Category Archives: Genocide

The Law cannot be free from values

14 Wednesday Jan 2015

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, Genocide, Shadow of the Past

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

“What is truth?” a ruler once asked a man facing the death penalty. Pilate sensed he was beyond his understanding because of this disturbing fact: the man before him was obviously not motivated by the same fears and desires as other men. But this troubling man was not beyond Pilate’s ability to judge as without fault. Certainly this man was not worthy of the punishment his accusers sought.

We find ourselves in much the same situation, although today the pertinent question is, “What is justice?” Perhaps Germany can look to the east to understand the issues involved. Here are words from a November 6, 2014, conference at the “Sauna” room in the former concentration camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Auschwitz-BirkenauSauna

The Central Sauna at Birkenau.

Report from Auschwitz-Birkenau

To an audience composed of Polish prosecutors, judges and other representatives of justice, the following distinguished representatives of Polish justice spoke of what happens when law is regarded as “value free”:

  • Andrzej Rzepliński, President of the Constitutional Tribunal
  • Marek Zirk-Sadowski, Vice-president of the Supreme Administrative Court
  • Irena Lipowicz, Ombudsman
  • Andrzej Seremet, Attorney General
  • Piotr M.A. Cywiński, Director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum

The quality of judgment

Marek Zirk-SadowskiMarek Zirk-Sadowski, Vice-president of the Supreme Administrative Court, stressed that the law consist in judging of man by man. “The quality of a judgment depends upon the quality of a person. Justice is a property with a moral aspect. This aspect cannot be only procedural or formal. This needs to be taken into account when issuing a ruling”, he claimed.

“Closing ourselves in legalism and failing to see a need to construct our sentences and rulings also on the principle of proportionality1 as well as failing to recognise the foundation of human rights, all lead to aberrations in even very good legal systems. It is very easy to be drawn into the mechanisms of inhuman law due to misinterpretation and failing to recognise certain values which need to be introduced to the legal system to avoid paying the price that the Germans paid having forgotten about this dimension of law”, he said.

Can law be value free?

Irena LipowiczIrena Lipowicz: “The legal blight began with the belief that the law can be free from values. We do know that the law which is free from values does not exist.”

Just what are “values”? According to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, values are “the principles that help you to decide what is right and wrong, and how to act in various situations.” In other words, these Polish legal scholars maintain that law cannot be separated from morality.

2000-2008_Head_FCC_GunterHirsch

Prof. Dr. Günter Hirsch

Where does morality stand in regards to the written, positive laws of a land like Germany? Does it stand over it or bow down before it? Officially, if one reasonably considers the Basic Law, as a normal human being and not as a scheming lawyer, morality is the very basis of law. Again, officially,  there is, in the famous speech of the (then) President of the German Federal Supreme Court of Justice, Prof. Dr. Günter Hirsch, the unequivocal statement that “there is a higher law than the written law.”

Is morality the basis of law?

We ourselves, the members of the Twelve Tribes communities of Germany, would not know this to be true. Not from our experience at the hands of the authorities, neither we nor our children would know this to be true. We would not know that morality—what is written on the heart of man regarding good and evil—is the basis of law in Germany. We would not know there is a higher law than the written law. We would not know that the legal philosopher Gustav Radbruch, to whom President Hirsch proudly referred, ever even existed.

Gustav Radbruch (1878-1949)

He, Radbruch, maintained that an appeal to obey God rather than man, was a valid legal proposition. That is to say, a plea worthy of honor by judges who can discern right from wrong. We sincerely hope there are such still in this country. In his fifth minute of legal philosophy, he wrote in 1945:

“In the language of faith, the same thoughts are recorded in two verses from the Bible. It is written that you  are to be obedient to the authorities who have power over you (Hebrews 13:7),  but it is also written that you  are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)—and this is not simply a pious wish, but a valid legal  proposition. A solution to the tension between these two directives cannot be found by appealing to a  third—say, to the dictum: ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are  God’s’. (Mark 12:17) For this directive, too, leaves the dividing line in doubt. Or, rather, it leaves the solution  to the voice of God, which speaks to the conscience of the individual only in the particular case.”

Did the God who made us–yes, the very one ostensibly worshipped in thousands of churches around Germany–make us to obey or disobey Him? Is it possible to outlaw what both conscience and the Word of God teaches parents about how to raise their children? Could such a law actually have the force of law? Or is it one of the laws of Germany today “so unjust and so socially harmful that validity, indeed legal character itself, must be denied them,” as Gustav Radbruch said?

Such a law comes in fundamental conflict with the law higher than the written law according to Radbruch: “There are principles of law, therefore, that are weightier than any legal enactment, so that a law in conflict with them is devoid of validity. These principles are known as natural law or the law of reason.”

In the conflict one must stand and one must fall. One must be acknowledged as weightier or one must be accorded validity. If the higher and weightier law falls then it is another step to the abolition of morality. What happens when wrong and right get confused? Do we have any examples from history to enlighten us?

The law can turn wrong into right

A final, sobering reminder of what was done very legally several generations ago. Legally, morally—is there a difference? Only those who can judge by the fruit will ever be able to tell. If you cannot tell by the good fruit of our children that our educational method is good, then you too, like so many Germans yesterday, today, and it seems tomorrow, will not be able to tell the difference between what is legal and what is moral.

Andrzej Seremet

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attorney General Andrzej Seremet made a reference to the place (Auschwitz-Birkenau) where the debate was taking place: “This death machine, in the heart of which we are now, was to a considerable extent initiated by lawyers. If it had not been for the lawyers, there would not be those infamous Nuremberg laws nor the administrative organisation of Germany. We, as lawyers in general, should be forced to deeper reflection also on that aspect”, he said.

That is to say that everything that happened in what the world now calls the Holocaust was perfectly legal under the positive laws of Germany.2

That it is now regarded as perfectly immoral misses the point altogether. To the mind that refuses to judge a tree by its fruit there is no difference, nor ever shall be, between what is legal and what is moral.

A society made up of individuals like this has no problem having laws without values. What such a society is capable of doing is beyond one’s lowest imaginations.

 

 

 


 

 

 

  1. This is something we have pleaded for and reminded the courts of many times, so far to no avail. ↩
  2. As Professor Thomas Schirrmacher recently said: “The fact that the laws of a nation make something lawful doesn’t make it right,” he said. “Everything Hitler did in Germany was allowed by the law. He never moved until the law allowed him. Applying the national law of Germany at the time you couldn’t have convicted Hitler of a crime. But what he did obviously and dramatically was a crime against humanity.”

    That is to say, it was immoral, as anyone with a functioning conscience could tell then, let alone now. ↩

The non-existence of fundamental rights and freedoms

18 Tuesday Nov 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, Gender Mainstreaming, Genocide, Religious Freedom

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

,

The abolition of Freedom: then and now

Basic ideas of law and right were altered, if not abolished, during the Third Reich. No one is surprised by such a statement. But many would be if told that something very similar is happening today. Radical redefinitions of law are happening all over the so-called “first world”.

Freedoms of speech, religion, expression, and education, to name a few, are being made to bow down before new imperatives such as gender equality and anti-discrimination. This is being done by both laws and judges. Whether the constitutions of the nations that they are embedded in will be abolished, rendered meaningless, or show enough vitality to beat back these frontal assaults remains to be seen.

In this day it is not really understood that those constitutions commit their governments to protect the fundamental rights they proudly list. The most dangerous assaults of all are laws that defy the spirit if not the letter of those charter documents, but are enforced as though they are what they are not, which is valid law. Such laws unrighteously extend the scope of government’s power into realms forbidden it by both natural law and bills of right. They seek to alter the nature of society and more ambitiously, human nature itself.

The psalmist referred to such governments as “thrones of iniquity,” which frame “mischief by law.” (Psalm 94:20, KJV). These have no alliance or fellowship with God. That is, they and their laws have no claim on the conscience of men. Their laws are upheld not by right but by might.1

Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, have fellowship with you? They gather together against the life of the righteous, and condemn innocent blood. Psalm 94:20-21 (NAS)

The effect of these assaults on human rights will be just as radical as what happened in Nazi Germany, but it will be less noticeable as it is happening slowly, over time.2 Most will never wake up to how greatly the world has changed around them. They will not realize that the change in law has effected a change in society.

American states are getting a taste of it as judges, not the people, rewrite and annul their constitutions and laws. A worldwide, top-down revolution is in process.3 Some countries are finding that their ambitious social and political goals are impossible in the face of individual rights as they have been traditionally understood.

Such nations are forging ahead on what they imagine to be a new road. Old ways are being abandoned or destroyed.

New inroads into family and private lives are being made. Germany is such a country.

He who controls the past. . .

ErnetRudolfHuber

Ernst Rudolf Huber (1903-1990)

To understand the present, we have to understand the past and how its influence lives on. How we still live, in other words, in its shadow.

A very important person, both before and after World War II, is the subject of this post. That he could be important in both eras is very telling.

In the Nazi era, Ernst Rudolf Huber spoke of the non-existence of individual fundamental rights and freedoms. He was one of the Kiel School of law teachers and legal philosophers.4 Abolishing fundamental rights left the government absolutely free legally to direct and punish however and for whatever purpose they saw fit. These were obviously very important aspects of “law” in those days.

When Huber was truly a young radical, he wrote in his book “The Constitutional Law of the Greater German Reich” that personal liberties had to disappear:

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state. The member of the people, organically connected with the whole community, has replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the totality of the political people and is drawn into the collective action. There can no longer be any question of a private sphere, free of state influence, which is sacred and untouchable before the political unity. The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.5

2000-2008_Head_FCC_GunterHirschIn 2002, the then President of  the German Federal Supreme Court of Justice, Professor Doctor Günter Hirsch, made a major speech of what happened as a result of such legal theories. He went into detail, naming individuals, including Huber:

Theodor Maunz, Ernst-Rudolf Huber, Ulrich Scheuner, Ernst Forsthoff – the list of prominent university lecturers the Nazis were able to refer to is long.

He spoke of how such eminent legal minds deprived Jews of their civil existence, of how judges committed 50,000 judicial murders, and how the “crown jurist of the Third Reich,” Carl Schmitt, taught that the Fuhrer’s degrees were not only beyond judgment, but were themselves “supreme justice.” Thus from the most eminent legal minds of the age, we hear quite clearly that there are no constitutional or moral restraints on a government’s power. This is the essential prerequisite to the abolition of personal rights. And this is the shadow of the past upon modern Germany, and falling too on many other nations.

Further, Professor Doctor Hirsch vowed that the German judiciary was now on a fundamentally different basis:

that the resistance fighters…were not sentenced to death for high treason by a proper court in a lawful trial but became the victims of a judicial murder, was a late rehabilitation of the victims by the German Federal Supreme Court and may show you, their families,

that the German judiciary have found their way back to Radbruch’s doctrine [stating] that there is a higher law than the written law.

But is this actually true of Germany? Is there a higher law that sits in judgment over the written law? Can men now use in German courts what Radbruch called the “valid legal proposition” of Acts 5:29? In his Fifth Minute Radbruch boldly stated: “that you are to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29)—and this is not simply a pious wish, but a valid legal  proposition“? Or is it true that faith, too, must now yield to positive law?6

Men like Ernst Huber, whose enthusiastic labors provided the veneer of legality under which the Third Reich committed its atrocities, lived on teaching and writing after the War. His monumental constitutional history of Germany appeared from 1957 to 1991 (in eight volumes), for instance. Perhaps knowledgeable readers can let us know whether he ever repudiated his earlier writings. Others such as Carl Schmitt resisted all attempts at de-Nazification.

No more “sacred, private sphere, free of state influence”

Did the truth of this statement by Huber end at “zero hour” in 1945, when the nation of Germany had a hopeful restart? Or does it live on? Has the sacred, private sphere of the family been obliterated? It is looking that way to us. Huber was certainly describing then when he spoke of a state no more “based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.” But is he not describing now as well? Can you not substitute gender mainstreaming now. . .and make the exact same statement as he did then?

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of gender mainstreaming. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state.

Do you think we exaggerate?

This is what parents are discovering with the early sexualization of their children in German schools. They are discovering their children, the precious life that came from their love for one another, are not theirs at all. Their parenthood is not respected by the state. Some parents are protesting, literally marching in the streets proclaiming: “The state is going too far.”

StuttgartDemo_ParentsRights

Translation: Protect Parental Rights! Stop Gender-Ideologies and the Sexualization of our Children!

This atrocious invasion of children’s private lives and places, straight from Brave New World, is, state institutions say, “normal and should be allowed.” Yes, gender mainstreaming is a universal guiding principle of the German government, a goal it is pursuing with all its might. It is not about to let a little thing like the inviolable rights articulated in the Basic Law get in the way.

“No personal liberties that must be respected by the state”

You can substitute Jugendamt too, which quite openly operates in “a space outside the law.”

The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principles that the Jugendamt acts by. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state.

Do you think we exaggerate?

The 2009 report, League for Children’s Rights, quotes a well-known German professor. Professor Klenner says that the Jugendamt operates in a “space outside the law”. He draws starkly ominous conclusions.

The demise of the Constitutional State of Germany

klenner_klein

Professor Klenner

Prof. Klenner states: “Whenever court decisions are ignored without contradiction, this is regarded as a license for further arbitrary actions, so that consciousness of illegal acting does not arise at all. … The official tolerance is the determining event of transgressing the point of no return. This is immediately followed by more illegal acting and the lack of respect of the judiciary will follow immediately.” Many other experts share this opinion, but no remedy has been implemented as yet.”

Proof is too tedious to Establish

On the contrary the position of the Jugendamt has been further enhanced by a recent amendment of Art. 1666 of the Civil Code that has just obtained legal validity. Whereas until now a proof of parental failure had been compulsory for the withdrawal of parental authority, this requirement has now been abolished and replaced by a mere “suspicion” of a danger for the child. In the document explaining the reasons for this new “law for facilitation of intervention of family courts in cases of danger to the welfare of children the Bundestag explains that the proof of parental failure is too tedious to establish.” {7. Bundestag document no. 16/6815 of 24 October 2007 — see p. 9.}

Suspicion alone grounds for violations of rights

This reasoning is a very dangerous step towards the abolition of the constitutional state.

Parents are put under general suspicion, and this suspicion is declared sufficient for a violation of the Right of Respect of Family Life, but also the Right of Liberty and Security.

The abandon of the basic maxim “in dubio pro reo” (benefit of the doubt) is a violation of the fundamental Right  to a Fair Trial: It is no longer necessary to prove the guilt of the suspect. Once this  movement is started there is no way of knowing where it will stop, and to which offences it will be extended. Germany is about to leave the basic principles of international conventions on Human Rights.”

Constitutional states – the very concept of limiting government to protect the rights of individuals – must be abolished to create a new man. Karl Marx recognized this, as is well known. But that today’s governments do, too, is so shocking and disturbing that most would rather close their eyes and, like the ostrich, bury their heads in the sand. What can the righteous do when the foundations are destroyed? (Psalm 11:3) There must be a place they can flee to.

 

 

  1. As Gustav Radbruch put it, “A law is valid because it is a law, and it is a law if, in the general run of cases, it has the power to prevail. This view of a law and of its validity (we call it the positivistic theory) has rendered jurists (judges) and the people alike defenceless against arbitrary, cruel, or criminal laws, however extreme they might be. In the end, the positivistic theory equates law with power; there is law only where there is power.” (Five Minutes of Legal Philosophy, published 1945) ↩
  2. There is a modern parable about this known as “Frog Stew.” See the Frog Stew article for more on this. ↩
  3. As Gabriele Kuby puts it, “This global sexual revolution is now being carried out by power elites. These include international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, with their web of inscrutable sub-organizations; global corporations like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft; the big foundations like Rockefeller and Guggenheim; extremely rich individuals like Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner, Georges Soros, and Warren Buffett; and non-governmental organizations like the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the International Lesbian and Gay Association.” ↩
  4. The Kiel School was a hotbed of National Socialist thought applied to law. ↩
  5.  Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939), in Raymond E. Murphy, et al., ed., National Socialism, reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 90. ↩
  6. The theory of positive law is defined by Radbruch in his First Minute as: “This view of a law and of its validity (we call it the positivistic theory) has rendered jurists and the people alike defenceless against arbitrary, cruel, or criminal laws, however extreme they might be. In the end, the positivistic theory equates law with power; there is law only where there is power.” ↩

When one has the advantage

30 Wednesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, Genocide, Jugendamt Lies, Religious Freedom

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In 1740, Frederick the Great set Germany on course…

He did so by posing a question to which he already knew the answer. The fateful day came, November 1, 1740. Frederick asked Heinrich von Podewils, one of his councilors, “I give you a problem to solve:

When one has the advantage, should one make use of it or not?

A-Young-Frederick-the-Great

Young Frederick the Great.

“I am ready with my troops and with everything else. If I do not use them now I keep in my hands a powerful but useless instrument. If I use my army it will be said that I have had the skill to take advantage of the superiority  which I have over my neighbor.”

Podewils suggested that this  would be considered immoral.

Frederick countered. When had kings been deterred by morality? Could he afford to practice the Ten Commandments in that den of wolves known as the Great Powers? {Durant, “Story of Civilization, Vol. IX (Simon and Schuster, NY, 1965) p. 451}

This was a far cry from the man who had, just shortly before wished to be seen as “the first servant” of his people:

Antimachiavell

Originally published anonymously; its author soon became known.

 

“It is thus justice (one would have to say) which must be the main responsibility of a sovereign. Since it is the prime interest of the many people whom they control, they must give it priority over any interest of their own.

“What then becomes of Machiavelli’s of naked self-interest, self-aggrandizement, unleashed ambition and despotism?

“The sovereign, far from being the absolute master of those who are under his dominion, is only the first servant.”

Taking advantage of the powerful army his father, Frederick I, had prepared for him, Frederick II, like a modern Alexander, waged many, many wars. Finally, both he and his nation were exhausted. He is famed for being an “enlightened absolute monarch.” Upholding freedom or religion and (at least at first), freedom of speech, he differed from the religious monarchs before him. But as he liked to say, “My  people and I have come to an agreement that satisfies us both: they are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please.” {Durant, p. 448}

Indeed, as the Encyclopedia Britannica says, “Frederick, the third king of Prussia, ranks among the two or three dominant figures in the history of modern Germany. Under his leadership Prussia became one of the great states of Europe. Its territories were greatly increased and its military strength displayed to striking effect.” And who were the other “dominant figures in the history of modern Germany”? A poster of some seventy plus years ago lists them as follows. Did they all learn Frederick’s lessons, too? You be the judge.

What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.

Translation:

What the King Conquered, the Prince Shaped, the Field Marshal defended, the Soldier saved and united.

(King Frederick II, Prince Bismark, Field Marshall von Hindenberg, and Herr Hitler.)

When one has the advantage…

Yes, when have governments been deterred by questions of morality? That is, when they have the advantage. There is much they can do then. Indeed, virtually anything.

When have social services upheld such prime directives as extreme measures last (taking children away from parents)? When one has the advantage, one can seize the children first, confidently relying on the great advantage of the machineries of public opinion, already rolling, to justify its extreme measures.

2013.09.05_ReportersFilming

Reporters “respecting” our privacy and filming the trauma of our children being seized 5 September 2013.

And then, if any “blips” appear in the program, the state presses on, confidently relying on the press to boisterously lie again and again to make the original, false picture still seem true.

Yes, little things like children running away from foster care to run back to their parents. That would be a disturbing reality for the German people.

Little things like beautiful cards from the captive children expressing their love for their parents and their longing to go home.

Who cares about such little things?

Even if the advantage is gained by such “CIA methods” as secret videos (as a Bavarian legislator said should not be done in the Senate hearing of January 23, 2014), then the State can do what it has longed to do, destroy a minority religion. Before any hearings, before any guilt was established, against other precedents, and even subsequent rulings of other, similar cases by the same judges, by seizing children first, not last. Not even when there is a lengthy history of friendship and cooperation with school officials and others, even the Jugendamt.

No matter the trauma to the children and the devastation to the parents of doing so. Then, building on the advantages of force and manipulated public opinion, virtually denying the confiscated children contact with their parents. Yes, once every two or even three weeks for an hour. One can do such things when one has the advantage.

Violating their supposedly inviolable rights to privacy in their letters and phone calls, denying them mail in foreign languages, denying them the freedom of their religion, mocking that religion, and even through intensive interrogation by criminal police attempting to turn those seized children against their parents.

  1. 11 children were taken in care for which there were no decisions of the district court Nördlingen. This constitutes the offense of false imprisonment – the deprivation of their liberty. Other legal bases according to Code of Criminal Procedure or under SGB VIII were not available.
  2. All seized children were forced to undress down to their underpants and show even the bare buttocks, there was no legal basis. The investigation showed that no signs of ill-treatment could be determined by the medical officer. This behavior, coercion under § 240 of the Criminal Code, is moreover a very serious matter because the offender has abused his powers or his position as a public official, and thus can be a criminal offence.
  3. The Jugendamt directed – on the basis of both written evidence and testimony – that all the letters of the children to their parents be opened and read, and that all the letters of the parents to the children be opened and read. This arrangement involved children of all ages, including young people between 12 and almost 18 years of age. These and further such actions constitute offenses, such as § 202 of the Criminal Code, § 206 Section 4 of the Criminal Code, and also violate the right to privacy under Article 10 of the Basic Law, optionally at retention of letters, also the crime of unfaithfulness. Justifications are not apparent. In particular, no court had ordered the inspection of letters and phone calls.
  4. Multiple times children ran away from foster care and children’s homes and were returned under use of physical force by members of the Jugendamt there. The use of physical violence against children requires a court order. Such an order did not exist. There have been several confirmations of this unique legal situation in proceedings at the Higher Regional Court of Munich, amongst others, with reference to a decision of the BayObLG of 4/27/1979 (Rb 3 Z 28/79, FamRZ 80, 81). Multiple times children were locked up in children’s homes. In one case, the children were being locked in at night. In another case, a 17-year-old girl was denied for more than a week, under the threat of physical and psychological violence, to leave the home for maladjusted children at all. Custodial measures had not been ordered by the family court. This constitutes the fact of deprivation of liberty that qualifies as a crime under § 239 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code.
  5. The Jugendamt conducted multiple searches in Klosterzimmern and in the process invaded the homes of several people. Given the fundamental right to inviolability of the home there is a need for a legal basis for these searches. There were no judicial search warrants. Other legal bases did not exist.
  6. In the facilities in which the Jugendamt had assigned them, affected children were bullied in many ways, slandered, abused, and insulted as Jews inter alia. It will be necessary to consider whether these facts are a neglect of the duties of supervision by the Jugendamt and so constitute criminal offenses.

But when one has the advantage one must not be deterred by morality.

No, not even by one’s own laws, by an agency’s own code of conduct. . . not even by one’s own sense of decency.

When one has the advantage, one uses it — if one does not fear God or regard even the cries of children.

Read Luke 18:1-8 for the response of the Twelve Tribes to this injustice.
 

Reader Commentary: Worst Human Rights Violation!

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Court Decisions, Genocide, Second Raid, Third Raid

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Worst human rights violations! It is unbelievable:

This “German Republic” brags to be a liberal constitutional state, in which the basic rights of all people are respected — and is now found wanting to destroy a pacifist Christian denomination by taking all children away from them with a large contingent of child catchers and police and permanently places them in institutions and imprisons them with foreign commercial parents — and even the nursing mothers in the “protected” mother-child home the kids were torn away from the breast, as happened on 9 December 2013.

There, they are then re-educated in terms of this materialistic industrial culture, though those in charge know that the kids want to stay strictly with their parents and in the community, because they know they are loved there and feel at home. The older children who were able to escape have proven it — e.g. these two matured girls that were to be captured back by this police state raid with over 100 police and children catchers initiated by the social services — fortunately in vain.

The fact is: Moderate corporal punishment of a child by loving parents is not child abuse, and is also in accordance with Penal Code no offense, not to be equated with bodily injury, hence no justification to take away the children — and moreover against their will. Such moderate corporal punishment is a child-friendly education measure, since recorded history by all peoples practiced it if a child does not want to obey. It is practiced today legally in almost all countries.

Children 3-12 years can not be punished with imprisonment or confinement or a fine. And often a child simply does not listen to instructive and admonitory words and does things that are harmful to others or himself. He must be protected from this. “He who does not want to hear must feel” (as the famous White Rose wrote 71 years ago in their fourth pamphlet to the German people). This is effective.

This does not violate the dignity of the child. The noble sentence in Article 1 of the Basic Law “The dignity of man is inviolable ….” does not talk about parental rights, but about the horrible war crimes of the previous war. It belongs to the nature of the punishment that it hurts. Otherwise, it is not an effective punishment. This the rulers know also, which is why they want to punish young people in the future with loss of drivers license.

The fact is: With the children of the Twelve Tribes at no times were found marks of abuse, even though the state authorities have always sought after. Even after removing all the children on September 5, 2013, it found none. A few strokes on the buttocks hurt a short time, then the child is glad and happy again. However, these stolen children are now permanently unhappy, neglected and deprived of their parents and a happy childhood! Particularly gravely and enduringly damaged in their development are the ones under three years old through the trauma of tearing away from the care of mother and father in their development.

Paid caretakers have now not so much interest and time let alone love as the biological parents for their beloved children. Then the children “learn” in the homes to smoke (a harmful and very expensive addiction that can be very difficult again to get away from) and worse, the “cool” and boorish behavior with which they won’t arrive in professional life later (which is why the “DIH” congress had to find out at his last poll that 75% of the companies surveyed thought the graduates of the state school to be not mature for further education/training). For sure they will not learn disciplined behavior there — without which, however, no productive work is possible.

When they later earn money,by the government takes away all their income again except what is necessary for subsistence, in order to recover the expensive nursing home costs and other purchased services costs (according to § 91 SGB VIII). Also from the parents they demand  reimbursement of foster home costs up to the poverty line. In this way they botch the young people’s entire future and ruin these families as well.

So the matter is in truth not about safeguard the interests of the child and not respecting its dignity — that’s just an excuse, but about child robbery, family destruction, persecution of Christians and job creation for the life of foreign child care.

Actually, hundreds of thousands of parents ought to be seen now speaking out, because all of them want the authorities to concede their right to use corporal punishment to raise good children.

This scandal makes definitively clear that we have here in today’s Germany, yes, especially in the supposedly liberal and Christian Bavaria, in the educational field a communist dictatorship — in the sense of the 1968 neo-Marxists — of all children and total disregard of all respective fundamental rights concerned: it has disregarded the law and disregarded the will of the parents, the will of the children and their dignity  (they were not asked! Also their religion and freedom of conscience is being disregarded).

It is also the fundamental right of freedom of religion which is taken from them:during this raid, at 6 clock a.m., the Twelve Tribes practiced worship, like every morning. Now the children placed under rule foreign, being nationalized can no longer practice their religion. The families are not protected, such as the Basic Law requires it, but destroyed. Yes, there is a whole community of faith being ruined and also economically brought low. Even before emigrating with their ​​children Judge R. from the district court Nördlingen did not want to allow this.

Dictatorship pure! The rulers of this country should ensure that in her country where human rights are respected before they send a compliance reminder to Russia and China. Those responsible at the District Office and in the judicial system should be, if there is to be justice in this country, be tried and sentenced by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for kidnapping and genocide under international penal code § 6 paragraph 1 item 5.

The church homes should refuse to participate in this injustice.

Martin F. Kurkowski (kurkowski@web.de)

 

 

The Guilt of the Nation

08 Tuesday Jul 2014

Posted by in Controversial Issues, Genocide, Religious Freedom, Second Raid

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Religious persecution: the guilt of the Nation

This post is in reference to the father’s statement over the megaphone to the police and social workers conducting the Third Raid on July 1, 2014.

Why have the judges still not started yet with the court cases after 10 months?!!!

After ten months…how slowly the wheels of justice turn in Germany! They roll over families and they grind the children down. They seek to take away the faith even of the children. They want the adults to deny their Master, the Savior. They openly persecute for cause of conscience…very plainly religious persecution, to destroy a group of people (genocide)…violate inviolable rights…and no one seems to care. So the guilt spreads to the whole nation, complicit in evil as before.

The judge in Wörnitz did not have such difficulties. The prosecutor there pressed no charges. Could the difference be the scandalous invasion of privacy done for profit (which invasion is the evidence) the judges in Klosterzimmern have to work with? Do they really wish such a precedent to stand against the German people? Does “1984” come so quickly then?

bigbrother

After one day the Jugendamt doctors announced (on 6 September 2013) that the children of Klosterzimmern and Wornitz were healthy, well-adjusted, respectful, and in no way abused. Why did the judges not call a halt to the whole thing then? Could it simply be that “child abuse” was never the issue?

Is not belonging to the Twelve Tribes the crime being persecuted? As objective scholars have said, there has been a strong anti-cult bias at the heart of the conflict.

Ten months later over half the children seized are still in state custody. Their parents’ crime: membership in the religious group the Twelve Tribes.

What our children think of Lidice

07 Monday Jul 2014

Posted by in Genocide, Schott Family, Shadow of the Past

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Lidice_ChildrensMemorial

The historical village of Lidice is a memorial to commemorate the child victims from this time Czech village that were murdered by the German Nazis. They have an annual event, “The International Children’s Exhibition of Fine Arts,” a competition of children’s art projects from all over the world. Our children had send pictures as well and since it happens to be right around the corner from us the parents went with their children together for the official opening ceremony. Especially with our situation in Germany we felt it was good for us to understand more about this event in history.

To our surprise the event did not so much address what happened in the past, it was just a happy children’s day with different activities. It seems as if most people do not really want to remember the terrible crimes of the past and do not want to have to deal with real things that plague the human race.

When we were standing by the bronze sculpture, a life size reproduction of the victims, there was a tourist guide who explained how hard it is to imagine the great suffering that these children went through.

I would have liked to jump up and let all the people there know that my sisters and all the other children of Klosterzimmern and Wörnitz are suffering something similar right now!

Back then they destroyed innocent lives, but is it different today? I was not executed, but I had to suffer being separated from my parents.

Do the authorities want to extinguish the Twelve Tribes?

It is so sad that  Germany is repeating its terrible history.

Are there not still people with the courage to stand up against injustice?

Besorah, daughter of Abiyah and Rekah (age 15).

Read about the Schott family, which includes links to videos of Besorah speaking. Here is an older picture of her (in blue) and her sisters…they are still in captivity…no doubt being “Germanized.” (See below.)

Schott

Here are the facts she learned of that terrible time.

On May 28th, 2014 I went to the Czech memorial in Lidice. I was very shocked about what I learned about the terrible history of this village.

72 years ago a German SS leader was assassinated by two men. When the Gestapo searched for the murderers they found some clues leading to Lidice. Without having any certain facts they executed a cruel judgment on the population of Lidice. All the men older than 14 were shot, all the women transported to a concentration camp, and almost all the children gassed to death,  except a few chosen ones (that seemed suitable for Germanization) were brought to German foster homes.

The few children that were left suffered a great shock and wanted to go back to their parents, but they had no chance. The wrath of the Germans against these Czech men that were supposedly hiding in Lidice was so great that they decided to eradicate every trace of this village and even the name from the map. All the buildings were torn down until not one stone was left on another. They even opened the graves and dug out the bones – there was absolutely nothing left from the village.

 

Note: Surprisingly, the German commander of the slaughter at Lidice, Max Rostock, actually lived until 1986 in West Germany, suffering no legal consequences from his government. He died in Mannheim, Germany, age 76 years and one day.

His post-war Czech trial resulted in his conviction and the death sentence, which remarkably was not carried out. He was released to the West German government. Attorney Pavel Barbaš said the following in the summer of 1951:

“Every decent and honest man has to ask himself: How is it possible that fascist war criminals are acquitted and are released? How is it possible that anyone can allow that the hardly past and still living teachings of the Second World War have gone into oblivion?“

How indeed?

Maybe they haven’t. It seems that way to us.