Amidst the keening, tear-shedding and predictably fawning obituaries now smothering the nation because of the demise of Edward Kennedy, many are echoing Chilon of Sparta’s admonition: “[O]f the dead [say] nothing but good.”
Why?
There is virtually nothing good to say about Edward Kennedy.
He was a legacy admission to Harvard, and there a cheater and suborner of cheating.
He was a drunk, drugee, womanizer, adulterer, coward, fixer, and the beneficiary of fixes—and an enabler of others like himself.
He was guilty of at least manslaughter, although legal maneuvering by his lawyers and a complicit local judge allowed Kennedy to plead guilty to a watered-down lesser offense.
He was not learned, a muddled thinker, and had the chutzpa to believe he was qualified to be President of the United States.
He committed a federal crime (for which he was never charged), by making an overture to the Soviet Union’s Andropov aimed at undercutting President Reagan’s foreign and military policy.
He was also the embodiment of the Twentieth Century liberal, in that . . . .
He was politically vicious, and a hypocrite.
He was a prime mover in liberalized immigration policies, many of which plague our nation today, eliminating the “national-origin” quotas and opening the doors to huge third-world invasions.
He had a hand in Title IX (“disparate” educational funding based on gender), the Americans With Disabilities Act (another boon for trial lawyers), the No Child Left Behind Act (further intruding the federal government into state affairs), and the attempt to legalize countless illegal aliens (which, for the moment, has failed).
He pushed for government-dispensed medical care, eschewing truly free market solutions.
He worked constantly to enlarge the powers of the federal government and reduce those of the states, and to diminish the individual rights of American citizens.
He did all he could to reduce the constitutional role of the president, and to enhance congressional usurpation of the commander-in-chief’s war-fighting responsibilities.
He supported justices for the Supreme Court of the United States who would read into constitutional interpretation their, and his, notions of a “just” society, creating “rights” dictated by their liberal values without regard for text or precedent.
He insulted and condemned a good man who would have made a great Supreme Court justice, Robert Bork, with these words: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit in segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of million of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are at the heart of our democracy.”
These scandalous, vituperative, unjustified words--hard-core liberal defamation-- are what should be remembered about Ted Kennedy.
They are his proper epitaph.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Yesterday The Imbeciles. Today The Elderly. Tomorrow The Unborn?
A couple days ago in my blog entitled “Adolf Hitler, the Buck Sisters, and The Four Horsemen” (http://henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/adolf-hitler-buck-sisters-and-four.html), I wrote of the Nazis’ use of eugenics to rid the Third Reich of “undesirables,” and of how American eugenics proponents achieved a Supreme Court victory approving the practice in the United States. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
I also made the point that under proposed Obamacare, rationing of medical services would “necessarily hasten the death of the elderly,” and that “[o]ne need not be Dr. Kildare to understand that when this . . . happens to medical care, more seniors die—younger, faster and in much more distress. Indeed, Obama himself suggested that his 86-year-old grandmother, instead of having a hip replacement, perhaps should have had only a few Vicodin tablets to ease her pain.”
I wrote that “[t]he Democrats can now play all the word games they wish, trying to bury in lies and euphemisms the nature of what they want to do, but it’s too late. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has stated categorically in his health care book that ‘[s]eniors should sacrifice advancements in care so that resources can be spent on the young’.”
So much for the elderly, who are to be “sacrificed” to the needs of the young.
But what about the unborn, who also require the expenditure of substantial government resources, medical and otherwise? Are some of the unborn also to be “sacrificed” on the altar of Obamacare’s “resource allocation” for the sake of others?
Why not?
For decades the unborn have been sacrificed for the sake of others—mothers, fathers, boyfriends, careerists, adulterers, philanderers-- with millions of abortions fig-leafed by euphemisms such as “birth control” and “planned parenthood.”
But, but, but . . . you say, abortions are voluntary. Pregnant women aren’t forced to have abortions. Roe v. Wade “constitutionalized” choice, not compulsion. The government could never require a woman to abort, for the sake of the young, or for “society” (i.e., lots of other people), or for any other reason.
No?
Let’s see.
In the wake of Roe v. Wade, the states had to revise not only their abortion laws (those that survived the Court’s indefensible decision), but also related laws affected by that decision (e.g., criminal statutes).
Connecticut Welfare Department regulations paid for childbirth expenses. But they limited state Medicaid benefits for first trimester abortions to those “medically necessary.”
In 1977, in the case of Maher v. Roe [a pseudonym] the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide “whether the Constitution requires a . . . State to pay for . . . [non-medically necessary] abortions when [meaning “since”] it pays for childbirth.” In other words, did Connecticut have a constitutional, Tenth Amendment, right to a Medicaid funding policy which treated birth and abortion differently?
Before answering that question, the Court felt obliged to point out what Roe v. Wade had not held: “Roe did not declare an unqualified ‘constitutional right to an abortion. It implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds’.” (Emphasis supplied.)
According to the 6-3 majority, “The State unquestionably has a strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth . . . an interest honored over the centuries.” (Emphasis supplied.)
If, according to the Supreme Court, a state has the constitutional power in the allocation of public funds, to favor childbirth over abortion—supposedly a rock-solid constitutional right rooted in the “right of privacy”—that same state necessarily possesses the constitutional power to favor, meaning to “prefer,” abortion over childbirth.
The government preferring abortion over childbirth? An outrageous idea, no?
Hardly.
The liberals, progressives, feminists, democrats, and their ilk currently running our government have always preferred abortion over childbirth. Indeed, they are zealous in the extreme about it. And once the Obama Administration regains its footing after the health care fight, we will see further examples of their preference for abortion over childbirth, followed by government funds being dispensed, or withheld, to implement that preference.
But could that “preference” be translated into compulsory abortion of the unborn, perhaps of “abnormal” fetuses, torn from mothers who cherish their babies and want to carry them to term?
Preposterous?
Maybe not.
I return to the Supreme Court, which in Buck v. Bell (http://henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/adolf-hitler-buck-sisters-and-four.html) upheld compulsory sterilization of “imbeciles” and other actual, and alleged, retarded Americans.
As noted, in the Maher case, the Supreme Court majority said that “[t]he State unquestionably has a strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth . . . an interest honored over the centuries.” (Emphasis supplied.)
After the last word in that sentence, “centuries,” there appears a footnote, as astonishing as it is ominous, written by Associate Justice Lewis Powell: “In addition to the direct interest in protecting the fetus, a State may have legitimate demographic concerns about its rate of population growth. Such concerns are basic to the future of the State and in some circumstances could constitute a substantial reason for departure from a position of neutrality between abortion and childbirth.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Does anyone need a translation? If there are too many people—the elderly, for example?—for whatever reasons, the state could “favor” abortion. Just the way Virginia and many other states “favored” compulsory sterilization, a population control technique approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
It gets worse.
As noted in the footnote below, the majority which subscribed to this horrendous proposition consisted of Powell, Burger, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, and Stevens: two “conservatives,” three “moderates,” and a liberal. The Court’s other three liberals were in dissent: Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun (the infamous author of Roe v. Wade).
Do the math.
All six conservatives, moderates and liberals mused about a contemporary solution to “demographic concerns about [government’s] rate of population growth” by favoring abortion—the way the Court, 8-1, had approved various states favoring compulsory sterilization.
But not one of the three liberal dissenters raised even a syllable in denunciation of dumping the unborn in the name of some sort of a public good. On that point, the Supreme Court of the United States—conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike—was of one mind.
Once, compulsory sterilization of Americans was thought to be impossible—until it happened.
Once, rationing medical care for our senior citizens was considered unthinkable—but now it is discussed, even advocated, openly.
Once, even after Roe v. Wade sanctioned abortion-on-demand, coerced abortion was believed to be inconceivable—yet some thirty years ago it was not denounced by a single justice of the Supreme Court.
So, we must wonder: Tomorrow the unborn?
________________
* Powell, Burger, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, Stevens vs. Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
I also made the point that under proposed Obamacare, rationing of medical services would “necessarily hasten the death of the elderly,” and that “[o]ne need not be Dr. Kildare to understand that when this . . . happens to medical care, more seniors die—younger, faster and in much more distress. Indeed, Obama himself suggested that his 86-year-old grandmother, instead of having a hip replacement, perhaps should have had only a few Vicodin tablets to ease her pain.”
I wrote that “[t]he Democrats can now play all the word games they wish, trying to bury in lies and euphemisms the nature of what they want to do, but it’s too late. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has stated categorically in his health care book that ‘[s]eniors should sacrifice advancements in care so that resources can be spent on the young’.”
So much for the elderly, who are to be “sacrificed” to the needs of the young.
But what about the unborn, who also require the expenditure of substantial government resources, medical and otherwise? Are some of the unborn also to be “sacrificed” on the altar of Obamacare’s “resource allocation” for the sake of others?
Why not?
For decades the unborn have been sacrificed for the sake of others—mothers, fathers, boyfriends, careerists, adulterers, philanderers-- with millions of abortions fig-leafed by euphemisms such as “birth control” and “planned parenthood.”
But, but, but . . . you say, abortions are voluntary. Pregnant women aren’t forced to have abortions. Roe v. Wade “constitutionalized” choice, not compulsion. The government could never require a woman to abort, for the sake of the young, or for “society” (i.e., lots of other people), or for any other reason.
No?
Let’s see.
In the wake of Roe v. Wade, the states had to revise not only their abortion laws (those that survived the Court’s indefensible decision), but also related laws affected by that decision (e.g., criminal statutes).
Connecticut Welfare Department regulations paid for childbirth expenses. But they limited state Medicaid benefits for first trimester abortions to those “medically necessary.”
In 1977, in the case of Maher v. Roe [a pseudonym] the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide “whether the Constitution requires a . . . State to pay for . . . [non-medically necessary] abortions when [meaning “since”] it pays for childbirth.” In other words, did Connecticut have a constitutional, Tenth Amendment, right to a Medicaid funding policy which treated birth and abortion differently?
Before answering that question, the Court felt obliged to point out what Roe v. Wade had not held: “Roe did not declare an unqualified ‘constitutional right to an abortion. It implies no limitation on the authority of a State to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion, and to implement that judgment by the allocation of public funds’.” (Emphasis supplied.)
According to the 6-3 majority, “The State unquestionably has a strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth . . . an interest honored over the centuries.” (Emphasis supplied.)
If, according to the Supreme Court, a state has the constitutional power in the allocation of public funds, to favor childbirth over abortion—supposedly a rock-solid constitutional right rooted in the “right of privacy”—that same state necessarily possesses the constitutional power to favor, meaning to “prefer,” abortion over childbirth.
The government preferring abortion over childbirth? An outrageous idea, no?
Hardly.
The liberals, progressives, feminists, democrats, and their ilk currently running our government have always preferred abortion over childbirth. Indeed, they are zealous in the extreme about it. And once the Obama Administration regains its footing after the health care fight, we will see further examples of their preference for abortion over childbirth, followed by government funds being dispensed, or withheld, to implement that preference.
But could that “preference” be translated into compulsory abortion of the unborn, perhaps of “abnormal” fetuses, torn from mothers who cherish their babies and want to carry them to term?
Preposterous?
Maybe not.
I return to the Supreme Court, which in Buck v. Bell (http://henrymarkholzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/adolf-hitler-buck-sisters-and-four.html) upheld compulsory sterilization of “imbeciles” and other actual, and alleged, retarded Americans.
As noted, in the Maher case, the Supreme Court majority said that “[t]he State unquestionably has a strong and legitimate interest in encouraging normal childbirth . . . an interest honored over the centuries.” (Emphasis supplied.)
After the last word in that sentence, “centuries,” there appears a footnote, as astonishing as it is ominous, written by Associate Justice Lewis Powell: “In addition to the direct interest in protecting the fetus, a State may have legitimate demographic concerns about its rate of population growth. Such concerns are basic to the future of the State and in some circumstances could constitute a substantial reason for departure from a position of neutrality between abortion and childbirth.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Does anyone need a translation? If there are too many people—the elderly, for example?—for whatever reasons, the state could “favor” abortion. Just the way Virginia and many other states “favored” compulsory sterilization, a population control technique approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
It gets worse.
As noted in the footnote below, the majority which subscribed to this horrendous proposition consisted of Powell, Burger, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, and Stevens: two “conservatives,” three “moderates,” and a liberal. The Court’s other three liberals were in dissent: Brennan, Marshall and Blackmun (the infamous author of Roe v. Wade).
Do the math.
All six conservatives, moderates and liberals mused about a contemporary solution to “demographic concerns about [government’s] rate of population growth” by favoring abortion—the way the Court, 8-1, had approved various states favoring compulsory sterilization.
But not one of the three liberal dissenters raised even a syllable in denunciation of dumping the unborn in the name of some sort of a public good. On that point, the Supreme Court of the United States—conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike—was of one mind.
Once, compulsory sterilization of Americans was thought to be impossible—until it happened.
Once, rationing medical care for our senior citizens was considered unthinkable—but now it is discussed, even advocated, openly.
Once, even after Roe v. Wade sanctioned abortion-on-demand, coerced abortion was believed to be inconceivable—yet some thirty years ago it was not denounced by a single justice of the Supreme Court.
So, we must wonder: Tomorrow the unborn?
________________
* Powell, Burger, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, Stevens vs. Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
How Robert Novak Helped Save "The Littlest Defector"
I wrote the following essay about a year ago, when the late Bob Novak was diagnosed with cancer. It bears repeating, now that Mr. Novak has passed away.
*************************
Robert Novak has brain cancer. His survival is uncertain. Whenever he passes, his obituaries will doubtless be full of anecdotes about his decades-long powerful, fearless presence at the seat of our national government.
It’s unlikely, however, that once Bob is laid to rest the public would ever learn how he was instrumental in saving a then 14-year-old boy—dubbed by George Will ‘The littlest defector”—from the communist dictatorship he had fled. That’s why I’m telling this story now.
On August 21, 1981, based on a government document I had obtained, I wrote the following letter to William French Smith, President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General of the United States:
Dear Mr. Smith:
Julian E. Kulas (who joins in this letter) and I represent Walter Polovchak, the 14-year-old Ukrainian defector whose plight has received so much attention recently in the international press.
As you know, on July 19, 1980, based on the strong recommendation of then Undersecretary of State Warren Christopher, the United States of America granted Walter Polovchak religious asylum. Until recently, it has been our understanding that Mr. Polovchak’s asylum (indeed, all asylum) was unconditional and irrevocable so long as his behavior was lawful. Until recently, we believed that Walter Polovchak had found a safe haven in America. Apparently, we were mistaken.
We have just learned that in order to “settle” the American Civil Liberty Union’s baseless Chicago federal court case on behalf of Mr. Polovchak’s parents, counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Attorney in Chicago (both subordinates of yours) have made a deal with the ACLU which will have the practical effect of giving the ACLU what it could not accomplish in court: a de facto nullification of Walter Polovchak’s asylum. This nullification will result from the assurance, given by the government to the ACLU, that the United States will not “initiate any independent action” to prevent or otherwise “interfere” with Mr. Polovchak’s parents’ “right” forcibly to remove him to the Soviet Union—if the State of Illinois grants them custody of him.
Assuming, arguendo, the validity of such a custody determination, it is our contention that, nevertheless, the principle of Federalism and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America make Walter Polovchak’s federally granted religious asylum an absolute bar to his parents removing him from the United States. We contend that even if they receive custody from Illinois, that custody cannot be exercised in a manner inimical to the federal government’s earlier asylum determination that Walter Polovchak may remain in the United States. If Federalism, the Supremacy Clause and asylum mean anything, they mean that.
In addition to Mr. Polovchak’s obviously substantial interest in remaining free in America—rather than becoming a captive in the Soviet Union, and almost certainly being punished for his well-publicized defection—our nation also has an important stake in his fate. If the federal government reneges on the asylum it granted to Walter Polovchak thirteen months ago, the United States will be sending an unmistakable message around the globe: America’s promise of safe haven cannot be trusted; our grant of asylum, rather than being unconditional, irrevocable, inviolate, is instead ephemeral, temporary, suspect.
Although reasonable people could perhaps disagree about whether a minor should be able to seek or be granted asylum, that is not our case. Walter Polovchak has been granted asylum, and because of that the world is watching closely, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Kulas and I implore you to reaffirm what America stands for by repudiating the INS/U.S. Attorney deal with the ACLU, and instead using every appropriate resource at your command to secure the asylum commitment which the United States has already made to Walter Polovchak.
In order to make our position as widely known as possible, and to enlist support for it, copies of this letter are being sent to interested parties.
Sincerely,
/s/ HENRY MARK HOLZER
When Attorney General Smith ignored this letter, and Walter’s freedom swayed precariously in the balance, I sent a copy to Bob Novak.
Although Bob had not before written about the Polovchak case, on August 26, 1981 he wrote a syndicated column entitled “William [French] Smith’s Runaway Justice Department.” It excoriated Smith’s Department of Justice and its toleration of, if not participation in, the scurrilously obscene bargain his Chicago subordinates had made with the ACLU. Novak wrote that: “The incongruity of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department withdrawing the asylum granted a teen-age Ukrainian boy a year ago by the Carter administration comes as no surprise to a White House benumbed by the peculiar regime of Attorney General William French Smith.”
As soon as I learned of the column, I called Bob Novak, to whom I had never spoken before.
My notes of our conversation on the morning of August 24, 1981 reveal that Novak was told by “a certain party,” whom he implied was Ed Meese at the White House, that something would be done by the Department of Justice to unscramble the Chicago conspirators’ omelet and throw the weight of the federal government on Walter’s side of the scales. The prime mover was to be Deputy Attorney General Edward C. Schmults, then on vacation in Connecticut. But there was strong resistance at DOJ.
Bob and I spoke again at 5:15 that afternoon. He informed me that though his contact at DOJ was evasive, “if it all comes together they’ll have an announcement tomorrow.”
And that’s what happened.
The DOJ spokesman told a press conference that there had never been a government deal with the ACLU—but if there had, it had been squashed. He pledged that from then on the United States Department of Justice would defend Walter’s asylum. Indeed, soon after, through the efforts of DOJ attorney Bruce Fein, the government issued a “departure control order” which prevented Walter from being forcibly removed from the United States.
Years of pro bono litigation followed. Julian Kulas, Erika Holzer and I fought seven different lawsuits: trials and appeals, state and federal. We won some, and lost others.
The cases and the years ground on, and on October 8, 1985 Walter Polovchak reached the age of 18 years. Under Illinois law he had become emancipated, free of the state and federal courts—and of his parents and their ACLU and KGB allies.
On that day, the Liberty Institute held a “Birthday Party of Freedom” for Walter Polovchak on Capitol Hill in a huge Senate chamber. On that day, in that place, after years, and fear ,and fighting, “The littlest defector” took the oath of citizenship and became an American.
During his long and distinguished career as one of America’s foremost print journalists, Robert Novak has written thousands of articles and millions of words. He has been on the right side and the wrong side—and often on no side at all. In the case of Walter Polovchak, Bob lent his considerable clout to the service of a young Ukrainian boy who wanted nothing more than to be free. Of our few journalist allies in those dark days of 1980-1981—among them George Will, Roger Simon and Alan Dershowitz—Robert Novak, the so-called “Prince of Darkness” immeasurably helped three lawyers bring “The littlest defector” into the bright light of a new life.
Julian E. Kulas, Erika Holzer and I wish him well.
*****************************
R.I.P., Bob.
*************************
Robert Novak has brain cancer. His survival is uncertain. Whenever he passes, his obituaries will doubtless be full of anecdotes about his decades-long powerful, fearless presence at the seat of our national government.
It’s unlikely, however, that once Bob is laid to rest the public would ever learn how he was instrumental in saving a then 14-year-old boy—dubbed by George Will ‘The littlest defector”—from the communist dictatorship he had fled. That’s why I’m telling this story now.
On August 21, 1981, based on a government document I had obtained, I wrote the following letter to William French Smith, President Ronald Reagan’s Attorney General of the United States:
Dear Mr. Smith:
Julian E. Kulas (who joins in this letter) and I represent Walter Polovchak, the 14-year-old Ukrainian defector whose plight has received so much attention recently in the international press.
As you know, on July 19, 1980, based on the strong recommendation of then Undersecretary of State Warren Christopher, the United States of America granted Walter Polovchak religious asylum. Until recently, it has been our understanding that Mr. Polovchak’s asylum (indeed, all asylum) was unconditional and irrevocable so long as his behavior was lawful. Until recently, we believed that Walter Polovchak had found a safe haven in America. Apparently, we were mistaken.
We have just learned that in order to “settle” the American Civil Liberty Union’s baseless Chicago federal court case on behalf of Mr. Polovchak’s parents, counsel to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the United States Attorney in Chicago (both subordinates of yours) have made a deal with the ACLU which will have the practical effect of giving the ACLU what it could not accomplish in court: a de facto nullification of Walter Polovchak’s asylum. This nullification will result from the assurance, given by the government to the ACLU, that the United States will not “initiate any independent action” to prevent or otherwise “interfere” with Mr. Polovchak’s parents’ “right” forcibly to remove him to the Soviet Union—if the State of Illinois grants them custody of him.
Assuming, arguendo, the validity of such a custody determination, it is our contention that, nevertheless, the principle of Federalism and the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America make Walter Polovchak’s federally granted religious asylum an absolute bar to his parents removing him from the United States. We contend that even if they receive custody from Illinois, that custody cannot be exercised in a manner inimical to the federal government’s earlier asylum determination that Walter Polovchak may remain in the United States. If Federalism, the Supremacy Clause and asylum mean anything, they mean that.
In addition to Mr. Polovchak’s obviously substantial interest in remaining free in America—rather than becoming a captive in the Soviet Union, and almost certainly being punished for his well-publicized defection—our nation also has an important stake in his fate. If the federal government reneges on the asylum it granted to Walter Polovchak thirteen months ago, the United States will be sending an unmistakable message around the globe: America’s promise of safe haven cannot be trusted; our grant of asylum, rather than being unconditional, irrevocable, inviolate, is instead ephemeral, temporary, suspect.
Although reasonable people could perhaps disagree about whether a minor should be able to seek or be granted asylum, that is not our case. Walter Polovchak has been granted asylum, and because of that the world is watching closely, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Kulas and I implore you to reaffirm what America stands for by repudiating the INS/U.S. Attorney deal with the ACLU, and instead using every appropriate resource at your command to secure the asylum commitment which the United States has already made to Walter Polovchak.
In order to make our position as widely known as possible, and to enlist support for it, copies of this letter are being sent to interested parties.
Sincerely,
/s/ HENRY MARK HOLZER
When Attorney General Smith ignored this letter, and Walter’s freedom swayed precariously in the balance, I sent a copy to Bob Novak.
Although Bob had not before written about the Polovchak case, on August 26, 1981 he wrote a syndicated column entitled “William [French] Smith’s Runaway Justice Department.” It excoriated Smith’s Department of Justice and its toleration of, if not participation in, the scurrilously obscene bargain his Chicago subordinates had made with the ACLU. Novak wrote that: “The incongruity of Ronald Reagan's Justice Department withdrawing the asylum granted a teen-age Ukrainian boy a year ago by the Carter administration comes as no surprise to a White House benumbed by the peculiar regime of Attorney General William French Smith.”
As soon as I learned of the column, I called Bob Novak, to whom I had never spoken before.
My notes of our conversation on the morning of August 24, 1981 reveal that Novak was told by “a certain party,” whom he implied was Ed Meese at the White House, that something would be done by the Department of Justice to unscramble the Chicago conspirators’ omelet and throw the weight of the federal government on Walter’s side of the scales. The prime mover was to be Deputy Attorney General Edward C. Schmults, then on vacation in Connecticut. But there was strong resistance at DOJ.
Bob and I spoke again at 5:15 that afternoon. He informed me that though his contact at DOJ was evasive, “if it all comes together they’ll have an announcement tomorrow.”
And that’s what happened.
The DOJ spokesman told a press conference that there had never been a government deal with the ACLU—but if there had, it had been squashed. He pledged that from then on the United States Department of Justice would defend Walter’s asylum. Indeed, soon after, through the efforts of DOJ attorney Bruce Fein, the government issued a “departure control order” which prevented Walter from being forcibly removed from the United States.
Years of pro bono litigation followed. Julian Kulas, Erika Holzer and I fought seven different lawsuits: trials and appeals, state and federal. We won some, and lost others.
The cases and the years ground on, and on October 8, 1985 Walter Polovchak reached the age of 18 years. Under Illinois law he had become emancipated, free of the state and federal courts—and of his parents and their ACLU and KGB allies.
On that day, the Liberty Institute held a “Birthday Party of Freedom” for Walter Polovchak on Capitol Hill in a huge Senate chamber. On that day, in that place, after years, and fear ,and fighting, “The littlest defector” took the oath of citizenship and became an American.
During his long and distinguished career as one of America’s foremost print journalists, Robert Novak has written thousands of articles and millions of words. He has been on the right side and the wrong side—and often on no side at all. In the case of Walter Polovchak, Bob lent his considerable clout to the service of a young Ukrainian boy who wanted nothing more than to be free. Of our few journalist allies in those dark days of 1980-1981—among them George Will, Roger Simon and Alan Dershowitz—Robert Novak, the so-called “Prince of Darkness” immeasurably helped three lawyers bring “The littlest defector” into the bright light of a new life.
Julian E. Kulas, Erika Holzer and I wish him well.
*****************************
R.I.P., Bob.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Adolf Hitler, the Buck Sisters, and The Four Horsemen
Most dictionaries define “eugenics” as “the proposed improvement of the human species by encouraging or permitting reproduction of only those people with genetic characteristics judged [by the state] desirable.” It has been regarded with disfavor since the Nazi period.” (Encarta Dictionary.)
According to Wikipedia, this is a Nazi propaganda poster for the regime’s compulsory euthanasia program. The translation is: “This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too.”
This poster prominently features the flags of other countries. Wikipedia describes it as a “Nazi poster from 1936 with flags of other countries with, or considering introducing, compulsory sterilization legislation. The translation is: “We do not stand alone." (Emphasis supplied.)
The lengthy article in which these posters appear relates the now infamous story about the Third Reich’s eugenics program. A portion of that article appears below (in courier font):
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a “pure” German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of racial hygiene. Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically unfit, an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted one American eugenics advocate to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that “the Germans are beating us at our own game.” The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "euthanasia” programs . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The American flag (along with those of other western nations such as England, Switzerland, and Denmark) on a Nazi compulsory-sterilization poster?
An “American eugenics advocate” competing with the Nazis in a race to prove which country could sterilize more of its citizens faster?
Compulsory sterilization?
Nothing like that could happen here. Or could it?
It could.
And it did.
And, as we shall soon see, even worse may happen soon.
Throughout the United States in the first half of the Twentieth Century, some 65,000 American men and women were involuntarily sterilized by various state governments.
Between 1924 and 1972, 8,299 of them were citizens of the State of Virginia.
A Virginia statute (Acts 1924, chap. 394, p. 569) provided that:
Whereas, both the health of the individual patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives . . . and Whereas . . . the Commonwealth has in custodial care . . . many defective persons who if now discharged or paroled would likely become by the propagation of their kind a menace to society . . . and Whereas, human experience has demonstrated that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime; now, therefore . . .
Be it enacted . . . That whenever the [State of Virginia] . . . shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that any inmate of the institution under his care should be sexually sterilized, such superintendent is hereby authorized to perform . . . the operation of sterilization on any such patient confined in such institution afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
Seventeen-year-old Carrie Buck was allegedly “a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State [mental hospital]. She [was] the daughter of a feeble-minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child.” (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927).)
Carrie Buck was ordered sterilized, Virginia having found that she was “the probably potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207. Emphasis supplied.)
Carrie’s sister, Doris, was another victim of state-ordered involuntary sterilization. Doris was told she had undergone an appendectomy. (Years later, a Virginia physician conceded that Doris Buck, who was married, “was not particularly retarded.” )
According to The New York Times:
For years, [Dr. Nelson] said, she and her husband . . . could not understand why she could not bear children. “This is one of the tragedies,” Dr. Nelson said. He said the statistical probability of their having a retarded child was no greater than for the general population.
“I broke down and cried,” [she] told the [newspaper]. “My husband and me wanted children desperate—we were crazy about them. I never knew what they done to me.”
In a legal challenge to the Virginia statute, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it, observing that the law “was not meant to punish but to protect the class of socially inadequate citizens from themselves and to promote the welfare of society by mitigating race degeneracy and raising the average standard of intelligence of the people of the state.” (Buck v. Bell, 130 S.E. 516, 519. Emphasis supplied.)
Eventually, the question of the Virginia law's constitutionality reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court’s 8-1 decision, written by legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes some eighty years ago, are a grim and fearful portend of what may coming in the Democrat Party’s current plans for “health care reform”:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizen for their lives [i.e., the draft]. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes . . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. at 205. Emphasis supplied.)
The Buck sisters (their brother had been sterilized, too) apparently didn’t realize that their “lesser sacrifice” had been made for the "welfare of society . . . and [to] rais[e] the average intelligence of the people of the state.”
The underlying principle in which the Supreme Court's opinion is rooted—represented by reference to “public welfare,” “sacrifices,” “better for all the world” and “society”—is that, in the end, American citizens’ lives belong to the government, be it state or federal—which is to say that our lives belong to whatever majority can be mustered to work its will at any given time about any given issue. After all, involuntary sterilization throughout the United States was made possible by laws enacted by the elected representatives of voters in all those states.
It is a short step conceptually and practically from compulsory sterilization in the name of eugenics, to passive euthanasia in the name of an amorphous public good to be achieved through the Democrat Party’s “health care reform.”
There are at least two provisions of HR 3200, as written, which are worse than anything done by the eugenicists. Those Dr. Frankensteins “only” sterilized the Bucks of this country, but at least let them live. HR 3200, as it can be applied, probably will not.
The increasingly infamous Section 1233, as written, provides for payment to physicians for end-of-life counseling every five years (or sooner if the patient has a terminal diagnosis).
Well, wouldn’t it be cozy sitting down over tea with good old Dr. Kildare and chatting about death?
Not on your life!
Even liberals see the danger.
Charles Lane is an editorial board member of the uber-liberal Washington Post.According to Gateway Pundit:
"As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."
"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.
"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues.
He points out the legislation says the doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" even though those are legal and not medical papers. The physician "shall" present "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."
"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable," Lane writes. "What are "key questions"? Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources?' The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"
Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."
It requires little imagination, or paranoia, to contemplate eugenics-plus-oriented physicians, who believe some elderly can be “too old,” pushing them into eschewing “too expensive” medical care that could prolong their lives. Indeed, it is paradoxical that the usual liberal concern that “consumers” not be overreached by slick salesmen when they buy a used car, has somehow been forgotten when he is forced to listen to an alleged “end-of-life” expert with a financial interest in the outcome of the “counseling.”
“Sign here, Mr. Cronkite, we’ll pull the plug, and the taxpayers will save a bundle.”
But there’s more: rationing that will necessarily hasten the death of the elderly.
It is a fact that for various reasons—e.g., more people becoming insured, whether they’re intentionally uninsured or not—the Democrat’s health plan is going to be stratospherically expensive.
Where is the money going to come from (apart from more deficits, and thus eventual serious inflation)?
Among other places, from reduced Medicare reimbursements to participating physicians and institutions.
That will necessarily result in (1) fewer physicians caring for Medicare patients, (2) less time with those patients they do see, (3) reduced care and treatment for the elderly, and (4) ) likely termination of Medicare Advantage Plans (e.g., AARP)—all resulting in a reduction in the nature, scope, quality and quantity of care for the elderly.
One need not be Dr. Kildare to understand that when this is what happens to medical care, more seniors die—younger, faster and in much more distress. Indeed, Obama himself suggested that his 86-year old grandmother, instead of having a hip replacement, perhaps should have had only a few Vicodin tablets to ease her pain.
The Democrats can now play all the word games they wish, trying to bury in lies and euphemisms the nature of what they want to do, but it’s too late. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has stated categorically in his health care book that “[s]eniors should sacrifice advancements in care so that resources can be spent on the young.”
I call Section 1233 and the Daschle-Reid-Pelosi-Obama approach to elderly medical care what it is: passive euthanasia.
These Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse mean to emulate the policies of Nazi Germany, whose posters reminded the Volk that certain citizens ill through no fault of their own “cost the community” too much money, and that in instituting compulsory sterilization the Nazi’ did “not stand alone.”
Yes, elder medicine in this government-controlled, un-free, anti-competitive marketplace is expensive, and yes there are murderous, socialized triaged medical systems in other western English-speaking countries. But neither of these abomination is a warrant for the United States of America to cannibalistically dispose of its elderly.
If the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have their way, elderly Americans could easily become the Twenty-First Century’s Carrie and Doris Buck—and even end up envying them.
According to Wikipedia, this is a Nazi propaganda poster for the regime’s compulsory euthanasia program. The translation is: “This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too.”
This poster prominently features the flags of other countries. Wikipedia describes it as a “Nazi poster from 1936 with flags of other countries with, or considering introducing, compulsory sterilization legislation. The translation is: “We do not stand alone." (Emphasis supplied.)
The lengthy article in which these posters appear relates the now infamous story about the Third Reich’s eugenics program. A portion of that article appears below (in courier font):
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was infamous for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a “pure” German race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of racial hygiene. Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the experiments carried out by Josef Mengele for Otmar von Verschuer on twins in the concentration camps. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically unfit, an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937. The scale of the Nazi program prompted one American eugenics advocate to seek an expansion of their program, with one complaining that “the Germans are beating us at our own game.” The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory "euthanasia” programs . . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
The American flag (along with those of other western nations such as England, Switzerland, and Denmark) on a Nazi compulsory-sterilization poster?
An “American eugenics advocate” competing with the Nazis in a race to prove which country could sterilize more of its citizens faster?
Compulsory sterilization?
Nothing like that could happen here. Or could it?
It could.
And it did.
And, as we shall soon see, even worse may happen soon.
Throughout the United States in the first half of the Twentieth Century, some 65,000 American men and women were involuntarily sterilized by various state governments.
Between 1924 and 1972, 8,299 of them were citizens of the State of Virginia.
A Virginia statute (Acts 1924, chap. 394, p. 569) provided that:
Whereas, both the health of the individual patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives . . . and Whereas . . . the Commonwealth has in custodial care . . . many defective persons who if now discharged or paroled would likely become by the propagation of their kind a menace to society . . . and Whereas, human experience has demonstrated that heredity plays an important part in the transmission of insanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy and crime; now, therefore . . .
Be it enacted . . . That whenever the [State of Virginia] . . . shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that any inmate of the institution under his care should be sexually sterilized, such superintendent is hereby authorized to perform . . . the operation of sterilization on any such patient confined in such institution afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy. . . . (Emphasis supplied.)
Seventeen-year-old Carrie Buck was allegedly “a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the State [mental hospital]. She [was] the daughter of a feeble-minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child.” (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 205 (1927).)
Carrie Buck was ordered sterilized, Virginia having found that she was “the probably potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization.” (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 207. Emphasis supplied.)
Carrie’s sister, Doris, was another victim of state-ordered involuntary sterilization. Doris was told she had undergone an appendectomy. (Years later, a Virginia physician conceded that Doris Buck, who was married, “was not particularly retarded.” )
According to The New York Times:
For years, [Dr. Nelson] said, she and her husband . . . could not understand why she could not bear children. “This is one of the tragedies,” Dr. Nelson said. He said the statistical probability of their having a retarded child was no greater than for the general population.
“I broke down and cried,” [she] told the [newspaper]. “My husband and me wanted children desperate—we were crazy about them. I never knew what they done to me.”
In a legal challenge to the Virginia statute, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld it, observing that the law “was not meant to punish but to protect the class of socially inadequate citizens from themselves and to promote the welfare of society by mitigating race degeneracy and raising the average standard of intelligence of the people of the state.” (Buck v. Bell, 130 S.E. 516, 519. Emphasis supplied.)
Eventually, the question of the Virginia law's constitutionality reached the United States Supreme Court. The Court’s 8-1 decision, written by legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes some eighty years ago, are a grim and fearful portend of what may coming in the Democrat Party’s current plans for “health care reform”:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizen for their lives [i.e., the draft]. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes . . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough. (Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. at 205. Emphasis supplied.)
The Buck sisters (their brother had been sterilized, too) apparently didn’t realize that their “lesser sacrifice” had been made for the "welfare of society . . . and [to] rais[e] the average intelligence of the people of the state.”
The underlying principle in which the Supreme Court's opinion is rooted—represented by reference to “public welfare,” “sacrifices,” “better for all the world” and “society”—is that, in the end, American citizens’ lives belong to the government, be it state or federal—which is to say that our lives belong to whatever majority can be mustered to work its will at any given time about any given issue. After all, involuntary sterilization throughout the United States was made possible by laws enacted by the elected representatives of voters in all those states.
It is a short step conceptually and practically from compulsory sterilization in the name of eugenics, to passive euthanasia in the name of an amorphous public good to be achieved through the Democrat Party’s “health care reform.”
There are at least two provisions of HR 3200, as written, which are worse than anything done by the eugenicists. Those Dr. Frankensteins “only” sterilized the Bucks of this country, but at least let them live. HR 3200, as it can be applied, probably will not.
The increasingly infamous Section 1233, as written, provides for payment to physicians for end-of-life counseling every five years (or sooner if the patient has a terminal diagnosis).
Well, wouldn’t it be cozy sitting down over tea with good old Dr. Kildare and chatting about death?
Not on your life!
Even liberals see the danger.
Charles Lane is an editorial board member of the uber-liberal Washington Post.According to Gateway Pundit:
"As I read it, Section 1233 is not totally innocuous," Lane writes, adding that it "addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones."
"Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite 'purely voluntary,'" as backers of the bill assert, Lane adds. "To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.' Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.
"Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit 'formulation' of a plug-pulling order right then and there," Lane explains.
"What's more, Section 1233 dictates, at some length, the content of the consultation," Lane continues.
He points out the legislation says the doctor "shall" discuss "advanced care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to"; "an explanation of . . . living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses" even though those are legal and not medical papers. The physician "shall" present "a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families."
"Admittedly, this script is vague and possibly unenforceable," Lane writes. "What are "key questions"? Who belongs on 'a list' of helpful 'resources?' The Roman Catholic Church? Jack Kevorkian?"
Ultimately, the Post editorial writer says "Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party -- the government -- recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations."
It requires little imagination, or paranoia, to contemplate eugenics-plus-oriented physicians, who believe some elderly can be “too old,” pushing them into eschewing “too expensive” medical care that could prolong their lives. Indeed, it is paradoxical that the usual liberal concern that “consumers” not be overreached by slick salesmen when they buy a used car, has somehow been forgotten when he is forced to listen to an alleged “end-of-life” expert with a financial interest in the outcome of the “counseling.”
“Sign here, Mr. Cronkite, we’ll pull the plug, and the taxpayers will save a bundle.”
But there’s more: rationing that will necessarily hasten the death of the elderly.
It is a fact that for various reasons—e.g., more people becoming insured, whether they’re intentionally uninsured or not—the Democrat’s health plan is going to be stratospherically expensive.
Where is the money going to come from (apart from more deficits, and thus eventual serious inflation)?
Among other places, from reduced Medicare reimbursements to participating physicians and institutions.
That will necessarily result in (1) fewer physicians caring for Medicare patients, (2) less time with those patients they do see, (3) reduced care and treatment for the elderly, and (4) ) likely termination of Medicare Advantage Plans (e.g., AARP)—all resulting in a reduction in the nature, scope, quality and quantity of care for the elderly.
One need not be Dr. Kildare to understand that when this is what happens to medical care, more seniors die—younger, faster and in much more distress. Indeed, Obama himself suggested that his 86-year old grandmother, instead of having a hip replacement, perhaps should have had only a few Vicodin tablets to ease her pain.
The Democrats can now play all the word games they wish, trying to bury in lies and euphemisms the nature of what they want to do, but it’s too late. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has stated categorically in his health care book that “[s]eniors should sacrifice advancements in care so that resources can be spent on the young.”
I call Section 1233 and the Daschle-Reid-Pelosi-Obama approach to elderly medical care what it is: passive euthanasia.
These Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse mean to emulate the policies of Nazi Germany, whose posters reminded the Volk that certain citizens ill through no fault of their own “cost the community” too much money, and that in instituting compulsory sterilization the Nazi’ did “not stand alone.”
Yes, elder medicine in this government-controlled, un-free, anti-competitive marketplace is expensive, and yes there are murderous, socialized triaged medical systems in other western English-speaking countries. But neither of these abomination is a warrant for the United States of America to cannibalistically dispose of its elderly.
If the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have their way, elderly Americans could easily become the Twenty-First Century’s Carrie and Doris Buck—and even end up envying them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
