Assisted Suicide for NH?
There has been uncovered evidence of tremendous outside money and influence permeating the political landscape both locally and statewide as well as nationally. These influences are pushing for everything from energy taxes to government managed health care, including assisted suicide.
This disturbing article from Canada Free Press sums it up…
Obama-Soros Health Crimes
by Joy Tiz
October 14, 2009
Most of Obama’s stated plans for America are indistinguishable from those of George Soros. As the left forces nationalized health care on us, we may want to consider Soros’s Project on Death. Soros is a leading promoter of the assisted suicide movement. He papers over it with tripe about compassion; in reality, the project is a push for palliative care rather than treatment for gravely ill patients. As always, it’s all about the money:
“Can we afford to care for the dying properly? The number of people dying in the United States currently stands at 2.2 million annually. Increases in cancer and AIDS and the aging of the baby boomers will cause this figure to climb faster than the population…aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive than proper care for the dying.”
So said Soros in a 1994 speech. What did he mean by “proper care” for the dying? The same George Soros who told Steve Croft on 60 Minutes in 1992 that he had no remorse for his role in sending Jews to death camps now presents himself as the very soul of beneficence as he crusades to exterminate terminally ill patients.
“This brings me to that hotly debated subject, physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.”
The compassionate Nazi collaborator wants us to believe that his interest in caring for the dying was sparked by the death of his own father. Soros was irked at his father’s obstinate refusal to just die already: “…unfortunately [he ]wanted to live… I was kind of disappointed in him … I wrote him off.”
The rationing of health care is inevitable
Soros’ depraved attitude toward his father’s will to live was not the only catalyst for his Death Project. It was also stoked by the abject failure of Hillarycare; another odious and ill-conceived program that was fortunately derailed as soon as the public found out what it was. Soros, determined not to let that happen again, set about bankrolling the inglorious McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance “reform” law that nobody but Soros wanted. Using phony research polls, Soros was able to sell the hoax that the American people were desperate for campaign finance reform.
When President Obama-Soros commandeers our health care system, aided by congress, be wary of jargon like “involuntary euthanasia.” We dodged a bullet with the demolition of Hillarycare, only to find ourselves facing something even more malevolent. As baby boomers age, there is no question that demand for health care services will outstrip supply. At the same time, nationalizing health care creates little incentive for talented students to endure the rigors of medical school, internships and residencies. The rationing of health care is inevitable.
—
All CFP articles are reprinted with permission from Judi McLeod, Editor of Canada Free Press
The following article was first printed on January 15, 1997…but remains true today. Here are some excerpts.
George Soros’ Agenda for Drug Legalization, Death, and Welfare
Described by the New York Times as “The world’s single largest donor” (Dec. 17,1996), Soros uses his philanthropy to change – or more accurately deconstruct – the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. While others give to the arts and higher education or to better the quality of the lives of their fellow men, Soros funds campaigns for euthanasia and to legalize illegal drugs.
— Rachel Ehrenfeld, Author, New York, USA
“I am sort of deus ex machina- I am something unnatural,” George Soros says of himself.
Described by the New York Times as “The world’s single largest donor” (Dec. 17,1996), Soros uses his philanthropy to change – or more accurately deconstruct – the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. While others give to the arts and higher education or to better the quality of the lives of their fellow men, Soros funds campaigns for euthanasia and to legalize illegal drugs.
George Soros, who made billions plying the markets, last month set himself up as its strongest opponent in an Atlantic Monthly article titled “The Capitalist Threat.” He writes that “Totalitarian ideologies like communism and Nazism have a common element: they claim to be in possession of the ultimate truth.” He observes that laissez-faire capitalism makes the same claim as well. Admitting, that Communism and Nazism were murderous, he nonetheless asserts that laissez-faire capitalism poses a future menace greater than both.
Soros’ article is intellectually incoherent. In his critique of capitalism’s failings he makes reference to the famous Austrian economist FA Hayek as well as Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. Yet he neglects to mention that both Hayek and Smith believed that a moral society is a prerequisite for a capitalistic system; the two go hand in hand.
