Tuesday, February 07, 2017

FDR knew of Nazi euthanasia gassings but remained silent

FDR is to this day a great hero of the American Left.  His best known saying is the idiotic: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself".

Ahead of this year's marking of International Holocaust Remembrance Day Jan. 27, new details have been revealed concerning how much the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration knew about the Nazis' euthanasia policy, and why the U.S. failed to respond.

German historian Thorsten Noack, writing in the latest issue of the scholarly journal Holocaust and Genocide Studies, describes how famed journalist William Shirer first publicly exposed the Nazis' systematic execution of individuals with physical or mental disabilities.

In the pages of Life magazine and Reader's Digest in early 1941, Shirer revealed horrifying details of the program that would serve as a prototype for the mass-murder techniques of the Holocaust.

At the time of Shirer's articles, tens of thousands of Germans with physical disabilities had been executed by the Hitler regime. Altogether, an estimated 200,000 "unfit" individuals were gassed as part of the Aktion T-4 program, as it was called.

Building on research undertaken in 1999 by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Noack traced Shirer's drafts and notes in order to identify, for the first time, the source of the ghastly news that he shared with the American public.

Noack concludes it is highly probable that the information was leaked to Shirer by Jacob Beam, who served as third secretary at the U.S. embassy in Berlin.

Beam (1908-1993) was one of a handful of American diplomats in Germany who were tipped off by German anti-Nazi dissidents about the euthanasia program. He and his colleagues forwarded at least 10 reports on the topic to the State Department between March 1940 and March 1941. Beam "was the only official who, according to archival sources, is known to have pressed for a State Department reaction to the Nazi euthanasia killings," Noack writes.

The State Department ignored Beam's pleas to publicly condemn the mass murder. This stance was consistent with President Franklin D. Roosevelt's pre-war strategy of generally refraining from explicitly criticizing Hitler's policies, in order to preserve America's diplomatic and economic relations with Nazi Germany.

Roosevelt went to considerable lengths to avoid offending the Nazis during those years. For example, he asked his ambassador in Berlin, William Dodd, to pressure Dodd's Jewish acquaintances in Chicago to cancel plans, in 1934, for a public mock trial of Hitler.

In 1938, FDR made Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes remove references to Hitler and Nazism from a speech Ickes planned to give about the suffering of Jews in Europe. The administration blocked congressional resolutions criticizing the Nazis, and even apologized to the Fuhrer when New York City Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia called him "a fanatic who is threatening the peace of the world."

The Roosevelt administration not only opposed American Jewish groups' boycott of German products in the 1930s, but went further. It quietly permitted goods to be labeled as having been made in a particular German city or province rather than requiring that they be stamped "Made in Germany," in the hope of fooling consumers about their origin. It was only after Jewish leaders threatened to sue that the administration halted that subterfuge.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the administration's approach occurred after furious German and Vichy French officials complained to Washington in late 1940 that U.S. journalist Varian Fry was smuggling Jewish refugees out of France.

Secretary of State Cordell Hull warned Fry to stop "evading the laws of countries with which the United States maintains friendly relations." When Fry ignored the warning, the administration refused to renew Fry's passport, forcing him to leave France and end his rescue mission.

One could say that the sabotage of Fry's rescue work, like the U.S. silence regarding the euthanasia program, in some ways foreshadowed the Roosevelt administration's response to the Holocaust itself.


A message to the angry Leftists from an American infantryman

I know you don’t know me. I know you don’t even think about me and when you do, it’s probably not anything nice. I’m the evil hegemonically masculine patriarchal oppressor to you feminists. I’m the jackbooted statist thug to you dope smokin’ long-haired hippies. I’m “The Man” to you racial activists. I’m the idiot who joined the military because I “wasn’t smart enough” to go get a liberal arts degree like you know-it-all 20-year-old college dipshits; and for some reason you hate me for that. I’m that guy with the rifle who signed on the dotted line for $24K a year so that you budding Marxist fucksticks could have the freedom to complain about me and the manner in which I provide it. I have a little message for you.

