Roosevelt, Ibn Saud, and American Jews

March 27, 2013

Andrew Bostom h/t Doc’s Talk:

This morning at AT, Professor Emeritus Edward Bernard Glick described his frank 1958 discussion with Eleanor Roosevelt regarding her husband, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s decision not to bomb the railway tracks connecting to the Nazi extermination camps for European Jews. Professor Glick also alludes to prevalent antisemitic attitudes in the State Department, and perhaps President Roosevelt, himself, whom he quotes as having stated to a prominent Jewish Congressman, “The Jews in America should know that they are tolerated here, but not more than that.

Roosevelt’s statement was in fact a crude retrogression from the attitudes expressed by America’s first President, George Washington. Following a visit to Newport, RI in August, 1790, and his warm reception by the local Jewish community, represented in a letter by Moses Seixas, George Washington wrote a moving reply to Touro’s congregation. Our first President rejected the idea of mere “tolerance” of Jews, embracing them as full, equal citizens of the nascent American nation, with complete freedom of conscience, and the guarantee of their personal security. Washington stated,
The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent national gifts. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. [emphasis added]

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

Roosevelt made another particularly maleficent, if bizarre, statement revealing his visceral antisemitism during the seminal February, 1945 Yalta Conference between the American President, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The President was scheduled to meet with Arabia’s despot King Ibn Saud immediately after the Conference. Alluding to this upcoming meeting with the Arabian despot, Stalin asked Roosevelt what concessions the President might make to Ibn Saud regarding Middle Eastern issues. As per two independent sources of archival documentary evidence (hat tip, Diana West), i.e., the minutes preserved in the Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York, and the papers of then Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius (the latter reproduced in the recent M. Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein analysis, “Stalin’s Secret Agents—The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government,” p. 35),
The President [Roosevelt] replied that there was only one concession he thought he might offer and that was to give him [Ibn Saud] the six million Jews in the United States. [February 10, 1945]

Professor Glick warns, appropriately, about the pitfalls of American Jews’ blindly misguided reverence for Democratic Presidential “saviors,” such as Franklin Roosevelt, or Barack Obama, “whom Jews revered then [Roosevelt] as much as they lionize President Barack Obama now ,” despite their latent (or blatant) antisemitism, and the actions, or inactions, such attitudes may engender.
All Articles Copyright © 2007-2013 Dr. Andrew Bostom | All Rights Reserved
Printing is allowed for personal use only | Commercial usage(For Profit) is a copyright violation and written permission must be granted first.

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) Roosevelt spelled out this promise in a letter to King Abdel Aziz Ibn Saud on April 5, 1945:
Your Majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. … [D]uring our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.
…when Roosevelt made this promise about Palestine, it never occurred to Ibn Saud that another president could come along and break that promise.???????
But Roosevelt died a week after sending the letter to Ibn Saud.
Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor, came to office suddenly and unexpectedly.
Truman placed the United States forcefully and decisively in support of the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state in 1948. The sentiments of the king of Saudi Arabia were not considered important.
“I’m sorry, gentlemen,” Truman explained to worried Arabists. “But I have to answer to hundreds of thousands of people who are anxious for the success of Zionism. I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.”

(Saudis remember FDR’s broken promise – Baltimore Sun) The meeting took place in February 1945 aboard the USS Quincy, a destroyer, in the Great Bitter Lake of the Suez Canal, where Roosevelt stopped on his way home from the Yalta Conference with Churchill and Stalin.
Ibn Saud was brought to the rendezvous aboard the USS Murphy, a cruiser, along with an extraordinary cargo, though not nearly as strange as it might have been if the king had had his way. Ibn Saud had arrived at the dock with an entourage of about 200 men, plus quite a few women from his harem.
The captain of the Murphy was appalled. He warned the king’s entourage of problems that might arise with women aboard a naval vessel manned by a crew that had been at sea and at war for a long time. The women were left behind. The king brought a retinue of 48, including coffee servers, cooks and six huge Nubians with swords.


Listen Vanessa: Roman Catholicism’s Nazi History Exposed! Written By Jenny Steinberg

March 5, 2012

The Concordat between the Vatican
and the Nazis
Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli
(later to become Pope Pius XII)
signs the Concordat
between Nazi Germany and the Vatican
at a formal ceremony
in Rome on 20 July 1933.
Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left,
Pacelli in the middle,
and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world.