Soros concludes that “the time is right for developing a conceptual framework based on our fallibility.” It would have been refreshing had be acknowledged his own fallibility. Unfortunately, Soros’ financial success has persuaded the American media and an unsuspecting public to pay attention to his vacant philosophizing. That success is also underwriting some very regrettable grant making that is already making its mark on public policy – and undermining the moral foundation that supports our capitalist economy.
Many Americans who worry about the unraveling of our social and moral order will not be persuaded by political campaigns for drug-legalization and medical marijuana use. They also will wonder why a man as successful as George Soros is so consumed by this issue. Their disturbance will only be deepened when they become aware of another Soros passion: euthanasia. In 1994 Soros introduced to the public his Death in America project. He observed “America, the land of the perpetually young growing older is an embarrassment, and dying is a failure. Death has replaced sex as the taboo subject of our times. People compete to appear on talk shows to discuss the most intimate details of their sex lives, but they have nothing to say about dying, which in its immensity dwarfs the momentary pleasures of sex.” Soros provided $15 million in initial funding for Project Death in America (PDIA), whose headquarters are located at Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons.
Soros has attributed his interest in this issue to his late father. In an interview with the New Yorker (January 23, 1995), Soros recounted his father’s battle with cancer and voiced disapproval at the senior Soros’s unwillingness to die. According to Soros, his father “…unfortunately wanted to live… I was kind of disappointed in him … I wrote him off.” George Soros’s promotion of death can also be traced to his mother, who as a member of the Hemlock Society (a pro suicide organisation committed suicide.
Project Death in America (PDIA) is a grant making foundation that supports euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Its mission is “to transform the culture of dying.” Soros has acknowledged that “legalizing euthanasia could have unintended consequences, leading to all kind of abuses … but… aggressive, life-prolonging interventions, which may at times go against the patient’s wishes, are much more expensive…”
In 1995 the PDIA funded 43 programs, and it selected 13 faculty scholars “to begin forming a network of doctors that will eventually reach into one-fourth of America’s hospitals and lead to … the creation of innovative models of care and the development of new curricula on dying.” The Director of PDIA is Kathleen M. Foley, M.D., who is the chief of pain service at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Some PDIA-funded programs appear to do little more than enlist the forces of political correctness in the new approach towards death. According to the Open Society Institute’s site on the Intemet, “Health Force: Women and Men Against AIDS” helps grieving individuals write “Dear Death” letters as a way of coming to terms with their loss. Native Americans are served by a PDIA grant to the Ellen Stephen Hospice. which has been funded to expand its services at South Dakota’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation to become a national model for Native Americans.
But Soros’ intentions are far more ominous. For the moment Australia’s vast but little-populated Northern Territory is the only place where Soros’ checkbook advocacy has attained its goal of legal physician assisted suicide. Local opponents of euthanasia say Soros is behind the legal struggle there. A law was passed in 1996 permitting physician-assisted suicide. Despite vocal opposition from local physicians, the first two acts of assisted suicide occurred in early February, 1997. In addition, the Australian media has carried stories of patients being pressured to accept euthanasia, and successful advocates predict its eventual legalization in the rest of Australia.
As with the campaign for “medical marijuana,” euthanasia is depicted as an act of compassion for the individual against the ignorance and bigotry of society. This tactic easily fits the preconceptions of the media habituated to portraying political and legal challenges to existing prohibitions as reform movements. “The holocausts of the 2Oth century,” writes scholar David Walsh in an excellent essay, The Compassion Juggernaut, “have all been committed by people who saw themselves as humanitarians. Compassion has been the road to unlimited cruelty.”
In November 1996. the Open Society Institute’s web site reported on Soros ‘ Project Death. It noted that “the Institute of Medicine of the National Institutes of Health, with PDIA’s urging and support, held its first meeting on care at the end of life. Its examination and evaluation of the quality of care for the terminally ill will result in recommendations to policy makers and practitioners on steps to be taken to improve the delivery of services.” (The “services” referred to are assisted suicide.)
In the Netherlands, where medical euthanasia has been “unofficially” permitted for several decades, the government has claimed that the system works so well that they may further expand it. But there are also media reports of increasing numbers of involuntary assisted deaths. And patients have complained that they have been pressured to end the burden that their lives represent to their families and the unnecessary expense they impose on the medical system. The elderly fear going to hospitals.
Soros’ philanthropy is beginning to pay off
Last year, two federal appeals courts struck down laws banning assisted suicide, holding that there exists a “constitutional” right for physician-assisted suicide. These two cases were recently argued together before the U.S. Supreme Court and are awaiting decision. Already, Washington and Oregon have passed “physician assisted suicide” laws.
If how we respond to legalized euthanasia takes the same course as California voters’ attitudes to “medical marijuana,” then all Americans may soon have the right to drug themselves and others to death. This is not just a joke for a comedian’s late night talk show. Physicians, no longer bound by the Hippocratic oath, will have the authority to mix their professional judgement with political expedience and economic self-interest to decide whose time is up.
Emma Lazarus Fund Grants 1996
Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, NYC, $150,000 Asian Law Caucus, San Francisco, $150,000
Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, Los Angeles, $200,000
Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Washington DC, $3 million ,Fund for New Citizens, NYC, $2.5 million
Immigrant Legal Resource Center, San Francisco, $500,000
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Washington, DC, $500,000
National Association of Latino Elected & Appointed Officials Educational Fund,
Los Angeles, $750,000
National Council of La Raza, Washington D.C., $1 million
National Immegration Law Center, Los Angeles, $1 million
National Immigration Forum, Washington DC, $200,000
National Citizenship and Welfare Collaborative of the Immigration Coalitions.
Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Dallas, $750,000
New York Association for New Americans, New York, $150,000
Travelers’ Aid of New York, NY, $2 I 0,000
ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, San Francisco, $200,000
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, $80,000
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant/Refugee Protection, Chicago, $100,000
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, Boston, $80,000
New York Immigration Coalition, NYC, $100,000
Northern California Coalition for Immigrant Rights, San Francisco, $100,000
Texas Immigration and Refugee Coalition, Dallas, $100,000
Urban Institute, Washington DC, $50,000
Fueling the Welfare Lobby
In our own time mistaken approaches to civil liberties questions frequently have gone hand-in-hand with support for increasing government entitlements programs. For George Soros radical individualism and egalitarian redistribution have been joined in his most recent philanthropic pursuit: preserving the welfare- system. In late 1996 the Hungarian-born Soros announced that he bad decided to focus attention on the U.S., his “adopted country.” “Appalled” by the passage of welfare reform legislation, he created the Emma Lazarus Fund, a $50 million grant making program which is yet another appendage of the Open Society Institute (OSI), Soros’ umbrella organisation. One unobjectionable purpose of the Fund is to provide vocational training for legal immigrants applying for U.S. naturalisation.
However, most of $11.8 million in grants which has been awarded to date has gone to nonprofit legal services groups committed to undermining, provisions of the welfare reform legislation ending immigrant entitlements (see box). According to OSI literature, the Fund “supports organisations engaged in ‘advocacy, policy, and impact litigation strategies on behalf of aliens who are lawfully present in the United States.”
Arguing that the new laws on welfare reform are antithetical to the values of an Open Society, Soros is attempting to bypass or overturn their allegedly discriminatory provisions. He reveals a strategy that sows the seeds for potential voter fraud when he asserts, “The Fund supports activities related directly to the citizenship application process as well as English as a second language and civic instructions associated with the preparation for the citizenship exam.” Last year’s elections were marked by countless stories of voter fraud related to the registration and voting of immigrants. Critics accuse the Clinton administration of deliberately naturalizing thousands of new citizens (many with criminal backgrounds) so that they could vote in the November elections. Likewise, in California and elsewhere various get-out-the-vote groups were apparently responsible for widespread voting by illegal immigrants.
Additionally, the Chronicle of Philanthropy has reported (Nov. 12, 1996) that Soros “hopes to reduce the rate of teenage pregnancy . . . He also wants to support programs that further abortion rights and increase access to birth control devices.”
It turns out that Soros is actually a creature of the left. an ACLU, rights-oriented liberal with a lot of cash. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.
The Soros who declares, “I fancied myself as some kind of God,” appears determined to replace Judeo-Christian moral values with the rules of his “Open Society.” His policy agenda is the extension of his motto, “If I spend enough, I will make it right.” History has proved again and again that such thinking produces disastrous results. Unless George Soros is challenged, he and those who support his positions will win and the American people will lose.
—
Permission to reprint is granted, provided credit is given to the Capital Research Center.