I see you there, in Portland… In Chicago… In San Francisco… In Bumfuck Directional School Liberal Arts College… You’re having your temper tantrums because ever since mommy dropped you off at Daycare 20 years ago you’ve been throwing them to get your way. Now you’re super pissed about the results of a presidential election where the other guy (and the only guy in the race for that matter) won.

I’m not here to talk politics, or explain the Electoral College, or to tell you what hypocritical douchebags you are for doing the things you’re doing. No. I have a much simpler conversation to have with you. See, I read what you post on Twitter, Facebook, and your various internet blogs. I see you on the news breaking things, setting fires, and assaulting people of the opposite political belief. I see you there with your fat ugly unshaven feminist women and black power slogan screaming race baiters, throwing rocks and bottles at the lines of police officers trying to keep order in your own cities. I know your rhetoric.  I know all your identity politics stems from the Marxist activists and 'intellectuals' who have pushed the American left farther left than ever before.  I know you believe your “progressive” views are the supreme moral authority on every single issue and somehow this perception allows you to justify your totalitarian social views and hypocritical violent outbursts. You profess to hate half this country for their alleged bigotry while carrying signs that say "Love Wins!"

I also know you’re a coward.

I know this because you keep screaming, and blogging, and protesting, and even rioting… but you won’t start this “uprising” you keep going on and on about. If you really believe that your cause is just, that the majority supports you, and that the United States needs to be overthrown to make way for your Progressive social utopia of sunshine and free shit… pick up a gun and start your revolution like every other communist group in history. See, I come from an organization that spent the better part of the last century training to fight a bunch of little commie heathens, and I have a pretty healthy respect for any Ivan who was willing to pick up an AK47 and parachute onto the continent ready to overthrow the USA. That takes some guts. You’re not like him though. You’re quite different actually. Ivan was in shape. You’re a bunch of ‘fat acceptance’ advocates who complain airline seats are too small for your 9,000 calories per day diet. Ivan was a proud masculine man. You have drag queens and fat feminist women with green hair. Ivan grew up mining coal and hunting wolves in the Urals. You want socialism because you’re upset that you can’t get a 6-figure job at age 24 with the bullshit arts degree you spent all that loan money on and haven’t done a day of physical labor in your life. Ivan was a veteran of Stalingrad, Afghanistan, and a dozen bush wars. You think “Call of Duty” is too violent and sexist. Ivan packed an AK47 and knew how to use it. Those among you leftists now who even have weapons ditch them after you rob the liquor store or 7/11 and go hide out at your aunt’s Section 8 housing. You don’t have the discipline Ivan did, at least he used the sights. Ivan killed jihadists by the thousands. You make excuses for them and want to invite them into our country.

You all have your reasons for hating America and whether or not I agree isn’t even relevant. I took an oath as did all of my brothers and sisters in uniform to defend this country against all enemies foreign AND domestic. I will always protect your rights to free speech and expression through lawful and civil protest whether or not your cause is something I believe in. However, you seem to believe revolution and violence are the answer now, and that makes you a domestic enemy of the United States I protect and serve. Do it and I’ll teach you how we make the fuckin’ green grass grow. You keep saying you want a revolution, secession, a new Civil War and the election of “Racist/sexist/homophobic/Republican/Nazi/xenophobic/dictator/Islamophobic/rich guy asshole” Donald Trump is the catalyst for you to take action and destroy every evil you perceive this country to stand for…

Well… We’re waiting. Shit or get off the pot.

Iron Mike


Another patriot raises his right hand

The author below is a United States Marine Corps Veteran and  mother of two teenagers

It's been a year in the making and I'm sitting here wondering how it all started. In the midst of the most controversial and divisive moments of our nation, the man I love decided that he was tired of sitting on the sidelines watching and decided to take action. He worked his ass off and displayed the most dedicated discipline I have ever seen. He lost well over 60 pounds on his journey. He gained a mental fortitude and confidence he never held as a child.

When he started speaking to the Army recruiter, I cringed thinking of how it can be tricky to get what you want from them. But, he studied and researched and spoke to my brothers here at Gruntworks and he decided that he wanted to be a medic. And after all the studying he scored high enough and passed his physical. He leaves today.

