Eugenics. It's a word we don't hear much these days, but its results are all around us. Back on the farm we called it "selective breeding." Every dairyman or herdsman or Kentucky Derby contender selects the best of his herd as breeding stock. Can the same principle be applied to humans? Of course. Adolph Hitler used the practice to create what he called a "master race." Loretta Lynn and Conway Twitty recorded, "You Are the Reason Our Kids are Ugly." Nobody wants ugly kids, so in this enlightened era of single motherhood, sperm banks catalog their inventory according to eye color, hair color, nose shape, etc. Eugenics? Of course. Harmless? Probably. But are more sinister uses possible? Certainly.

Is the concept new? Of course not. The founder of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton, a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, felt that the softness of civilization had prevented the kind of natural selection occurring in Darwin's Origin of Species from happening in humans, thus creating an unnaturally high number of weak and feeble-minded people. So it was up to governments to augment natural selection through the practice of selective breeding -- or eugenics. At that time it was felt that desirable citizens tended to be white, athletic, intelligent, and wealthy, and those it considered to be undesirable tended to be black, Jewish, disabled, or poor. So the power of the state was, and still is, encouraged to promote increases in the number of desirable citizens (positive eugenics) and decreases in the number of undesirable citizens (negative eugenics).

Now if you are a genetic scientist, you would want to pursue such DNA manipulation just for the sake of science. The ultimate, of course, would be mass cloning. It's already been done in sheep and rabbits --- although rabbits seem to be doing pretty well in replicating themselves without any outside assistance. Humans? Why not? In his bestselling new book, Things That Matter, psychiatrist Dr. Charles Krauthammer says the limits on human cloning are moral, not scientific. So one day it will happen.

But if you are a "public servant," hell-bent on keeping yourself in office, you might want to pursue such manipulation just to assure an expanding base of political support. So how would you go about creating more of those who would vote for you, and fewer of those who wouldn't? Would you call it eugenics? Of course not. You would call it providing for the common good; probably through the enactment of a government sponsored and controlled healthcare program.

In her recent interview with the BBC, Oprah Winfrey may have inadvertently revealed the real reason for the government to take control of the health care system: "racist cleansing" of our nation. Said Ms. Winfrey, "You know, as long as people can be judged by the color of their skin, problem's not solved. As long as there is still a whole generation of people, older people, who were born and bred and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, they just have to die."

So are the cuts in Medicare, leading to fewer doctors treating seniors, leading to a reduction in access to care and therefore the rationing of care itself, part and parcel of the grand plan to actually hasten the death of all the old, white racists? Please keep in mind that in a recently released Huffington Post poll, Oprah is still right up there in popularity, and even ranks more favorably than does First Lady Michelle Obama. Her opinions must resonate somewhere.

So what would you do if the success of your namesake program, Obamacare, is threatened by the number of older and less healthy people signing up and thus overwhelming the enlistment of younger and healthier enrollees? Does this then lead us to the dreaded words, "death panel"? Maybe.

On August 8, 2013, the Oregon Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC) unanimously approved revisions to the guideline that assists patients, doctors, and health plans in the care of patients with advanced stage cancer; and instructs them to focus on "efficacy of care," rather than life expectancy. According to the guideline, "this approach has been shown in scientific studies to improve cancer patients' lives and allows these patients to spend more time with their families instead of in hospitals." Sure it does.

All right then. Is this what the President had in mind when he told a Mrs. Jane Strum that a heart transplant for her aging mother, "costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill"?

If, in 1812, the so-called "desirable citizens" tended to be white, athletic, intelligent, and wealthy, what are the desirable citizens of today? Surely not those!

The politicians and bureaucrats currently writing most of our societal rules and regulations tend to gain their support from those who are younger, less educated, favor greater government dependency, and are generally persons of color. So we may now look for more government activity in support of these groups -- positive eugenics.

As Obamacare kicks in, those of us who remain; the older, the sicker, the political opposition, can expect to experience the effects of, you guessed it -- negative eugenics.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.