Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2015)
Internet Articles (2014)
Internet Articles (2013)
Internet Articles (2012)

Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books






Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store

20 years

Editor's Note: This article was originally written and posted on Jan. 30, 2002. But, due to the "passing" and premature signing of HR 3200, the American's Affordable Health Choices Act (which is neither affordable nor truly offers choice) on top of the passage of the Death Board buried in HR 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law on Jan. 26, 2009, it is appropriate to bring this article from the mothballs of Articles 2002 into this year's archive since most seniors today, thanks to the sugarcoated advocacy of the AARP believe that seniors are not in jeopardy of being denied healthcare if for no other reason than old age is now considered to be a terminal illness, do not understand the purpose of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Research—the defacto Death Board that has already constructed the guidelines that will deny senior citizens the right to healthcare in the United States. Even before HR 3200 became law, doctors all over the country were receiving new "guidelines" from the FCCCR, the Health Board or, more honestly, Obama's Death Board, advising the medical community who they would and would not be able treat under Medicare. Doctors, who have taken an oath to protect and do no harm, warned elderly patients that should Obamacare be enacted they would no longer be able to treat those patients with life-threatening illnesses. While Obama made a pretense of signing an Executive Order preventing the use of federal funds to pay for abortions, the reality is that the government of the United States is using its political and financial resources to end life at both ends of the age corridor. If you did not read this article in 2002, or stumble across it as you sojourned my website recently, take a few minutes and read it now. Your life may depend on what you know about the rights, as a senior, that you no longer possess.

don’t watch much network television these days. There are few programs worth my attention. On Friday, January 18, 2002 CBS previewed its new drama, First Monday, a series about the US Supreme Court. Produced by the folks who created J.A.G. (one of the few programs I watch on TV) which preceded the new series starring James Garner, I decided to devote a couple of hours to the idiot box.  What I didn’t anticipate was that what would catch my eye and hold my attention over the weekend was not a television program—it was a commercial. More precisely, it was an anti-National Right To Life commercial sponsored by the NARAL Foundation (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League). Between the liberal mainstream networks (i.e., ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN) I expect the ad may have run several times. I saw it on CBS. It was the most frightening advertisement I’ve ever seen in my life. What made it frightening was not what was said but what was very subtlety alluded to with imagery of the elderly.
     I realized when I saw the NARAL commercial the first time that Tuesday, January 22 was Roe v. Wade Day and that the National Right to Life march would take place in Washington, DC with pro-life, family values Americans quietly marching from the White House to the steps of the Capitol Building. But as I watched this commercial message on “choice” I realized the commercial was concerned with much more than abortion “choices.”
     The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League stepped far beyond the abortion rights issue and, using imagery of the elderly well beyond childbearing age, their message raised the specter of “choice” at the other end of the corridor of life: euthanasia.
     The text of the commercial message did not suggest that NARAL had become an advocate of the termination of life at both ends of the age corridor. The female announcer, in a calm, pleasing, almost serene voice said, “I believe there’s a reason we are born with free will. And I have a strong will to decide what’s best for my body, my mind...and my life. I believe in myself. In my intelligence, my integrity, my judgment. And I accept full responsibility for the decisions I make. I believe in my right to choose—without interrogations, without indignities, without violence. I believe that right is being threatened. The greatest of human freedoms is choice. And I believe no one has the right to take that freedom away. What’s life without choice?”
     Based on the timing of the commercials, most of those who saw the spot would likely have consciously thought it was a pro-abortion choice ad. And, consciously, it was. But it was the deliberate subliminal message within it that was frightening because that message was telling the elderly that they also had the right to choice. Subliminally, the NARAL commercials were telling the elderly that if their lifestyle was so substandard that life did not provide sufficient satisfaction to merit its continuation, or if they were chronically (and not necessarily terminally) ill, they should also have the right to end their own lives painlessly, and with dignity in order—one imagines—so that they would not become a burden either on their families or on an already overburdened society that would have to care for them.
     The NARAL message was very clear. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League appears to have assumed the role of “hall monitor” at both ends of the Age Corridor. NARAL has become the advocate of death at both ends of the corridor of life. Throughout the past decade there have been several attempts at State level to enact laws that would theoretically protect the right of the elderly to “die with dignity” when they are faced with degenerative terminal illnesses that will eventually turn them into human vegetables before they die, or when they are faced with painful chronic illnesses that will greatly reduce the “quality” of their lives. Many of those with diminished “quality” are simply confined to wheel chairs; others must carry portable oxygen canisters in order to breathe. Some are bedridden or home-confined for one reason or other.
