Peacetime Butchers

The world knew what Hitler was going to do before he did it. The same is true of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and every other butcher. It is precisely because they stated their brutal intentions beforehand that they attracted enough followers to carry out their slaughters. The enclosed article shows that Hussein is a butcher of the first order; with one difference separating him from every butcher that went before him. Babies are Hussein’s scapegoats instead of Jews and Gypsies.

The people Hussein attracted to himself are the same kind that every butcher attracts. Isn’t it time Americans faced the facts. Just about everyone in Hussein’s administration is worse than anybody Hitler ever attracted. Nazis had hard times as an excuse. Even Lenin could claim he was ending the czar’s oppression, but Hussein’s people are free men and women living in the wealthiest society in the world who are willing turning to slaughtering the weak and defenseless out of sheer cruelty.

If history is any guide Hussein & Company will not be stopped until their gruesome work is well underway or finished. Remember that Hitler was a failure only in the sense that he was stopped, while nobody ever stopped any of the “successful” Communist butchers.

Why do butchers succeed to any degree? Answer: Decent human beings fear that killing the killers will turn them into killers. The same philosophical trap is seen in war: If we treat the enemy the way they treat us we become like them. It is that moral dilemma that gives butchers all of the courage they need. Hitler understood it:

“The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”

Unfortunately, when WWII ended decent men and women failed to imitate totalitarian government just enough to deal with “peacetime” butchers. Winning a war is easy, but until the world learns how to deal with peacetime butchers the human race will always lose the peace.

Nor is democracy conducive to stopping peacetime butchers. Democracy actually encourages slaughter by making it legal. The Netherlands is a sign of where democracy always goes. The Dutch welfare state has gone from meals on wheels to home-delivery killing:

'This is a real tragedy when you consider that in the Second World War the Dutch refused to implement the Nazi euthanasia programme.' ​

Go-ahead for world's first mobile euthanasia unit that will allow patients to die at home
Teams will end the lives of additional 1,000 a year
2,700 Dutch people a year choose assisted suicide
By Simon Caldwell
Last updated at 12:17 AM on 10th February 2012

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-euthanasia-unit-allow-patients-die-home.html

There is no better example of peacetime butchers at work than those in Holland. The Dutch rejected Nazi euthanasia but now lead the world in peacetime euthanasia.

Finally, murdered infants do not get a choice; so please do not tell me that some people choose suicide. The problem is legalized killing. If a person can’t commit suicide on their own they should not get government help doing it.

When Obama Voted For Infanticide
By Andrew C. McCarthy
February 9, 2012 5:20 P.M.

Peter has beaten me to the punch. What I personally find most offensive about the HHS mandate is the shock with which it has been met. Why? This is who Barack Obama is. There is no reason to be surprised by this. He is not being pulled to extremes by his base — he is the one doing the pulling.

Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.

That is not a secret. The Obamedia, of course, refused to cover it while they were running down Sarah Palin’s third-grade report card. The clueless John McCain failed to bring any attention to it. But it was far from unknown. I wrote about it in August 2008, and I was far from alone — at least among conservatives. My column was called, “Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide: More important to protect abortion doctors than ‘that fetus, or child — however way you want to describe it’”:

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.​

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

No. In Obama’s hardball, hard-Left world, these least become “that fetus, or child — however you want to describe it.”​

Most of us, of course, opt for “child,” particularly when the “it” is born and living and breathing and in need of our help. Particularly when the “it” is clinging not to guns or religion but to life.

But not Barack Obama. As an Illinois state senator, he voted to permit infanticide. And now, running for president, he banks on media adulation to insulate him from his past.

The record, however, doesn’t lie.​

Infanticide is a bracing word. But in this context, it’s the only word that fits. Obama heard the testimony of a nurse, Jill Stanek. She recounted how she’d spent 45 minutes holding a living baby left to die.

The child had lacked the good grace to expire as planned in an induced-labor abortion — one in which an abortionist artificially induces labor with the expectation that the underdeveloped “fetus, or child — however you want to describe it” will not survive the delivery.

Stanek encountered another nurse carrying the child to a “soiled utility room” where it would be left to die. It wasn’t that unusual. The induced-labor method was used for late-term abortions. Many of the babies were strong enough to survive the delivery. At least for a time.​

So something had to be done with them. They couldn’t be left out in the open, struggling in the presence of fellow human beings. After all, those fellow human beings — health-care providers— would then be forced to confront the inconvenient question of why they were standing idly by. That would hold a mirror up to the whole grisly business.

Better the utility room. Alone, out of sight and out of mind. Next case.

Stanek’s account enraged the public and shamed into silence most of the country’s staunchest pro-abortion activists. Most, not all. Not Barack Obama.

My friend Hadley Arkes ingeniously argued that legislatures, including Congress, should take up “Born Alive” legislation: laws making explicit what decency already made undeniable: that from the moment of birth — from the moment one is expelled or extracted alive from the birth canal — a human being is entitled to all the protections the law accords to living persons.

Such laws were enacted by overwhelming margins. In the United States Congress, even such pro-abortion activists as Sen. Barbara Boxer went along.

But not Barack Obama. In the Illinois senate, he opposed Born-Alive tooth and nail.

The shocking extremism of that position — giving infanticide the nod over compassion and life — is profoundly embarrassing to him now. So he has lied about what he did. He has offered various conflicting explanations . . .​

There is more here, including the relevant portion of the legislative record, in which Obama makes his position, and his extremism, crystal clear.

Again, this is not new news. The transcript is from ten years ago. He has done nothing since but confirm — by his positions, speeches, associations, and presidential appointments — that he is still exactly the same guy. Obama’s horrifying stance in favor not only of abortion but of infanticide was known when 54 percent of Catholics and 53 percent of Protestants supported him for election in 2008, and when such leading Catholic institutions as Notre Dame and Georgetown welcomed him with open arms.

That is what we ought to find shocking. Obama, by contrast, should no longer shock anyone. Obama is simply doing what he came to do; what he said he was going to do when he promised to “fundamentally transform the United States”; and what anyone with a shred of common sense would have predicted he’d do upon scrutinizing his record.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290707/when-obama-voted-infanticide-andrew-c-mccarthy

 

General Rios-Montt is the butcher of Guatemala who killed half of all Ixil Indians there with the help of Ronald Reagan. Why do you suppose Reagan remains such a hero to the far right when his actions supported the Hitler of Central America??

 

To Mr_Truth: Ronald Reagan? Get real! Guatemala’s Civil War began before RR was governor of California. The Left hates RR because he was so instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union. RR opposed communism everywhere. Better you should be asking why is it always a crime against humanity when violent Communist revolutions are opposed with force?

And why do Socialists always romanticize Communist butchers by calling them freedom fighters when communism enslaves? To this day, Castro and fellow butcher Che Guevara are hailed as heros by the Left. And let’s not forget Hussein’s people, Ron Bloom and Anita Dunn, agreeing with a butcher who slaughtered tens of MILLIONS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SEy_KwUJnTE

In truth, liberals never stop wailing about the evils of war while they glorify peacetime butchers of every stripe. Communist or Muslim terrorist, it makes no difference to Socialists.

 

Quite the contrary, it is the Republican party that financed the Bolsheviks as documented by CONSERVATIVE Professor Anthony Sutton:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/

WALL STREET
AND THE
BOLSHEVIK
REVOLUTION

By
Antony C. Sutton



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Chapter I:

The Actors on the Revolutionary Stage
Chapter II:

Trotsky Leaves New York to Complete the Revolution

Woodrow Wilson and a Passport for Trotsky
Canadian Government Documents on Trotsky's Release
Canadian Military Intelligence Views Trotsky
Trotsky's Intentions and Objectives
Chapter III:

Lenin and German Assistance for the Bolshevik Revolution

The Sisson Documents
The Tug-of-War in Washington
Chapter IV:

Wall Street and the World Revolution

American Bankers and Tsarist Loans
Olof Aschberg in New York, 1916
Olof Aschberg in the Bolshevik Revolution
Nya Banken and Guaranty Trust Join Ruskombank
Guaranty Trust and German Espionage in the United States, 1914-1917
The Guaranty Trust-Minotto-Caillaux Threads
Chapter V:

The American Red Cross Mission in Russia — 1917

American Red Cross Mission to Russia — 1917
American Red Cross Mission to Rumania
Thompson in Kerensky's Russia
Thompson Gives the Bolsheviks $1 Million
Socialist Mining Promoter Raymond Robins
The International Red Cross and Revolution
Chapter VI:

Consolidation and Export of the Revolution

A Consultation with Lloyd George
Thompson's Intentions and Objectives
Thompson Returns to the United States
The Unofficial Ambassadors: Robins, Lockhart, and Sadoul
Exporting the Revolution: Jacob H. Rubin
Exporting the Revolution: Robert Minor
Chapter VII:

The Bolsheviks Return to New York

A Raid on the Soviet Bureau in New York
Corporate Allies for the Soviet Bureau
European Bankers Aid the Bolsheviks
Chapter VIII:

120 Broadway, New York City

American International Corporation
The Influence of American International on the Revolution
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York
American-Russian Industrial Syndicate Inc.
John Reed: Establishment Revolutionary
John Reed and the Metropolitan Magazine
Chapter IX:

Guaranty Trust Goes to Russia

Wall Street Comes to the Aid of Professor Lomonossoff
The Stage Is Set for Commercial Exploitation of Russia
Germany and the United States Struggle for Russian Business
Soviet Gold and American Banks
Max May of Guaranty Trust Becomes Director of Ruskombank
Chapter X:

J.P. Morgan Gives a Little Help to the Other Side

United Americans Formed to Fight Communism
United Americans Reveals "Startling Disclosures" on Reds
Conclusions Concerning United Americans
Morgan and Rockefeller Aid Kolchak
Chapter XI:

The Alliance of Bankers and Revolution

The Evidence Presented: A Synopsis
The Explanation for the Unholy Alliance
The Marburg Plan
Appendix I:

Directors of Major Banks,
Firms, and Institutions Mentioned
in This Book (as in 1917-191
Appendix II:

The Jewish-Conspiracy Theory of the
Bolshevik Revolution
Appendix III:

Selected Documents from Government
Files of the United States and Great Britain
Selected Bibliography
Index


*****

TO

those unknown Russian libertarians, also
known as Greens, who in 1919 fought both
the Reds and the Whites in their attempt to
gain a free and voluntary Russia



-------------------


Reagan called himself a "Contra" which is the Latin American al-Qaeda. Suppose someone openly stated "I am al-Qaeda"? Such a person would go on trial for TREASON.

 

Quote Flanders
The Left hates RR because he was so instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union.

To Mr_Truth: My observation is accurate. You’re reaching to discredit RR who was born in 1911. He had nothing to do with the Russian Revolutions in 1905 and your Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. In fact, RR started out as a Democrat.

 

Re-read my post and the source cited so that you can learn it was your Republican party that created the Soviet state. Your party now claims it destroyed what, in fact, it created. Again, my source is CONSERVATIVE and, contrary to your illusions, it reveals the TRUTH.

 

To Mr_Truth: You replied to my observation about RR. Then you jumped from RR to the Republican party as though he was responsible for long-ago events. If you can’t stay on point don’t reply. Actually, I’d be happier if you did not read my messages at all.

And it’s not my Republican party. Had you researched my messages you would know that I have no more use for establishment Republicans than I have for Democrats.

 

From the OP:

And this:

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the sickest butcher of the lot. That is why:

No one can tell me that the Sebelius’ vast authority was a mistake. To say that butchering millions under the health care law was not planned is to say that Hitler's bureaucrats were only following orders. The Butcher in Chief and his henchmen in Congress knew exactly what they doing when they rammed the Affordable Care Act through.

Obama's Nurse Ratched
By Robert M. Goldberg on 2.16.12 @ 6:07AM

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is also Obamacare's deadly enforcer and leading Democratic operative.

Behind every powerful health care mandate under Obamacare is a power-hungry woman named Kathleen Sebelius. As the Health and Human Services Secretary, she has unprecedented power under Obamacare to control health care decisions, the approval of medical products and the national biomedical research agenda. The Secretary is not only the key player; she is the only one on the field. "The Secretary shall…" is mentioned more than 1000 times in the new health care law.