I'm proud. It's more than just the fact that he's my boyfriend and I love him. It's the fact that he's a 27 year old man, who was working in a highly profitable career field (he's essentially cutting his pay to a third of what he was making); had a house completely paid off; a family and friends here who adore him, and he chose to leave all that to serve this great nation of ours.

It's how hard he worked just to get in; because this country and its future means that much to him. In the face of all the flag burners and American hating turning our country against itself, he's a true son of liberty.

I have been humbled by his work ethic and his dedication to his dreams. I am not ever going to give up on being a patriot and I will choke slam anyone who tries to say anything against this country. You're defaming my brothers and sisters and I can't have that. Not when I witnessed what I did with Chris. Not when I know my son is on his way to being a Marine and my Dad and Grandfather (and everyone else in my family currently serving) were willing to lay down their lives for the very freedom that gives you the sense of entitlement you think you have earned.

So...stay clear of me if you are coming at me with any anti-American bullshit.

And, although you will not claim the same title of Marine as I did, Semper Fidelis, Chris. Proud doesn't even come close.


No men need apply

Women's car service should be welcomed, not sued

by Jeff Jacoby

SAFR, A RIDE-HAILING company for women, is planning to open for business in Boston next month. By hiring only female drivers and picking up only female passengers, the new enterprise aims to serve women who don't feel comfortable getting alone into a car with a male stranger. Here's to Safr's success — may the company encounter only happy customers.

More likely, it will encounter James J. Foster. Or someone just like him.

Foster was the Massachusetts patent lawyer who, in 1996, applied for membership in Healthworks, a tony women's gym in the Back Bay. When he was turned down on the grounds that the facility was for women only, Foster did what any agitator with a law degree would do: He filed a lawsuit, accusing Healthworks of illegal sex discrimination. A state judge, Nonnie Burnes, ruled in his favor. The law banning discrimination in places of public accommodation, she held, overrode any concerns female club members might have about being ogled or embarrassed if forced to work out among men.

So Healthworks and other supporters of single-sex gyms appealed to the Legislature to change the public-accommodations law. Lawmakers swiftly complied, exempting fitness centers from the statute's antidiscrimination provision. Similar bills were passed in other states. As a result, women-only gyms today are alive and well, a thriving sector of the $26 billion US health club industry.

Maybe ride-hailing companies catering to women will develop into a thriving sector of the ride-for-hire industry. But first they'll have to get past the barriers imposed by state and local antidiscrimination laws. As a matter of common sense and customer peace of mind, the case for letting Safr operate freely is no less compelling than the case for Healthworks was. Alas, the women-driving-women startup lacks one valuable asset that Healthworks and similar clubs had: hundreds of thousands of existing members whom lawmakers were anxious to placate.

Safr isn't alone in perceiving a niche market demand to fill. A comparable operation, See Jane Go, is up and running in California, and Shebah is preparing to launch in Australia this month.

For a while, a company called SheRides was going gangbusters in New York, drawing plenty of favorable news coverage. But legal pressure from equal-rights activists and regulators forced the company's founders to spend tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees; now SheRides is in limbo, no longer available for download at the App Store. Maybe Safr and other startups can avoid that fate, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Should the law ban private companies from discriminating on the basis of sex (or race, religion, ethnicity, etc.)? There is wide agreement that invidious discrimination fueled by bigotry is contemptible, and most Americans accept the authority of government to suppress such ugliness from the marketplace.

But discrimination that isn't clearly rooted in bigotry should be left to the private sector to handle. Where is the virtue in using law to attack perfectly reasonable business ideas — like just-for-women car services or fitness clubs — for no better reason than the fact that they aren't being offered to everyone? It is one thing to disallow supermarkets and motels from refusing to serve black customers. But how about a "black-hair" barbershop for black customers only? Or a dating service restricted to Latinos? Or a men-only drinking club? Or an ex-military boarding house that declines to rent to nonveterans?

In a free society, the presumption — absent overt, invidious bigotry — should always be in favor of allowing private parties to use their own property as they judge best. Markets and civil society, not Big Brother, should be the primary arbiter of what types of discrimination are intolerable. No one should object to a ride-hailing service just for women. What we should all object to is a legal system so obsessed with enforcing equal rights that it denies women the right to choose the ride that feels safest.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: