Terri Schiavo: Hitler's Latest Victim?

Robert Drobot,

On the chance that there may be a trace of sincerity
in your latest effort, I will respond even though there
is not much that invites intelligent discussion. Finding
a platform in your writing is not an easy task because
your jumps of logic are truly dizzying. I can see myself
being forced to conjecture at various turns what your
last moment of lucid thought might have been in a given
instance before you lost the connection.

You say: "Little did I realize that saving Terri Schiavo
was secondary to joining in your extreme Nazi hysteria..."
I am glad that you realized this only little. Alas, it is
still too much, because nothing of the sort should be
realized at all from what I wrote.

The word "secondary" or its underlying concept had no
place in my presentation. What I did say, was: "...while
regarded as crucial and meritorious in its own rights,
Terri's case is merely one item in the discussion of Nazi
parallels to current policy drives." Perhaps an analogous
scenario will clarify nuances that separate your reading
from what I wrote:

While crucial and meritorious in its own rights, the
novel coloring of new twenty-dollar bills is merely one
item in the discussion of a two-tiered denomination model
consisting of an international and a domestic component.

To expand on the analogy, a hypothetical protest against
the colors of the new twenty-dollar bill is its own cause
worthy of support in the minds of some.

At the same time, those discussing the larger hypothetical
issue of a two-tiered denominational system will see the
twenty-dollar bill as an important albeit not exclusive
early manifestation of coming currency moves. Thus all
those studying global currency moves will be aware of the
part the twenty-dollar bill plays, but not all those
questioning the new twenty-dollar bill will comprehend
the larger dynamic of which it is a part. Please do not
bother extracting more conspiracy boo-boo from this. It
is a hypothetical construct illustrating a point.

You compound your error by further extrapolating from my
post my supposed view “that the Terri threads are not about
Terri. Rather, they are about exposing the Hitler agenda
within American policy.” Is your reason really so weak
that you have to stumble like that? How can the Terri
threads not be about Terri? On the other hand, what is
so difficult for you to grasp in the idea that topics of
a wider scope may also include Terri’s situation?

Here is another analogy. Articles by storm chasers are
definitely about tornadoes. Does that mean that articles
about the subject of climatic shifts are an insult to storm
chasers because they include among a wide array of
meteorological topics empirical data about tornadoes? Does
it mean that climatic-shift analysts may not also be storm
chasers?

“Boy am I glad you became a member of FreeRepublic.com.
You've opened my eyes to the real issue here, because
my only motivation has been to prevent Terri's murder. “
First, your statement is bereft of authenticity. You say
that you are “glad” when in fact you are not, and you claim
that your eyes were opened when the opposite is readily
observable. Second, you are not being faulted for reducing
your motivational scope to preventing Terri’s murder. You
should therefore not fault others who are also motivated by
a desire to prevent Terri’s murder, but who still have a
few spare brain synapses to pay attention to some larger
implications of the injustices wrought against Terri.

From here on you keep sliding down the slope of rational
thought with increasing speed. You say: “When do you
suppose Governor Bush become [sic] a card carrying member
of the ultra-secret Nazi Party of America? Do you suppose
the federal government is in on this Nazi plot as well?”

Robert Drobot, could you perhaps raise your reductionism to
the possibility that parallels to one aspect of a distant
set do not bestow the identity of that set? If the eugenics
programs once pursued by the Nazis are now being revived in
a different context, it does not mean that there are also
swastikas, Brown Shirts, Mutterkreuz, Thule mythology, anti-
Judaism and numerous other accouterments of the NSDAP.

If you happen to drive the same model car as your neighbor,
that does not make you your neighbor, does it? If I point
out that you drive the same car as your neighbor, you are
making far too many logical jumps when you assume I am
suggesting by this that you are your neighbor.

I challenge you to find any references to an “ultra-secret
Nazi Party of America” in what other posters and I wrote
in this thread. You will however find references to
similarities in the two eugenics programs. Simply accept
it on faith that there are people with the capacity of
observing similarities between aspects of separate things
without running the risk of confusing the things themselves.

Your deficit in historical perspective bleeds through your
jumbled thoughts. If it were not so, you would know that
the Nazionalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was
merely an organizational network, not an originating
entity. The programs conducted under its auspices were
spearheaded by businesses like Krupp and Deutsche Farben
A.G.

Similarly, the policy drive toward euthanasia in America
does not come from the government but from financial
interest. The public indoctrination campaigns are not
designed in offices on Capitol Hill nor the White House,
but in think tanks paid for with corporate cash. That
well-endowed corporate interests have ways to influence
legislative action and executive directives is too well
known for me to have to address it here.

If you wish to join this discussion on a substantial
level, you first ought to better inform yourself about
sociopolitical, psychosocial and historical trends.
Otherwise you will continue embarrassing yourself with
nonsequiturs like “So it's all about refining and
implementing Hitler's plan.” It is not about that at all.

