to kill
all christians

also jews make up 0.001 percent of the population of the world while christians make up considerably more
how can you belive we are ritually murdering you and such
when we are so few in numbers

The Militant Palestinian Toddler on 14 Jan 2009 at 7:23 am #

THE MILITANT PALESTINIAN TODDLER (100 PHOTOS)

At my mother’s breast, I learned how to thirst for the blood of JEWS.

Before I will learn how to live, I will learn how to hate JEWS and die as a martyr.

Other toddlers have parents that love them; my parents love to hate JEWS.

Other toddlers wear blue and pink; I wear a belt packed with explosives to kill JEWS.

Other toddlers love stuffed animals; I love green grenades that blow up JEWS

Other toddlers have a favorite blanket; I love to stomp on American and Israeli flags.

Other toddlers have a future filled with hope, I only have a past destroyed by dumb HAMAS rockets.

Today, I plan to kill Jewish mothers and fathers and tonight we will all be in heaven:

In heaven, I will know the love a Jewish mother, and I will rest in peace.

ALLAH IS GREAT.

1313 on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:30 am #

and me, when i will meet onechild of jew i will killed him . Anti semitism it is not of world it is in them selfs.

1313 on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:31 am #

i am not muslim, i am christian and i cannot to see what they was maked in whole Europe.

Letter From a Reader « Exposing Zionofascism in Canada and the World on 29 Jan 2009 at 6:01 pm #

[...] http://www.answer-christianity.com/jewish-ritual-murder.htm Jewish Ritual Murder [...]

anarchore on 29 Jan 2009 at 10:54 pm #

Hey Jews, you are terrorists, that blame the victims.

“The Jew cries in pain, as he strikes you”

Sodeserving on 22 Feb 2009 at 11:05 pm #

I don’t see why and how so many different religions separate themselves? EVERYONE IS PRAYING TO THE SAME GOD, rather you want to believe so or not!!!! If you believe in the lord, you all believe in one BEING… the same being!! All religious people pray to whom they wish to make up a name! Rather it be Allah, Jehovah, Christ, Ect. Ect… We all have faith in ONE man with many nick-names! To all of you Jewish Extremist: what the hell is wrong with people?! As for Jews, all of the anger and hostility makes you no better than the white man or any other person you feel is beneath or has be tray you! How can the ALLEGED VICTIMS of what was said to be one of the most atrocious exploitations have the audacity to purposely inflict the same chauvinistic, senseless pain on others?! “Pregnant non-Jews are the same as pregnant animals.” Anything non-Jewish is insignificant and inadequate? Sounds like the Jewish KKK! You people are prejudice hypocrites. Everyone will meet their final judgment one day and that includes JEWS. And, you’ll be judged by ONE god! To use his holy name and scripture in a form of hate and violence… you will all be condemned to hell! You’re nothing but over-paid, mischievous sprites… TERRORIST!

Shubhobroto Ghosh on 3 Apr 2009 at 12:43 pm #

A lot of Jews have known the love of Eva Braun and Hitler and are resting in peace in Heaven.

RED REGAL on 9 Jul 2009 at 3:39 am #

I think we all very well may be operating under a misapprehension about judaism. Being White we cannot identify with the mindset that drives jews to the evil deeds they do. It’s foreign to us. It would not occur to us to do such things. Working secretly within our society, as a group of outsiders who pretend to be good citizens but working to destroy the societies they infiltrate, is nothing less than consumate evil. We see jews mentioned in the Old Testament relating to the God we know, so we take for granted that is still the God jews may mention today. But wouldn’t it all make much more sense if we understood that the god that the jews are talking about, whether they be atheists, or religious, is in reality, Satan himself?

I’m not religious, at all. I haven’t read the Bible, but I’ve given some thought to the evil that jews are about. Just some good old common sense … I can’t say at what point in time the jews chucked the idea of the God of Abraham and adopted the ways of the devil, but it goes without saying, they must have. Jesus Christ, Himself, who’s teachings are filled with love toward all others, even your enemy, charity, turning the other cheek, and only good deeds, totally uncharacteristically said directly to the jews and no one else, “YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER, THE DEVIL and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44. Think about that! I think Jesus knew what he was talking about. There are no more virulent liars and deceivers than the jews, but for Satan himself. And the jews had Jesus crucified and they hate and despise him and his followers to this very day, not to mention hating every other ethnic group. Isn’t that the way of Satan? Now I’m no religion expert of any sort, but doesn’t it make sense that jews do not worship the God Christians know in the Bible, but instead, Satan himself? It makes it so much easier to understand why they are so evil, hateful, and destructive.

Additionally, the idea that Christians can condone the slaughter of men, women, and children in Palestine, even cheer on the jews in their slaughter, means to me they are not Christians at all. To believe that the jews are “god’s chosen people”, is to disregard the life and times of Jesus Christ. Now, that’s fine with me, but how can these jew lapdogs call themselves Christians?

A on 17 Jul 2009 at 10:30 am #

I am a Jew and this article is correct. Maybe not as history but as what will become of you - especially christians. G-d will come for all of you, just as you came for us over thousands of years. He will slaughter all of you in your millions - stack you up high and gas you all to death. Then burn you as we don’t want the ground to be contaminated.
G-d will have his revenge for how you have treated his people.
All is prophecied.
So run for your lives- the era of christianity is fading, and the JEws, whom you tried so hard to destory - will stand on your souls for eternity.
All is prophecied.

A on 20 Jul 2009 at 11:24 am #

And they deleted my post too, just because it didn’t fit with the agenda of this website.
I said - Christians run for your lives because this article is correct, the Jews are coming to wipe you out, in your millions as all is prophecied.
But in their cowardice, they deleted my post, just like the deleted the jews for thousands of years.
View this post quick, before it too is deleted - but it’s ok - I’ll save a copy and keep on posting until it stays up.

Run…

Leave a Reply
Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Sue| 8.19.09 @ 7:55PM

Medicare was foisted on the public by the Democrats. There were a lot of people who didn't want it.

We are now looking at a monster of a health care system being foisted upon us again; and like "medicare times," there are millions of us who don't want it.

So, would you say that the taking away of freedom from millions is justified because some people cannot or will not be responsible for themselves?

This is what is happening today. When a government decides that they can compromise the compact between the government and the people, there is no longer a compact.

Medicare should never have been implemented, just like social security. The government took upon itself the responsibility of furnishing the aged citizens' needs and now they want to continue furnishing everyone's needs.

As far as life expectancy, the government didn't believe that its citizens would even live to collect a decent amount from social security. That is one reason it was called "revenue act." The government was hard-pressed to raise revenue, so they came up with a "scheme" to foist onto the public a program with a "false" promise of income.

This is what is being done today. There is no reason for the government to take over the health care of its citizens. They are doing it purely for their own self-interest. They are hoping that with health care rationing, taxes on policies, and price controls they will have monies left over to continue funding their discretionary spending programs. It's as simple as that.

Otherwise, why bring 50 million people into a government run program that is not sustainable? Apparently they are getting their health care paid for already. I do not hear of "horror" stories where people are dying on the streets or in their homes, or in nursing homes where care is not given. In other words, we always here about the "starving children" in this Country, but I have never seen one.

Furthermore, the drug dealers and their shooting- rampages add more to the cost of health care than Grandma and Grandpa do. Bringing them into the "system" will not eliminate these costs. Bringing the illegals into the system will not eliminate their costs. So exactly where are the savings to come from? Rationing and denial of care, pure and simple.

Maybe the drug dealers will be "rationed."

cheap supra shoes| 8.19.09 @ 10:17PM

This is a great piece. Very thought provoking. I like the sort of ending that leaves it opn to personal input. Makes it work for just about everyone I think. Nicely done! I’ll subscribe.

Supra Shoes| 11.17.09 @ 10:45PM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes