BRIGHT WORLD EDUCATION
Obamacare Architect Says Society Would Be Better Off If People Only Lived To Age 75 Tags: depopulation globalist agenda illuminati eugenics

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75.  His new article entitled “Why I Hope To Die At 75” has the following very creepy subtitle: “An argument that society and families—and you—will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”.  In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans.  This is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare.  Of course he never uses the term “death panels” in his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world.  To Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those that do not have a high “quality of life”.  So he says that “75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop”.

Emanuel believes in this philosophy so much that he says that he would like to die at age 75.  Of course he has no intention of committing suicide, but if he happened to drop dead once he hits his 75th birthday he would be very happy about that.  The following is an excerpt from his new article

I am talking about how long I want to live and the kind and amount of health care I will consent to after 75. Americans seem to be obsessed with exercising, doing mental puzzles, consuming various juice and protein concoctions, sticking to strict diets, and popping vitamins and supplements, all in a valiant effort to cheat death and prolong life as long as possible. This has become so pervasive that it now defines a cultural type: what I call the American immortal.

I reject this aspiration. I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop.

And so Emanuel plans to start rejecting pretty much all medical tests and treatments that will prolong his life once he reaches that age

At 75 and beyond, I will need a good reason to even visit the doctor and take any medical test or treatment, no matter how routine and painless. And that good reason is not “It will prolong your life.” I will stop getting any regular preventive tests, screenings, or interventions. I will accept only palliative—not curative—treatments if I am suffering pain or other disability.

This means colonoscopies and other cancer-screening tests are out—and before 75. If I were diagnosed with cancer now, at 57, I would probably be treated, unless the prognosis was very poor. But 65 will be my last colonoscopy. No screening for prostate cancer at any age. (When a urologist gave me a PSA test even after I said I wasn’t interested and called me with the results, I hung up before he could tell me. He ordered the test for himself, I told him, not for me.) After 75, if I develop cancer, I will refuse treatment. Similarly, no cardiac stress test. No pacemaker and certainly no implantable defibrillator. No heart-valve replacement or bypass surgery. If I develop emphysema or some similar disease that involves frequent exacerbations that would, normally, land me in the hospital, I will accept treatment to ameliorate the discomfort caused by the feeling of suffocation, but will refuse to be hauled off.

A couple of decades ago, an article like this would have sparked mass public outrage.

But today, this article hardly even gets any attention.

That is because this kind of philosophy has spread everywhere.  It is being taught at colleges and universities across the United States and it is even represented throughout the ranks of the Obama administration.

For example, Barack Obama’s top science adviser John P. Holdren believes that implanting sterilization capsules under the skin of women could be a way to reduce the size of the population and increase the quality of life for everyone…

A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.

Yes, this guy is a total nutjob.

But he also has the ear of the man occupying the White House.

And we are not just talking about a few isolated crazies like Holdren.  This agenda have been fully embraced by our politicians in Washington.

For instance, did you know that the federal government actually has an “Office of Population Affairs“?

On the website of the Office of Population Affairs, you can find information about abortion, female sterilization, male sterilization and a vast array of contraceptive choices.

U.S. taxpayers are paying for all of this, but most people don’t even know that it exists.

Of course this agenda has been moved forward by both Democrats and Republicans for decades.

And the woman that is very likely to be our next president is also a very strong proponent of this philosophy.

When Hillary Clinton accepted Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award back in 2009, she spoke glowingly of Sanger…

In a speech to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Awards Gala, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she admires “Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision.” Secretary Clinton said she is “really in awe of” Sanger for Sanger’s early work in Brooklyn, New York, “taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions.”

But the truth is that Sanger was deeply racist and was determined to do whatever she could to help control the population growth of the poor.  The following is one of her most famous statements

“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

Hillary Clinton is also a huge supporter of the United Nations Population Fund.  If you are not familiar with the United Nations Population Fund, it is an organization that funds abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

Population control advocates such as Emanuel, Holdren and Clinton are fully convinced that they are doing the right thing.

They actually believe that the world will be a better place if less people are born and if the elderly do not live as long.

SOURCE

 

 

Britain and West Near Collapse Over War – And They Know It Tags: Big Brother globalist agenda Media And Politics the awakening

[This is of real interest, very much a sign of the times. Have a read - and especially Simon Jenkin's statement at end. - Julian Rose]

The vote on the war in the Middle East: three sources

George Parker, political editor of the Financial Times: MPs sceptical and anxious over Isis strikes

ft.com logo“The vote was decisive and deceptive. An overwhelming majority of 481 gave the impression that the House of Commons was confident in its decision to send British forces to war in the Middle East for the fourth time in 15 years. In fact the mood among MPs was one of scepticism and anxiety – even fear . . .

“During the course of a sombre emergency debate, speaker after speaker stood up to back UK military action against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, known as Isis, but expressed fears over whether it would work, and where it might lead, in almost the same breath.

commons debate middle east 9.14“The Conservative MP Ken Clarke gave voice to a political class scarred by the experience of previous interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, all of which the former chancellor said had ended in disaster: “What happened in all those cases was that the military deployment produced a situation at least as bad as it had been before and actually largely worse”. Like many other MPs, he concluded that bombing Isis was the least-worst option.

“Yet his short intervention summed up the doubts reverberating around the chamber over what MPs were being asked to approve: the “almost symbolic participation” by the RAF in attacks on Isis targets in Iraq, but not Syria . . . the drift towards a wider engagement beyond Iraq stirred foreboding among MPs who remember the way UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were sucked into an open-ended conflict . . .

“In the upper house, just as in the Commons, the big majorities for British intervention in Iraq did little to disguise the pessimism over its chances of success.

“As Frank Dobson, the former Labour health secretary, put it: “If we look at the track record of the interventions of the French, the British and the Americans in the Middle East since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, then the odds look as though we won’t succeed. Everything else has gone wrong . . . ”

The Herald reported SNP MPs’ refusal to support air attacks on Isis

herald logoAngus Robertson, the Nationalists’ foreign affairs spokesman, expressed revulsion at the militia group’s reign of terror, which includes beheadings, crucifixions and rapes, and agreed international co-operation was required. However, during an impassioned eight-hour debate, the Moray MP yesterday told the Commons that because there was no coherent plan to “win the peace” in the Coalition’s motion then SNP MPs would vote against it. He said there was “deep scepticism for the potential of mission creep and a green light for a third Iraq war”, given what had happened previously in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, adding, “The motion asks for a green light for military action which could last for years [but] there is no commitment in the motion for post-conflict resolution.”

guardian logoIn the Guardian, Simon Jenkins: “This is the moment in any war when peace goes dumb. The cause is just. The enemy is in our sights, and the provocation is extreme. Blood races through tabloid veins. It is white feathers for dissenters”.

“The new Iraq war has no strategy, not even tactics. It is a ` a token, a pretence of a strut on the world stage . . .

“The return to war will reinforce the politics of fear – which is the grimmest legacy of the Blair era in Britain. It has Cameron popping in and out of his Cobra bunker like a rabbit in a hole. Every government office, every train, every airport welcomes visitors to Britain with terror warnings and alerts. Cameron does this because he knows he can only get Britons to go to war by portraying Isis as a “threat to Britain’s national security”. Some Isis adherents may have criminal intent, but that is a matter for the police. Britain survived a far greater menace from the IRA without crumbling. Its existence is not threatened by jihadism. The claim is ludicrous. Cameron must have no faith in his own country.

“The contrast between Asia’s eastern and western extremities is now stark, the one booming, the other descending into catastrophic instability and medieval horror. It is impossible not to relate this to two centuries of western imperialism and meddling. It strains belief that further intervention – through the crudest of all forms of aggression – can bring peace and reconciliation”.

Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You may also watch the WH video I posted today. SiNeh~

Weekly Address: America is Leading the World

 

At What Point Did We Start Accepting Our Insane World As The Norm? Tags: globalist agenda social engineering

Marco Torres, Prevent Disease

Ever wonder when it was that we all started submitting to the terms of life as we are subjected to on a daily basis? When did we start accepting the poisoning of our water supply with fluoride and other toxins? When did we start saying it’s ok to pollute our food, the planet and ourselves? When did we start giving away our freedom of choice and giving it to the government? When and why did this happen to humanity and how could we let it happen?

There are many theories, but definitive answers are difficult to find. If you look back at history, such instances of absolute illogical behavior are rampant. The common theme appears to be that the masses are always in agreement to this behavior and they simply let it ride. It seems that mass mind control programs have been in operation and affecting people for tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Our present day reality is a reflection of the culmination of this mass mind control and what we have come to accept as normal. It’s psychotic to sane observers but completely normal to others.

Take healers as an example. They were historically stoned to death for their ability to drive away a variety of illnesses from countless people. Then there was the slaying of medicine men and women who had the ancient herbal knowledge to heal and cure hundreds of diseases.

What about the raping, killing and torture of entire communities and cities, peaceful and otherwise that did not fit into the grand scheme of plans for conquering rulers as their quest for occupied territories expanded? Sound familiar? That’s because it has happened for tens of thousands of years while the world watched and let it happen, just as we do in present day.

What about wars or the utter lies put forth to convince the masses that we must kill millions of people to achieve a specific peace initiative as dictated to us by our government officials? That we must invade countries under the guise of peace keeping, when in actuality the motives are far more sinister. When did the assassination of human beings become a right of passage, where these values and belief systems based on violence became such an important and accepted part of our culture?

When was the first time a consensus was reached by religious groups that deemed it was a sin for boys to masturbate? What was the discourse of the people who examined this approach and then accepted it? Can you imagine? A sin for young teenage boys raging with testosterone to act on one of the most natural and primal functions of their bodies as they passed into puberty marking their entrance into manhood. Any man knows that it is an impossible request, yet these same men created these mindsets. Unfathomable!!

