This is where the "Death Panels" term really came from:of the Federal Coordinating Council. They call it "The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER)."
I didn't write on this subject sooner, because I wanted to see more about how each side would play out. I smelled Frank Luntz-type word-gaming when I read "death panels."
Frank specializes, for pay, at what I call "reserve euphemizing," a form of lying for pay. He takes an idea (almost always "liberal") and substitutes in a harsh, direct, specific term to make the idea offensive. So, where the Pentagon says, "collateral damage," I say, "murder of innocents" and in some cases "baby killing." Where the "liberals" say, "comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions," Luntz would say, "death panels." He can also euphemize (who can't?). He used to do it so stealthily that it could get completely turned around so that his work would be blamed on the liberals. For example, when the term "Global Warming" really started heating up, Luntz was hired to test word combinations on test panels (groups of people who, for pay, agree to give their knee-jerk reactions to possible marketing strategies — not a method to develop truly informed consent in a democracy) to find a way to cast doubt in the public mind about universal healthcare (compassion for one's neighbor, as in Christian love, per the two Greatest Commandments, identified as such and repeated verbatim by Jesus Christ). Frank Luntz came up with "Climate Change" as the buzz word. It was so effective that conservatives began accusing liberals of using "climate change" to run away from "global warming" since El Nina and other factors (probably such as Sun-spot activity, the economic recession/depression that has caused a slowing in increased rates of driving, and very possibly chemtrails where the infrared from the Sun is reflected back into space via reflective particulate matter that is dispersed from military-controlled jets and where the general public has rather been lied to with stories that the persistent jet trails are the same old "contrails" — condensation trails — or "vapor" trails from my youth) that have all contributed to possibly only temporary cooling if the human race doesn't come up with real, sustainable, even only beneficial remedies (real green). Right now, an.
Let me for the second time on this website reveal what should be in plain site concerning Chemtrails. Chemtrails are not the sole purview of wild-eyed, hallucinating, paranoid schizophrenics (caused by evil abuse). The military dispersed chemicals into the atmosphere to facilitate and to block communications and radar, etc. It was no secret to the Russians and others. It was in the daily newspapers in the U.S. One of the substances used and tested was aluminum. Again, farmers in Arizona were complaining about the lack of nitrogen fixing in the soil caused by lightening. There was a drought of lightening during desert storms for awhile in Arizona. Every weather observant person in Arizona knew it. There are people who just don't pay any attention to weather, and I don't mean that they don't watch the Weather Channel. I mean, they don't feel anything concerning weather. Weather is something that just is meaningless to them. It is as dead as they believe their dining room tables to be. Well, I noticed the dearth of lightening and perked up when the newspaper discussed the military's dispersal of aluminum as the source of the problem concerning which the military apologized. The nitrogen fixing picked back up as the lightening came back after that. It's a fact. Check it out. So, all you chemtrail conspirators who have been looking for admissions by the government and military that they do this sort of thing, which has been roundly denied lately including by the propaganda mainstream media, just do a search on Arizona Republic (I believe it was) archives for "nitrogen fixing" and lightening and aluminum and the military. You'll find that the military was using the aluminum to handle the curvature of the Earth for transmitting messages rather than having to rely solely on cables and satellites or relay stations. Think war plans and contingencies (what-if's), what if all those other means were knocked out and how do they (the Pentagon) block similar communications and attempts at getting around those blocks by others, such as the Russians, etc.
Anyway, back to Death Panels. They are in the eye of the beholder. The fact is though that the CER panel is to evaluate costs/benefits. There are limited resources in the secular, anti-spiritual system. The opponents of government-paid (not owned or run) universal healthcare are led to believe that they should be concerned that their relatives or they themselves will be on the receiving end of rationing decisions based upon some eugenics modeling or government-encouraged euthanasia (not that there are not eugenicists and euthanasia advocates in government; there are).
Those issues need to be out in the open rather than handled as if the general population is too stupid to ever grasp. As a real Christian, I know that people are kept in the dark not because they would never grasp things but because they would grasp them and would come to the conclusion that all the powers that be who have stood against Jesus's real call (not the call of the traditional churches) must no longer be lauded or followed. It's huge.
One of the problems is that the plans advocated by those same critics of universal care do not save all the people who die from lack of care right now under the private insurance scheme and often through no fault of their own but rather the proverbial Satan's fault and on account of circumstances very often beyond their control. The ostensibly honest top critics of Obamacare don't like eugenics but do live according to the Law of the Jungle (survival of the fittest in cutthroat capitalist competition). It's hardly consistent.