Sebelius is using that power to promote a liberal agenda and Obama's re-election.

She pushed the contraception edict. Her staff wrote the rules that decided Catholic hospitals and charities are not religious institutions. And she was the one who came up the with the "accommodation" in response to resistance to the mandate: just make the health plans pay for it even if the customers of the plan don't want it.

It is clear Sebelius cares only about imposing a worldview and policies to win support for Obamacare. A reporter asked Sebelius: "If a Catholic nonprofit is paying for your insurance coverage, isn't it paying for contraception if you are getting the coverage through that same insurer?"

Sebelius: "The federal employees health plan… costed this as no cost, free, no cost, because adding contraception and having some employees take advantage of that coverage lowers the overall cost of the health plan."

Free? She will tell insurers to suck up the cost and still force religious organization to offer the benefit. Or else.

This is not an aberration. It is quintessential Kathy: She rules by fiat and if you cross her she will crush you. And when she rebukes and bullies, Sebelius, like Nurse Ratched, claims she is doing so for our own good. As the Big Nurse said: "We do not impose certain rules and restrictions on you without a great deal of thought about their therapeutic value."

In 2002 Sebelius was the insurance commissioner in Kansas and campaigning for governor. She blocked the sale of Blue Cross Blue Shield to Anthem Health because she "thought" doing so would raise premiums. In 2003 when Sebelius was elected, Anthem decided against the merger. (Meanwhile, from 2000-2009 premiums in Kansas rose nearly 100 percent.)

Her use of power during the last days before a congressional vote on Obamacare was also Ratched-like in nature: Sebelius told the Association of Health Insurance Plans: "You can choose to continue your opposition to reform. If you do and reform goes down in defeat, we know what will happen." She threatened insurers that if they continued to blame their rate increases on the new health overhaul they could be excluded from health insurance exchanges.

Sebelius subsequently hauled in health plan execs in 2010 to explain why premiums were going up by 10-20 percent in certain states. And she tried to censor one health plan altogether when it sent a letter to Medicare customers about premium increases. She explained she was only doing this in ensure everyone gets basic care. Or a Nurse Ratched would say: "I tell you this hoping you will understand that it is entirely for your own good that we enforce discipline and order."

Last year Sebelius appeared at several fundraisers for Democrat congressional candidates and the 2012 re-election effort. Sebelius broke all campaign spending records in the 2006 re-election bid and she is regarded as a fundraising machine. In part this is due to the fact that the used the power of her office to punish enemies and reward pals. As HHS Secretary she has the power to mandate coverage, exclude health plans, reject payment for new technologies. She has shown she's not afraid to use this power to shake down and intimidate groups holding views contrary to her own and reward her allies. And since the Independent Payment Advisory Commission reports to her, she has absolute control over what Medicare and Medicaid will pay for in the years ahead.

Which is why Sebelius (who attacked Super PACs in 2010) is one of Obama's most important surrogates in the effort to raise outside money for his re-election. She has spoken at Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Rights Action League events. Sebelius has attended fundraisers for several politicians over the past two years. And in the process she will use Obamacare as both carrot and stick to get her way.

About the Author

Robert M. Goldberg is vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and founder of Hands Off My H ealth, a grass roots health care empowerment network. His is new book, Tabloid Medicine: How the Internet is Being Used To Hijack Medical Science For Fear and Profit, was published last month by Kaplan.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/16/obamas-nurse-ratched

 

Well, the butchers are not going to like Justice Tom Parker after what he said about life and science:

“The development of ultrasound technology has enhanced medical and public understanding, allowing us to watch the growth and development of the unborn child in a way previous generations could never have imagined,” he wrote.​

Liberals have been swinging science like a scythe for so long in order to cut down life, I have to admit it never occurred to me that science would make the case for life.