You ask: “How many countries do you think have secret
cells of Nazi organizations waiting to spring from
under the beds of unsuspecting citizens?” There are
many would-be Nazi organizations in many countries, but
these are merely social carbuncles. They may do damage
on the level of vandalism, but they are not major
players on the stage.

The threats to our society come from an entirely different
quarter, which is not to say that these aberrants will not
be put to good use should the occasion arise. Long before
them, however, consumer citizens in complacent slumber will
osmotically absorb the ideas of their own undoing. They do
this, for instance, by assuming like you that the case of
Terri Schindler-Schiavo is an isolated instance of faulty
jurisprudence.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/12/prweb93414.htm

All Press Releases for December 10, 2003

American “Nazi Agenda” being pushed by politicians
Biograph finds shocking proof of “Nazi Agenda” for new documentary

Beverly Hills, CA (PRWEB) December 8 2003--The oldest movie company in America initiates the movement for a documentary on the battle of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the 39 year old woman who is still fighting for her life in Florida.

Biograph is the oldest movie company in America, established in 1895. Biograph launched the careers of many move legends; director D. W. Griffith, Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, Blanche Sweet, and Lionel Barrymore.

Thomas R. Bond, II – President and CEO of Biograph is outraged at the new nazi agenda, and now has proof linked to the political policies. Bond states “My aunt has had brain damage from a car accident in 1996. We went through unsatisfactory medical care and one time my aunt was almost killed if we had jot have been there”. Bond continues “This is close to my heart”. Bond continues “This is not about abortion, or suicide, but about murder”.

Bond has accumulated factual evidence of the original “Nazi Agenda” from Germany and direct links to the Terri Schindler case. Bond also states that certain politicians are pushing this agenda, and feels that this is only the first of non consentive legalized murders of handicapped people. “It is insane, but we recovered files from the euthanasia T-4 project. In a capsule, this is what it collectively states”.

“The early Nazi agenda T-4 Euthanasia Program was established to elliminate the so called suffering of the mentally ill and handicapped. The plan allowed the systematic killing of children born with physical deformities or mental illness. Under the control of Karl Brandt, "defective" children were removed from their families and taken to "hospitals" where the exterminations were carried out at the Hartheim and Hadamar killing centres. The program was expanded to include adults to prevent any "deficient" member humanity so they could not pass on their inferiority.

The Nazi Euthanasia action was written in the book by Ernst Klee: Euthanasie im NS-Staat - Die Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens. Klee describes further the killing of handicapped people by doctors with lethal injections, and the starvation of patients marked for extermination.

Klee describes as well the resistance from the churches and the relatives of the victims, which led to a slow-down and greater secrecy of the operation, but did not stop it. Till the operation was conducted more covertly after August 1941, 70,000 people had already died. By that time every third inmate of a psychiatric institution in Germany had already died (leading to about 93,000 "free beds" at the end of 1941 in Nazi terminology) either by being actively killed or by starvation.

Most of the participants of the T-4 Euthanasia Program became part of the Holocaust as well, developing gas chamber technology and even helping to build death camps as Belzec, Treblinka or Sobibor in Operation Reinhard, as Klee notes. Aside from the well-known Auschwitz-Birkenau these were the main centers of extermination by gas for millions of people”.

Bond sates "We admire Governor Jeb Bush and Senator Joseph Lieberman who are against this new agenda." However, Bond is in the midst of a investigating other political individuals and officials involved. Bond continues “We are looking into Dick Gephardt and Michael Schiavo. We think we may be on the verge of a huge discovery soon”. Biograph will be releasing non sensitive information in the near future on this expose documentary. Bond continues “This is still America, and everyone has the right to live and be free, even if you are defenseless. It is up to our Government to protect us, not to kill us.”

Bond says “Whoever reads this, do your own investigation. Let us know what you find. We need the support from the caring people of America. Also, please visit the Terri Schiavo website, (http://www.terrisfight.org/ ). Find the real information the officials do not want you to see. Write and call your Congress member, your political officials. Demand that this handicapped person has the right to live. The handicapped have a right to live. You have a right to live. Remember, one day you could be her.
###

New article from Wesley J. Smith on Europe & Euthanasia on National Review Online:

Continent Death
Euthanasia in Europe

Too many people think with their hearts instead of their brains. Wanting the world to suit their desires, when faced with hard truths to the contrary, they refuse to face facts they don’t want to believe. This common human failing has a name: self-delusion.

Self-delusion is rampant in the euthanasia movement. Most proponents recognize that it is inherently dangerous to legalize killing. But they desperately want to believe that they can control the grim reaper. Thus, they continue to peddle the nonsense that "guidelines will protect against abuse" despite overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary.

Euthanasia has been around long enough and practiced sufficiently enough for us to detect a pattern. Killing is sold to the public as a last resort justified only in cases where nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering. But once the reaper is allowed through the door, the categories of killable people expand steadily toward the acceptance of death on demand.

The classic example is the Netherlands, where doctors have been allowed to euthanize patients since 1973. Dutch death regulations require that euthanasia be strictly limited to the sickest patients, for whom nothing but extermination will alleviate overwhelming suffering — a concept in Dutch law known as force majeur. But once mercy killing was redefined as being good in a few cases rather than being bad in all circumstances, it didn’t take long for the protective guidelines to be viewed widely as impediments to be overcome instead of important protections to be obeyed.

Thus, supposedly ironclad protections against abuse — such as the doctrine of force mejeur and the stipulation that patient give multiple requests for euthanasia — quickly ceased meaningfully to constrain mercy killing. As a consequence, Dutch doctors now legally kill terminally ill people who ask for it, chronically ill people who ask for it, disabled people who ask for it, and depressed people who ask for it.

Euthanasia has also entered the pediatric wards, where eugenic infanticide has become common even though babies cannot ask to be killed. According to a 1997 study published in the British medical journal The Lancet, approximately 8 percent of all Dutch infant deaths result from lethal injections. The babies deemed killable are often disabled and thus are thought not to have a "livable life." The practice has become so common that 45 percent of neonatologists and 31 percent of pediatricians who responded to Lancet surveys had killed babies.

It gets worse: Repeated studies sponsored by the Dutch government have found that doctors kill approximately 1,000 patients each year who have not asked for euthanasia. This is not only a violation of every guideline, but an act that Dutch law considers murder. Nonvoluntary euthanasia has become so common that it even has a name: "Termination without request or consent."

Despite this carnage, Dutch doctors are very rarely prosecuted for such crimes, and the few that are brought to court are usually exonerated. Moreover, even if a doctor is found guilty, he or she is almost never punished in any meaningful way, nor does the murderer face discipline by the Dutch Medical Society. For example, in 2001, a doctor was convicted of murdering an 84-year-old patient who had not asked to be killed. Prosecutors demanded a nine-month suspended probation (!), yet even this brush — it can’t even be called a slap — on the wrist was rejected by the trial judge who refused to impose any punishment. Not to worry. The appellate court decided to get tough: It imposed a one-week suspended sentence on the doctor for murder.

Even such praising with faint damnation isn’t enough for the Dutch Medical Association. As a result of this and the handful of other non-punished murder convictions of doctors who engaged in termination without request or consent, the organization is lobbying to legalize non-voluntary euthanasia. Along these same lines — and demonstrating that the culture of death recognizes no limits — the day after the Dutch formally legalized euthanasia, the country’s minister of health advocated the provision of suicide pills to the elderly who do not qualify for killing under Dutch law.

Lest we think the Dutch experience is a fluke, let us now turn our attention to Belgium. Only one year ago the Belgians legalized Dutch-style euthanasia under "strict" guidelines. As with the Netherlands, once unfettered, the euthanasia culture quickly began to swallow Belgium whole. Moreover, the slide down the slope has occurred at a greatly accelerated pace. It took decades for the Dutch euthanasia to reach the current morass. But Belgian euthanasia went off the rails from day one: The very first reported killing — that of a man with multiple sclerosis — violated the legal guidelines (not that anything was done about it). Moreover, while 203 people were officially recognized as having been euthanized in Belgium during the first year of legal practice, most euthanasia deaths were not reported (a violation of the law). The actual toll is probably closer to 1,000.

And Belgian euthanasia advocates have already begun agitating to expand the categories of killable people. A just-completed forum attended by hundreds of Belgian doctors and euthanasia enthusiasts advocated that minors be allowed to request euthanasia, as well as people with degenerative conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, who are not imminently dying. Not only that, but the chairman of the conference wants to force doctors to participate in killing patients, even if they are morally opposed. If he gets his way, the law will soon require doctors who oppose euthanasia to refer patients who want to be killed to a colleague willing to do the deed. So much for choice.

The Swiss have also unleashed the culture of death into their midst. Rather than authorizing doctors to commit euthanasia, however, Swiss law instead permits private suicide facilitation. As a result, Switzerland has become a destination for "suicide tourists" who travel there not to ski, but to receive a poison cocktail.

A private group that goes by the name "Dignitas" facilitates most Swiss assisted suicides. Its founder, lawyer Ludwig Minelli, recently told the Swiss press that he will not restrict Dignitas’s dark work to providing services to the dying. Indeed, the report said Minelli believes that "severe depression can be irreversible and that he is justified" in helping "the mentally ill" to die. Along these lines, a Swiss doctor is being investigated for possible prosecution for the double suicide of French twins with schizophrenia. That may sound like a serious effort to crack down on abuse, but remember, once euthanasia is legitimized, such talk is often cheap. If the Dutch experience is any indication, even if the suicide doctor is convicted, he will not be meaningfully punished.

Despite this history, euthanasia advocates here and abroad still cling irrationally to the hubristic and foolish notion that they are competent to administer death. They remind one of Dr. Frankenstein, who, in the name of benefiting humankind, unleashed a terrible monster.

— Wesley J. Smith is an attorney and consultant for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide. His most recent book is the revised and updated Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope From Assisted Suicide to Legalized Murder.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.