Saturday, October 5, 2013

Tired of the lies about the Vatican in WWII? Me too... (Personal quick reference)

Here are just a few of the numerous references that describe the resistance to the holocausts of wwii by the Vatican.  To put things in perspective, before you start, recall that the Vatican was the only government in occupied Europe to oppose what was happening while it was going on.  For further perspective recall that not even governments outside of occupied Europe had the courage to raise their voices against the holocaust.  No one entered into the second world war to end the holocaust...

Inside the Vatican of Pius XII: The Memoir of an American Diplomat During World War II 
The question of whether Pius XII and the Vatican must bear blame for failing to act decisively in response to Hitler’s Final Solution is as hotly debated today as in the years directly following World War II. INSIDE THE VATICAN OF PIUS XII presents for the first time the observations of an American diplomat who spent four years inside the Vatican. This memoir of Harold H. Tittmann, Jr., describes his encounters with Pius XII and offers details that give a full picture of daily life in the Vatican. Writing of his own activities as a diplomat, Tittmann chronicles his role in assisting and hiding escaped prisoners of war and his experiences navigating the tensions with the representatives of enemy states, with whom he lived side by side. Deftly conveying the beauty and solemnity of events that took place in the dramatic settings of St. Peter’s, the Sistine Chapel, and the Pope’s private chapel, Tittmann’s work will be valued by historians and students of history for generations to come.

Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust

The Israeli consul, Pinchas E. Lapide, in his book, Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1967) critically examines Pope Pius XII. According to his research, the Catholic Church under Pius XII was instrumental in saving 860,000 Jews from Nazi death camps (p. 214).

An invaluable contribution to the history of the Catholic Church during the Second World War, this is a richly detailed eyewitness account of the life and politics of the Vatican by an American who worked there from 1940 to 1944. 

The State of the Vatican City has followed a policy of neutrality during the Second World War, under the leadership of Pope Pius XII. Although the city of Rome was occupied by Germany from 1943 and the Allies from 1944, Vatican City itself remains free.

Newly discovered World War II documents further vindicate Pius XII
New findings have revealed documents and testimony which clearly show that on 16 October 1943 it was the intentional lack of a public denunciation by Pius XII against the arrest of the Roman Jews which saved their lives and enabled their rescue.

A signed 1972 deposition of General Karl Wolff, SS commander for Italy and deputy to Heinrich Himmler, states that in September 1943 Adolf Hitler ordered him to develop a plan to invade the Vatican, kidnap the Pope, seize the Vatican assets, and kill the Roman Curia. This plan was to be carried out at once.

General Wolff knew that if this invasion were executed, massive riots throughout Europe would ensue, seriously hindering the German war effort. He said that he was successful in convincing Hitler to delay the invasion. This view of a potential military disaster was shared by the military governor of Rome, Major General Rainer Stahel, and the German ambassador to the Holy See, Ernst von Weizsäcker.

The Storm Begins - Monsignor Hugh O'Flaherty
In accordance with the Lateran Treaty, the Vatican remained neutral when war was declared. But it was a tiny island of neutrality—the Vatican covers only 0.44 square kilometers (108.7 acres), and is completely surrounded by the city of Rome. It does not even have its own water supply; every necessity has to come through Rome. When Italy went to war in 1940, the Vatican was effectively isolated in Fascist territory. In this position, it was vulnerable to the decisions of Mussolini and Hitler, but it was equally as vulnerable to British and American bombing raids. Halfway through the war, the Germans had a white line painted on the cobbles across the opening of St. Peter’s Square. This was ostensibly to keep Axis troops out and show them where their jurisdiction ended—but some also saw it as a way to keep Vatican members in, and show them where their neutral privileges ended. Whatever the case, it was a very literal expression of the figurative fine line the Vatican’s citizens had to walk during the war.
Understanding the Vatican During the Nazi Period

It is not always fully appreciated that the Vatican was neutral during the Second World War, having committed itself from the very outset to a policy of conciliation that marked church diplomacy in the inter-war period. To the Vatican, neutrality meant remaining apart from the two power blocs and, most important, maintaining an environment in which the church could operate as freely and openly as possible. Particularly since the presentation of Rolf Hochuth's angry play, Der Stellvertreter (The Deputy) in 1962, this posture has been subjected to withering criticism. The Vatican has responded with the publication of a voluminous collection of documents on the role of the Holy See during the war, generating one of the most extensive historical discussions of the many ethical questions associated with the history of the Holocaust.

Historians generally see the policy of Pius XII as consistent with a longstanding tradition of Vatican diplomacy. During political storms of the depression years, this tradition was interpreted by Eugenio Pacelli, Cardinal Secretary of State under Pius XI and later to become the wartime Pope. Pacelli exemplified a profound commitment to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the Holy See; he saw his role as avoiding association with power blocs and forging diplomatic links with conservative or even fascist regimes. As fascism extended its influence in Europe during the 1930s, the Vatican remained aloof, occasionally challenging fascist ideology when it touched on important matters of Catholic doctrine or the legal position of the church, but unwilling to interfere with what it considered to be purely secular concerns. Beyond this, the Vatican found most aspects of right-wing regimes congenial, appreciating their patronage of the church, their challenge to Marxism, and their frequent championing of a conservative social vision.

Inside the Church during WWII
I have dwelt on Pope Pius XII for a considerable part of this series, simply because his role is vital. I hope that the evidence which I have presented has shown conclusively that Pius in no way condoned the Nazis, that he distanced himself from those European regimes, like those in Italy, Croatia and Vichy France, when these implemented racist or anti-Semitic policies, and that he frequently engaged in facilitating resistance against the Nazis.
Of course the main charge against Pope Pius XII is his silence. Now I have shown that he was not always silent, that he did, publicly, through the press or radio, condemn the Nazis and their policies. However, his silence can, indeed, often be discomforting. One would have liked to have him stand up, possibly even to have stood as a witness like St. Maximilian Kolbe. But that would have been very impractical. His position was vital if the Church was to continue bearing witness to the Truth. There is the salutary lesson from the Dutch Church, too. Archbishop De Jong wrestled with his conscience for the remainder of his life, after his outspokenness caused the immediate death of Holland’s Catholic Jews. These included German refugees, and amongst them was the gentle, learned and lovable St. Edith Stein. De Jong once said that he felt he had condemned them to their graves.

Aloysius Stepinac - When Marshal Tito's secret police arrested Archbishop Aloysius Stepinac on Septemeber 18, 1946, the Western World was aroused by this evident act of persecution of religion by communism. But as the trial of the Archbishop began there was confusion among readers of newsapaper accounts because of the many conflicting issues, not only of communism vs the Church, but Serb against Croat, Partisan vs Chetnik, and the apparent alliance of German and Italian fascism with the Ustasha party in Craoatia. a comprehensive and authoritative array of documents, statements, and evidence to show the innocence of Archbishop Stepinac. This volume demonstrates graphically and eloquently the whole mechanism of Stepinac's staged trial, the faked evidence, and the distortion of facts. It proves also, that despite his rapprochement with the West and break with the Soviet Union, Marshal Tito's government is identical in every detail to the communist regimes in Iron Curtain countries, and just as morally repugnant.

Ratlines (World War II)

Ratlines were a system of escape routes for Nazis and other fascists fleeing Europe at the end of World War II. These escape routes mainly led toward havens in South America, particularly Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile, and Bolivia. Other destinations included the United States, Great Britain, Canada and the Middle East. There were two primary routes: the first went from Germany to Spain, then Argentina; the second from Germany to Rome to Genoa, then South America; the two routes "developed independently" but eventually came together to collaborate.[1]
The origins of the first ratlines are connected to various developments in Vatican-Argentine relations before and during World War II.[2] As early as 1942, Monsignor Luigi Maglione contacted Ambassador Llobet, inquiring as to the "willingness of the government of the Argentine Republic to apply its immigration law generously, in order to encourage at the opportune moment European Catholic immigrants to seek the necessary land and capital in our country".[3] Afterwards, a German priest, Anton Weber, the head of the Rome-based Society of Saint Raphael, traveled to Portugal, continuing to Argentina, to lay the groundwork for future Catholic immigration, this was to be a route which fascist exiles would exploit - without the knowledge of the Catholic Church.[3] According to historian Michael Phayer, "this was the innocent origin of what would become the Vatican ratline".[3]

Just the tip of the iceberg refuting the grotesque lies circulating about the Vatican during wwii.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Foreign Policy Failures We're Still Paying For - How Truman and Carter Empowered Political Islam

Roots of the Modern Islam Problem traced to Foreign Policy Failures of Presidents Truman and Carter.

Truman’s refusal to allowed General McArthur to finish the job in Korea was the seed of both the Cold War and the modern worldwide Islam problem.  President Carter’s disastrous Iran policy and now President Obama’s Arab Spring policy have only exacerbated an already bad situation.