There’s still a long way to go. Should all of the states follow Alabama, and should the SCOTUS not overturn the states, the butchers in the federal government will be isolated. Up til now, most people saw no difference between state and federal governments in the matter of infanticide. Abortion has always been infanticide. Anybody who insists that abortion is a woman’s Right after:

“Similarly, advances in genetics and related fields make clear that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception, when two cells, incapable of independent life, merge to form a single, individual human entity.”​

will be exposed for the butchers they are not to mention the innate cruelty that motivates such people.

State Supreme Court says 'Roe' should be 'overruled'
Decision: Unborn child 'entitled to full protection of the law'
Published: 8 hours ago
by Bob Unruh

A stunning ruling from the state Supreme Court in Alabama is suggesting that states simply “reject” the concept of pre-viability abortion-at-will that comes from Roe v. Wade until the U.S. Supreme Court overrules the precedent.

In a powerful statement that appears to affirm the concept of the “personhood” movement, through which pro-life advocates seek to have states recognize the unborn as “persons,” a concurrence from Justice Tom Parker said, “Since Roe was decided in 1973, advances in medical and scientific technology have greatly expanded our knowledge of prenatal life.

“The development of ultrasound technology has enhanced medical and public understanding, allowing us to watch the growth and development of the unborn child in a way previous generations could never have imagined,” he wrote.

“Similarly, advances in genetics and related fields make clear that a new and unique human being is formed at the moment of conception, when two cells, incapable of independent life, merge to form a single, individual human entity.”

He continued, “Of course, that new life is not yet mature – growth and development are necessary before that life can survive independently – but it is nonetheless human life. And here has been a broad legal consensus in America, even before Roe, that the life of a human being begins at conception.”

His concurrence continued, “An unborn child is a unique and individual human being from conception, and, therefore, he or she is entitled to the full protection of law at every stage of development.

“Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development. And together, Alabama’s homicide statute, the decisions of this court, and the statutes and judicial decisions from other states make abundantly clear that the law is no longer, in Justice Blackmun’s words, ‘reluctant … to accord legal rights to the unborn..’

“For these reasons, Roe’s viability rule is neither controlling nor persuasive here and should be rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court,” he said.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, said the decision by the Alabama Supreme Court “is an example of a ruling consistent with legal precedent and logic.”

“I applaud Justice Tom Parker’s clear and well-reasoned concurring opinion, which conclusively shows that Roe v. Wade’s viability rule does not apply, was based on flawed legal reasoning, and is undermined by advances in medical technology,” Staver said. “The life expectancy of Roe is limited and is being undermined by every other area of law and medicine.”

The comments came in the court’s decision that a woman who lost her unborn, pre-viable child, allegedly because of medical negligence, can sue for damages. The doctors named as defendants had argued that because the child was not yet viable, they were not liable for damages.

The unanimous majority opinion, which Parker also wrote, said the woman, Amy Hamilton, is entitled to pursue a claim over wrongful death, so the case must be returned to the lower court for “proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Staver said, “Recovery for wrongful death of an unborn child does not depend on an arbitrary line of viability, because that line is based solely on existing medical technology. From the moment of conception and at all stages of development in the womb, the unborn child is a human being.”

According to Liberty Counsel’s report, “Parker wrote that Roe is out of step with every other area of law in which many state legislatures and courts have recognized the rights of the unborn child in wills and estates, tort or criminal law, and more.”

Parker noted his court previously had ruled that it was “unfair and arbitrary … to draw a line that allows recovery on behalf of a fetus injured before viability that dies after achieving viability to that prevents recovery on behalf of a fetus injured that, as a result of those injuries, does not survive to viability.”

Parker explained he wrote the special concurrence to the unanimous ruling because the Roe decision doesn’t apply in such cases.

“Because Roe is not controlling authority beyond abortion law, and because its viability standard is not persuasive, I conclude that, at least with regard to the law for wrongful death, Roe’s viability standard should be universally abandoned.”

Staver said the ruling does not directly impact abortion law, because American jurisprudence has put those laws in a special category. But he noted that the decision clearly reveals how out of step abortion precedents are with the medical and legal realities.

“Roe v. Wade is an aberration of the law,” he said. “This decision is more mounting evidence of how out of step it is.”

Parker explained that various courts have concluded that Roe holds that states have no interest in protecting the life of an unborn child.

“Roe does not support that conclusion,” he wrote. “The states are forbidden to protect unborn children only in ways that conflict with a woman’s ‘right.’ Roe held that a pregnant woman’s ‘right of privacy … is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.’ No one, however, other than a woman seeking to ‘terminate her pregnancy,’ possesses the ‘right’ created in Roe.”

He wrote, “Roe does not prohibit states from protecting unborn human lives. To the contrary, the Supreme Court acknowledged that ‘the state has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy’ in protecting the unborn child.

“Unless a state’s law conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to an abortion, the state law does not conflict with Roe,” he said.

The “personhood” campaign that has been developing around the nation calls for states to adopt constitutional amendments describing the unborn from the moment of conception as “persons.”

It is aimed at a loophole in the original Roe decision, in which the Supreme Court noted that if the “personhood” of the unborn was established, arguments for abortion would fall apart as the unborn then would be availed the full protections of the Constitution.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/state-supreme-court-says-roe-should-be-overruled/

 

Judge Parker’s ruling:

is sure to increase Nazi Germany-type propaganda:

“. . . a new book released this month by WND Books and best-selling author Ray Comfort, “Hitler, God, and the Bible”, shows American society under an equally deadly cloud of delusion created by activists and lawmakers who contend life in the womb is not human, just as Hitler and his minister of propaganda, Josef Goebbels, declared Jews not human.”​

Author: America duped by Hitler-style propaganda
Ray Comfort's new book presents striking evidence of WWII parallels
Published: 15 hours ago

http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/author-america-duped-by-hitler-style-propaganda/

If you watch the video it is not too difficult to imagine Hussein as Hitler with all of pals playing the top Nazis. See if you can spot the one significant difference between Nazi Germany and now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dMY9SYMQH8k

 

Hitler and the Nazis are regarded as creatures of the extreme right everywhere but by the American extreme right. I wonder why that might be?

 

To Colonel K: Wonder no more. It all started in the late 1930s and WWII. The successful propaganda campaign engineered by American Communists at that time said “Fascism was bad so communism must be good.” By the time 1950 rolled around anybody speaking out against communism was not only labeled a fascist but a far-right radical as well.

On a less philosophical level Hitler became the ultimate villain while Stalin and Mao murdered many more millions than did Hitler, yet Socialists to this day see Communist butchers as admirable human beings if not outright heros. Perhaps you can tell me why that is?

Incidentally, your question is predicated on a false premise. Far too many Americans now realize that communism and fascism are two sides of the same totalitarian coin. Note the titles:

1. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).

2. National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi).

Both of those totalitarian governments are gone, but only fascism is vilified. Communism continues to enslave and murder in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and elsewhere.

 

Good for you. But you had read my posts you would not find any suggestion on my part that Reagan was responsible for the Truth uncovered by Professor Sutton.

 

To Mr_Truth: Then why did you connect RR to the Russian Revolution? Why did you not just talk about the Russian Revolution if that is your great truth?

 

Rick Santorum saying what needs to be said about Dutch butchers is to his credit. His critique of the Netherlands almost makes me forget he is a former US Senator.

For years I’ve been saying “The Nazi occupation was the last good thing to happen in Holland.” Here’s more proof:

February 21, 2012
Santorum on Target about Netherlands' Euthanasia Laws
J. Robert Smith

The Dutch are calling Rick Santorum a "crazy extreme Catholic" for his views on the Netherland's euthanasia laws. The Dutch are outraged over claims Santorum made to the Reverend James Dobson (Focus on the Family) about the practice of euthanasia in the Netherlands.

If you're not familiar with Dutch euthanasia and assisted-suicide laws, it pays to be. That such laws exist at all are tragic; that they're so loosely defined is chilling. That Dutch laws could come to America is more than downright frightening.

Along with abortion, the Dutch are in the vanguard of the West becoming completely opted-in to the "Culture of Death."

A group called the "Patients Rights Council" in Ohio summarizes the Dutch laws. In reviewing that summary, consider these points:

The law "requires" physicians to conduct euthanasia with "due care." The law redefines euthanasia and assisted-suicide from crimes to "medical treatments."

Incompetent patients can be euthanized having previously provided a written statement. The written statement need not be made in conjunction with any particular medical condition. It could be a written statement made years before, based upon views that may have changed. The physician could administer euthanasia based on the prior written statement. [Italics added.]

Teenagers (16-18 ) may request euthanasia. Parents or guardians need to be involved in the "decision process," but their approval isn't required.

Children 12-16 may request euthanasia or assisted suicide. In this instance, parents or guardians must concur.

A person may qualify for euthanasia or assisted suicide if the doctor "holds the conviction that the patient's suffering is lasting and unbearable." [Chapter II, Article 2, 1b] There is no requirement that the suffering be physical or that the patient be terminally ill. [Italics added.]​

Being good statists, the Dutch have councils that are involved in snuffing out human life. Accordingly, the Dutch rely on "experts" to help determine what the "prerequisites" are "for a meaningful life."

So, the Dutch have doctors who are legally empowered to kill. They have "experts" guiding decisions on what constitutes a meaningful life. They're allowing kids the power to decide their own fates with "no requirement that the suffering be physical or that the patient be terminally ill." And if a kid reaches sixteen, he can opt to say the forever "Doe-doei" (bye-bye) without caring about his parents' opinions.

As to Santorum's claim that some Dutch elderly are scared of being euthanized against their wishes, here's a story from London's The Telegraph that corroborates his assertion ("Fearful elderly people carry 'anti-euthanasia cards'")

And from the London Mail in 2009, this headline: "Now the Dutch turn against legalised mercy killing." Report the London Mail:

Even the architect of the controversial law [Dr Els Borst] has admitted she may have made a mistake in pushing it through because of its impact on services for the elderly.​

Like proper medications and sustaining old peoples' lives according to their wishes. The report goes on to describe pro-euthanasia forces picketing hospices in the Netherlands. Seems that hospices interfere with peoples' right to be killed or kill themselves.

So is Rick Santorum a "crazy extreme Catholic" for his views? Or are the Dutch "crazy extreme" for fully embracing the West's rising death culture?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...target_about_netherlands_euthanasia_laws.html

 

Senator Ron Johnson’s heart is in the right place, but he forgot he was questioning the Administration’s head butcher, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, about costs. She cares not a whit about the costs so long as she and her kind are not hindered in slaughtering the weak and defenseless. Johnson should have asked her about the projected number of deaths caused by tax dollar funded abortions, death panels, and euthanasia? I’ll wager that Sebelius knows those numbers as well as she knows her own name. People like her count deaths the same way a miser counts his money.

The ObamaCare death spiral continues
No one in the Administration has a clue what’s happening.
by John Hayward
03/08/2012

Last week, after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claimed the private insurance market was in a “death spiral” long before ObamaCare came along, I pointed out that ObamaCare itself is the paramount modern example of a high-speed death spiral. Whatever one might say about the structural deficiencies of private health insurance – which are, in no small part, due to government interference – it’s taken decades for them to reach their current state. ObamaCare, by contrast, began falling apart the minute it passed. Literally billions of dollars have been dropping from its leprous bulk with every passing month.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) of the Senate Budget Committee had the same idea, and decided to question Our Lady of the Death Spiral about it when she appeared before the Appropriations subcommittee on Wednesday, leading to the following hilarious and terrifying exchange:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThj-IqYG9o&feature=player_embedded"]Johnson Questions Sebelius Regarding Obamacare Cost Estimates - YouTube[/ame]

In the course of a few minutes, Sebelius – who will become one of the most powerful officials on Earth, once ObamaCare is fully up and running - concedes that ObamaCare’s funding mechanisms are collapsing, its costs are ballooning out of control, and it has driven the cost of insurance for American families up instead of reducing them, and she has absolutely no idea what it’s going to do to the federal budget deficit.

Give Obama four more years, and his team will do even more wonderful things that nobody understands, at a cost no one can calculate!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50081

 

Flanders, you forgot Ariel Sharon among your list of "Butchers"...

 

Flanders this is the history section not fantasy fiction.