Circumcision is one that still baffles many. When was it that men (and women) decided it was ok to actually start cutting the skin of babies’ and young boys’ penises in an attempt to curb masturbation? Again, why was there always such an interest in curbing masturbation and why resort to such barbaric rituals in an effort to reduce this natural instinct in boys? Why does it still continue today when there is absolutely no accepted and established scientific evidence for any benefits?

Laws which undermine a man or woman’s sovereignty are another surging topic of debate. At what point did government start demanding (and have the people accepting) that land owners are required to pay taxes on the property they own, live and subsist on? Or require people to submit half of their income to the government? When did this become acceptable without dispute, and without massive civil disobedience?

When did the first license plate law come into effect that required citizens of a state to pay for the “right” to drive their vehicle? No validation sticker, no vehicle privileges they say. And the people accepted this? We need validation from the government to drive?? Why would people ever even rationalize and then accept such a decision made by governments?

What about seatbelts? Sure, they save lives, but should that not be the choice of those who wear them? When was the first time that a populace accepted a law that allowed a peace officer to take away our freedom of choice to wear or not wear a seatbelt, and demand a fine for their masters if we opposed the enacted law? Seatbelt laws are especially ridiculous since not wearing one would typically only harm or kill the person that made that choice and nobody else. Seatbelt laws are a clear demonstration of why the police only have two objectives in our society, to enforce laws and generate revenue for governments.

When was the first time that farmers started saying “yes” to pesticides, fungicides and herbicides to control crops? When did the first farmer or group of farmers say “it’s ok to poison our crops” for the betterment of production and the expense of health? One might also ask when and why the first farmer decided it was ok to plant genetically modified seeds, in essence toying with nature at her expense and our own, without any regard to the consequences?

On what wisdom did any regulatory agency, run by some well-intentioned scientists, ever deem it appropriate that the way to keep people safe from foods was to pasteurize, homogenizeirradiate and destroy all the nutritional content of food and beverage? Find salmonella, or bacteria? No worries, let’s fry the entire food supply so that it never happens again. What? On what planet is this logical and why do we continue to allow these regulations?

At what point did conventional medical wisdom accept junk science which fabricated conclusions that things like chemotherapy, radiationmammogramsCAT scansvaccines and pharmaceuticals in general were things that would benefit the health of people? And how was the entire medical profession in mass agreement as these harmful medical interventions were implemented? How did they manage to convince millions of well educated professionals that this was the way to advance human health? Why was sheer ignorance the hallmark of medical practicethroughout history?

How did the acceptance of putting chemicals into our water supply, whether it be chlorine, fluoride or other artificial chemicals not found in naturally occurring water, become widely accepted across the world without massive opposition? In fact, protecting the public from hazardous chemicals seems to be completing lacking in our society. We have more chemicals today than we ever have in the history of our civilization, and we know it’s killing us, yet we keep adding more toxins every year without any objection from those in regulatory positions.

At what point did we start criminalizing and imprisoning populations for possessing plants in nature, especially those which have had and do have powerful medicinal properties. In what sane world would we declare that marijuana, one of the most powerful medicinal plants in the world has no accepted medical use? How did we ever come to accept that a person who grows marijuana plants is more of criminal and should receive a longer mandatory sentence than a child rapist?

The list of insanities could go on forever. Obviously, the when and how all of these things happened are part of historical record, but we never really question why, and when we do question it, the answers never make sense. The ends never justify the means.

When we look at history we realize that only through the exact science of incrementalism has all of the above been possible. This relies on many small changes enacted over time in order to create a larger broad based change. World powers have embraced this systematized knowledge and applied it to the gradual deterioration of human health for one purpose – control.

We need less followers and more leaders to reverse this trend. We are stronger than this and we are certainly a species that has enduring qualities. We need to effectuate change not through political processes but through ourselves.

So my two questions are: How long will it take before we reverse the insanity, flip the coin, turn the page and stand up for who we are, what we are and embrace our true ownership of this planet, nature and ourselves as universal sovereign beings? Isn’t it time?

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

 

RSS
Search a Blog

October 2014 (13)
September 2014 (688)
August 2014 (661)
July 2014 (654)
June 2014 (607)
May 2014 (659)
April 2014 (776)
March 2014 (692)
February 2014 (747)
January 2014 (962)
December 2013 (852)
November 2013 (858)
October 2013 (847)
Blog Categories

WHO IS ONLINE
Focusing On Real Values

Get Your Gold Out Of Dodge can help you today protect your international gold holdings. Still stacking stateside? Internationalize today and sleep that much better.

A great way to a new standard.

Gold in small units, also one gram at time

Need a real unique gift for your big love? Get your "Love-Gold-Card" in our shop.

Gold, a secure future.

Register and become a partner

HERE

Short YouTube Film explain

HERE

Products for your Wellness

Important: For all products chose at the top of the page the  language (English or German) and currency!

 click HERE to reach all products

TATWellness deliver worldwide.

Support B.O.L.E.

Your support to have the B.O.L.E. (incl.all articles) open and free for everyone is much appreciated.

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

 

 

This website is powered by Spruz

Live Support