Is it morally wrong to take a life? ...YES!

Watch Glenn discuss the story in the clip above

by Sara J

This morning on radio Glenn read an article from the Journal of Medical Ethics titled, “Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists.” Now to those of us that live in the wonderful world of absolutes, where good vs. evil and right vs. wrong exist, the answer to that question is not “not really,” it’s an overwhelming “YES.” This article is disturbing for a few reasons, the first being the authors that raised this question are from Duke University and The National Institute of Health, where you think they would be rather familiar with the Hippocratic Oath that states “first do no harm.”

A little over a year ago I was a student at a medical college in the Southeast studying to be a Doctor of Physical Therapy.  I was accepted right before “Obamacare” passed, after which I obviously had some major concerns. While researching the ridiculously lengthy bill, the most shocking discovery I made was no one else seemed to think it was going to affect the way they care for their patients. How any rational person thinks 2,000 pages of legislation focused on their field of study isn’t going to affect the way they do business is beyond me, but that was and probably still is the case.

Today on radio Glenn tied the similarities between the article he read on air to Obama health care policy advisor, Ezekiel Emmanuel’s concept of healthcare rationing, The Complete Lives System . As shocking as The Complete Lives System sounded on radio this morning, imagine running across this document during a class presentation stating that Obamacare is fantastic and will allow poor people better healthcare, while making billing more efficient. Again, how 2,000 pages of legislation makes anything more efficient is beyond me.

Emanuel’s “Principals for allocation of scarce medical interventions,” which explains his Complete Lives System, is one of the most alarming documents I have ever read, and it is written by a man who sits on one of the “expert health panels,” as Obama calls them, that are going to help you get a “higher quality of care.” Since Ezekiel and the average doctor clearly hold a different interpretation on “first do no harm,” I would be interested in hearing what President Obama means by “higher quality of care,” and who exactly it applies to.

“The Complete Lives System” is a system of that defines what the “just” allocation of healthcare should be to “satisfy all ethical requirements,” in situations of shortages. Emmanuel uses five principals: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value.

“As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.”

This is a system that discriminates against the very young and the elderly, but because, as he sees it, “allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.” In other words, if you have to decide who gets a heart transplant, a 25 year old or a 65 year old, the heart would go to the 25 year old, because the 65 year old has already lived through that “life-stage.” Regardless of the fact that the 65 year old may have been on the transplant list a longer amount of time, they may be in more critical condition and need the transplant quickly, or have the money to pay for the organ without help from the system; they aren’t given priority of the organ.

Physical Therapy has a growing number of geriatric patients with the increasing and improved technology of hip or knee replacements, treatment for back problems, mobility issues, and other common ailments among the elderly. Physical Therapy is not an effective tool to treat injuries that need surgery or would be better managed with surgery. Rather, to prevent the need for surgery, or to improve strength and mobility after surgery.

However, when discussing healthcare reform during the health care legislation debate two years ago President Obama made comments like giving grandma “a pill” instead of pacemakers, and wasn't sure if hip replacements are really necessary for those nearing the end of their life… because who wouldn’t rather take habit-forming, debilitating pain-killers instead of have one of the most successful surgeries among older patients… His limited understanding of how impactful the ability to move around pain free can be on an older person is alarming. Something as simple as a hip replacement can give a formerly immobile 70 or 80 year old woman the ability to exercise, improving her health and outlook on life—adding years onto their life.

I raised this issue with my peers and my professors, and received the typical “oh, that will never happen” response Glenn viewers and listeners are all too familiar with. Without getting too boring on you, many states PT’s are under the direction of the M.D. of a particular patient—in other words, referral based. If care were being rationed, a very realistic concern would be more and more doctors sending patients directly to PT and side-stepping orthopedic surgeries or procedures that would be much more beneficial to the patient.—which may be good for the PT’s wallet, but very bad for their patient quality of life.

Those are the types of things you can expect to see if “Obamacare” isn’t repealed. And one of a few reasons I changed career paths. The main thing my professors taught me while I was in DPT school was that above all else it’s a PT’s job to be a strong advocate for their patient. That’s the number one job of all doctors. Under Obamacare, doctors run the risk of losing their ability to effectively do that.

While the article Glenn read this morning focuses on the idea of organ donation, judging from the authors’ view on the “sanctity of life”—that it doesn’t exist—their line of morality could be applied to any type of shortage. Patients would become numbers and statistics based off of principals like Emanuel’s: youngest-first, prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value.

“[I]f killing were wrong just because it is causing death or the loss of life, then the same principle would apply with the same strength to pulling weeds out of a garden. If it is not immoral to weed a garden, then life as such cannot really be sacred, and killing as such cannot be morally wrong.”

…yes, they did just compare human life to weeds.

Transgender opera in Columbia? 10 SHOCKING ways USAID spent your tax dollars.

MANDEL NGAN / Contributor | Getty Images

The government has been doing what with our tax money!?

Under the determined eye of Elon Musk, DOGE has rooted out the corruption that permeates USAID, and it turns out that it's worse than we thought. Glenn recently read a list of atrocious causes that were funded by USAID, and the list was as long as it was shocking.

Since the January consumer index report was published today, one thing is clear: eggs are bearing the brunt of inflation. That's why we illustrated the extent of USAID's wasteful spending of YOUR taxpayer dollars by comparing it to the price of eggs. How many eggs could the American people have bought with their tax dollars that were given to a "transgender opera" in Colombia or indoctrinating Sri Lankans with woke gender ideology? The truth will shock you:

1. A “transgender opera” in Colombia

USAID spent $47,000 on a transgender opera in Colombia. That's over 135,000 eggs.

2. Sex changes and "LGBT activism" in Guatemala

$2 million was spent funding sex changes along with whatever "LGBT activism" means. That equates to over 5.7 million eggs!

3. Teaching Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid binary-gendered language

USAID forked over $7.9 million to combat the "gender binary" in Sri Lankan journalism. That could have bought nearly 23 million eggs.

4. Tourism in Egypt

$6 million (or just over 17 million eggs) was spent to fund tourism in Egypt. If only someone had thought to build some impressive landmarks...

5. A new "Sesame Street" show in Iraq

USAID spent $20 million to create a new Sesame Street show in Iraq. That's just short of 58 million eggs...

6. Helping the BBC value the diversity of Libyan society

$2.1 million was sent to the BBC (the British Broadcasting Corporation) to help them value the diversity of Libyan society (whatever that means). That could have bought over 6 million eggs.

7. Meals for a terrorist group linked to Al-Qaeda

$10 million worth of USAID-funded meals went to an Al-Qaeda linked terrorist group. That comes up to be just shy of 29 million eggs.

8. Promoting inclusion in Vietnam 

A combined $19.3 million was sent to two separate inclusion groups in Vietnam inclusion groups in Vietnam (why where they separated? Not very inclusive of them). That's over 55 million eggs.

9. Promoting DEI in Serbia's workplaces

USAID sent $1.5 million (4.3 million eggs) to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”

10. Funding EcoHealth Alliance, tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology's "bat research"

EcoHealth Alliance, one of the key NGOs that funded the Wuhan lab's bat virus research, received $5 million from USAID, which is equivalent to 14.5 million eggs.

The bottom line...

So, how much damage was done?

In total, approximately $73.8 million was wasted on the items on this list. That comes out to be 213 million eggs. Keep in mind that these are just the items on this list, there are many, many more that DOGE has uncovered and will uncover in the coming days. Case in point: that's a lot of eggs.

POLL: Should Trump stop producing pennies?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor, Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

On Sunday, February 9th, President Trump ordered the U.S. Mint to halt the production of pennies. It costs the mint three cents to produce every penny, which Trump deemed wasteful. However, critics argue that axing the pennies will be compensated by ramping up nickel production, which costs 13 cents per coin.

In other news, President Trump promised on Truth Social that he would be reversing a Biden-era policy that mandated the use of paper straws throughout the federal government. From potentially slashing entire agencies to saying farewell to pennies and paper straws, Trump is hounding after wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars.

But what do you think? Was Trump right to put an end to pennies? And should plastic straws make a comeback? Let us know in the poll below:

Should Trump stop the production of pennies? 

Do you agree with Trump's reversal of the plastic straw ban?

Was this the most PATRIOTIC Super Bowl yet?

CHANDAN KHANNA / Contributor | Getty Images

The 2025 Super Bowl demonstrated Trump’s vision of a new America.

On Sunday, February 9th, the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Kansas City Chiefs in the biggest sporting event of the year. But this wasn't just a victory for Eagles fans. For those watching, it became apparent that American culture has changed, the zeitgeist has shifted, and America has become cool again. While remnants of woke culture lingered, they felt out of step next to the parade of American Flags and patriotic messaging that dominated the national event. The message was clear: America is back.

Everybody knows that the commercials are the best part of any Super Bowl, and last night's game was no exception. As Glenn has pointed out, while some of the ads still carried woke messages (like Nike's), many more captured the newly kindled patriotism felt nationwide. Here are four of the best commercials from last Sunday that make this the most patriotic Super Bowl yet:

1. Rocket: "Own the Dream"

This touching commercial by the financial services company, Rocket, states "Everyone deserves a shot at the American dream," while showing images of people returning home and building families. The ad included a cover of John Denver's iconic song "Take Me Home, Country Roads" and featured an in-stadium sing-along, live from the Super Bowl.

2. Secret Service: "A History of Protection"

Donald Trump made history by being the first sitting president to attend a Super Bowl, which required the efforts of hundreds of Secret Service agents to ensure his safety. The Secret Service boasted of this feat during their minute-long commercial, which lauded American values and achievements and featured iconic American imagery.

3. Brad Pitt: "Huddle Up"

The Super Bowl introduction celebrated snapshots of American achievement accompanied with a powerful commentary about unity narrated by Brad Pitt. The message is clear: Americans can achieve great things when we work together. The ad conjures up American ideals such as hard work, ingenuity, self-sacrifice, and teamwork.

4. Jeep: "Big Game"

Movie star Harrison Ford appeared in Jeep's Super Bowl commercial to promote freedom and to remind us that "freedom isn't free." Ford treks through the mountains while ruminating on what freedom means in America and the opportunities and responsibilities that come with it.

How Trump is WINNING at the Panama Canal

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

Despite the doubts of the nay-sayers, Trump's Panamanian plans have already borne fruit.

Shortly before his inauguration, President Trump drew national attention to the Panama Canal. He reminded Americans of just how important the canal is for the U.S. and highlighted the Chinese influence that has been slowly taking control of the vital passage ever since America handed it over to Panama.

President Trump was immediately mocked and ridiculed by the Left, who called him delusional and an imperialist. However, earlier this week, Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, made a trip to Panama and spoke with the Panamanian President, José Raúl Mulino, and Rubio made some serious headway. As Glenn has explained, Trump's boisterous talk is part of his strategy. Invading Panama was never the goal, just one of several options to get what America needed, and after Rubio's visit, it seems like America's needs will be met.

Here are the TOP THREE takeaways from Marco Rubio's visit to Panama:

1. Marco Rubio makes headway

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

On February 2nd, Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha and President José Raúl Mulino where they discussed critical regional and global challenges, including the canal. Rubio drew attention to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal in which the U.S. promised Panama ownership of the canal on the condition of its guaranteed neutrality. Rubio argued that China's growing influence qualified as a breach of the treaty and that it gives the U.S. the power to take necessary measures to rectify the faults, given Panama doesn't act. As of this week, reports say Panama agreed and promised to take immediate action to purge Chinese influence from canal operations.

2. Panama is ditching China's Belt Road

MARK SCHIEFELBEIN / Contributor | Getty Images

After his meeting with Rubio, Panamanian President Mulino agreed that Panama would step away from China's "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI). The BRI is a Chinese effort to establish China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. In 2017, Panama signed on to this initiative, and China's influence in the small nation has exponentially grown. However, after Rubio's visit, President Mulino has not only stated that Panama will not renew its agreement with China, but moreover, the country will also look for ways to back out of the agreement early. This is a massive win for the Trump Administration and the American people.

3. The Chinese may lose their ports on the canal

MARTIN BERNETTI / Contributor | Getty Images

Shortly after Rubio left Panama City, two lawyers spearheaded the effort to kick out a Chinese company that controls two major ports on the Panama Canal. The Chinese company—CK Hutchison Holdings—has operated one port on both ends of the canal since 1997, which could potentially give China a massive degree of control over traffic. After analyzing the contract, the Panamanian lawyers argue that the contract is potentially in violation of the Panamanian constitution and should be revoked. It is unclear if the constitutional issues relate to the Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal, but even on its own merit, this is a huge victory for America.