No matter what, people and families are confronted by hard decisions. It would be bad if the "state" started dictating who should live and who should die, but it does that already with Hellfire missiles from predator drones over Pakistan and by many, many other means such as capitalism itself (the rich get undeserved, unjustified better care). Different Death Panels make different life-and-death decisions. Since the neocons' and some Libertarian's grandma's aren't the ones being blown to pieces though, they don't lose any sleep or shed even a single tear over it. Mostly Muslim grandmas are murdered in cold blood by the Pentagon/CIA Hellfire missiles as "collateral damage," including as a kind of terrorism, by definition.
By the way, under the Barack Obama healthcare bill, illegal immigrants are not covered and no federal funds may be used for abortion. Before anyone jumps to false conclusions about my Christian position, the U.S. should not leave illegal immigrants to die and should also not be for abortion. I deliberately checked on this because a Facebook "friend," name Tom Davis, raised the issue on Facebook. Abortion has to be left up to the Holy Spirit and the woman and those that her heart trusts and loves. Real Christians do not coerce others.
Providing healthcare should be completely voluntary; however, there should be no coerced taxes by the same token. It's why Jesus said the real children of God are free including of any coerced obligation to pay taxes. You see, Jesus was a real libertarian and not one of the half-hearted capitalists who insist upon being selfish and greedy. Jesus knows, and so do I, and so too should you, that real liberty is being as free from the evil spirit as possible and that a world where everyone has the kind of heart that everyone wants to enter into each other's labors for the sake of what is best for all is a huge part of being as free from that evil as possible on this plane of existence.
Jesus made clear that we reap what others have sown. He was not only not against it but was joyful about it. We too are to sow what others will reap. All this should be done under zero coercion but rather pure and total consensus in righteousness. Capitalists hate this. They show themselves evil-hearted.
The vast majority of self-styled Christians who clamor against universal, single-payer healthcare only want a hypocritical position where their taxes still go to baby killing by Hellfire missiles. Look at that name: Hellfire. The taxes of self-styled (false) Christians bring "Hellfire." That's a fact. They are hypocrites. I want what Jesus wants: an end to the whole God-damned, coercive, harmful, abusive, hard-hearted system. That's why I'm for the Christian Commons, and I'm not the only one. I'm just the most outspoken about it, so far.
Of course, if the people wouldn't follow greedy, capitalist predators or any greedy or violent or depraved minds, society wouldn't end up in such huge messes.
It is not "time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson called for doing that wholly wicked, antichrist thing.
He was a numbskull, "Renaissance Man," son of the false-Enlightenment Era, secular humanist, racist, child-slave owner, who disowned his own slave-born (coerced sex?) children. Yes, I'm saying that you should consider the source, as in consider the character of the man you are lauding. What made him worth following? How can his worldview be separated out from the building blocks of his temple? Yes, he mentioned some things that constitute truths. What he did not do though was ever rise to the level where just because he said something means that it should be taken with more weight.
If you think I'm using one so called logical fallacy (ad hominem) to shoot down another (appeal to authority), you are not well versed enough in divine logic to speak on the matter. Learn first. I hold with Jesus that neither is fallacious. I've been accused by people such as Ernie Lazar (sent here by that proverbial Satanic spirit, whether Ernie "knew" it or not) of never bringing forth any new light into this world on account of the kind of thinking where Ernie put it to me to "please provide links to webpages which cite YOUR seminal research into some subject matter which has revealed NEW previously unknown data available for the first time"; however, in the paragraph above, I just provided the results of seminal research into subject matter which reveals new, previously unknown information (available for the first time, at least in the consciousness of human kind on this Earth other than Jesus Christ himself). It's far from the first time I've done that on this website. Ernie and people like him will scramble to see if I've been given credentials for my positions, which positions haven't even been considered yet out of fear on the parts of those who render the supposed credentials Ernie seeks and treasures (in the biblical sense, in the sense Jesus means what one treasures).
What makes Thomas Jefferson worth following now relative to Jesus's clear and plain direction? Nothing! His way is antichrist. Reject it. Blessed are the peacemakers. Jefferson was no peacemaker. Are you listening, Alex Jones and Ron Paul and the rest of you: Libertarians?
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)