     Others, after experiencing the loss of lifelong mates, suffer from deep depression and loneliness. Many of them contemplate suicide on a daily basis not because they are suffering physically, but because they cannot mentally cope with the loneliness suffered from the loss of their mate. Each of them have one or two things in common that has triggered the opening phase of what will become a major debate on the merits of “allowing” the elderly to “take charge of their lives” if they want, and to provide them with painless methods (if not actual medical assistance in some cases) to prematurely end their lives.
     The reason?
     The elderly, particularly those who are infirm, have ceased to be “productive” members of society. Instead, they have become “consumptive” members of society, consuming far more than they produce. The utopian “Eden” of the 21st century cannot afford citizens who consume more than they produce. That is going to be the reality experienced shortly by the welfare class not only in the United States but in all of the industrialized nations as the tenets of Karl Marx are woven into the fabric of the free enterprise system to create the political system known as “the third way.”
     Tragically the utopians behind the encroaching world government who are advocating euthanasia as a “personal choice” through grassroots advocacy groups like NARAL and Planned Parenthood which they fund, know that the programs they are attempting to create that would provide the elderly with the “right” to terminate their own lives at the onset of the program are actually designed to ultimately allow government health care officials to decide when society can no loner afford to provide health care for the terminally ill by requiring them to sign living wills as a condition of treatment in all medical facilities in America.
     The first nation in the modern world to offer its elderly a voluntary program of euthanasia was Hitler’s Third Reich. German citizens who were aged, infirm or suffering from painful, debilitating chronic conditions or terminal illnesses that would ultimately result in painful deaths were afforded the right to die “with dignity”—without pain. Most German hospitals included “transitional” wards where the elderly could seek “terminal assistance.” In many instances, sons and daughters were persuaded to allow their aged and sometimes senile parents to be placed in “transitional care” units where they would eventually die. In some cases the children were not aware that they were sentencing their parents to death by allowing them to be “cared for” in those state institutions.
     Slowly, the legalized voluntary program in Germany was expanded to include mandated euthanasia. Anyone with Downs Syndrome or any form of mental illness was removed from the institutions in which they were confined and sent to “advanced treatment centers.” After a brief period, the families of the mentally disabled received form letters from the Reich Minister of Health informing them of the unfortunate death of the family member.
     Germany’s voluntary euthanasia program of the early 1930’s slowly evolved into the Third Reich’s extermination camps of the 1940s. What began as a humanitarian gesture that purported to offer the aged a humane, painless escape from an end of life of horrible, debilitating pain and suffering, slowly evolved into the state-sanctioned execution of several ethnic groups: Jews, gypsies and Slavs as well as the cultural misfits: homosexuals and lesbians. In the beginning, the concentration camps like Dachau, Belsen, Treblinka, Auschwitz and Birkenau were used to house “slackers” who refused to earn a living and chose to be a burden on society. The concentration camps were forced labor camps. Those confined there were, at least in the beginning, sentenced to confinement by a lawful court for a specified period of time—anywhere from six months to one or two years.
     After spending even a month in a concentration camp, those confined had little trouble finding employment—and never felt any job was beneath their dignity. Slowly the slackers were replaced with the aged and those physically or mentally handicapped. Out of the public view, their passing went all but unnoticed.
The Third Reich now controlled life at both ends of the age corridor.
     Between 1934 when Hitler assumed power and legislated the legal right of the aged to “...make their own decisions about their lives...” and 1939 when the Third Reich assumed that right for the State, Hitler’s Germany exterminated over six million people—state-mandated “ethnic euthanasia.” Today that type of euthanasia is called genocide.
     Of course, most people who read this article will quickly dismiss the concept of forced euthanasia as something that could not happen in the world’s greatest democracy—particularly in a society that offers its citizens a constitutional Bill of Rights.
     Shocking as it may seem, the Clinton-Gore Administration actually contemplated initiating a program of forced euthanasia to deal with AIDS. The White House meeting in which the discussion transpired occurred on November 12, 1993.
     According to the White House protocol, attending the November 12 meeting were Bill Clinton, Gene Sperling, Joshua F. Steiner (the Treasury official who, when called upon by Congress to testify against Bill Clinton based on entries in his personal diary, declared under oath that he “lied to his diary”), and presidential advisor David Gergen. The topics under discussion that day was “the Iran Problem,” “the Pollard Case,” the “Federal Banking Project,” “the Information Highway,” “media issues” and “the AIDS Crisis.”
     In reading the segment (below) it is important for the reader to understand that the “plans” discussed by Bill Clinton on November 12, 1003 were uniquely the private contemplations of William Jefferson Clinton and not the other participants of the meeting, nor were they the views of the Congress of the United States. It is chilling to think that any President would discuss, even privately, the idea of creating a series of “AIDS centers” in sparsely populated areas of the country where all citizens with AIDS would be confined until such time they were deemed to be “terminal.” At that time, with the consensus of the center’s physicians, that person’s life would be extinguished. If Clinton’s “plan” had materialized, it would have been only a matter of time before those “terminal decisions” would have been advanced to include other chronically or terminally ill people—or perhaps others who are a “consuming” burden on society. Fortunately for the American people, the Clinton Health Security Act failed to pass, and the imperative to devise a “final solution policy” for AIDS was never formulated by the Clinton Administration. Nevertheless, those gay community which fought hard to elect Clinton in 1992 and to re-elect him in 1996 will never realize how close they came to finding themselves confined to Bill Clinton’s rural Auschwitz “...which [w]ould contain all of the amenities.” I guess that’s why they called him Slick Willy.
     Keep in mind that when the Nazis began practicing their own brand of ethnic profiling by seizing Jews, Poles, gypsies and Catholics and interning them in concentration camps in the mid to late 1930s, the Jews were initially viewed as the personal property of the camp administrators (i.e., human capital) who “rented” them out to wealthy industrialists. It was such a profitable venture for both the camp administrators and the industrialists that many of them relocated their factories near the concentration camps in order to capitalize on the cheap slave labor. In the beginning, the Jews—the world’s first human capital—were allowed to live as long as they produced more than they consumed. Ultimately, even though the Jews had a monetary value to the camp administrators, the Nazi Party embarked on a bold plan to rid the world of Jewry, and the mass extermination of the Jews—involuntary euthanasia by mass genocide—began. (Note: it is important for the reader to note that the protocol quoted below, and two others in the possession of the author have been disavowed as “legitimate documents” by the Clinton White House in 1996. One of the protocols, dated November 11, 1993 is contained, in its entirety, in this author’s book, Whatever Happened To America? which was published by Hallberg Publishing last spring.)
     In the section of the White House protocol dealing with the “AIDS Crisis,” the meeting notes reveal that the “...President g[ave] an overview of the AIDS situation and its relationship to the Health Security Act. Based on position papers submitted to the President by various organizations [sic] include the WHO and the CDC, it is evident that AIDS is an epidemic in the United States. Juggling figures to show that only those who have the diseases of opportunity which strike individuals who are HIV positive has kept the figures artificially low. More recent surveys indicate that the number of those in this country who are HIV positive are at least 50% to 60% higher than generally reported. The President states further that a person who is HIV positive will, sooner or later, fall victim to one of the diseases that proves fatal. Therefore, in considering the actual number of AIDS victims, the entire picture has to be taken into account, not merely those who have contracted various diseases that the destruction of the immune system leaves them open to.
     “The President now believes that it would impossible to include any so-called AIDS patients with those citizens covered by the Health Security Act. The figures for end-care in these cases are so high as to surely bankrupt the funding for the Act. With a growing number of patients developing fatal illnesses due to their HIV positive condition, it will be necessary to find alternative solutions to this coming health system disaster.
     “The President has several position papers in hand and has seriously considered all of them in addition to further input on the subject he has received from many diverse sources. It is the accepted position that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus and it is impossible for medical science to develop any kind of vaccine for it. Many drugs have been produced but these only treat the symptoms and do not address any kind of care for the actual AIDS virus. He agrees fully with the insurance companies view that if their firms were compelled to extend health insurance coverage to all who apply without first instituting a nationwide testing for AIDS, bankruptcy would be the inevitable result. This attitude is also applicable to the inclusion of AIDS sufferers in the Health Security Act and for the same reasons.     
     “The President outlined a possible course of action for discussion.
     “All private and public funded research into a cure for AIDS will be phased out. In place of this, the President proposes that a special AIDS task force be set up. Its public purpose would be to gather all of the existing information and medical experimentation under one roof, controlled entirely by the federal government. This can be presented as a positive move to the general public and the gay community. Of course some research could continue but funded on a more reduced basis than heretofore. Also, and most important, an experimental system, an AIDS center, can be set up in a thinly-populated area of the country. This would address several problems. In the first place, no major urban center would wish a large number of dying AIDS patients in their neighborhood. In the second place, the more remote the area, the better the security could be. Patients could receive visits from family and friends but it would be far more difficult to do this than if the initial center was located in an accessible urban center.
     “One of the criteria for admission to the center, which should contain all the amenities, would be for the patient to sign a living will form upon admission. Then, at a future time, which would be determined by a panel of our physicians, when it is evident that the patient is approaching the final stage of the disease, the staff is able to exercise the option granted to them by the patient earlier.
     “The President has been assured that the staff would be entirely able to ease the final moments of the terminal patient. He proposes that a special letter on his letterhead and with machine-signed signatures of both himself and his wife be sent to the family or other survivors upon the death of the patient.
     “If the center should prove successful, others could be instituted on a regional basis. The President stresses that visitors to this center should be warmly treated by staff members and every evidence of comfort and support for the welfare and treatment of the patient be evidenced. Outgoing mail, of course, can be monitored...”
     Had the Health Security Act of 1993 been enacted into law by the Democratically-controlled Congress, it is very likely the radical program to deal with the rapidly escalating cost of treating AIDS would have been surreptitiously employed—or at least the public relations campaign needed to convince the public it was a good idea would have been launched.
     Without legislation to legally provide American citizens with the “right to die on whim,” the Clinton Administration would have been hard-pressed to get their AIDS “treatment” centers funded by Congress—particularly after the GOP took over both the House and Senate in 1994. The important consideration here is not whether or not such a program was, would or could be, implemented by the Clinton Administration in 1993, but that any contemporary national leader could even contemplate such Hitler-era solutions to a pandemic problem. The Clinton plan had a draconian “touch of Auschwitz” about it. The “test” center would be placed in a sparsely populated area. The centers would be one-way facilities—all patient traffic would be incoming. Like Auschwitz, which greeted its newcomers with a classical orchestra, Clinton’s AIDS centers would, according to the former President, “have all the amenities.” But its primary task would be to “fool” both the patients and their visitors by taking care “...that visitors to this center...be warmly treated by staff members and every evidence of comfort and support for the welfare and treatment of the patient be evidenced.” If you will recall, the Nazis went through unbelievable pretense to conceal what was happening in the deaths camps—even to the extent of disguising mass gas chambers as bath houses where they introduced Zyklon-B pellets through the air vents or dispersed them through the shower heads. The dead were then carted out by other inmates and disposed of at the camp crematorium.
     And, like the pretense used by the Nazis in the 1930s when they practiced state-sponsored euthanasia to eliminate Germany’s “unwanted,” Bill Clinton wanted the families of each of the AIDS victims euthanized in his AIDS center to receive “...a special letter on his letterhead and with machine-signed signatures of both himself and his wife be sent to the family or other survivors upon the death of the patient.”
     Even though the industrialized nations are now producing live births below replenishment levels, the utopians at the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations still believe the world will soon become overrun with too many new mouths to feed and too many elderly people who require too many social services that must be paid for by the rest of society. Since both are “consumers” rather than “producers,” both groups appear to be expendable in the utopians quest for fewer people on planet Earth.
     The public relations campaign to sell America on the notion that it is politically correct to grant the elderly the right to decide what’s best for their bodes, their minds...and their lives is in full gear. And, most people watching the very subtle, subliminal spots used by NARAL don’t realize that images of elderly people demanding the right to determine what’s best for their lives have surreptitiously been burned into their brains. After they view that commercial a half dozen times or more, the contemplation will slowly become part of their thought processes, and such a contemplation will no longer appear alien.
     Americans, even those who are handicapped, need to be very careful what they wish for. The graying of America is in full bloom. We are living longer. And, if we keep our health, we are enjoying the “fruits of our labors” much longer. The average human life span in the industrialized nations in 1996 was 79 years. In 1900 the average life expectancy in America was 48.9 years. While utopian alarmists insist that by the year 2029 the average life span in the industrialized nations will be 100 years, University of Illinois Public Health professor Jay Olshansky poophahs the idea, saying that “...everyone alive today will be long dead before a life expectancy of 100 is achieved. There are no magic potions, hormones, antioxidants, forms of genetic engineering or biomedical technologies that exist today that would permit a life expectancy of 120 to 150 years as some people have claimed.” Leonard Hayflick, an aging expert at the University of California at San Francisco agreed. “Superlongevity,” he said, “is simply not possible.”
     Nevertheless, the utopians are convinced that it is, or shortly will be, the case. They are already moving to correct the problem. There is a growing fear among societal planners that the federal government will be saddled with both the unanticipated costs of advanced retirement incomes for the elderly as they go off the actuarial charts, and the crippling medical expenses of America’s “super old” that will threaten the solvency not only of the country’s health insurers but the nation’s treasury as well. The fear that this will soon be a reality in America makes it imperative for Congress or the United States Supreme Court to address the “right to die with dignity” issue—with an eye on legalizing voluntary euthanasia in America. However, once the citizens of any nation are legislatively granted right to die, they are only one step away from giving their government the right to determine when their government can no longer afford to “keep” them. At the onset of a legalized euthanasia program, when the elderly are hospitalized they will be allowed to complete a living will that stipulates that if, in the doctor’s opinion, they cannot recover sufficiently to enjoy a reasonably normal and active life, or if their condition deteriorates to the point where they will be bedridden or require external stimuli of some sort to live, that they will be painlessly sedated to the point where their respiration ceases.
     Once voluntary euthanasia is legalized, state-mandated euthanasia “under some circumstances” will be only a stone’s throw away.




Just Say No
Copyright 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved