(Editor’s note: Hilmar von Campe, who grew up under the Nazis and wrote the book, Defeating the Totalitarian Lie, offers comparisons between Nazi Germany and America today. “Our nation has elected an anti-American left-wing radical if not Communist to be president of the United States,” he warns. “We better begin to plan now for the reality and not for a democratic daydream. The ideological war has reached us at the top of our power structure threatening our very existence from inside.”)
The executive director of the Holocaust Memorial Council in Washington received me twice. I apologized to him for the atrocities committed by a German Government and German citizens to his people. I had not participated in these atrocities but my ungodly life had made the godless Nazi government possible. I asked him to forgive me and my country, Germany at that time. We became friends. I told him that most people look at the criminals when trying to figure out how it was possible, that such evil could happen in a cultured nation like Germany. They should look, however, at the real culprits, the bystanders like me, who allowed evil to dominate. Germany went down because of godlessness.
The national Socialist ideology was built on lies-the most important being that that there is no God. That godless concept led to the Holocaust, the destruction of Germany, and to the death of millions of families. Hitler lied to the German people and to the world. At every stage, including the beginning of WWII, he fooled the population.
It may sound like I am exaggerating or over-dramatizing the situation, but I think that we have a repetition of Hitler’s policy to get total power developing in the United States. Obama’s massive expansion of the federal government will destroy the United States as a world power, make us even more dependent on our enemies, and will ruin a great part of the present population and their descendants.
I believe his real purpose is not to get the United States out of the financial mess but to set the stage for a total takeover. The liberals controlling Congress are helping him in that task.
I lived through the Nazi nightmare and my family paid dearly. My elder brother fell in Russia and my father perished in a Soviet concentration camp without having committed any crime.
The rest of the family was expelled from our home in East Germany and we came as refugees to West Germany. Everything I write or lecture about is based on my personal experiences in Nazi Germany. There is nothing theoretical about my description about what happens when a nation throws God out of government and society. I don’t want my children and grandchildren to go through the same.
My writing is part of my restitution for the crimes of a godless government, of the evil of which I was a part. My restitution includes a commitment to the state of Israel and the God-given rights of the Jewish people.
Afraid Of Government
During the Nazi years people were afraid of their government. Everybody spoke practically two languages-one in public and one with close friends. Since the Gestapo always tried to find out from children what their parents were thinking, my parents like all other parents had to be careful about what they said in our presence. My father listened to the Swiss broadcasts of Beromünster late at night so that we wouldn’t notice. To listen to foreign news was a crime and could lead to death.
I noticed now that here in America many people are also afraid of their government and guns sales are on the rise. Thomas Jefferson stated: when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, then there is liberty. I hope that the new tea-party movement is successful in frightening the Washington establishment.
Something is very wrong in America and this nation is moving in the wrong direction. We are getting close to Nazi reality.
Threat To A Free Press
I am especially concerned about the dangers of a government-takeover of the media. Hitler didn’t need to do that because the Nazis already controlled the media-newspapers, radio and the film industry.
We were told in the Hitler Youth and in school that we could pray and sing hymns at home or in our church as much as we liked. But the rules for the German society would come from the National Socialist Party and nobody else. They, like the Soviets, had realized that a moral authority above the government in the form of God would be a threat to their power grab.
The ACLU has taken up this Nazi philosophy and applied it successfully to American society. The ousting of God from our schools is far advanced and our youth are exposed to immoral and godless indoctrination instead of learning American history, our Constitution, and the concepts of our founding fathers. Our government establishment has been watching this development for decades without doing anything about it. Our enemies don’t need suicide bombers to bring us down. We commit national suicide ourselves by watching the destruction of the moral and historical basis of our society.
When the Nazis took over power on January 30, 1933, they immediately set up a parallel party structure to the administration to watch over the action of the civil servants. They were responsible to Hitler. Obama has taken a similar approach and has already at the time of this writing appointed 16 czars, part of an unconstitutional governmental apparatus. It seems that their task is to watch over and interfere in the private sector. However, they report only to Obama, bypassing the Congress.