Few people would argue that world would have looked very different that if McArthur had united Korea under a Democratic government with strong NATO ties.  With the benefit of time and perspective we can see that some of the world’s most inhumane and dangerous regimes came to power because of misguided decisions in the white house and that we are still living with and suffering from the consequences of them:

Truman's blunder: CREATION OF A COMMUNIST NORTH KOREA (currently one of the worst places to live and one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet) – General McArthur had a workable plan to win the war (1951-1953) but President Truman was afraid to allow him to win it.[1]

  Truman was afraid of a nuclear conflict with Russia at a time when the US had a huge advantage in size and technology of nuclear arsenal and delivery capability.  The US was well ahead of the Soviets in atomic weapon development at the time.  We had already deployed two atomic weapons by 1945 and the Soviets wouldn’t even successfully test one until 1951 a time at which the US had already began work on the so called H-bomb.  Truman’s exaggerated fears and public recalcitrance produced a communist North Korea and arguably allowed the communists to ingrain themselves in China as well.

The Korean war was the first in a long series of conflicts incited and sponsored by the Soviet Union in support of its imperialistic objectives of creating a Communist world under Soviet control.  The war began in 1951 when Soviet supported troops invaded South Korea which was roughly the same time that the battle between Democratic and Communist forces in China (1920-1951) was ending. [2] [3]

  If Truman hadn’t handcuffed McArthur there’s a very strong possibility that neither North Korea nor China would be communist nations.  The world was watching to see which political ideology would prevail and the despite immensely superior capabilities and capacity, Truman refused to do the right thing when it was easy and could have been accomplished relatively quickly.  The US lack of will to win in Korea gave the USSR confidence and impetus to embark on a worldwide effort to install communist regimes. It also sent a clear message to both Communists and Democrats in China that the US didn't have the stomach to stand up to the spread of Communism and expecting support from the US, the only nation which could offer it, was a lost cause.

 One can speculate that if the US had won in Korea the weakened position of USSR might have prevented a host of cold war conflicts and hundreds of thousands of US and NATO casualties Vietnam, Afghanistan and other places.  Korea stands as living proof that if you think doing the right thing is too expensive try doing the wrong thing. [4]

President Carter's blunder: CREATION OF AN ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IN IRAN (another one of the worst places to live and also one of the most dangerous regimes on the planet) – is the result of Jimmy Carter’s naïve failed policy of withdrawing US support for the Shah of Iran not to be confused with Operation AJAX in 1953 under President Eisenhower that attempted to instigate a coup in Iran. [4]

“The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran, previously considered a champion of liberal reform, was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners.  Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid.  Carter pressured the Shah to release "political prisoners", whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists.  Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our "war on terrorism".” [6]

“Jimmy Carter's misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran's rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.” [6]

[3] President Obama's blunders CREATION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLICS IN EGYPT, TUNISIA AND LIBYA. President Obama kicked off an Islamist uprising across the Middle East with his June 2009, Cairo speech.  He said, “We have to confront violent extremism in all of its forms.… America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.”  His comments were a clear signal to Islamists that their imperialistic efforts would not be opposed by an Obama controlled US foreign policy.  In the same way, that Obama provoked further attacks on conservatives by using the DOJ to bury of attacks against his political opponents in the US, he green-lighted the Muslim Brotherhood overthrow of US allies in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia.  We are just now seeing the fallout from Obama’s refusal to prosecute New Black Panther Party members for video taped voter intimation violations and re-approximation with Muslim Brotherhood founded Counsel on Islamic American Relations. The full scope of the Arab Spring and of governmental targeting conservatives groups by the IRS, EPA, DHS and yet to be discovered offenses will never be fully revealed, but the consequences will be with us for a very long time.  Likewise, the loss of lives and freedom across the middle east caused by the resurgence of Political Islam will play out over decades but the bloodshed is already being chronicled on the front pages of journals worldwide.[7]

Summary: If Truman had allowed General McArthur to finish the job in Korea, the Cold War would have been an almost completely one sided affair. The USSR might have collapsed decades earlier and never tried to expand into Afghanistan and Vietnam and put the US into the position of considering a partnership with Muslim fundamentalists to oppose Soviet expansion.  No one can say with certainty what might have happened.  Winston Churchill warned that if

Taking a bit of liberty with two famous quotes from Edmund Burke and Winston Churchill produces an insightful quote.

"If good men will not fight for liberty when they can easily win without bloodshed, if they refuse to join the fight when victory appears sure and not so costly, there may come to the moment when they have to fight with all the odds against them and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. In the final analysis, all that is necessary for evil to triumph,
is for good men to do nothing."

[1]  The U.S. Army Center of Military History, “CHAPTER XXIX - The Plan for Complete Victory” By VON SCHLIEFFEN
[2] The Wilson Center - Nuclear Proliferation International History Project, “Between Aid and Restriction: Changing Soviet Policies toward China’s Nuclear Weapons Program: 1954-1960”,
[3], Origins of the Cold War: 1946-1950,
[4] Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, United States Department of State, “The Chinese Revolution of 1949”,
[5] History of Iran, “A short account of 1953 Coup, Operation code-name: TP-AJAX”
[6], “Korean War”,
American Thinker, August 26, 2007 “Jimmy Carter's Human Rights Disaster in Iran” by Slater Bakhtavar:
[7] The Clarion Project, “NY Times: Obama Jump-Started Arab Spring” By Barry Rubin Mon, March 18, 2013,

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Why I Oppose the Death Penalty

I have no moral issues with the idea of death as an appropriate punishment however, I find it inconceivable that society's desire for justice (revenge) against the certainly guilty is more important than killing of wrongly convicted persons.

On the battlefield, sometimes it's not possible to ensure the safety of non-combatants which at times are not detectable or differentiable from actual combatants.  I have big problems with the  concept of acceptable collateral damage and casualties on the battlefield.  Our justice system is not the battlefield where sometimes it's impossible separate combatants (criminals in this analogy) from non-combatants (wrongly convicted persons).  We apply the death penalty on a case by case basis and to the best of my knowledge have never executed the wrong prisoner.  The point being, the rights of the innocent, and wrongly convicted in this case, are more important than society's blood lust.

Considering the number of truly innocent people executed under Sharia law, it seems completely logical and consistent for me to oppose the death penalty both in the United States and everywhere else.  I support a worldwide ban on judicial killing because while there is a small percentage of certainly wrongly convicted innocent persons in US prisons facing death sentences (1 is too many) there are untold numbers of innocent persons intentionally convicted for non-crimes facing death sentences in the darkest corners of the world where the iron fist of Islam, Communism, Socialism and Dictators rule.

A ban on death sentences worldwide could be a glimmer of hope for the untold millions of political prisoners, many of whom probably have values similar to mine(ours) and are innocent of any real crime.

According to the innocence project which uses DNA to vindicate and free wrongly convicted persons:

Q. How many innocent people are there in prison?

A. We will never know for sure, but the few studies that have been done estimate that between 2.3% and 5% of all prisoners in the U.S. are innocent (for context, if just 1% of all prisoners are innocent, that would mean that more than 20,000 innocent people are in prison).

More broadly, we know that innocent people are often identified as suspects by law enforcement and that DNA testing often clears them before they go to trial, but that DNA testing is impossible in the vast majority of criminal cases. In approximately 25% of cases where DNA testing was done by the FBI during the course of investigations, suspects were excluded by the testing. That doesn't mean we believe 25% of convictions are in error, but when coupled with the fact that DNA testing is only possible in 5-10% of all criminal cases, it shows that science cannot always clear innocent suspects, which can result in wrongful convictions.

"There, but for the grace of God, go I"
~John Bradford

Uttered as he watched political prisoners being taken to be executed.  He himself was executed by burning at the stake in on 1 July 1555, his crime was his Protestant faith a non-crime for which people are executed to this day.

Thursday, April 25, 2013

DNA Tests and Abolition of Abortion

Everyday courts use forensic biology (DNA testing of biological material such as hair, blood, semen, saliva, etc.) to place suspects and victims whose bodies cannot be located at suspected crime scenes.  DNA testing is routinely used to establish legally binding paternity judgements and a for a host of other reasons.

Prosecutors and juries place great confidence in information provided by DNA testing.  Information gleaned from forensic biology has played a very substantial role in sending people to prison and freeing the wrongly imprisoned.

When it comes to determining paternity modern DNA testing confirmations have 99.99% confidence, meaning that there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that the DNA match is from another person with a very very very very similar DNA type.  When it comes to confirming that DNA types don't match the test provides 100% confidence.

What does all of this have to do with abortion?

Today we use DNA testing whenever available to in judicial due process in order to establish the facts of the situation and our laws demand that no person be deprived of their life without due process.  It is perfectly logical and reasonable therefore to perform an in vitro DNA test on the organism that a woman is intending to abort in order to determine if it is in fact a human being.

If the organism that a pregnant woman is carrying is or isn't a human being can easily be confirmed with a DNA test.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Major US Government Asset Seizures and Programs

Government seizure of private assets is also known as Nationalization.

This is one of the major strategies advocated by socialists for transitioning from capitalism to socialism. Socialist ideologies that favor nationalization are typically called state socialism. In this context, the goals of nationalization were to dispossess large capitalists and redirect the profits of industry to the public purse, as a precursor to the long-term goals of establishing worker-management and reorganizing production toward use