We’re calling for bloggers who read Cao’s blog to delink Instapundit, one of the more high-profile blogs, in light of this post. Owner Glenn Reynolds called outspoken disagreement and “demonization”of the ACLU “a bit silly”. He goes on:

I do feel that they’ve become overly partisan in recent years, but they still do good work (I’ve worked with them in the past, on the New Orleans rave case for example, and will probably do so again.)

That is just plain “politically correct”. The only people Glenn is making points with on that one is lawyers and leftists. Glenn is ignoring the plethora of information out there which indicates that the ACLU’s goals and achievements have been all about the destruction of American values, under the deceitful auspices of supporting the Constitution. They are consistently anti-American, anti-truth, anti-good and anti-God, even Anti-Boy Scouts. They are, quite literally, an evil organization. They support child molesters, terrorists, approve of the “homosexualization” of the United States, and fight for everything sane people with morals are against. They support CAIR, which was founded by known terrorists and is backed by Hamas (If that’s not enough to tell you there’s a problem here, then you need to get out and read more.) In almost any court case that makes conservatives want to bang their heads against a wall, chances are good that the ACLU was involved.

At DiscovertheNetworks:

It appears that after years of incessantly accusing the U.S. military of abusing the captured terrorists and enemy combatants imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay, the ACLU’s public-relations battering ram has finally pounded a weary, much-maligned Pentagon into submission. In so doing, the ACLU has succeeded in helping terrorists keep hidden the details of whatever plots they and their cohorts may be hatching to murder more Americans in the future - and compounding the sin by sticking none other than American taxpayers with the bill for this effort.

Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin reports that according to “astonished” U.S. military sources, the Pentagon recently permitted ACLU lawyers to sit in on interrogations of the al Qaeda and Taliban enemy combatants being held in Guantanamo; in the majority of cases, these attorneys advised the prisoners that they were under no obligation to answer military interrogators’ questions. Says one exasperated military source, “It’s as if they [the detainees] were [merely] shoplifters in the U.S. The lawyers may have left by now, but the damage is done. We’re sending guys [attorneys] down to interrogate on [the] taxpayer’s dime for absolutely no reason now.”

In this piece at Frontpage Magazine, Michael Reagan talks about the ACLU. An exerpt:

If you are wondering where the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is standing in the War on Terror, one need only consult its record. This pillar of the Legal Left wants to humiliate U.S. troops, inflame anti-American Muslims, and oppose Homeland Security.

The ACLU even wants U.S. courts to allow the Quran to be used instead of the Bible when administering the oath to Muslims in court. According to the Associated Press, denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the ACLU of North Carolina said in a lawsuit. State law currently allows witnesses preparing to testify in court to take their oath either by laying a hand over a “Holy Scripture,” by saying “so help me God” without the use of a religious book, or by using no religious symbols.

“We hope that the court will issue a ruling that the phrase ‘Holy Scripture’ includes the Quran, Old Testament, and Bhagavad-Gita in addition to the Christian Bible,” said Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the ACLU of North Carolina.

That, however, is small stuff when it comes to the ACLU’s activities in connection with the war on terrorism. Take for example their demand that the Pentagon release more photos of the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

In this case the ACLU thinks that all the pictures of Abu Ghraib should be made public. The only possible purpose for that would be nothing less than to inflame Middle Easterners even more. It can have nothing at all to do with punishing the prisoner abusers — that’s already been done. They are being prosecuted, are being found guilty, and are being put in jail. The ACLU seems hell-bent to inflame the radical Islamists and present them with more video, more film, more pictures that they can use to go out and recruit more terrorists and suicide bombers to kill more and more Americans.

Perhaps even more disturbing is this post. A reader emailed Reynolds to say basically

“You just lost another reader because of your remarks.”

Reynolds’ reply?

That’s okay — there are plenty of blogs out there, and this guy would clearly be happier somewhere else.

Kit at Euphoric Reality points out:

Someone’s a bit big for their britches, perhaps. And maybe delinking him won’t do a thing, but it’s the principle. I refuse to link to a blog that supports the ACLU - I don’t care how popular or “big” they are, or how small I am in relation.

Jay from Stop the ACLU had this to say:

Any conservative blogger who has kept track of the ACLU’s trends, and paid attention to the organizations and causes that they support can see that they are against everything conservatives stand for. I hope all conservative bloggers decide to stand up and be counted on this.

Here’s a partial list of blogs that are now delinking Instapundit in protest:

Tip o’ me tam to: Outside the Beltway’s Traffic Jam, Jay’s Trackback Party, Citizen Smash

This is Part II of the Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches, a study producing factual evidence of the Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe. The scanned documents can be found here. Part I is here.

The new administration proceeded as rapidly as possible to use its power for the accomplishment of the Nazi Church program. Various measures were taken to impair the freedom of the clergy, and to secure the dissolution of religious associations. (For specific details, see Section V)

In his attempt to integrate the various Landeskirshen, Muller was aided by Dr. Jager, formerly State Commissioner for Church Affairs in Prussia, who in April 1934 was taken into the Spiritual Council as legal member and head of the Church Chancery. On 9 August 1934 Muller summoned a National Synod packed with Nazis to Berlin. It transferred all its powers to Muller and prescribed a form of oath for all pastors and church officials.

In spite of the formidable legal powers vested in the Reich Bishop, the attempt to control the Evangelical Church by those means failed. The Churches of Hanover, Wurttemberg and Bavaria, under the leadership of their respective bishops Marahrens, Wurm and Meiser refused to yield to pressure, and were supported by a vast majority of their pastors. When Wurm and Meiser were placed under house arrest, public demonstrations occurred in their support. On 20 October 1934 a civil court declared all of Jager’s acts in Bavaria to have been illegal. Opposition finally crystallized in the so-called Confessional Church, made up of the Churches of Bavaria and Wurttemberg and representatives of protesting Evangelical clergymen in other parts of Germany. On 29-31 May 1934 and 20 October 1934 the first and second Confessional Synods of the Evangelical Church of Germany were held at Barmen and at Dahlem respectively, and succceeded in uniting a large part of the German Evangelical Church in protest against the doctrines and Church policies of the Reich Bishop. Obviously the attempt to make the Church a united agency for the accomplishment of Nazi purposes had failed. Thus Reich Bishop Muller, although never being forced official to resign his position, was gradually superseded by other agencies of Nazi control, and faded from the scene.

b. The period of Direct Administration. Around the middle of 1935, a new attempt was made to establish unity within the German Evangelical Church, this time by the use of Government authority rather than through the agency of the German Christians operating within the Church Government. To this end the powers of the government in Church affairs were strengthened. On 26 June 1935 a Law on the Settlement of Legal Questions Arising in the Evangelical Church deprived the Evangelical churches of their gith to sue before the regular courts, and set up a special administrative court (Beschluasstelle) with the power of final decisions in such matters. This deprived the Churches of the rights of self-administration and protection in the civil courts to which as corporations of public law they were entitled to under Article 137 of the Weimar Constitution. On 16 July 1935 Hitler announced the creation of the post of Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs. One of the first acts of the new minister, Dr. Hanns kerrl was to transfer the Beschlusstelle from the Ministry of Interior to his own jurisdiction. On 24 September 1935 the organization of the ministry was further developed by a Law for the Safeguarding of the German Evangelical Church by which “The Reich Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs is empowered, for the restoration of orderly conditions in the German Evangelical Church and the Regional Evangelical Churches, to issue ordinances with binding legal force.” On 20 March 1937 the Minister for Church Affairs delegated the administration of the Church to Dr. Werner, president of the Church Chancery of the German Evangelical Church. On 10 December 1937 appointment was made permanent, and he was authorized to promulgate ordinances on all church matters except questions of faith and worship. Thus the exercise of control over the entire Church administration was placed in the hands of government appointees. In this way formal legal validity was given to all subsequent acts directed against the German Evangelical churches.

The principal victims of the ensuing persecution were members of the Confessional Church. At first an attempt was made to conciliate them by the appointment on 14 October 1935 of church committees, on which friends of the Confessional Synod were represented, for the government and administration of the Churches. Although some of the protesting Landeskirchen were thereby reconciled, many of the Confessionals refused to accept the authority of these committees. This was met with a series of repressive measures against the Confessional Church. On 2 December 1935 the Minister for Eccliesiastical Affairs declared their central organs (Provisional Church Government and the council of Brethren of the Confessional Synod) illegal. On 2 December 1935 the authority of the Church Ministry was expressly denied by Dr. Niemoller, leader of the Confessionals.

In May 1936 the leaders of the Confessional Church addressed a memorandum to Hitler denouncing the anti-Chrisitian acts of the government. When this was met with further acts of repression, the failure of the church committee to effect a reconciliation was admitted by Ecclesiastical Minister Kerrl, in a report to Hitler. From that time onward the official attitude was that the Confessional Church was illegal, and its activities were persecuted to the point where they became almostly completely ineffective. For specific instances of this persecution, see the following section.

3. The Christian Sects. Certain of the smaller Christian sects, especially the Jehovah’s Witnesses, (Ernste Bibelfroscher) and the Pentecostal Association (Freie Christengemeinde) were particularly objectionable from the Nazi standpoint because of their advanced pacifist views. Since they were without important influence at home or abroad, it was possible to proceed against them more drastically than against the larger Christian churches. Both groups were therefore declared illegal and there were times when almost no adherent of either group was outside a concentration camp. For specific instances of this persecution see Micklem, op.cit. p. 51, and Franz Zuercher, Kreuzzug gegen das Christentum [Zurich, 1938, Europa-Verlag], p. 32-33.)

B. Policies Adopted in the Incorporated Areas.

In areas like Alsace-Lorraine or western Poland, and to some extent in Austria, where the Nazis were attempting to incorporate a substantial non-German population into the bodyof the Reich, local church organizations were feared primarily as potential centers of national resistance to German domination. The policies adopted against the Churches in these regions were therefore particularly severe, the most seriously afflicted being western Poland. A summary statemtn of the measures taken in these regions, together with a vigorous protest against them, is to be found in the memotrial of 15 December 1942 addressed to the German Minister for Church Affairs, the German Minister for the Interior and the Chief of the Chancery by the German Catholic bishops assmebled at Fulda. For specific deatils see Section V.

C. Policies adopted in other Occupied Areas.

In other occupied areas, which were designed to support but not to take a leading part in the Nazi campaign of world conquest, the need to impose a unified Nazi philosophy was less great than in other regions. Thus there were no general motive for persecution in these areas. In regions, like Slovakia, where the Churches proved generally cooperative with the occupying authorities, they were officially favored.

But in countries where the spirit of national resistance was widely supported bythe local churches, the Nazis felt no compunction about persecuting them vigorously. The countries to suffer most in this respect were the General Government of Poland and occupied Norway. For specific instances of persecution in those areas see Section V.

V. Methods used to Implement The Policy of Persecution

In order to implement their general policy of persecution, the National Socialists interfered at every possible stage in the activities of the Christian churches. Sometimes they accomplished their purposes by direct intervention of the Reich or Lan governments under their control or, in the case of Norway and other occupied but unincorporated areas, by intervention of a native puppet government. At other times they preferred to accomplish their purposes through the use of the SA, the Hitler Youth and other Party organizations. The principal forms of intervention were the following.

A. Interference With the Central Institutions of Church Government

The easiest way to achieve rapid results in the destructon of the Christian Churches was to paralyze their central institutions, and thus deprive them of the advantage of central leadership. This was accomplished either by the direct seizure and exploitation of those institutions by Nazi or pro-Nazi personnel, or by intereference with the effective operation of these institutions which could not be thus subjected to seizure and exploitation.

1. The Direct Seizure of Central Institutions Of Church Government. This could be most easily accomplished in the case of Christian Churches which had a long tradition of dependence upon state authority. This aspect of the persecution was generally carried out through the forms of law, without the necessity for any important admixture of illegal action. The most important cases of this sort were the following.

a. The Seizure of the German Evangelical Church. The steps whereby legal control over the central governing institutions of the German Evangelical Church was established, first on behalf of German Christian supporters of the Nazi government, later on behalf of the Nazi government itself as outline previously.

The problem of Proof. The major steps in this process are a matter of legal record. The principal laws and ordinances by which the seizure was accomplished were cited previously.

b. The Seizure of the Norwegian National Church. The Evangelical Lutheran State Church, to which 98.6% of the population adhered, was a state church established by royal decree. Church affairs were handled by the Department of Church and Education. When the Germans invaded the country and set up a Reichskomissar for the occupied Norwegian terrorities, they gained control over this central organization. Pro-Nazi Norwegians were placed in charge of the Department of Church and Education, subsequently replaced by the Ministry for Culture and Enlightenment. These powers were exercised in such a way that the entire Norwegian pastorate, with insignificant exceptions, decided on Easter Sunday, 1942, to make joint resignation of their public offices and salaries, thus proclaiming their conviction that the central institutions of the state church were no longer available for the accomplishment of Christian purposes.

The Problem of Proof. Although native Norwegian collaborators played the principal role in the persecution of the Norwegian church, it is a matter of legal record that final control over and hence final responsibility for their actions rests with the German Reichskomissariat for Norway. All necessary evidence with regard to the course of the church conflict in Norway can no doubt be obtained from Norwegian church authorities.

2. Interference with the Normal Operation of Central Institutions of Church Government. In the case of the Catholic and of some Protestant churches, the Nazis were unable to gain control of the central institutions of the Church government. In these cases they tried as far as possible to prevent these central institutions from operating. The methods used were more or less drastic, depending on the circumstances.

a. Legal Abolition of Central Institutions of Church Government. In accord with the generally cautious policies adopted by the Nazis in their campaign for the persecution of the Christian Churches, this device was sparingly used. The principal cases are the following.

1. Prohibition of Certain German Sects. Under the Nazi regime the organization and activities of the Ernate Bibelforscher and Feie Christengemeinde were declared illegal. They were rigorously repressed by the police.

The Problem of Proof. For general references, see previous. The dissolution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses was declared in violation of Article 1937 of the Weimar Constitution in a case decided on 26 March 1934 by the Special Court of Darmstudt (Juristicsche Wochenschrift 1934, p. 174) Most courts, however, upheld the decision of the government. For cases illustrating some of the ways in which members of this sect were persecuted, the following court decisions should be consulted.

(1) Refusal of a peddler’s license. Hayerischer Vermaltungagerichtshof, 8 May 1936 (Heger, Vol. 37, p. 533);
(2) Refusl of a permit to practice as a midwife. Sachaisches Observervaltungsgericht, 4 December 1936 (J.W. 1937, p. 1368);
(3) Dismissal of a postal clerk. Reichedienststrafhof. 11 February 1935 (Zietschrift fur Deamtenrscht 1935, p. 104);
(4) Refusal of the right to conduct family worship in the home. Reischsgericht, 17 February 1938 (J.W. 1938, p. 1018);
(5) Removal of children from the custody of their parents. Landgericht Hamburg, 6 may 1936 (Jgdrecht u. Jgdwohlfahrt 1936, p. 281.)
ii. Prohibition of the Central Governing Organs of the German Confessionals. On 20 December 1935 the Provisional Church Government and the Council of Brethren of the Confessional Synod were specifically declared illegal by the Minister for Ecclesiastical Affairs. Although the representative measures actually taken were not sufficient to prevent these groups from acting, this ruling prevented them from enjoying the privileges of public law corporations, to which the Evangelical Church was entitled under existing German law.

b. The Imposition of Financial Controls Upon the Operation of Church Governments. The principal Christian Churches of Germany had long derived their main financial support from state collected church taxes. To maintain effective control over these organizations it was therefore sufficient to deprive them of all other sources of revenue, and to impose state restrictions upon the expenditure of state collected funds. The Sammslungagsst of 5 November 1934 which placed severe restrictions on the right of churches and other organizations to solicit contributions was an important hindrance to the financial independence of all churches.

1. Financial Control of the German Evangelical Church. The establishment of financial control played a major part in the Nazi capture of the German Evangelical Church organization. Under earlier German law local church authorities had exercised considerable authority in determining the rate of and allocating the revenues from church taxes. On 11 March 1935 th Prussian government deprived the Prussian church of this power by setting up state controlled finance departments for the management of the finances of all Evangelical churches in Prussia. By ordinance of 25 June 1937 state controlled finance departments were set up for the German Evangelical Church and for each of the Provincial Churches, with the right to regulate the conditions of service of all officials of the general church administrations, of the pastors and of the local parish officials and employees. By an ordinance of 9 June 1937 it was provided that all church collections had to be subject to the approval of the central church authorities. Since the control of the central authorities of the German Evangelical Church was in Nazi hands this meant that all Protestant congregations, including those Confessional congregations which had been maintained by voluntary contributions, could be deprived of all financial support at the discretion of the Nazi authorities.

The Problem Of Proof. The legislation by which this control was exercised is a matter of record. For a specific instance of the way the resulting power was exercised, see Case 1.3

Case 1. The Financial Coercion of the Dahlen Parish. The Dahlen parish of the German Evangelical Church, being located in a fashionable part of Berlin, was comparatively prosperous. It enjoyed an income of around 400,000 marks, half of which exceed its immediate needs. When its pastor, Dr. Niemoller, leader of the Confessionals, was dmissed from his pastorate by the Reich Bishop Muller on 1 March 1935, the congregational assembly refused to obey the order, and asked him to continue to serve. They refused to transfer their income to the central church offices, and devoted about half of it to the Confessional Church. The transfer was finally enforced, however, bya commisioner apointed by the finance department.

The problem of proof. Evidence should be obtainable from Dr. Niemoller, and from other serving members of the parish.

c. Interruptiong of Official Communications within the Church Government. The effective operations of any large organization depends on the maintenance of free and confidential information between officials. This right was guaranteed for the Catholic Church in Germany by ARticle IV of the Concordat, which reads “In its relations and corresondence with bishops, clergy and other members of the Catholic Church in Germany, the Holy See enjoys full freedom. The same applies to the bishops and other diocesan officials in their dealings with the faithful in all matters belonging to their pastoral office.” Violations of this right played an important part in the total Nazi scheme for the persecution of the Christian churches. As early as 1935 the bishops were made to realize that their correspondence and telephone calls were subject to constant surveillance by the police.

The following cases might repay investigation.

1. Cases in Germany proper.

Case 2. In February, 1937 Dr. Zollner, the Chariman of the Reich Church Committee, was prevented by the police from visiting nine Confessional Pastors of Lubeck who had been arrested by the secret police. This interference with his attempted conciliation led to the resignation of Zollner and his committe on 14 February 1937.

The Problem of Proof. Evidence should be obtainable from serving Confessional leaders.

Case 3. When the bishop of Wuergburg, Mgr. Ehrenfied, travelled to Rome in November 1938, he was held up on the German frontier and had to stand by while all his luggage and documents were searched. Photostats were made of everything written in Latin.

The problem of proof. Case 3 is reported in The Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Third Reich, page 42. Since Mgr. Ehrenfried is alive and still bishop of Wuergzburg it would be easy to have himself as a witness.

Case 4. In 1935 the office of the Diocessan Administration of Feiburg in Breisgen was raided by the Gestapo.

The Problem of Proof. Case 4 is reported in the Persecution of the Actholic Church in the Third Reich, p. 41. Archbishop Groeber and every member of the Diocessan Administration of Freiburg who held his position prior to the rported incident might be witnesses.

Case 5. In 1937 fifty officials of the Gestapo searched the offices ofv the Administration of Cologne.

The Problem of Proof. Case 5 is reported in the Persecution of the Catholic Church in the Rhid Reich, page 41. Every member of the diocesan administration who held his position prior to the reported incident is a potential witness.

Case 6. In 1937 the offices of the Vicar General in Aachen were searched.

The problem of proof. Case 6 is reported in the Persecutio of the Catholic Church in the third Reich, page 42. Every member of the diocesaan administration who held a position prior to the reported incident is a potential witness.

Case 7. On 31 August 1938 Cardinal Faulhaber’s offices in Munich were searched.

Case 8. on 15 April 1939 the offices of the Bishop of Limburg on the Lahn were searched. The archives of certain ecclesiastical foundations were confiscated and carried away, together with the money belonging to them.

Case 9. In the Diocesan Administration buildings in Berlin the German bishops had set up an Information Bureau under the direction of Mgr. Banasch. This office was raided in December 1935. All papers were examined, and Mgr. Banasch was arrested and held in jail until March 1936.

ii. Cases in the incorporated areas.

Case 10. In 1938 a search was carried out in the ordinariates of Vienna, Salzaburg and Seckau.

From Fathers for life, “Freedom, Equality, and Society’s Treatment of Men and Families”

One of the most poetic quotes I’ve seen in a long time~

Those who don’t learn from history will be condemned to repeat it.

History repeats itself because the current generation refuses to read the minutes of the last meeting.

History tells us from where we came and where we are going. It tells us about actions and consequences. It tells us not only whether we are making progress and how far we have come, it tells us whether we are going into the right direction.

History is therefore a threat to all totalitarian regimes, as it clearly shows all of their flaws and the consequences of every single wrong decision made by a given totalitarian regime. For that reason all totalitarian regimes prohibit the teaching of history or at best permit only the teaching of versions that are constantly tailored and manipulated so that they will show a given totalitarian regime to be on the right path.

History is no longer taught in the elementary and grammar schools of Canada or in those of many other nations in the “free” West.

Any nation that no longer teaches honest and true history forgets from where it came. It will therefore be on a random path to self-destruction and oblivion. That is because it will not be able to determine which change in direction that it takes in reacting to each event in the never-ending succession of unexpected catastrophes it tries to escape from will prove to be the best. The fatal end of that nation will come as a total surprise to the vast majority of its people who will bear the cost of their own destruction.

—WHS

This is why I rail against the revisionist historians who laugh at the Holocaust, Saddam’s mass graves and other important events in history that we should keep in front of our minds’ eye, lest we ever forget…

July, 2004… artwork created by IPW’s Linda Eddy, on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans for Truth. KerryLied.com is no longer online.

Kerry Confesses to War Crimes

Kerry is one of the prime examples of someone who’s created propaganda to trash our country and two generations (at least) of veterans. And that’s probably the very reason that leftists are so weirded out over the growing Kerry 180 blogburst and say things like “who cares? there are more important things going on.” “don’t you know? The election is over.”

Take the facts into consideration. They’re very much as important today as they were then. There is another generation of boys at war, and the same faces have shown up using the same exact tactics against our boys in uniform.

When they say “we support the troops” they MEAN “we support the troops when they shoot their officers.”

Like it or not, there are a lot of people who care, and that list is growing, as we keep the focus on what the guy is saying and his ACTIONS that don’t reflect that he’s an honorable man that tells the truth–the facts paint a picture that’s quite the contrary. The fact that his words are the same rhetoric that come out of the Sheehan camp and out of Howard Dean’s camp, and they’re all connected, makes it just as relevent to today as then.