The first Hitler government had only two members of the National Socialist German Workers Party, one being the minister of interior who was in charge of the police. Obama has some Republicans in his government and he acts like a military hawk in Afghanistan. These moves are designed to fool the opposition until total power is established.
The Arab-Israeli Dispute
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, lived as a guest of Hitler from 1941-1945 in Berlin. They agreed to eliminate the Jews in Palestine and across the world. He had a major part in lining up the Jews for destruction in Europe.
At the end of the war he returned to Jerusalem and began immediately to poison the relations between Jews and Arabs. He created the hatred of Arabs against Jews and Americans and said that Israel had no right to exist. His pupil and successor was Yasser Arafat, trained by the Soviets, who headed the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Western politicians believe that giving the Arabs pieces of Israeli land will bring peace. It is ridiculous. Islamic terrorism is a religious ideological program for global conquest.
There is a global ideological war going on. The United States of America is the principal target. America is the last bastion of freedom in the world but we are in very bad shape as a nation. Our “leaders” do not face the issue. Our government believes or pretends that there is no such war and does not define the enemy. Many people don’t even understand that they are being attacked.
The battlefield is morality: truth vs. lies. There is no neutrality-you can only be on one side or the other.
It is the way you live, not necessarily the way you talk, that decides who you are. We must live a personal and national purpose with a global vision, Freedom. Freedom is a moral issue and needs to be defined. We must speak plainly and openly while we can.
Slander, lies and the rewriting of history for political reasons have become reality in the minds of millions of people and whole nations. A great part of the world lives in a dream world which does not exist.
Once a specific lie is institutionalized and becomes a basis for policy decisions, for legislation and law enforcement, then it advances an entire system of lies.
The more lies that are being elevated this way, the closer we get to a society where lies dominate. If this continues, the next and final phase leads to a society where the lie rules, or in other words, to godless and totalitarian rule.
When lies are being enforced with government power and opposing the lie is being treated as a criminal act, then we will have opened the door to a Nazi-style totalitarian system.
IMPEACH JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR
Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s anti-American views are starting to get some attention. Ironically, some of this attention came from a far-left radio show, where Puerto Rican political writer and analyst Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua said that Judge Sotomayor is “not a daughter of the American Revolution” but instead “a child of colonialism.”
He told Amy Goodman’s radio show, “Judge Sotomayor was a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, which meant three things: number one, that she was an ethnic national, a Puerto Rican; number two, that she felt that ethnic Puerto Ricans deserved and needed a defense; and third, that she dedicated 12 years of her life to that defense, the defense of the Puerto Rican ethnicity within the United States of America.”
Sotomayor was not born in Puerto Rico. She was born in the Bronx. Still, she apparently counts Puerto Rico, not America, as her home.
The United States “invaded her country,” said Juan Manuel Garcia-Passalacqua, reinforcing the point that she owes her allegiance to Puerto Rico. Her appointment, he said, touches on the “colonial relationship” between the U.S. and Puerto Rico. He was described on the show as someone who knows Sotomayor well.
Puerto Rican Nationalist
The radical or Marxist view is that Puerto Rico is under colonial occupation and deserves independence. Sotomayor holds that view. Her 1976 thesis expressed support for Puerto Rican independence because she feared the “Americanization” of Puerto Rico.
In her thesis, Sotomayor came across as bitter, saying that “The experiences of Alaska and Hawaii since their statehood with cultural destruction has been indicative of the cultural loss Puerto Rico would eventually face if statehood for the island were chosen. Under the commonwealth status, there has been a gradual deterioration of the Spanish language among the Puerto Rican populace and a growing Americanization of the island. The loss of cultural autonomy has become the price of permanent union with the United States.”
She later wrote an article in the 1979 Yale Law Journal exploring whether Puerto Rico could be admitted as a state to the United States of America but under circumstances giving the new state special rights to development of its offshore oil and other seabed resources.
In a major report on the nominee, Judicial Watch focused on her connection to the leftist Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), where Sotomayor served as the “top policy maker” on the PRLDEF’s Board of Directors for 12 years, 1980-1992, until she became a federal judge. Judicial Watch said the organization’s activities reflect a commitment to the worst aspects of liberal judicial activism: identity politics, race baiting, and ethnic favoritism.
