Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Myth- Hitler Was A Devout Christian

Myth- Hitler Was A Devout Christian:  only in the fevered minds of one dimensional christian haters was hitler a "christian"
it took all of 1 minute to come up with solid evidence from historians and scholars that
disprove that, and only the most tenuous fevered connections to claim he was a christian.

Myth- Hitler Was A Devout Christian
This is just another unsubstantial accusation. Some atheists has used this canard to discredit Christianity and its influence. They argue that Hitler was a devout Christian. But is this true? Was Hitler really a Christian? Let’s find out. First of all Hitler wasn’t a Christian in an orthodox way. In fact Hitler hated and rejected Christianity. The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, has definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. Adolf Hitler said about Christianity,

National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.” (p 118 & 119) According to a press release from Catholic League President, William A. Donohue (2/4/99): “Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said, ‘It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.’” There are many more documents and evidence that Hitler indeed wasn’t a Christian. This is just another cheap shot and a bad myth attributed to Christianity.

Despite the belief by many pagans and even many Christians alike,Hitler was NOT a Christian.

Hitler despised Jews and anything remotely Jewish and so naturally he despised Christianity. Hitler once said in a speech that "Christianity is the greatest trick the Jews every played on humanity". Does this sound like something a Christian would say??? Even though there are some neo-Nazi groups that claim to be "Christian" it doesn't make them so. You can claim to be a bullfrog and even go so far to paint yourself green, but it doesn't make you a bullfrog. In fact, had such "Nazi-Christian" groups existed in Hitler's Germany they would have surely been liquidated after the war. There was to only be one religion in the new Germany had Hitler won, and that religion would have been a state-run version of  the Neopagan religion called Odinism.

  There are statements Hitler made that could lead one to the conclusion Hitler was a Christian, but only if you're Naive. For instance, in Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." (Mein Kampf Pg 33, English Translation)

"The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation was built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as a basis of national life." (Hitler to the German People: Feb. 1 1933).

So Hitler not only tried to make himself sound like a Christian, and even tried to make anti-Semitism sound like a Christian cause. When reading such statements, people must use common sense (if you don’t possess any, please get some). First of all, Mein Kampf was not meant to be a book of factual statements, but instead meant to be a sort of sales brochure for evil. After all, Hitler never said "I plan to kill all the Jews in the whole world and get Germany in another world war! I will also kill anyone I don’t like, including Freemasons, handicapped people, Trade Unionists, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’ll make soap and dog food out of them in concentration camps. After that, I will eliminate Christianity altogether and replace it with a nationalistic Neopagan religion. Whoever defies me will be killed!".

   But these are exactly the things he was planning while he was writing Mien Kampf. He couldn't tell people all his crazy schemes or what he really thought or he never would have come to power. Common sense can detect this is true.

Hitler’s Views on Christianity: The Facts

Let's look at a few things before you decide Hitler was a Christian. Here are some quotes which show what Hitler really thought of Christianity from the people that were in his inner circle:

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains...The war will be over one day. I shall then consider that my life's final task will be to solve the religious problem." [Hitler’s Table Talk, p. 142-4]

"Christianity is the biggest lie the Jews ever told humanity"

-- Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.

"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," -- Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.

"When National Socialism has ruled long enough, it will no longer be possible to conceive of a form of life different from ours. In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together…The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7]

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." [p. 51]

"Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline."[Hitler's Table Talk, pp 58-62]

"Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking 'You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'" [Speer, Albert, Inside the Third Reich, Bonanza Books, New York, p. 96]

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity." [Hitler's Table Talk, p. 75]

"The Jew who fraudulently introduced Christianity into the ancient world----in order to ruin it----re-opened the same breach in modern times, taking as his pretext the social question. Just as Saul became St. Paul, Mardochai has become Karl Marx." [p. 314]

People who want to paint Hitler as a Christian (including some Neo-Nazis) state the above claims come mainly from the" recollections" of his followers and therefore may not be true, and then brainlessly fall back on quotes from Mien Kampf to paint Hitler as a Christian. But as we see, there are too many of these "recollections"(and from people who were closest to him no less) for it to not accurately reflect what Hitler thought about the Christians. Who would better know what Hitler really thought than the people closest around him? This may come as a shock for the more naive readers, but Adolph Hitler was not well known for his truth telling abilities! Mein Kampf is a book of lies. Are we also to believe the other things written in Mein Kampf, including German racial superiority, and an international conspiracy of Jews taking over the world? Hitler, like any dictator, lied to suit the situation as he saw fit.

Germany’s population followed the Christian religion, and Hitler knew that he needed the support of Christians, or else he would not be supported as the undisputed leader of Germany. Hitler merely claimed to be a Christian solely for political purposes. Albert Speer, the architect and weapons procurer for the Third Reich reveals why Hitler did not immediately gas Christians in the death camps. Albert Speer noted in his memoirs, " Around 1937, when Hitler heard the at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church, he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide." [ Inside The Third Reich by Albert Speer Pg. 146]

A person claiming they have "no real attachment" to the church is not a Christian! A person who uses church membership to further aims of world domination is not a Christian! Just going to church does not make one a Christian, going into a chicken coop does not make one a chicken! The enemies of the Christian religion try to paint Hitler as a Christian to detract from it. When Christians see such claims, we must fight back through the courts. We cannot allow these lies to continue.

Far from embracing Christianity, the Nazi’s, in fact, instituted a policy known as "Kircenkampf" (literally meaning "against the Church"), which was a campaign against the churches, both Roman Catholic AND protestant. The plan was to gradually eliminate Christianity and replace it with Odinism! The plan was not publicly announced, but the signs of it were obvious, and certainly Hitler’s inner circle knew of Kircenkampf. For some Nazis, Kircenkampf wasn’t going fast enough. Martin Bormann was one such Nazi who would have loved to have eliminated Christianity before the war ended.

"In Bormann’s mind, the Kirchenkampf, the campaign against the churches, was useful for reactivating party ideology which had been lying dormant. He was the driving force behind this campaign, as was made time and time again made plain around our round table. Hitler was hesitant, but only because he would rather postpone this problem to a more favorable time. Here in Berlin, surrounded by male cohorts, he spoke more coarsely and bluntly than he ever did in the midst of his Obersalzberg entourage. ‘Once I have settled my other problems,’ he occasionally declared, ‘I’ll have my reckoning with the church. I’ll have it reeling on the ropes." [Inside the Third Riech by Albert Speer pg 147]

Clearly Hitler and the Nazi high command wanted to eliminate all Christian Churches. It was not really a question of "if" but "when". Neopagans like Bormann wanted it done immediately, but Hitler wanted to wait until he had won World War II, and then with the world conquered. Hitler knew he needed people to fight for him, and he had to pay lip service to the church until his aims were met, and then he could destroy it. Hitler’s hatred for Judaism and all things Jewish was all consuming, so the tyrant, any Christian church was just another form of Judaism.


New Evidence Discovered

In 2001 new documents from the Nuremberg trials were declassified and released to the public by Rutgers Law School that do indeed confirm Hitler was going to eradicate Christianity after the war had he won. The documents including original handwritten notes, appear on the web site of the Rutgers University School of Law in New Jersey in the United States. General William J Donovan, an investigator at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg after World War II compiled The 148 volumes of material. According to Julie Seltzer Mandel in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer, "A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy...[the Nazis] wanted to eliminate Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

The first installment, entitled "The Nazi Master Plan; The Persecution of Christian Churches", describes how the Nazis planned to replace Christianity with a religion based on racial superiority and the worship of Germanic gods like Thor and Odin. The report, prepared by the O.S.S. ( the forerunner of the CIA) states: "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked... complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion...The best evidence now available as to the existence of an anti-Church plan is to be found in the systematic nature of the persecution itself...Different steps in that persecution, such as the campaign for the suppression of denominational and youth organizations, the campaign against denominational schools, the defamation campaign against the clergy, started on the same day in the whole area of the Reich...and were supported by the entire regimented press, by Nazi Party meetings, by traveling party speakers"

Eradicating Christianity is definitely not the actions of a Christian! In fact, Hitler was not a Christian at all, and I think that point is clear now (except to those who want to cling to conspiracy theories). Hitler's hatred of Jews was all consuming. He saw Christianity as just another "Jewish cult". It is true that he considered Jews a "race" rather than a religion, but his hatred for Christians seemed only slightly less. But unlike something genetic, a person's religion can be changed. So the Nazis would have used great coercion to stop the Christian faith, and would have executed the remainder who refused. Thank God Hitler lost I am not sitting here writing this as an Odinist. Wait a second, why would I be writing this as an Odinist?

I guess I wouldn’t be !

And thank God for brave men like my late father, a PFC in the 3rd Army Rangers, who fought against the Nazi Pagan devils. They knew the Holocaust really happened because they saw it.

ADOLPH HITLER (1889-1945) Hitler’s name doesn’t spring to mind when one thinks of an occultist,  but some occultists consider him to have had occult powers, so I'll mention him. Hitler might have been an Odinist (worshiper of false Viking gods like Thor, Odin, and Freya), or possibly just an atheist who dabbled in the occult, but at any rate, he obviously wasn’t a Christian.  Some occultists consider him an "ascended master" or even an "avatar" (incarnated god). Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews and eventually replace Christianity with Germanic paganism, and this much is certain.

    Whatever Hitler’s religious beliefs were, we can certainly rule out his being a Christian. In 1996 documents from the Nuremberg Trial were discovered detailing the Nazi’s systematic persecution of Christian Churches and Hilter’s plans to eliminate Christianity altogether after WWII. An American General detailed the accounts given to him by former Nazi leaders of Hitler’s “Kirchenkampf” plans which comprise no less than 150 volumes of Nuremberg Trial documents alone! Even though Hitler may have written and said things at times to make him sound Christian, such as things he said in Mein Kampf, it should be remembered Mien Kampf is political propaganda and not to be taken at face value. Mein Kampf also doesn’t mention Hitler’s plans for the Holocaust, either. Ruteger’s Journal of Religion and Law has made those Nuremberg documents available to read online

the evidence goes on and on and on, hitler was not a christian

Sunday, December 23, 2012




Our national leaders didn't expect this. Our Founders Knew The Danger!

Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.

They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness.. The following is a portion of the transcript:

"Since the dawn of creation there has been both good &evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers.

"The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart.

"In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
Your words are empty air.
You've stripped away our heritage,
You've outlawed simple prayer.
Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
And precious children die.
You seek for answers everywhere,
And ask the question "Why?"
You regulate restrictive laws,
Through legislative creed.
And yet you fail to understand,
That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact.
What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs -- politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws.
Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts.

"As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America , and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. 

To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA -- I give to you a sincere challenge.. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! 

My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!"
- Darrell Scott 

Do what the media did not - - let the nation hear this man's speech. Please send this oout to everyone you can!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 21, 2012


Thursday, December 20, 2012

"Merry Christmas, Infidels" - Pigman

"Merry Christmas, Infidels" - Pigman:

"The charming aspect of Christmas is the fact that it expresses good will in a cheerful, happy, benevolent, non-sacrificial way. One says "Merry Christmas" -- not "Weep and Repent." And the good will is expressed in a material, earthly form -- by giving 
presents to one's friends, or by 
sending them cards in token of remembrance." 
- Ayn Rand

Obama and Terror, A Four-Year Scandal (Tulisan Murtad)

Obama and Terror, A Four-Year Scandal: By Michael B. Mukasey

From the outset, the Obama administration’s handling of the most sensitive secrets of the war on terror has been worrisome. In April 2009, the Justice Department released previously classified memoranda that described the standards of the CIA’s interrogation program, thereby making known to our enemies the limits of what they might face if captured. The release also demoralized those within the intelligence agency who were told they could no longer rely on the memoranda—and would, therefore, be judged by a standard different from the one in place when they acted.
Two years later, following the killing of Osama bin Laden, revelations about the intelligence recovered in the raid on his Pakistan compound rendered much of that intelligence useless, because terrorists found out what we had learned. A few months after that, administration officials confirmed to the media that the United States had been involved along with Israel in implanting a computer virus in Iranian nuclear-enrichment centrifuges that caused physical damage, thereby justifying by our own professed standards any retaliation Iran might undertake. And, most recently, newspaper reports have disclosed planning for retaliatory operations against the terrorists who murdered our ambassador to Libya and military and other personnel present in our consulate in Benghazi.
The recklessness with which the Obama administration has allowed these precious and deadly secrets to be revealed in the light of day—and in all cases for political reasons, to buff the president’s image—is a little-covered national scandal. And it is on display throughout the text of Daniel Klaidman’s Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency(Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 304 pages). There are several details in this book that Klaidman, a veteran Newsweek correspondent, could only have uncovered from leaks of classified information at the highest levels. At least two revelations have the potential to do real damage. Some of the details Klaidman reveals about the nature of the evidence gathered at Guantanamo Bay—gleaned from what was, until this book was published, secret surveillance of detainees—are bound to complicate prosecution of suspected terrorists who were held there, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who also personally beheaded (“with my sacred right hand”) the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002.
The other revelation involves foreign policy. We are told that a plan to release Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo to the Saudis so that they could be put into the intermittently effective Saudi deprogramming regimen for al-Qaeda associates came undone when the Yemeni president affronted the Saudi king by suggesting Yemen was doing the monarch a favor in allowing the kingdom to take those Yemenis. This mildly titillating story may well make it more difficult for the United States to conduct diplomacy in a part of the world where it is not helpful to be the source of gossip that embarrasses those in power.
But leaving aside the sloppy handling of such sensitive information, the public has reason to be disturbed by Klaidman’s account of the way the administration made its decisions in the war on terror. For example, Klaidman reports that President Obama is unwilling to use conventional law-of-war detention, which could take terrorist combatants off the battlefield for the duration of the conflict. Because this is not a conventional war, we can’t predict when or how it will end and therefore detention could be indefinite—indeed, even perpetual. The possibility that a system of ongoing review might be put in place to assure at least that no prisoner is held beyond a time when he presents any realistic danger seems either not to have occurred to anyone, or to have been rejected as too similar to what was in place under George W. Bush.
Harsh political reality thus far has prevented Obama from releasing prisoners at Guantanamo, notwithstanding his pledge to close that facility, indeed his order that it be closed—because they are simply too dangerous to release. He has determined that henceforth no new prisoners will be brought to Guantanamo and the only prisoners who remain there will be the legacy of his predecessor. Klaidman portrays the president as far more concerned with the imagined excesses of the war on terror than with the consequences of another attack. And he fears his possible successors as well. Discussing the possible use of detention power, Obama has supposedly said: “You never know who is going to be president four years from now. I have to think about how Mitt Romney would use that power.”
The options now in place for dealing with terrorists who obey no laws of war is that they will be either killed by remotely piloted drones or captured and tried and thereby treated better than lawful combatants who obey the laws of war. So the administration that wears its concern for human rights on the sleeve of its military has defaulted to kill rather than capture. The introduction of drone technology was the achievement of then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, initially motivated in part by budgetary constraints; however, the technology was not as developed nor its use as widespread during the Bush administration as it has become during Obama’s tenure. Thus, drones do not bear the dreaded Bush trademark. An administration that seeks at all costs to avoid being identified with its predecessor—even to the point of substituting the terms “unlawful enemy combatant,” used in legal literature for about a century, for “unprivileged enemy belligerent” and “foreign contingency operation” for “war”—feels comfortable, unlike its predecessor, having lethal force as its default enforcement method.
The president’s take on Islamism emerges as a fabric of platitudes: Obama’s “cosmopolitan background…gave him a more visceral feel [than his predecessor had] for how much of the world lived—and how they viewed America.” He had traveled abroad to visit his relatives and spent three weeks in Karachi, “a sprawling, congested city throbbing with sectarian strife.” “These experiences helped shape Obama’s belief that what most people around the world desired was adequate food, shelter, and security—lives of dignity, free of the daily humiliations of poverty and ignorance. They were the basis for a coherent set of views about the roots of Islamic rage and the underlying conditions that breed Islamic extremism—the economic despair, the social and political dysfunction that lead young men to become terrorists.” As portrayed here, the president does not seem to have factored into his “coherent set of views” that Osama bin Laden was a millionaire many times over; or that Mohammed Atta, the lead operative in the September 11 attacks, was an upper-middle-class university student, as were other participants in that atrocity; or that those who plotted in 2007 to blow up the Glasgow airport were physicians, as is Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri; or that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to detonate himself and his fellow passengers aboard an airplane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, was the son of a Nigerian cabinet minister; or that those implicated in plots in the UK are principally those born there who had no connection to a city “throbbing with sectarian strife.”
Nor does the book contain any hint that the president may have considered the possibility that “Islamic rage” and “Islamic extremism” may have some connection to Islam.
President Obama is not the only actor in Klaidman’s book. There was, it seems, a struggle for the soul of his presidency between what Klaidman calls the “Tammany Hall” element, led principally by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and representing the forces of political expediency, and “the Aspen Institute” element, led by State Department legal adviser and former Yale Law School dean Harold Koh, representing the forces of high-minded idealism.
Koh is shown wielding influence that far outstrips his rank because President Obama values his academic heft in pushing the debate leftward. He is described as having “an enormous intellect” and a background congenial to the president, a “former constitutional law professor himself.”
Koh’s lofty disdain, moreover, for settled notions of process—he tried to get the deputy attorney general to take away from Solicitor General Elena Kagan the authority inherent in her office to determine the government’s litigation position in certain detainee cases because he disagreed with her views—appears to resonate with the president’s own approach to governance. Thus, in the summer of 2009, the president convened a meeting at the White House in which Koh was invited to brief him and certain others in the administration on issues relating to detention. This was a meeting to which others with a stake in that issue, including the CIA and the Defense Department, were not invited, apparently so that Koh could try to influence the president without the inconvenience of contrary views.
Koh’s presentation as described here was less an intellectually disciplined briefing than a locker room pep talk, ending with, “Don’t let the past control the future.” Klaidman summons the characteristic eloquence of Vice President Joe Biden, in memorable prose uttered after the president left the room, to establish that the pep talk seemed to have worked: “‘You f—king did it,’ the vice president said, jabbing Koh in the chest. ‘You f—king connected with him, and that’s not easy.’”
Although Klaidman blandly describes this episode as “a departure from protocol that ruffled some feathers,” it was actually a fundamental departure from basic rules of the road that normally define how decisions are taken on matters of national concern. Such rules—prosaically referred to as the “inter-agency process”—are designed to assure that those with a stake in any such decision participate in a way that assures both that the president will get the benefit of their advice, and that they will be able to go forward at least with an understanding of how and why a result they may oppose was reached. Disdain for that process results in not only sloppy execution, but also bad decisions, and it raises serious questions about the competence of those who are supposed to be in charge.
Such disdain, and such results, are on gaudy display here. A case in point is the decision made in November 2009 to abort the military-commission trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and transfer him to a civilian Article III court in Manhattan—this, when KSM already had announced his intention to plead guilty and proceed to sentencing and, presumably, martyrdom. Attorney General Eric Holder sought and received the authority to decide where the Guantanamo detainees would be tried once the prison was closed. This was true even in those cases in which military-commission proceedings had already commenced—notwithstanding that all detainees were in the formal legal custody of the Department of Defense, not the Department of Justice. Holder first made his leaning toward a civilian court known to Obama while the two were watching the fireworks on July 4, 2009, from a terrace at the White House. “It’s your call, you’re the attorney general,” the president responded.
That result was in full accord with the preference of Harold Koh, expressed in terms not of rigorous jurisprudence, but of pop psychology. To try KSM in Manhattan, according to Koh, would “‘show confidence in our system,’ it would be a ‘redemptive act’ precisely because it is what the terrorists don’t want us to do.” Yet, whatever Koh’s “enormous intellect” may have revealed about what terrorists might want, actual events demonstrate that real terrorists often show a decided preference for making a hash out of legal processes by turning them into political theater. That was what we learned from the year-long circus that was the sentencing proceeding in a civilian court of Zacarias Moussaoui following his guilty plea as the so-called 20th hijacker. Tossing terrorists into the civilian legal system because they are purportedly afraid of it is rather like tossing Brer Rabbit into the briar patch because he purportedly was afraid of it—and it’s likely to yield the same success.
By the time Holder announced that KSM would be tried in New York, he had not discussed the decision with anyone who would face its consequences, notably local authorities in New York, who turned against it when they came to realize the chaos such a proceeding would bring to lower Manhattan. Klaidman describes some of the episodes that marked the course from the announcement of that decision in November 2009 to the announcement in April 2011 that it had been reversed. Along the way, Holder provided the curious assurance to the Senate that, the niceties of due process notwithstanding, a conviction in the KSM trial was assured. There was also the near acquittal of a defendant brought to New York from Guantanamo and charged in the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, a proceeding that was supposed to illustrate the near certainty of convictions in civilian terrorism trials but wound up so rattling Congress that it passed a statute barring the use of any funds to bring defendants from Guantanamo to trial in the United States. That is what necessitated Holder’s retreat.
These episodes included a squabble among Holder, Koh, and Emanuel at a White House meeting that ended with what Klaidman describes as the president’s attempt “to lead his team to higher ground,” but winds up in the telling as a descent into bathos. The president read aloud from the oration of the judge who sentenced would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid; the judge told Reid he was “not a soldier” and “no big deal” and then reached through fractured paraphrase for the eloquence of John F. Kennedy (“we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms”) and Abraham Lincoln (“the world is not going to long remember what you or I say here”), only to achieve principally the grandiloquence of Douglas MacArthur (“See that flag, Mr. Reid?…That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten”). As Klaidman describes it:
Obama put down the speech and looked around the room. He didn’t fix his gaze on anyone in particular; he just stared for several moments. Then he spoke. “Why can’t I give that speech?” Without another word, he rose and walked out of the room.
No less disconcerting is Klaidman’s account of how the attorney general decided to open—or reopen—an investigation into whether CIA agents had committed crimes when they questioned some high-value detainees using “enhanced interrogation techniques.” That dreadfully inartistic term falsely suggested the concealment of unspeakable criminality, but in fact, the techniques were analyzed in detailed legal memos by Justice Department lawyers that, although revised at least once, concluded uniformly that they violated no standards applicable when the memos were written. Even more notably, these techniques had not been used since 2003. Holder, over the objection of every living former CIA director and the then incumbent director, Leon Panetta, released those memos.
When the public outrage Holder expected failed to materialize, he pressed on with investigations of the intelligence officers who carried out the interrogations. Career prosecutors in the eastern district of Virginia had investigated each instance of claimed unlawfulness and had concluded that none merited prosecution, drafting detailed memoranda describing their conclusions and the reasons for closing each of the investigations. Holder, by his own account in testimony, and by the account in this book, never read those memoranda. Moreover, he was well aware that such an investigation could damage morale within the agency, not to mention the damage it could cause to the careers of those under investigation regardless of the outcome—which came years later when the reopened investigations were closed again for lack of evidence of illegality.
What motivated him to press the issue? By Klaidman’s account, Holder was influenced strongly by an article in Vanity Fair by Christopher Hitchens, who had volunteered to be waterboarded and videotaped his experience of the procedure. Waterboarding was the most celebrated and severe of the CIA techniques and had been imposed on precisely three senior al-Qaeda terrorists. After his own experiment, Hitchens wrote an article pronouncing the technique torture.
The word torture, in addition to being a handy epithet, is defined in the applicable statute that criminalizes torture as acting under color of law with the specific intent to cause “severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” “Severe mental pain or suffering” is defined as “prolonged mental harm” resulting from any of several causes, including “severe physical pain or suffering” or the threat thereof, or the threat of imminent death; “severe physical pain or suffering” is not defined. Hitchens, a talented journalist and critic whose renown as a drinker matched his renown as an atheist, never claimed to have consulted the applicable law or to have experienced any prolonged effects from his ordeal; he simply announced that what he had experienced was torture. According to Klaidman, Holder watched the video of Hitchens’s experience, which showed that Hitchens had “lasted for fewer than 10 seconds before asking for mercy” and was “both mesmerized and repulsed.”
Klaidman says Holder was so dogged because he carried a lingering sense of guilt from the time of his service as deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration when he had helped bring about the pardon of Marc Rich, a financier charged with tax evasion whose wife had contributed huge sums to the Clinton campaign and library. (Notably, although unmentioned in this book, Holder failed on that occasion as well to consult with prosecutors in his own department who had brought the Rich prosecution.)
So there you have it. The chief law-enforcement officer of the United States knowingly damaged morale in the nation’s principal intelligence agency by reopening investigations previously closed by career prosecutors within his own department without bothering to read why they did so. Holder acted on the strength of a fewer-than-10-second simulation of waterboarding performed on a writer devoid of any acquaintance with the law, and on his own guilty conscience over a previous lifting of tax-evasion charges in a case in which he also did not bother to determine why career prosecutors in his own department had acted. In so doing, he moved with exquisite efficiency to undermine faith simultaneously in law enforcement and national security.
Klaidman does not disclose his sources for the account he presents, although the book is preceded by two pages entitled “A Note on Sources,” in which he outlines the steps he took to assure accuracy. The only source he appears to deny using directly, and it is a fairly casual denial, is the president himself:
Occasionally I write about the emotional state and interior thoughts of President Obama and his top aides. In doing so, I am not taking literary license. Those accounts are based on reporting—either from specific comments the president has made that directly express his state of mind, or from reasonable inferences from sources I have interviewed who have observed and spoken to him.
The president is portrayed often as maddeningly detached and above the fray, but it is impossible to believe that the accounts of private conversations between him and members of his administration were not cleared with him.
One obvious source is Holder. This emerges not only from such apparent accounts as his one-on-one discussion with Obama about bringing KSM to trial in the United States—a story that could have had only two authoritative sources—but also from less obvious data points. For example, the account of Holder’s friction with Rahm Emanuel consistently portrays Emanuel as unprincipled and narrowly political and Holder as idealistic and thoughtful—always a telling indicator in a behind-the-scenes account.
Consider as well how Klaidman accounts for Holder’s absence from the famous photo of the president, an open-mouthed Hillary Clinton, and others gathered in the White House Situation Room watching in real time the operation that killed Bin Laden:
The operational planning surrounding Bin Laden was known to only a tiny circle of national security officials, on a need-to-know basis. One person who was not brought into the loop was the attorney general. He was Obama’s closest friend on the cabinet and the proposed raid raised important legal questions. But Obama determined that the mission would be a “Title 50 operation,” conducted under the auspices of the CIA. As a covert action, there had already been a legal finding prepared, so additional Justice Department approval was not required.
This excuse makes no sense. Title 50 is that part of the U.S. Code that sets forth, among other things, the authorities of the CIA. It authorizes the agency to enlist the military in the conduct of covert actions when finding that such an action is appropriate has been signed by the president. In this case, that put Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, in command, directing the operation carried out by Navy SEALs overseen by Admiral William McRaven.
But the Bin Laden operation bristled with legal questions, or at least questions that lent themselves to the kind of analysis that lawyers bring to bear, beyond those answered simply by finding that such an operation could be authorized. These included questions relating to mounting such an operation in a country that was a nominal ally of the United States, and ones related to risks, if any, of collateral damage.
Indeed, a memorandum from Panetta that surfaced after the operation disclosed that McRaven’s forces were authorized to do only what had been briefed to the president—without specifying what that was—and that if anything not included in that briefing was encountered, they were required to seek further guidance. The possible need for additional guidance that could have engaged legal questions was and is apparent. That the naked finding necessary to authorize the operation had been made simply does not suffice to explain the attorney general’s absence.
Here’s what does make sense, even though Klaidman does not connect these dots. Holder, he tells us, was regarded by many in the White House as a loose cannon. And his legal pursuit of intelligence officers made certain that his fellow cabinet members at the State Department and the CIA would have every reason to distrust him. That is a far more plausible explanation for Holder’s absence than the suggestion he was kept out of the loop because the he did not have a need to know. That notion simply does not hold water.
In the end, like all insider accounts written with the cooperation of insiders, what we have inKill or Capture is a portrait the Obama administration wants available as he seeks reelection. This is how Obama and his men wish to be perceived. So beyond the question of whether everything really happened as Klaidman describes lies the key question: Does this portrait of the people close to Obama and the process by which they managed the war on terror recommend four more years of stewardship?

Michael B. Mukasey, a lawyer in private practice in New York and former federal judge, was the attorney general of the United States from November 2007 to January 2009.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Saturday, December 8, 2012

“What do you do? I’m me”

“What do you do? I’m me”:
How did I miss this when over 2 million people have viewed it on YouTube since it was posted in September 2011?
(Almost) Everything that has gone wrong with this country summed up in one video.
Hang on to the conclusion for the “surprise” ending.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Drug War Produces Bullies In Blue

Drug War Produces Bullies In Blue:
Drugs are evil, but the fact that they can be so easily flushed down the toilet, moved, or placed in unexpected places without being noticed means that criminalizing them has created other problems. One problem:  it is too easy to get rid of evidence, which puts pressure on law enforcement to erode Fourth Amendment protections. Another problem is it is so easy to plant evidence.
Collinsville, Illinois is small town outside St. Louis. If you ever stay overnight there in a hotel, unless something changes, it is possible that you will have drugs smeared on your car—enough so that drug dog can pick up the scent. If you then were to get stopped by a cop for any reason, and he happened to have a K-9 with him, you could get in deep trouble.
If this sounds strange, similar things have already happened. People get stopped for no reason at all, the police officer tells you a story about how he caught you “weaving” or doing something else on the road, and he finds an excuse to use a drug dog.
That is exactly what happened to Terrance Huff. He and his friend went to the Saint Louis Science Center to see a Star Trek display. The next day, Huff’s fortieth birthday, he drove back home but was pulled over by Officer Michael Reichert. Eventually, after creating a story about “weaving” on the road as a pretext for searching the vehicle, and then inventing another story about Huff’s friend seeming “real nervous,” Reichert told Huff that he was always concerned about drug traffickers. He tried to coerce Reichert into allowing him to search his vehicle by promising he would overlook “small amounts.” On the other hand, if Huff didn’t give permission, and Reichert’s dog smelled drugs, then drugs of any amount would result in an arrest. Huff knew he didn’t have any drugs and stood his ground. The cop claimed his dog did smell drugs (without any obvious response; drug dogs now communicate by telepathy with their masters). The resultant search found nothing. Reichert insisted the dog found marijuana “shavings” under the front and back seats, but there weren’t even back seats in the vehicle. Whatever Reichert claimed seemed aimed at justifying the search. He didn’t claim it was a basis for an arrest.
Huff did a great job of keeping his composure throughout the ordeal. But he then sued and, after much work, pried loose the videotape from the Collinsville Police Station. He also had his lawyer depose Reichert. Under questioning Reichert said he “trained” dogs by smearing drugs on cars and seeing if the dog would detect the scent. Where did these vehicles come from? Reichert said he sometimes used hotel parking lots in Collinsville, without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
So if you spent the night in Collinsville, and then ran into some other cop down the highway fishing for “drug traffickers” you could have a much worse day than Huff did.
I happened to work a night shift in Belleville, IL and learned that, in both Illinois and Missouri, driving home between two and four A.M. was like having a flashing sign on the car roof that says, “Please, stop me on some pretext and see what you can find.” I can’t afford a lawyer. I think there are many people who simply put up with the harassment because trying to do something about it will only cost more time and money.
But people should not be randomly stopped because some cop (in this case, one with a criminal record for lying in a drug case) wants to see if he can catch a drug trafficker. This is banana republic culture and it needs to stop.
The use of drugs on strange cars is even more outrageous. Not only does it threaten the innocent, but it also seems to violate basic evidence rules. As a public defender told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “the practice brings the sanctity of the evidence locker into question.”
“I know of no authority that allows a police officer to take evidence out of the vault to do this… It raises serious questions that we need to look at, and we’re looking at them, believe me. We’re quite curious about where this stuff came from, accounting for it, what he does (with the drugs) when he’s done… If he’s taking evidence from a case I’m handling and putting it back like it was never touched … that raises serious issues.”
Below are the two videos Huff posted. The first one is over fifteen minutes but it is worth the time.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Obama Administration Retirement plan‏

Obama Administration Retirement plan‏:
Obama-steals-retirement-accounts-website-300x166Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown in the economy, President Obama has decided to implement a scheme to put workers of 50 years of age and above on early retirement, thus creating jobs and reducing unemployment. This scheme will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).
Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to President Obama to be considered for the SHAFT program (Special Help after Forced Termination).
Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the SCREW program (System Covering Retired-Early Workers).
A person may be RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as President Obama deems appropriate.
Persons who have been RAPED could get AIDS (Additional Income for Dependents & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel Early Severance).
Obviously persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by President Obama. Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on will receive as much ‘shiznit’ (Special High Intensity Training) as possible. President Obama has always prided himself on the amount of ‘shiznit’ he gives our citizens. Should you feel that you do not receive enough ‘shiznit’, please bring this to the attention of President Obama, who has been trained to give you all the ‘shiznit’ you can handle.
the Committee for Economic Value of Individual Lives (EVIL)
Okay folks, let’s just get to the bottom line. Obama wants to be president of the world. He plans to pave the way in the same manner he has accumulated political power here in America: he buys votes with other people’s money. To the extent he can posture himself as a champion of the third world he will be successful. Notice all of America’s antagonists were hugely in favor of his reelection.
As far as destroying America, this list is too big for this post, but here goes: after promising to halve the debt, borrowing and spending more money than all other presidents combined. America’s credit downgraded for the first time in our history. His policies are accelerating the devaluation of the dollar. While talking up energy independence, he and his EPA flunkies fight against energy independence while subsidizing foreign energy development. Obamacare fiasco is nothing more than a political power grab at the expense of our health care system. Support for public and private unions that have driven our local and state governments bankrupt, while presiding over the deterioration of our schools. Corporate taxes that favor outsourcing to almost any other country, regulations and taxes that discourage productivity. He wants to implement the carbon tax scam which is direct transfer of money from America to the third world. He will also always be in favor of subordinating American sovereignty to UN global treaties and agreements. He’s for everything that grows government and shrinks individual freedom. That’s enough for now.