Did you know that part of the anti-war extremists are the organization Code Pink? Did you know they gave $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah? Did you know that the anti-war people have stooped so low as to demonstrate against our military outside of Walter Reed Hospital where they’re recovering from injuries sustained in Iraq? Here’s one of the signs they’re displaying outside of Walter Reed:

Did you know that they’ve defaced military recruiting centers?

This is the same kind of extremism Kerry represented after he returned from Vietnam on his 4-month “tour”.

Kerry defends what he heard at Winter Soldier as “highly documented and very disturbing.” None of the testimony was ever corroborated and many of the “veterans” were eventually exposed as pretenders and liars. VVAW members John Laboon, Elton Mazione, Kenneth Van Lesser, and Eddie Swetz all claimed to have been a part of the “Phoenix program” in Viet Nam where they routinely killed children and removed body parts as a part of their duty. In truth, they never were in the Phoenix program nor had they ever been in Viet Nam. And the list of more frauds later found within the organization is mind-boggling.

Kerry’s “impassioned” and “impromptu” testimony wasn’t even written by him and certainly, as he claimed, NOT ‘impromptu’. As Guenter Lewey pointed out in his book “America in Vietnam”…

And Kerry’s emotional, from-the-heart speech had been carefully crafted by a speech writer for Robert Kennedy named Adam Walinsky, who also tutored him on how to present it.

The Naval Investigative Service eventually concluded that the grisly and shocking testimony was given by fraudulent “witnesses:” who had never served in Vietnam-who had simply lied for effect. Some of them not only lied but appropriated the names of true veterans. None would sign an affidavit or help the military investigate the atrocity claims.

Burkett (who wrote Stolen Valor) is critical of Kerry and his opportunistic use of imposters in the antiwar effort. “[Kerry] presented this ragtag bunch of bums as your standard honorably discharged Vietnam vet, and I think nothing could be further from the truth. They weren’t.”

In early April of 1971, antiwar senator Mark Hatfield asked for the Winter Soldier transcripts to be entered into the congressional record and called for an official investigation into American war crimes in Vietnam.

A documentary film of the Winter Soldier was produced, winning awards at the Cannes and Berlin film festivals, further perpetuating myths about Vietnam “war crimes” and helping to poison public opinion against a generation of American soldiers.

One of Kerry’s colleagues was Al Hubbard, the executive director of VVAW. Hubbard claimed to be an Air Force officer who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in combat. But the truth is, Hubbard was a fake. While he had served in the military, he was never promoted beyond the rank of staff sergeant, and had never served in Vietnam, and was never even wounded. Kerry and Hubbard, though, went on NBC’s Meet the Press, side by side, to denounce the war.

A lot of the kids that are serving in Iraq are the legitimate progeny of these honorable veterans who served over generations–not of the lying Kerry ilk. This is one of the reasons America is rising up to defy these forces; this is a complete repeat of what played itself out then.

August 9, 2005 – The New York Times reports that the 1971 documentary of the Winter Soldier Investigation will be shown in theaters in several cities, including at the Lincoln Center in New York. The distributors openly state that their reason for re-releasing the film is to undermine public support for the U.S. military and its mission in Iraq. The Times’ fawning coverage makes it clear that the flagship leftist newspaper heartily shares these goals. The Times article doesn’t even suggest that the atrocity claims in Winter Soldier might have been exaggerated. Instead, it fawns over the “gentle-sounding, Jesus-like Scott Camil” without bothering to mention Camil’s repeated efforts to persuade the VVAW to murder pro-war U.S. Senators. It also overlooks the exposure of VVAW Executive Secretary Al Hubbard as a fraud who was never assigned to Vietnam, the failure of any VVAW members to file legal affidavits supporting their claims, and Winter Soldier Steve Pitkin’s own affidavit-backed statement that VVAW leaders pressured him to give false testimony about war crimes.

There are supposed “veterans against the war” travelling with Cindy Sheehan. I wonder how many of THEM actually served.

The only difference between then and now is–now these extremist commie sympathizers are running the democratic party.

From April 18 to April 23, 1971, more than one thousand “veterans” in shabby, mismatched uniforms “invaded” Washington, D.C. The event was called “Dewey Canyon III,” “a limited incursion into the country of Congress.” The “vets” marched on the National Mall carrying Viet Cong Flags and placards supporting China, Cuba, and the “Soviet Union, and North Korea, clenched fists rising high in the air. The demostrators conducted simulated “search and destroy” missions and skits, during which they dramatized the killing of innocent civilians. They splattered red paint, symbolizing blod, on the steps of the Capitol building. The brightest star rising agbove this boorish group was John Forbes Kerry.

What he claimed they were doing was sleeping on the Mall and talking to their Congressmen. But while his “band of brothers” camped out in the park, Kerry enjoyed conditions more in keeping with his silver spoon lifestyle, staying in a Georgetown townhouse owned by the family of George Butler, a college friend and a former veteran. It was there that Kerry worked out the speech of his political lifetime, during which he would revel in his moment in the sun. In this speech, the opportunistic Kerry seized his opportunity to launch a career.

On April 22, 1971, Kerry addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator J.W. Fulbright and attended by Senators Stuart Stymington, Claiborne Pell, George Aikin, Clifford Case, and Jacob Javits. Television cameras lined the walls and self-professed veterans of all sizes, shapes and uniform combinations filled the seats.

Kerry sat at the table across from the congressmen. Under oath, Kerry claimed that US soldiers had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turnd up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminescent of Ghenghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.”

According to Kerry, every day was a My Lai Massacre. Leutienant William Calley had been prosecuted and sentence to life improsonment only three weeks earlier. The press was replete with tales of Calley’s atrocities and rampant speculation that more such crimes would soon be exposed.

But as Kerry later admitted, he hadn’t actually witness any of the events to which he testified under oath. they were based on lies, rumor, and innuendo. “I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that,” he later said.

So…considering that he paraded around guys who claimed they were vets and didn’t serve, that claimed they were in Vietnam and hadn’t ever been there, it’s time for Kerry to pony up and fully release his records.

The time is now.

Image: LindaSog.com

Join the blogbursts to help FREE Kerry’s 180 every Tuesday!

We’ve formed a blogburst group and here are the bloggers who are contributing so far. If you want to join the blogroll for Free Kerry’s 180, click here to email me, include the url for your blog. The blogburst is every Tuesday, so don’t forget to blog about it. All you have to do is encourage Kerry to set his 180 FREE, I’ll send you the code for the blogroll.

The more people we have, the merrier!

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

Continued from Part II.

It’s true, Saddam and Bin Laden were strange bedfellows. Bin Laden called Hussein an “infidel”, Hussein imprisoned and executed thousands of Islamic clerics over his 35-year reign of terror.

It’s one thing to acknowledge that bin Laden and Hussein were not natural allies; it’s another to conclude that they’d never work together. Again and again I’m noticing the CIA’s incredibly rigid thinking.

A brief history of Saddam’s rule in Iraq demonstrates that he wasn’t above using Islam and the language and practices of the mujahideen when it suited his purposes. He actively supported the Syrian religious extremists in their efforts to overthrow Syrian despot Hafez al Assad, a longtime rival who had backed Iran in the Iran-Iraq War. In 1982, Assad brutally put down a rebellion in Hama led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group opposed to his secular regime. Estimates of the death toll range from five thousand to twenty-five thousand. The group dispersed, with its moderate elements relocating to Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and a number of European countries. The radicals, including several of the group’s leaders, moved to Iraq, where they were welcomed by Saddam Hussein. Syrian Muslim Brothers trained at the al Rasdiya camp outside of Baghdad.

According to US officials and press reports, one of the Syrians who spent time at the Iraqi camp is Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas. Yarkas, captured in Madrid in November 2001, was the leader of al Qaeda’s operations in Spain. The roommate of lead hijacker Mohamed Atta in Germany, he was believed by Spanish and American authorities to have been directly involved in the planning and financing of September 11 attacks. Indeed, may leaders of the al Qaeda cells in Madrid and Hamburg, Germany–the cells that executed the September 11 attacks–are onetime Syrian Muslim Brothers.

There is no indication that Yarkas stayed in close contact with the Iraqi regime after he left in 1986. But some of the leadership of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood did. On May 5, 1998, Iraqi state-run television reported that vice president Taha Yasin Ramadan met with leaders of the Brotherhood in Baghdad. And as late as February 2000, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood’s leaders spoke openly about their presence in Iraq.

When Spanish authorities seized documents from top al Qaeda operatives in Spain in November 2001, they found an invitation to a party at the residence of the Iraqi ambassador to Spain. The invitation was to Luis Galan Gonzalez, a spanish convert to Islam who worked for Yarkas, under Gonzalez’s al Qaeda nom de guerre, Yusuf Galan.

Saddam’s provision of safe haven to the group is insignificant on an operational level, as the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is not believed to have any significant attacks for years. But his tolerance of their presence in Iraq is one of the many indications that he was not as hostile to Islamic radicals as conventional wisdom suggests. Throughout the Iraq’s war with Iran, from 1980 to 1988, the Iranian clerics sought to present Saddam not only as an aggressor, but as an infidel whose words and actions were anticlerical and anti-Islam. To counter this criticism, Saddam made modest adjustments to his rhetoric, inserting religious praise and otherwise invoking Allah as he battled his neighbors.

Saddam further Islamized his image and his regime in the run-up to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent War. At least rhetorically, Saddam went from an outspoken secularist to a fiery jihadist.

Amatzia Baram, currently a scholar at the US Institute for Peace, is perhaps the world’s greatest authority on Saddam Hussein. He has detailed Saddam’s transformation in dozens of articles and books, including an analysis published in the December 2000 issue of the Middle East Review of International Affairs.

President Saddam Hussein led the Ba’ath party in introducing some Islamic principles into the Iraqi legal system. This started a short while before the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, when Saddam made it clear that whenever laws clashed with the divine Shari’a (Islamic law), the former must always give way. One day before the Allied bombing began the fighting in January 1991, Saddam Hussein added the slogan “Allahu Akbar” to the Iraqi national flag. During the war, Saddam’s rhetoric was fully Islamized in a way unparalleled by any other Arab secular leader.

Baram notes that Saddam undertook a wide-ranging public relations campaign to cast himself as an Islamic holy warrior. He frequently invoked past Islamic battles and rallied Muslims to his cause by claiming that he would return the Islamic world to glory by taking the battle to the Western infidels.

Following the Iraqi defeat in the war, there was no sign of a return to rational, secular rhetoric. Indeed, in 1994, when the economic embargo resulted in a serious inflating of unprecedented suffering among the vast majority of Iraqis, Saddam Hussein went further by introducing punishments such as severing the right hand for theft and the death penalty for prostitution, defining these penalties as Islamic. The Iraqi president also initiated laws forbidding the public consumption of alcohol and introduced and enhanced compulsory study of the Qu’ran at all educational levels, including in Ba’th party branches…it is impossible to guage the extent to which the “Islamization” steps helped the Iraqi president and his ruling elite stay in power by more effectively legitimizing them. It would seem, however, that such a far-reaching decision had to be based on a rational calculation that more emphasis on Islam would strengthen the regime’s popularity.

Part I here.

Part II here.

It turns out, according to Captain Ed’s piece here, that Senator Fritz Hollings pointed out for the record an odd literary coincidence in a speech on the Senate floor on September 12, 2002, the day after the first anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Hollings entered an editorial into the Congressional record from the Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriyah, which he noted appears curious for its eerily prescient language:

America says, admitting just like a bird in the midst of a tornado, that Bin Ladin is behind the bombing of its destroyer in Aden. The fearful series of events continues for America and the terror within America gets to the point that the Governor of Texas increases the amount of the award, just as the stubbornness of the other man and his challenge increases. This challenge makes it such that one of his grandchildren comes from Jeddah traveling on the official Saudi Arabia airlines and celebrates with him the marriage of one of the daughters of his companions. Bin Ladin has become a puzzle and a proof also, of the inability of the American federalism and the C.I.A. to uncover the man and uncover his nest. The most advanced organizations of the world cannot find the man and continues to go in cycles in illusion and presuppositions. They still hope that he could come out from his nest one day, they hope that he would come out from his hiding hole and one day they will point at him their missiles and he will join Guevara, Hassan Abu Salama, Kamal Nasser, Kanafani and others. The man responds with a thin smile and replies to the correspondent from Al Jazeera that he will continue to be the obsession and worry of America and the Jews, and that even that night he will practice and work on an exercise called “How Do You Bomb the White House.” And because they know that he can get there, they have started to go through their nightmares on their beds and the leaders have had to wear their bulletproof vests.

Meanwhile America has started to pressure the Taliban movement so that it would hand them Bin Ladin, while he continues to smile and still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House …..

The phenomenon of Bin Ladin is a healthy phenomenon in the Arab spirit. It is a decision and a determination that the stolen Arab self has come to realize after it got bored with promises of its rulers: After it disgusted itself from their abomination and their corruption, the man had to carry the book of God and the Kalashnikov and write on some off white paper “If you are unable to drive off the Marines from the Kaaba, I will do so.” It seems that they will be going away because the revolutionary Bin Ladin is insisting very convincingly that he will strike America on the arm that is already hurting. That the man will not be swayed by the plant leaves of Whitman nor by the “Adventures of Indiana Jones” and will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.

Notice; ” Bin Ladin…still thinks seriously, with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House …..” and this, “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs.”

With translations from the flowery Arabic, you have to read between the lines in order to get the true meaning. Of course the first two targets are clearly described and named. But the third; the WTC in New York–that’s cloaked a little bit–but only a little if you recall that Frank Sinatra’s most famous song is “New York, New York”.

The relevant pages of the Congressional Record can be found in these two PDF files.

I just love it when my readers notice things that are “up my alley”. Tip o’ me tam to JCRUE.

Another key piece in all this is this piece at Frontpage Magazine, an interview by Jamie Glazov with Peter Lance, a five-time Emmy-winning investigative reporter and author of the bestselling 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI — The Untold Story. He is the author of the new book Cover Up: What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror.

Lou Dobbs had it right on the money when he said, “We are a nation of immigrants, and there is no more diverse and welcoming society than ours. But we are first a nation of laws, and upholding those laws and our national values makes this great country of ours possible.”

What happens if we do not uphold those laws? Dobbs goes on.

Failure to secure our borders means that we will continue to lose the war on drugs and lose a generation of Americans to those drugs. It also means the crushing burden of our failed immigration and homeland security policies will continue to fall exclusively on the shoulders of working men and women. Not only do illegal aliens and those who employ them cost the nation tens of billions of dollars in social services, principally in health care and education, they also depress wages for American citizens by an estimated $200 billion a year.

[Note: The following was written by Mustang, a retired Marine officer who blogs at Social Sense. This is reprinted in full with his gracious permission, and we’ll be featuring more of his work next week.]

The number of Americans who believe that our borders should be secure from illegal entry is overwhelming. Not everyone agrees, obviously, but those who argue for open borders mostly represent organizations that have a peculiar agenda. Of those who demand (although not too loudly) a secure border, there are essentially two camps: One group worries about our security in light of terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, and the other group voices concern over the economic implications of illegal immigration.

I have had a number of conversations with close friends on the subject of immigration gener­ally, and on the issue of securing our nation from those who would do our people harm. Even those who support President Bush seem to disagree with his view that people coming here illegally, no matter the point of their origin, are simply looking for work. As evidenced by the amount of attention this issue is getting nationally, however, the problem is not restricted to border-states. People throughout the entire country seem genuinely angry that our government lacks the will, or the resources, to halt the influx of people who come here illegally.

The issue of illegal immigration generates emotional rather than thoughtful debates among the so-called talking heads of our national media. Screeching at one another on national television does not bring to the table thoughtful discussion or reasonable solutions to the problem. In the first place, most people do not understand the implications of illegal immigration, including the politicians whose job it is to frame laws, and provide funding for the enforcement of those laws.

The task of problem-resolution appears to fall into three stages: (1) Determine the true affect of illegal immigration, (2) Discover reasonable solutions, and (3) Implement programs that do not demean people of other ethnic groups or nationalities.

In spite of the fact tht current statutes prohibit the employment of military forces in the pursuit of civil law enforcement duties, it may be time to reconsider such prohibitions. America’s open border presents a real and present danger to the people of the United States in any number of ways, not the least of which might involve the illegal entry of Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact, at least one terrorist has been arrested, a female; it is not unreasonable to wonder how many others evaded arrest or detention. Discounting terrorists, however, Americans are harmed by “illegals” who perpetrate crimes against persons and property in the United States, and do so with some impunity.

Criminal activity along the border, according to this article, is getting out of hand. The federal government’s unwillingness to address this problem is causing harm to American citizens, and of course it is the local taxpayer who has to defray the costs of increased local policing. It is little wonder that citizens have formed local groups to augment police departments, but that may not be enough. Contrary to Mr. Bush’s position, these people are not vigilantes, but they could be if something isn’t done — and soon.

There are also good arguments that illegal immigrants pose a significant economic danger to the United States. A source of information and discussion on this topic can be found at the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Among a wide range of issues, FAIR provides specific economic information relative to illegal immigration, breaking those costs down state-by-state. One might conclude, based on the data provided by FAIR, that the costs of doing a poor job in protecting America’s borders far outweigh the costs of hiring more law enforcement or border patrol officers.

For more on this topic, check out Kleptocracy to the South — a good read. The bottom line, folks, is that until citizens are fully informed about the ramifications of doing nothing, Americans cannot approach the three-step mentioned above to resolve this problem. It’s your country, dear reader, and the choice is yours — but Social Sense demands your involvement.

—————————-

Welcome to the first issue of the Save Our Borders Blogburst. We have started this blogburst in an effort to keep the border issues and illegal immigration at the forefront now and up through the next election. We will be featuring pieces every Monday from other bloggers, news articles, and things we’ve written ourselves as we blog about this each week. Members of the blogburst can either crosspost what we have, or write something of their own.

If you’d like to join, please send an email to kit dot jarrell at gmail dot com and put “BlogBurst” in the subject line. The more, the merrier!

Blogs already on board:

Great video here.

Mark Voss, of Crawford, Texas, writes the names of those families who do not want their relatives memorial cross at the campsite for Cindy Sheehan, at a gathering of pro-Bush supporters in Crawford, Saturday, Aug. 27, 2005. The crosses were removed from the makeshift memorials at Camp Casey. (AP)

Tim o’ me tam to Gateway Pundit

Cindy Sheehan’s statements have been featured on left-wing websites such as Socialist Worker Online, where she attacks the media as well as Bush.

This is a guy who hangs out with the code pinko-s outside of Walter Reed. He must think he’s a good representation of pinko-s and would be able to persuade a wounded soldier to turn against his brothers at arms and join the anti-war movement.

He literally skipped across the street to talk with the FReepers who were demonstrating against the pinko-s.

May

August

Continued from Part I

US intelligence receives a document scooped up from the Baghdad HQ of the Mukharabat–the Iraqi Intelligence Service–after the war in Iraq. It lists individuals from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia whom the Iraqi regime considered intelligence assets. The dossier includes Osama bin Laden. A leading US Intelligence agency determines it’s authentic.

On March 28, 1992, the Mukharabat compiled this list. It’s 20-pages long, with “Top Secret” marked at the top of each page. On page 14 is a now-familiar name: Osama bin Laden. The authors of the document assert that bin Laden “is in good relationship with our section in Syria.” The list was recovered after the war by the Iraqi National Congress–a group long opposed to Saddam Hussein-and turned over to US officials. The Defense Intelligence Agency determined the document is athentic.

Eleven months after that list was put together, six people were killed and more than one thousand injured in a bombing at the World Trade Center. A top secret CIA document concludes that a “solid case” exists that al Qaeda operatives conducted the attacks. Fragmentary evidence points to Iraqi involvement. An Iraqi terrorist admitted mixing the chemicals for the bomb. Another conspirator made forty-six phone calls to Iraq two months before the plot’s masterminds arrivedi n the US–one from Baghdad. One of the bombers returned to Baghdad with the active assistance of the Iraqi embassy in Amman, Jordan, and received safe haven and financial support form th Iraqi regime for nearly a decade after those attacks.

“bin Laden views any entity which hated Americans or was willing to kill them as an ally,” said the report from a debriefing with a high-level detainee. Abu Zubaydah explained that bin Laden’s “personal goal of destroying the US is so strong that to achieve this end he would work with whomever could help him, so long as al- Qaeda’s independence was not threatened.”

Zubaydah confirmed that bin Laden “approved of contacts and funding for Jund al Islam, a militant Islamic group in nothern Iraq that battled the two anti-Saddam Kurdish factions. Jund al Islam, later known as Ansar al Islam, received money and arms from the former Iraqi regime. The third-ranking official in the group, a man known as Abu Wael, was also an officer in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (the Mahkharabat).

Here is Part I (in case you missed it)

Here is Part III.

Did you know that? Do you know how many STEVEs are in my life right now? Well the guy I’m talking about is this one. His blog is here. And this is the post that I’m laughing about…you just have to go and see it and check out the picture…because I’m not telling.

bwahahahaha! I’m right there with you, Steve. Bwahahahaha!

I will be away from the blog and offline for two days EXCEPT for monday evening at 7:30 P.M. PST when I will be doing a show with the President of the Black Republican Congress and a Reverend. Tune in while we discuss the MYTH of the separation of church and state. Click HERE!!! to listen live.

Monday and Tuesday I am in the press pool for President George W. Bush.

I will be at a small gathering at an undisclosed location on Monday while the President visits with people and gladhands…..eat that cindy!!!!

Pics to be posted later, along with tales of other politico’s I may meet and get to discuss issues with.

Crossposted at Kender’s,
Stop The ACLU, The Wide Awakes and Conservative Angst

Let’s look at some of the facts…because now I have a clearer understanding as to why information like this (click here) has completely disappeared from the public consciousness. Or should I say…has been MADE to completely disappear.

The Bush administration had a three-prong case for the war; Saddam Hussein’s brutality against his fellow Iraqis; the failure of the Iraqi regime to account for its weapons of mass destruction; and the most controversial of the three; Iraq’s connections with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

By the time the Iraq War began, the evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda went well beyond a few dots; it was a veritable constellation.

An important participant in the first Al Qaeda attack on American soil, the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, had been given safe haven in Iraq. Both bin Laden and Saddam had repeatedly voiced their desire to kill Americans. CIA director George Tenet reported at least eight meetings between high-level Iraqi intelligence officials and senior al Qaeda terrorists. At least twice, the deputy director of Iraqi intelligence met bin Laden personally. In its 1998 indictment of bin Laden, the Clinton administration cited an “understanding” between Iraq and al Qaeda whereby bin Laden agreed not to agitate against the Iraqi regime in exchange for help on “weapons development”. Fresh intelligence indicated that Iraq had provided training to al Qaeda terrorists on poisons and gases. Senior al Qaeda associates were operating openly in Baghdad before the war.

Critics of the Bush administration, including many experts and politicians who once warned about Iraq-al Qaeda connections, now conveniently shrug off this evidence. President Bush simply doesn’t have that luxury.

One of the most often repeated cliches to come out of the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center is that September 11 changed everything. It’s half right. September 11 changed little for the terrorists. they had been at war with the US for a decade, and the September 11 attacks were simply a more successful battle ina much longer campaign.

What changed, then, was America’s response to terror. The battle was joined. The war would involve more than warnings, more than demarches, more than back-channel diplomacy, more than empty threats. Terrorists and the states that sponsor them would be eliminated.

Saddam Hussein was one of those terrorists and he ran one of those states. His regime harbored, financed, supported, and armed terrorists to kill Americans.

He was, in the words of one of his own generals, “the father and grandfather of terrorists.”

In 2000-August, Ahmed Hikmar Shakir, a 37-year-old Iraqi, quietly began his job as a “greeter” at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport in Malaysia. The job, a common one in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, normally involves little more than welcoming visiting dignitaries and making sure they move smoothly through the laborious entry process.

But Shakir was not a typical greeter. Although he was nominally employed by the Malaysian Airlines, he had told associates he had been hired by a contact in the Iraqi embassy. More important, it was his embassy contact, not his employer, who told him when to report and when to take days off. So when the Iraqi embassy contact told him to report to work on 5-January-2000, Shakir dutifully complied. His assignment that day would later make him the subject of an international manhunt and suspect in the worst single act of terrorism on American soil.

The events of that day and those that followed-provide the government’s strongest links to Saddam and al Qaeda and that they worked together on September 11 to achieve their murderous goal of mass murder on American soil. (Which they were both claiming would happen.)

This is akin to two differing factions of the mafia joining together to achieve a common goal. They may have hated each other inititally, but Arabs believe “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, and they called a truce regarding their hatred of one another in order to join together to direct their hatred of America TOGETHER.

These events are an unfortunate example of the difficulty of maintaining effective laison relationships between American and foreign intelligence services, and of how, even in the months following the worst failure in American history-dangerous terrorists were allowed to walk away from their cramped holding cells as free men.

In late December 1999, the CIA, the NSA, and the State Department all received intelligence about a meeting of al-Qaeda-associated terrorists to take place in Malaysia in early January of that year. The NSA had intercepted communications from individuals tied to the 1998 al Qaeda attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Although the information was incomplete, the intercepts picked up three first names; Khalid, Nawar and Salem.

The CIA on high alert for potential attacks on millennium celebrations, immediately sent word to operatives around the world to track the would-be terrorists. On December 31, 1999, CIA officials in Pakistan cabled to HQ that they “were following the situation.” Nawaf was in Pakistan and Khalid was in Yemen. The CIA determined that they planned to meetin Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, arriving on January 4, 2000, and established an operation-to be conducted jointly with Malaysian intelligence-to monitor the comings and goings of the men. CIA officials assumed the meeting was called to plan attacks on Southeast Asia.

That same day, the CIA obtained a photocopy of the passport belonging to one of the suspected participants, Khalid al Mihdhar. Although al Mihdhar, a Saudi citizen, was known to have connections with al Qaeda and the Yemeni mujahideen, he was not yet on any terrorist watch lists on April 7, 1999, when the US consulate in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, had given him a one-year visa granting him multiple-entry privilege to the US.

The intelligence on Nawaf al Hazmi, at that point known only by his first name, was sketchier. The CIA determined that he was scheduled to leave Karachi, Pakistan, for Mayalsia on January 4, 2000. In fact, he had departed two days earlier.

On 5-January-2000, officials at CIA HQ in Langley, Virginia, sent a dispatch to operatives around the world that “we need to continue the effort to identify these travelers and their activities…to determine if there is any true threat posed.” Information about the meeting was included in the Al Qaeda-related intelligence given to the most senior officials in the US Government. On at least two occasions, the direct of the CIA’s al Qaeda unit gave briefings to his superiors about the meeting.

Khalid al Mihdar, a thin, dark-haired man with a slightly crooked face, arrived at the Kuala Lampur International Airport on January 5. The airport is an architectural wonder-a glass-enclosed tribute to modernity that attracts even tourists who arrive elsewhere in the Malaysian capital. The marble floors are buffed constantly, producing a surface so shiny, it’s possible to catch a glimpse of yourself by looking down. Rount white beams shoot like three-dimensional spiderwebs from the floor to the unfinished ceiling, and Western stores such as the tie Rack line the halls of the main terminal.

Ahmed Himar Shakir, the Iraqi greeter, met al Mihdhar shortly after he deplaned and escorted him through the bureaucratic red tape for entry. Malaysian authorities photographed the arrival.

When they’d finished the paperwork, Shakir walked al Mihdhar to a waiting car, much as any facilitator would. But then, rather than bidding his VIP good-bye and returning to work, Shakir jumped in the car and accompanied al Mihdhar to a condominium owned by Yzaid Sufaat, an American-educated al Qaeda associate, where he was once again photographed by Malaysian intelligence. The Kuala Lumpur condo would serve as the site of a three-day meeting that the CIA later concluded was the main planning seession for the October 12, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and for the attacks of September 11, 2001. It isn’t yet known whether Shakir took an active part in the meeting, but he was certainly in fast company. The FBI believes as many as nine top al Qaeda terrorists attended the meeting, including Ramzi bin al Shibh, who later boasted to a journalist of his role as “coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation”-the September 11 attacks.

The meeting ended on January 8, 2000, when three of the participants-Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawar al Hazmi, and Khalid bin Attash-left Kuala Lumpur for Bangkok, Thailand. Of the three, the CIA was still able to identify only al Mihdhar by his full name. CIA officials in Kuala Lumpur notified their counterparts in Thailand and asked them to pick up the surveillance, and the agency’s Langley, Virginia HQ sent an urgent cable the next day with the same instructions. These messages came to late; the al Qaeda suspects had disappeared into the busy streets of Bangkok.

Shakir, the Iraqi greeter, reported to work at the Kuala Lumpur International Airport on 9&10-January. He never showed up again.

On 12-January-2000, the chief of the CIA’s al Qaeda unit brief his bosses about the Kuala Lumpur meeting. The official, apparently unaware that the meeting had broken up four days earlier, reported erroneously that the surveillance in Kuala Lumpur was continuing. Three days later, unbeknownst to US officials, al Hazmi and Al Mihdhar slipped onto a United Airlines flight from Bangkok to Los Angeles.

On 11-September, 2001, Nawaf al Hazmi and his brother Salem, along with Khalid al Mihdhar, hijacked American Airlines flight 77. At 9:38 a.m., the airplane struck the Pentagon.

Six days later, authorities in Qatar arrested Shakir in Doha, the nation’s capital, where he had begun working as a mid-level employee at Qatar’s Ministry of Religious Development. The CIA had learned Shakir’s identity, but not his whereabouts, after the Kuala Lumpur meeting ended. In the short time since the 9/11 attacks, the FBI identified al Hazmi and Al Mihdar as two of the hijackers and placed Shakir at the meeting in Malaysia.

Shakir’s presence at the gathering in Kuala Lumpur wasn’t the only thing that piqued investigators’ interest in him. According to CIA reporting, authorities found both on his person and in his Doha apartment, a stunning collection of information on some very dangerous characters. The terrorists in touch with Shakir had both strong ties to al Qaeda and indirect links to the former regime in Iraq. Several of them had been involved in bloody attacks on Americans dating back to the early 1990’s. The stash wasn’t a complete surprise.

The CIA had previous reportin gthat Shakir had received at least one phone call from the planning HQ for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Among Shakir’s contacts were Zahid Sheikh Mohammed, the brother of September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Musab Yasin, the brother of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was harbored and supported by the Iraqi regime for a decade after that attack; and Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman, a US citizen born in Kuwait, whose fingersprints were found on the bomb-making manuals authorities found after the 1993 WTC attack.

One contact stood out as a special indicator of Shakir’s standing with al Qaeda; an old telephone number for Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, whose roots are suggested by his nom de guerre, Abu Hajer al Iraqi. The number reached a desk at Taba Investments, perhaps the best-known of Osama bin Laden’s front companies. Abu Hajer, a founding member of al Qaeda, was described by another al Qaeda operative as Osama bin Laden’s “best friend”.

The preceding information reflects the consensus of the US intelligence community. Virtually no one disputes the details. What happened next, however, and what it all means, remains a source of intense debate inside the halls of US intelligence agencies.

Despite Shakir’s direct connections with several of the world’s most dangerous terrorists, the Qatari government released him from custody. On October 21, 2001, he boarded a plane for Baghdad. But he didn’t arrive there; he was detained at his connection in Amman by Jordanian intelligence. Immediately following his capture, according to SU officials familiar with the intelligence on Shakir, the Iraqi government began exerting pressure on the Jordanians to release him. Just how much pressure depends on whom you ask.

Some US intelligence officials, primarily the CIA, believe that Iraq’s demand for Shakir’s release was pro forma, no different from the requests governments regularly make on behalf of citizens detained by a foreign government. Others inside the CIA and in the national security hierarchy disagree. These officials point to the flurry of phone calls, diplomatic cables, and personal appeals from the Iraqi government to the Jordanians and contend that the reaction was anything but typical. This concern, they say, reflected an interest in Shakir at the highest levels of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

The Iraqi regime was not the only source of pressure for the Jordanian government. Within days of Shakir’s capture, and before it had been publicly reported, the Amman-based office of Amnesty International sent a letter to Jordan’s interior minister demanding an explanation of Shakir’s detention. “It appears that his arrest may have been in connection with suspicions on the part of the Jordanian authorities relating to visits he had made to Pakistan, Yemen and Malaysia,” read a subsequent Amnesty International report, which also expressed concern that Shakir was “held in incommunicado detention for several weeks before allowed access to a lawyer” and that “he had lost weight during his detention and appeared to be traumatized.”

While in custody, Shakir was questioned first by Jordanians and then by the CIA. The CIA officials who talked to Shakir reported that he was generally uncooperative. But even in refusing to talk, he provided some important information; the interrogators concluded that his evasive answers reflected counterinterrogation techniques so sophisticated that they likely had been learned from a government intelligence service. Shakir’s nationality, his contacts with the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, and the keen interest of Baghdad in his case make Iraq the most likely candidate.

There are two different schools of thought on this. The CIA had not previously identified Shakir’s contact as an intelligence officer. Saddam usually, after all, assigned his intelligence agents to high-ranking diplomatic posts, and US intelligence officials agree that Shakir’s contact was relatively low-ranking. Did CIA officials overlook his potential connections to Iraqi intelligence because his position didn’t fit its reporting on the practices of Iraqi intelligence offocials in embassies throughout the world? Some CIA officials later discounted Shakir’s alleged connections to Iraqi intelligence, citing his contact’s low rank as a primary reason.

Others at the CIA, Pentagon, and the NSA, disagree. Given the obvious gaps in the American government’s knowledge about Iraqi intelligence, it would be dangerously rigid thinking to assume that every Iraqi agent-with no exception-occupied a high-profile embassy position. And even if this is consistently true of intelligence operatives in Iraq embassies, how can we be sure that every Iraqi embassy employee in Malaysia fits that same pattern?

In any case, Jordanian officials conluded not only that Shakir’s embassy contact was likely from Iraqi intelligence, but that Shakir himself was working on behalf of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and played an important role.

So the Jordanians-who cooperated so extensively with US intelligence after 9/11 that CIA director George Tenet would later praise them in congressional testimony as “courageous leaders” in the War on Terror-approached the CIA with an extraordinary proposal; release Shakir and try to flip him. That is, allow him to return to Iraq on the conditon that he agrees to report back on the activities of Iraqi intelligence.

It was a risky plan. Shakir was a potentially valuable link between Saddam’ regime and al Qaeda’s September 11 plot. Even if he wasn’t working for Iraqi intelligence, Shakir was one of a small group of terrorists still alive who might have had firsthand knowledge of the details of the Kuala Lumpur meeting. Could someone involved, however indirectly, in the worst terrorist attack in American history, and who was found with contact information for terrorists involved in several other attacks on America, be trusted to report back to Jordanian and US intelligence officials on Iraqi’s intelligence?

In one of the most breathtaking mistakes by the US intelligence community after September 11, the CIA agreed to release Shakir. He posted a modest bail and returned to Iraq.

He hasn’t been heard from since.

In late February 2004, Christopher Carney made an astonishing discovery. Carney, a political science professor from Pennsylvania on leave to work at the Pentagon, was poring over a list of officers in Saddam Hussein’s much-feared security force, the Fedayeen Saddam. One name stood out: Lieutenant Colonel Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. The name was not spelled exactly as Carney had seen it before, but such discrepancies are common. Having studied the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda for 18 months, he immediately recognized the potential significance of his find. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Shakir appears on three different lists of Fedayeen (the inner sanctum of the Makharabat) officers.

More on this here, here and here.

This piece from NRO talked about the 9/11 Commission’s shoddy conclusions, and refers to Shakir AKA Ahmad Hikmat Shakir Azzawi.

Here is Part II.

Here is Part III.

My latest podcast is on Code Pink. Give it a listen.

All photos thanks to FreeRepublic.com

I’m a FReeper and I totally support what they’re doing. If you live in the DC area, make sure you stop by help them keep the pressure on this anti-American group of traitor/beatniks. On their website, they call our soldiers “killers”.

That was a photoshop for the leftists who don’t “get it”…

Here are some of the real pictures. In case you don’t know what these are all about, read a couple of these pieces to “get up to speed” on what Code Pink is all about.

Here is the explanation of the FREEPER pictures outside of Walter Reed:

Code Pink is truly stuck in a quagmire as FReepers severely hinder the Pinkos’ cynical attempts to manipulate wounded soldiers and relatives in hopes of finding those who will join the anti-war movement and break faith with the troops still fighting a ruthless enemy. Many of the most severely wounded troops from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are taken to Walter Reed for continued treatment and rehabilitation. The Pinkos other goal is too demoralize those wounded troops, but wounded troops have repeatedly thanked us for our presence as an antidote to the morale-sapping leftist antics.

Code Pink-o

The Left’s War Against the Military At Home

Exploiting the Dead

Raising the Threat Level to Pink

Lance Armstrong: Code Pink’s Poster Boy

Code Pink Caught in a big Lie About Their Activism

FREEP of Code Pink’s Quagmire at Walter Reed

They’re a commie organization that is not only standing with Cindy Sheehan, but they’ve defaced and harrassed military recruiting offices in order to reduce the number of people signing up, and they’ve also been protesting the war outside of Walter Reed Hospital–on the days when our wounded soldiers’ are being visited by their families.

Now talk about hate! These people also gave $600,000 to the terrorists in Fallujah.

The DC Chapter of Free Republic has been “demonstrating” across the street from Code Pink in ratios of 4:1. 4 Freepers to 1 Code Pinko.

That’s what they call the Mother of All Banners, lol–but they had a couple of them, as you can see….those big banners are the ones that get their little pink undies all wadded up. Poor little dears. Instead of supporting our president and the mission in Iraq, they call for more benefits for soldiers–they call that “real support”. They trash military recruitment offices, they deface government property, they send money to the terrorists in Fallujah, and they claim the “love” our troops. My ass.

Here’s a little group of pinkos

versus a big group of freepers.

I received a note from this gal, and although I know she might receive some hate mail from leftists who troll here, I thought I’d put the call out on her behalf, anyway.

Here is her bio.

BIOGRAPHY

Dawn Miller is the award-winning author of, “The Journal of Callie Wade”; Best Historical Fiction and “Letters to Callie”; Reader’s Choice Perfect 10, published by Simon & Schuster and “Promiseland” and “The Other Side of Jordan”; both nominated for the Christy and Gold Medallion in fiction. Dawn’s short stories “Her Only Coat” was published in the Harper Collins book, “Family” and “Summer Storms” was published by Focus on the Family Magazine.

In the past year, Dawn has written and produced the country music video, “Raise Him Up” (nominated for Best Contemporary Country Video), attached talent to her Movie-of-the-week script optioned by Sony Pictures Television as well as secured a feature option. She also wrote and directed the highly praised docudrama, “Heart of a Servant” for the world relief organization, Service International.

Dawn is currently at work developing several projects, including two features, a sci-fi tv series and the movie-of-the-week, “Life Interrupted: A Child’s Journey from Murder—to Redemption”; a true crime biography based on the life of Homicide Detective Mike Kurtz.

This is what she’s asking for.

Hi! I’m a Christian published author/screenwriter (bio above) that came across your blog while doing research for a documentary I’m working on and thought you might be interested in passing the info along:

I’m looking for true stories of faith, miracles love and compassion in the midst of war from our soldiers in Iraq. If anyone has a story to share, they can email me at walkbyj@aol.com. Remind them to put “Somebody’s Been Praying For Me” in the subject heading and to list their contact info. I will review the stories and contact them in the order they’re received.

Thanks and God Bless!
Dawn Miller

Please pass this around, it’s important to get these stories published and documented. Cao.

“Haven’t I commanded you: be strong and courageous? Do not be afraid or discouraged, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” Joshua 1:9

The evidence of great progress in Iraq grows. More people have electricity, clean water, and sanitation than ever before. My son, always looking at the world from the perspective of himself, is in Iraq today. He says “you wouldn’t believe the conditions here, mom. People at home just don’t know how good they have it.” It looks as though his two tours in Iraq have made him look beyond himself. He aches for the incredible poverty these people live under, thanks to the Saddam’s 35-year reign of terror on his own people.

The schools have all reopened. For the first time in history, mayors of the communities in Iraq have all been elected. American-trained Iraqi police officers patrol the streets, and neighborhoods and local Iraqis are taking responsibility for their own governance and security functions.

The Constitution is on the verge of being finished.

All of this has drawn little attention from the US media, but that’s not particularly remarkable to young troopers. One Infantry captain said, “I’m not surprised. It’s “good news”. Most of the media just doesn’t “get it”".

That’s not the only good news that the press doesn’t “get”. Many in the media seem intent on exposing some error in American strategy or tactics, confirming that troop morale is suffering or proving that our efforts to bring democracy to Iraq are wrought with failure. This focus apparently has blinded most reporters to another profoundly important aspect of the young Americans who have come to Mesopotamia to offer others the hope of freedom; their faith.

It’s an interesting omission from most of the reports coming out of Operation Iraqi Freedom. None of the guys like Ollie North who were embedded for months with these remarkable young soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines could be unaware of it. Chaplains, chapel services, and Bible studies were and are-much in evience among all the units serving in this new war on terror. So, too, are the daily acts of Christian charity and compassion that are part and parcel of every day activity for these young Americans. Yet these most fundamental and visible manifestations of Christian faith in the day-to-day lives of these warriors have largely escaped any attention from the lamestream media.

That’s a shame, because for many of these fighters–of every rank–their faithfulness to the Word of God has much to do with the success of their mission. And that mission is far more complex and difficult than many at home perceive it to be.

American and coalition troops had relatively simple and straightforward goals when they first went into Iraq; remove Saddam Hussein from power, eliminate the threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and shut down Baghdad’s support for terrorism. To achieve these ends, approximately 170,000 US and British soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines first has to beat Saddam’s 485,000 strong military. Despite gloom-and-doom from the press, the allied coalition accomplished all of this in a lightning-swift campaign that began on 20-March and culminated with the fall of Baghdad on 10-April and the capture of Tikrit three days later.

It was an extraordinary military operation. Never before has any military force gone so far, so fast, with so few casualties-on either side–in a military campaign. No other armed forces but ours could have accomplished what those young Americans achieved.

Reporting from Baghdad on 11-April, Oliver North reported:

“Their skill and daring, discipline and endurance are without parallel in the world today.”

But then, having beaten the Butcher of Baghdad, the mission suddenly took a left turn.

The warriors whose courage, stamina and military prowess had defied the gloomy predictions found themselves in a new role: peacemakers. In many respects, it’s a more difficult task than simply fighting. Today our troops are charged with the responsibility of bringing democracy to a people who have known only tyranny all their lives. While rebuilding the decrepit infrastructure of an oil-rich nation, our troops must also be on guard against Baathists–remnants of Saddam’s old regime, -who are intent on preventing real democracy from taking root. Throughout Iraq, our soldiers have to content with heavily armed criminals released from Saddam’s prisons shortly before hostilities commenced on March, 2003. And most dangerous of all, U.S. troops must defend against the radical Islamic Jihadists who have entered Iraq from neighboring countries, intent on killing themselves in an effort to kill any “Westerner”, Christian or Jew.

Like the kamikaze pilots of WWII, the Jihadists have been taught that if they kill themselves in the act of killing Americans, they will reap financial rewards for their families in this world–and spiritual rewards for themselves in the next. They are not simply willing to die for their cause, they want to die–and take as many infidels with them as possible in the process.

Western political and military leaders may say that coalition forces are not waging a religious war against Islam, but most of our troops in Iraq know that for the Jihadist suicide-bombers this is very much a religious war. The Saudi, Syrian, Egyptian, Jordanian, Somali, Sudanese and Yemeni terrorists who blow themselves to pieces while sitting in a truck full of explosives know only hatred, how to kill others, and how to kill themselves. Their political and spiritual leaders have given them nothing to live for…only a cause that requires them to die.

Nearly all the troops understand both the military and spiritual dimension of this kind of adversary. A great number of these young Americans are believers. They know the Word of God from studying the Bible. And from biblical doctrines they know that salvation isn’t a matter of how they die, but how they live. For Christians, all the required dying was done on Calvary two thousand years ago.

And because they’re so well-grounded in their faith and because so many of their leaders have a personal relationship with the Lord and Saviour–these young Americans have performed not only with courage, but with remarkable compassion—toward one another, toward Iraqi civilians, and even toward the enemy.

I found the coloring at this website so distracting I thought I’d just bring the text over here so I myself could read it better and the message could be shared. I am a huge fan of John Ray, the more I read. He is an excellent teacher!

The Nazi Master Plan: Persecution of the Christian Churches

Description:

This Study describes, with illustrative factual evidence, Nazi purposes, policies and methods of persecuting the Christian Churches in Germany and occupied Europe.

Draft for the War Crimes Staff

6 July 1945

I. The Nature of the Persecution

Throughout the period of National Socialist rule, religious liberties in Germany and in the occupied areas were seriously impaired. The various Christian Churches were systematically cut off from effective communications with people. They were confined as far as possible to the performance of anrrowly religious functions, and even within this narrow sphere were subjected to as many hinderances as the Nazis dared to impose. Those results were accompanies partly by legal and partly by illegal and terrorist means.

II. The Problem of Establishing Criminal Responsibility

To establish criminal responsibility in connection with this persecution it is sufficient to show that measures taken against the Christian Churches were an integral part of the National Socialist scheme of world conquest. In many cases, it is also possible to show that the measures in question were criminal from the standpoint of German or of international law, depending on the region in which any given act was committed.

A. Acts Committed in Germany proper

By articles 136 (freedom of faith and conscience), 136 (right to the enjoyment of civil and political rights independent of religious creedt), 139 (freedom of religious association and incorporation), 138 (computation of state conrtibutions to religious bodies), 139 (legal recognition of Sundays and public holidays), 140 (right to carry out religious work in the Army and public institutions) and 149 (maintenance of religious instruction in the German educational system) of the Weimar Constitution, which were never formally abrogated by the National Socialist regime, many basic rights were granted to religious organization. Although Article 114 (freedom of the person), 115 (freedom from searches and seizures), 117 (secrecy of communication), 118 (freedom of speech and of the press), 123 (freedom of assembly, 124 (freedom of association) and 163 (rights of property) were suspended on 28 February 1933, Articles 135-40 and 149 were left untouched, and still remain theoretically in force. Respect for the principle of religious freedom was reitereated in various official pronouncements by Nazi leaders. Specific religious liberties were also guaranteed in various enactments of the National Socialist state, particularly the Concordat of 20 July 1933.

To demonstrate the illegality of specific acts of persecution, it is sufficient to show that they were in violation of these legal provisions.

B. Acts Committed in Areas Incorporated into the Reich

The legal situation with regard to acts of persecution in these areas depends upon the attitude taken concerning the legal effect of incorporation. If it is assumed that incorporation actually took place, religious guarantees included in the Weimar Constitution, the Concordat and other German enactments would presumably apply to the incorporated territories. In that case, the problem of establishing the illegality of acts of persecution committed in these areas subsquent to incorporation would be the same as in the case of acts committed in Germany proper. If it is assumed that the act of incorporation, as an incident of aggressive warfare, was invalid and without legal effect, the problem of establishing the illegality of acts of persecution committed in these areas would be the same as in the case of acts committed in other occupied areas, considered below.

C. Acts Committed in Other Occupied Areas

The rights and duties of the Nazi authorities in these regions were governed by the provisions of international law, particularly Article 46 of the Hague Regluations (1907) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which provides that “religious convictions and practice must be respected.” To demonstrate illegality of specific note in these areas, it is sufficient to show that they constituted a violation of these provisions.

III. The Basic National Socialist Attitude Toward Christian Churches

National Socialism, by its very nature, was hostile to Christianity and the Christian Churches. The purpose of the National Socialist movement was to convert the German people into a homogeneous racial group, united in all its energies for prosecution of aggressive warfare. Innumerable indications of this fact are to be found int he speeches and writing of Hitler and other responsible nazi leaders. The following statements made by Hitler may be taken as indicative:

“Every truly national idea is in the last resort social, i.e., who is prepared so completely to adopt the cause of his people that he really knows no higher ideal than the prosperity of this-his own people, he who has so taken to heart the meaning of our grat song “Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles” that nothing in this world stands for him higher than this Germany, people and land, land and people, he is a Socialist!” (Speech given in Munich, July 28, 1922, translation from Adolph Hitler, by New Order, edited by Raoul de Roussy de Sales, Reynal and Hitchcock, New York, 1941, p. 39)

“Even today, we are the least loved people on earth. A world of foes is ranged against us and the German must still today make up his mind whether he intends to be a free soldier or a white slave. The only possible condition under which a German State can develop at all must therefore be: the unification of all Germans in Europe, education towards a national conscience, and readiness to place thw whole national strength without exception in the service of the nation.” (Speech given in Munich, April 10, 1923, translation from Hitler, ibid, p. 28)

“If cowards cry out: “But we have no arms!” that is neither here nor there! Then the whole German people knows one will and one will only–to be free–in that hour we shall have the instrument with which to win our freedom. It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane; if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.” (Speech given in Munich August 1, 1923, translation from Hitler, ibid, p. 65)

“The conception of pacifism translated into practice and applied to all spheres must gradually lead to destruction of the competititve instinct, to the dstruction of the ambition for outstanding achievement. I cannot deny; in politics we will be pacifists, we reject the idea of the necessity for life to safeguard itself through conflict–but in economics we want to remain keenly competitive. If I reject the idea of conflict as such, it is of no importance that for the time being that idea is still applied to some single spheres. In the last resort political decisions are decisive and determine achievement in the single sphere.” (Speech given before the Industry Club at Dusseldorf, January 27, 1932, translation from Hitler, ibid, p. 101.)

“There can be no economic life unless behind this economic life there stands the determined political will of the nation ready to strike–and strike hard.” (Same speech, p. 111)

“We National Socailists once came from war, fromthe experience of war. Our world ideal developed in war, now, if ncessary, it will prove itself.” (Speech given at the Sportpalast, Berlin, on October 10, 1939, translation from Hitler, ibid, p. 759)

Although the principal Christian Churches of Germany had long been associated with conservative wasys of thought, which meant that they tended to agree with the National Socailists in their authoritarianism, in their attacks on Socialism and Communism, and in their campaign against the Versailles treaty, their doctrinal commitments could not be reconciled with the principles of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warfare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to state. Since these were the fundamental elements of the national Socialist platform, conflict was inevitable.

Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by a complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion tailored to fit the needs of National Socialist policy. This radically anti-Christian position is most significantly presented in Alfred Rosenberg’s Myth of the Twentieth Century (one of the great best-sellers of National Socialist Germany and generally regarded, after Hitler’s Mein Kampf, as the most authoritative statement of national Socialist ideology), and in his To the Obscurantiasts of Our Time (An die Dunkelmaenner unserer Zeit). Since Rosenberg was editor in chief of the chief party newspaper, the Voelkischar Beobachter, the Reich Leader of Ideological Training and the posessor of other prominant positions under the National Socialist regime, his ideas were not without official significance. Thus is a declaration of 5 November 1934, Baldur von Schirach, German Youth Leader declared in Berlin, “Rosenberg’s way is the way of German youth.” So fas as this sector of the National Socialist party is concerned, the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement.

Considerations of expediency made it impossible, however, for the National Socialist government to adopt this radical Anti-Christian policy officially. Thus, the policy actually adopted was to reduce the influence of the Christian churches as far as possible through the use of every available means, without provoking the difficulties of an open war of extermination. That this was an official policy can be deduced from the following record of measures actually taken for the systematic persecution of Christian churches in Germany in German occupied areas.

IV. Policies Adopted In the Persecution of the Christian Churches

The nature of the influence exercised by the Christian Churches varied considerably in the various regions under National Socialist control. Policies adopted in an attempt to counteract that influence were correspondingly varied.

A. Policies Adopted in Germany proper

Persecution of the Christian churches in Germany proper gave rise to ver special problems. Since Germany was destined to provide the central force for the coming wars of aggression, it was particularly necessary that the German people be withdrawn from all influences hostile to the National Socialist philosophy of aggression. This meant that the influence of the Christian churches would have to be minimized as thoroughly as possible. On the other hand, the predominantly conservative and patriotic influence exerted by the larger Christian churches was a factor of some positive value from the National Socialist standpoint, and insured those churches as a substantial measure of support from conservative groups destined to play an important part in the National Socialist plan for aggression. Persecution of the Churches in this region had therefore to be effected in such a way s to minimize their efefctive influence without breaking the unity of the German people, and without destroying the capacity of the churches to fulfill their historic mission of conservative social discipline. This could only be accomplished, at least the case of the major Christian churches, by a slow and cautious policy of gradual encroachment.

In accordance with this necessity, the Nazi plan was to show first that they were no foes of the Church, that they were indeed interested in “Positive Christianity,” were very good friends of the churches, and did not a tall want to interfere in religious matters or with the internal affairs of the different denominations. Then, under the pretext that the Churches themselves were interfering in policial and state matters, they would deprive the Churhces, step by step, of all opportunity to effect German public life. The Nazis believe that the Churches could be starved and strangled spiritually in a relatively short time when they were deprive of all means of communication with the faithful beyond the Church building themselves, and terrorized in such a manner that no Churchman would dare to speak out openly against Nazi policies. This general pln had been established even before the rise of the Nazis to power. It apparently came out of discussions among the inner circle comprising Hitler himself, Rosenberg, Gering, Goebbels, Hess, Baldur von Schirach, Prink, Rust, Kerrl and Schemm. Some Nazi leaders or sympathizers, and some later collaborationists who were faithful Catholics or Protestants, such as von Epp, Buttmann and von Papen, may have been left in ignorance of the real aim of Nazi church policy.

The problem of proof. The best evidence now available as to the exitence of an Anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself. Different steps in that persecution, such as tht ecmapaign for the suppression of denominational and youth organizations, the campaign against the denominational schools, the defemation campaign against the clergy, started on the same day inthe whole area of the Reich or in large districts, and were supported by the entire regimented press, by Nazi Party meetings, by traveling Party speakers. As to direct evidence, the directives of the Reich propaganda Ministry, if they have not been destroyed, would be most authoritative. If they have been destroyed, questioning of Nazi newspapermen and local and regional propagandists might elicit the desired evidence. It is known that Hitler used to discuss the plans of his political action with those members of his inner circle who were especially concerned with the respective problems. Rosenberg, Gering, Goebbels, Frick, Rust, Baldur von Schirash, Karl and Schemm are the leading Nazis who took a special interest in the relations of State and Church. (See Hermann Resuchning, in his chapter on Hitler’s religious attitudes in The Voice of Destruction and Kurt Ludske, I Knew Hitler. Both witnesses, however, are to be used with caution.)

But even though the basic plan was uniform, the opportunities for carrying it into effect, and hence the specific policies actually adopted, differed substantially from church to church. The principal churches to be considered in this connection are the following:

1. The Catholic Church. National Socailist relations with the Catholic Church fell into three clearly marked periods.

a. The period prior to the Seizure of power. During this period the relations between the Nazi party and the Catholic Church were extremely bitter. As an opposition Party, the National Socialists had always violently attacked “Political Catholicism” and the collaboration of the Center Party with the Social Democrats in the Reich and the Prussian Governments, declaring that they could find no difference among the so-called System-Parteien (parties whic collaborated in the system of constitutional government). On 8 March 1933, Gering in a speech at Eesen summed up the nazi attitude toward the Center as follows:

“Each time the red robber was about to steal some of the German people’s properties, his black accomplices stood thieves’ watch.”

On their part, the German bishops, stigmatizing the Nazi movement as anti-Christian, forbate the clergy to participate in any ceremonies, such as funerals, in which the Nazi Party was officially represented, and refused the sacraments to party officials. In several pastorals they expressly warned the faithful against the danger created to Germany Caholicism by the Party.

b. The period from Seizure of power to the Signing of the Condordat. During this period, the main concern of the new regime was to liquidate political opposition. Their strategy was to convince conservatives that the efforts of the government were being directed primarily against the Communists and other forces of the extreme left, and that their own interests would remain safe in Nazi hands as long as they would consent to refrain from political activity. Immediately after their rise to power, therefore, the Nazis made unmistakable overtures to the Churches, and tried to convince the Catholic hierarchy in particular that after the dissolution of the Center Party and some Catholic organizations of more or less political character, such as the Friedensbund deutscher Katholiken, no obstacle could remain in the way of complete reconciliation between the Catholic church and the Nazi state. The German Catholic bishops, influenced by the experiences of their Italian colleagues, whose relations with the Fascists under the Lateran Treaty of 1929 had been fairly smooth, accepted the Nazi proposition. Four parlers for a Reich Concordat started immediately.

Meantime the Nazi movement abrogated all laws and regulations of the Republic protecting non-denominational groups of the population and abolished the right to pursue anti-religious and anti-Church propaganda. The Prussian government closed the so-called secular “weltliche) schools in which no religious instruction was given and re-established religious instruction in professional vocational schools. All organizations of free-thinkers were forbidden. When the Reichstag elected on 5 March 1933 convened, the government organized religious ceremonies for the Protestant and the Catholic members of Parliament.

And in his speech before the Recihstag, to which he preserted his government, Hitler declared:

“While the regime is determined to carry through the political and moral purging of our public life, it is creating an ensuring the prerequisites for a really deep inner religiosity. Benefits of a personal nature, which might arise from compromises with aethetistic organizations, could outweigh the results which become apparent through the destruction of general basic religious-ethical values. The national regime seeks in both Christian confessions the factors most important the mainteance of our folkdom. It will respect agreements concluded between them and the states. Their rights will not be infringed upon. Conversely, however, it expects and hopes that the national and ethical uplifting of our people, which the regime has taken for its task, will enjoy a similar appreciation. The national regime will concede and safeguard to the Christian confessions the influence due them, in school and education. It is concerned with the sincere cooperation of church and state. The struggle against a materialistic philosophy and for the creation of a true folk community serves the interests of the German nation as well as our Christian belief.”

Under such circumstances, the conference of German bishops, meeting as usual in Fulda, decided on 28 March 1933 to lift all restrictions imposed on members of the Church adhering to the Nazi movement. This opened the door to mass adherence to the Party of practicing Catholics. The rush started immediately. All those German Catholics who were inclined to adopt Nazi political views and had hesitated only because of the anti-Nazi attitude of the hierarchy hastened now to join the victorious party of the “national revolution”. Former members of the Center Party’s right wing, who had always advocated collaboration with the parties to the right of the Center and with the German nationalist movements established themselves now as so-called “bridge-builders” trying to explain ideological affinities between the anti-liberal character of Catholic politics and the Nazi system. They insisted especially on the fact that the Church was guided like the Nazi movement by the leadership principle. They were soon joined by turncoats from the left wing of the Center and the Catholic youth movement, persons who insisted that the “socialist” and anti-capitalist character of the Nazi doctrine coincided marvellously with their own vision on the necessity of social reform.

In order to remind the Catholics of the danger of not coming to an agreement with the Nazi state, a certain amount of pressure was at the same time maintained against them. A thorough job was done in purging Reich, state and municipal administrations of officials appointed for their adhereance ot the Center or Baravarian People’s parties. Former leaders of those parties, including priests, joined Communist and Social Democrat leaders in the concentration camps, and this campaign of hatred against the “black” was resumed. By April 1933, the bishops were making appeals for clemency towared former civil servants who, they pointed out, were not able to join the celebration of national awakening because they had been dismissed from position s inw hich they had given their best to the community of the German people. And on 31 May 1933, a meeting of the Bavarian bishops adopted a solemn statement directed against the tendency of attributing to the state alone the right of educating, organizing, and leading ideologically the German youth. A few weeks later, on 18 June, 1933, the breaking up in Munich by Nazi hordes of a manifestation of the Catholic Journeymen Associations (Gesellenvereine) became the startling point of a Nazi propaganda campaign against alleged efforts to keep “Political Catholicism” alive.

Tension was mounting again when news that a Concordat had been signed on 8 July 1933 in Rome between the Holy See and the German Reich seemed to alter the situation completely. For the first time since the Middle Ages the Reich itself had entered into an agreement with the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the new treaty was apparently entirely to the advantage of the Church. In return for the retreat of German Catholicism from the political scene, demonstrated by the self-dissolution of the Center Party and the synchronization (Gleichschltung) of the Catholic press, an official guarantee was given the Church in the form of an international treaty, of all the church rights that “Political Catholicism” had fought for: freedom for Catholic organizations, maintenance of denominational schools, and preservation of the general influence of the Church on the education of German youth.

Among the 33 articles of the Concordat, 21 treated exclusively rights and prerogatives accorded to the Church; reciprocation consisted only in a pledge of loyalty by the clergy to the Reich government and in a promise that Catholic religious instruction would emphasize the patriotic duties of the Christian citizen and insist on a loyal attitude toward the Fatherland. Since it had always been the practice of the Catholic church to abide by established governments and to promote patriotic convictions among the faithful, these stipulations of the Concordat were not more than legalizations of an existing custom.

The Concordat was hailed by the Church and State authorities as marking the end of a period of distrust and suspicion and the beginning of a clsoe and fruitful collaboration. Hitler hismelf advised the State and Party offocials to adopt a friendly attitude toward the Catholic Church and its institutions on German soil. He expressed the wish that Catholic organizations, now under the protection of a treaty of friendship between Nazi Germany and the Holy See, should no longer be regarded by his followers as symbols of an effort to remain outside the national community and to form a way of life apart from the official line of the totalitarian Third Reich.

c. The Period Following the Signature of the Concordat. During this period, relations between the Nazi state and the Catholic church became progressively worse. Having gained the support of the Catholic hierarchy in the crucial early days of the regime by signing the Concordat, they took advantage of their subsequently increasing strength to violate every one of the Concordat’s provisions; gradually stripping the Church of all its more important rights. Specific instances of the various phases of this persecution are presented in Section V Below.

By 1937 it had become clear that the Nazi state was not to be appeased by Catholic efforts to accommodate the Church and the State in the form of a Concordat, and that Hitler’s government had no intention to adhere to its part of the document. Convinced, therefore, that the Church had been in error, in the face of the irreconcilability of its teachings with those of National Socialism, in abandoning its earlier opposition to the movement, the Church resumed its controversy with Nazi doctrine, while continuing to suffer from Nazi practice.

The new campaign may be considered to have been inaugurated by Pope Pius XI in his Eneyelical of 14 March 1937, entitled “Mit brennunder Morre”, which by underground means was spread by Catholic youth throughout Germany and was first published in the world in the original German text by a reading (21 March 1937) from all Roman Catholic pulpits in Germany. Pope Pius XI denounced the violation of the Conrdat by the Nazi state. He described the actions of the Nazi government against the church as “Intrigues which from the beginning had no other aim than a war of extermination…In the follow of peace in which we had labored to sow the seeds of true peace, others…sowed the tares of suspicion, discord, hatred, calumny, a secret and open fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church, fed from a thousand differnt sources and making use of every available means.”

The support of the Holy See encouraged some of the German bishops, either in courageous sermons, diocesan pastorals, or in their collective pastroals issued usually from Fulda, the seat of their annual conferences, to protest vigorously against both Nazi ideology and practice. Especially notable in this work were Cardinal Faulbaber of Munich, Bishop Von Praysing of Berlin, and Bishop Von Galen of Munster. Among the more notable protests were the Pastoral issued from Fulda on 19 August 1930, the Fulda Pastoral of 1941, 2hich was read from all pulpits on 6 July 1941, the Fulda Pastoral of 22 March 1942 and the Fulda Pastoral of 19 August 1943. In spite of these protests, there is no evidence that the Nazis were in any way deterred from their campaign, in violation of the Concordat, to destroy the position and influence of the Catholic Church in Germany.

2. The Evangelical Church. Unlike the Catholic church, the Evangelical churches of Germany were organizations whose supreme administrative organs were located within the borders of Germany. Among the Evangelical clergy and laity there was also a substantial group, the more extreme members of which were known as the German Christians, who were entirely in accord with the purposes of the National Socialist government. With regard to the Evangelical churches, therefore, the policy of the National Socialists was not simply as in the case of the Catholic church, to limit the motivations and influence of the church organization, but to capture and use the church organization for their own purpose. The attempt to accomplish this purpose falls into two main periods.

a. The Period of German Christian Predominance. The essential strategy of the first period of the National Socialist government was to impose highly centralized organs of administration upon the German Evangelical Church, and to place the exercise of the powers that created in the reliable Nazi hands of German Christians. In this way it was hoped to secure the elimination of Christian influences in the Evangelical Church by legal or by quasi-legal means.

The campaign began with a congress of German Christians, held at Berlin on 3-4 April 1933 which declared itself in favor of a united evangelical Church organized according to the leadership principle and the tenets of the Party (including anti-Semitism). One of its leaders was the army chaplain, Ludwig Muller, a friend of Hitler, who on 25 April was appointed the Fuhrer’s representative “with full power to deal with the affair of the Evangelical Church” in its relations with the state. Yielding to the clamor for unification, the Committee of the Germany Church Confederation on 23 April 1933 authorized its president, Dr. Kapler, to carry through a reorganization of the constitution of the Church. After the constitution had been accepted by the Council of the Church Federation and representatives of the Landeskirchen it was published on 14 July 1933 by the Government of the Reich, together with a law recognizing the new German Evangelical Church as a corporation of public law. The essential purpose of this legislation, while ostensibly leaving the Landeskirchen indpenedent in matters of confession and worship, was to create a central administrative organ, headed according to the leadershi principle by a Reich Bishop, and vested with complete power to control administrative and legal activities of the Church.

To insure the use of this powerful new machinery for the accomplishment of Nazi purposes, it was necessary that it be placed in the hands of reliable German Christians. Typical Nazi pressures were therefore used to control the election of the first Reich Bishop. Before the election, German Christian control of the Evangelical Church in Prussia was insured by the apopintment by Dr. Rust, Prussian Kultusminister, of a State Commissioner for the Church Affairs in Prussia. This official, Dr. Jager, was a German Christian, and through his sub-commisioners for the church provinces of Prussia he took the administration of the church virtually out of its own hands. In preparing the elections for the national synod which was in turn to elect the Reich Bishop, it is said the the clergy were not allowed to exercise their traditional right to limit the voters to active church numbers.

The night before the election Hitler intervened with a radio address strongly supporting the German Christians. The result was a victory for the Germany Christians. On 5 September their candidate Kuller was elected to the entirely new office Bishop of Prussia by a General Synod of the Protestant church of Prussia in a session dominated by a German Christian majority, and in which 75 numbers of the opposition who desired to protest were not allowed the floor and withdrew from the synod. On 27 September Muller was elected Reich Bishop by the National Synod, and proceeded to fill the central administration ith other German Christians, such as Bishop Schoffel of Hamburg, and Pastor Hossenfelder of Elberfeld, leader of the German Christians and Vice President of the Prussian Supreme Church Council.

This was Part I. Part II will follow.

Cindy calls terrorists Freedom Fighters from Sweetness and Light.

Mark Knoller: You know that the President says Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism, don’t you believe that?

Cindy Sheehan: No, because it’s not true. Iraq was no threat to the United States of America until we invaded. Iraq was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was not a terrorist state.

But now that we have decimated the country, the borders are open. Freedom Fighters from other countries are going in. And they have created more terrorism by going into an Islamic country, devastating the country and killing innocent people in that country.

Terrorism is growing. And people who never thought of being car bombers, suicide bombers are now doing it because they want the United States of America out of their country.

Logic Check: Freedom fighters are coming from other countries to get the United States out of their country? Huh?

And btw, Saddam was a major supporter of terrorists, that is a documented fact in spite of the leftist wailing.