Judicial Watch noted that, in a March 1981 memo to the directors of the PRLDEF, Sotomayor and two colleagues argued against the death penalty because it is “associated with evident racism in our society” and because it “creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender.” The memo, which Sotomayor initially failed to turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued against the restoration of the death penalty in New York State.
In 1990, Judicial Watch noted, the PRLDEF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins after the mayor labeled three Puerto Rican “nationalists” who shot five members of Congress in 1954 “assassins.” The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional). The PRLDEF said the mayor’s comments “lacked sensitivity.” Reuben Franco, President of the PRLDEF, said: “[Mayor Dinkins] doesn’t recognize that to many people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice…”
Promoting “The Race”
Sotomayor was also a member of the National Council of La Raza, which claims that “La Raza” has been “mistranslated” as “the race” and actually means “the people” or the “community.” They want to avoid the connotation that the group is racist. But the Webster’s New World Spanish dictionary defines “Raza” as race. The word for people is “gente.” The word for community is “comunidad.”
Once again, the truth has taken a back seat to being politically correct and masking the racist nature of an organization that Sotomayor belonged to.
In a 1996 speech, “The Genesis and Needs of an Ethnic Identity,” she talked at length at the Third World Center about her own ethnic identity, even how she eats ethnic foods, and goes on to say, “America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and color-blind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud.”
One might argue with justification that she is the one who has a confused or warped image of America.
There are, of course, some “white rights” or “white pride” organizations around, but they are shunned, criticized or condemned, even by whites. For the most part, white people think of themselves as Americans, and not as European-Americans.
But affirming one’s Latina identity is perfectly acceptable, and is apparently considered a qualification for the Supreme Court. That is because, in the Marxist view, she is a member of an oppressed group and needs to express herself against white supremacy.
Her 2002 Berkeley Law Review article, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” goes into substantial detail regarding her complaints about the allegedly low number of Latinos and women on the courts. In this article she repeats her statement about a “wise” Latina woman making better decisions than a white male.
But the “Latina Justice” is generally considered liberal. So she will vote like the liberal “white male” she is replacing. Still, the point is that she looks different, and that is apparently what counts with the media.
Just about two months before being nominated by Obama, this sitting federal judge, who is supposed to be above politics, gave a speech, “Being the Change We Need for Our Communities.” In it she told the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association that “The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven.”
“On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences,” she said, hailing Obama’s election.
She added, “What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence. We have to continue to work together for our common goal of bringing the promise of America’s greatness and fairness to all members of our society.”
Notice how she referred to herself as a “citizen of the world,” not as a citizen of the United States. This is critical in her case because she wrote the introduction to a book titled The International Judge. It begins by noting that a bill in Congress was proposed to “prohibit the citation of foreign law in federal judicial decisions.” Sotomayor makes it plain that she disagrees with that, saying that we have something to “learn” from international courts and judges, whom she calls “pioneers.”
Calling for more “change” in her speech, “Being the Change We Need for Our Communities,” she added, “It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed. We must devote ourselves to bettering the lives of all the needy of our society and we must do it together.”
She is openly advocating using the courts to push Obama’s political agenda.
Based on these comments, which violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, Sotomayor should not only be forced to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, she should be impeached. Canon 7 says a judge should refrain from political activity. It explains that she should NOT “make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office…”
The fact that her speech occurred after the election should not affect the severity of the offense. It sent the message that she is a liberal judge who will legislate for Obama from the bench. No wonder she got the nomination. She seemed to be auditioning for it.
In light of this and other controversies, it’s also no wonder Senate liberals are trying to rush this nomination through. This nominee has a lot of obvious baggage that has only begun to be examined for contraband.
In terms of media coverage, we will probably be seeing more “American dream” stories about her, and how she made something out of herself in the U.S. This is a tremendous achievement. It would be relevant were it not for the evidence suggesting that she seems to have no real allegiance to the country whose government she views as oppressing her people.