(Elegance4Life) Did he do the right thing by not speaking out? The controversy over Pius XII’s silence on Nazi atrocities during World War II has raged intermittently for three decades. Critics say that a papal protest to the Naz…is might have saved millions of lives. But pope, Paul VI, insisted that “an attitude of protest and condemnation would have been not only futile but harmful.”
But why bring the matter up again? Is it not just whipping a dead issue? No. The Vatican itself is keeping it alive. Officials have even set aside their fifty-year-delay policy on publishing archive documents. They realize that, unless people do understand, critics have a most powerful argument to illustrate moral failure in the Church.
Many sincere Church members want to know the answer. They know that even Pope Paul VI was very much involved in matters back there as a close aide to Pius. Thus a Jesuit committee has been publishing selected documents from the Vatican archives since 1965. The latest, titled “The Holy See and the War Victims,” came out in April 1974. Does it provide any fresh insights?
News reports give the limelight to documentary evidence that the Vatican had received much information about Nazi atrocities from a very early date. But much more significant is another little-noticed item. It shows that one of Pius XII’s trusted aides raised an issue that probes much deeper than the question of why the pope did not speak out against the Nazis. “Monsignor” Domenico Tardini (later a cardinal) is reported to have asked in exasperation:
“That the Holy See cannot make Hitler behave, everybody understands. But that it cannot keep a priest on the leash—who can understand this?”
Shallow debate over how much good the voice of Pius XII would have done has all but obscured this far more fundamental issue. Honest Christians are forced to face the question: How could Nazi atrocities even have been committed in the first place if it were not for the cooperation of the people and their spiritual leaders? Ninety-five percent of Germans back there were either Catholic or Protestant. Nearly 32 million, over 40 percent, were Catholic, as was almost the entire population of Germany’s European allies, Austria and Italy. Even among the dreaded S.S., almost a fourth were still Catholic in 1939, despite S.S. leadership pressures to resign.
Pius XII himself lays bare this very issue in a recently published private letter to the priest who caused “Msgr.” Tardini’s exasperation. As president, the priest, Jozef Tiso, ruled the Nazi protectorate of Slovakia throughout the war (1939-45). Pius wrote “Monsignor” Tiso that he had hoped that the Slovak government and people, “Catholic almost entirely, would never proceed with the forcible removal of persons belonging to the Jewish race,” and the fact that “such measures are carried out among a people of great Catholic traditions, by a government which declares it is their follower and custodian,” distressed him greatly.—April 7, 1943.
But how could any form of cooperation with the Nazi racial extermination program even be considered among a people who the pope himself said were ‘Catholic almost entirely and of great Catholic traditions’? Surely the moral teachings of the Church would make it unthinkable for “Msgr.” Tiso and his flock to have any part in genocide! History shows whether they did. Honest-hearted church members certainly desire an explanation for such conduct as well as that of the other so-called “Christian” nations involved with the Nazis.
The Vatican’s own Cardinal Eugène Tisserant supplies one reason with the candor and openness of a private letter to a friend. After the fall of France in 1940, he wrote complaining to Cardinal Suhard of Paris that “Fascist ideology and Hitlerism have transformed the consciences of the young, and those under thirty-five are willing to commit any crime for any purpose ordered by their leader.” But how could these Church-trained consciences be so easily “transformed”? After all, Hitler had been working on them only about seven years, while the Church had been training its flock for well over a thousand!
“Vital Point of Christianity”
Surely Pope Pius could do something about this Nazi encroachment into traditional Church territory—the human conscience! But Cardinal Tisserant mourns:
“Since the beginning of November [1939], I have persistently requested the Holy See to issue an encyclical on the duty of the individual to obey the dictates of conscience, because this is the vital point of Christianity.”
However, history reveals no papal statements during the war on this “vital point of Christianity.” In fact, Tisserant went on to make the melancholy forecast: “I fear that history may have reason to reproach the Holy See with having pursued… a policy of convenience to itself and very little else. This is sad in the extreme.”3
No doubt the pope’s “policy” of diplomatic care in dealing with the Nazis did ensure the “convenience” of survival for the Vatican and the Church. Pius himself advised the German bishops that “the danger of reprisals and pressures,” or worse, called for “restraint” in their pronouncements “in order to avoid greater evils. This is one of the motives,” he wrote, “for the limitations” he put on his own declarations.—April 30, 1943.4
This explanation helps us to understand why Pius conducted himself as carefully as he did. But it leaves unexplained this: Why ministers, priests and their flocks stood by to witness, cooperated with, or actually committed the Nazi atrocities—almost to the last person. What happened to their consciences?
The answer must lie with the training those consciences received. How was a loyal Catholic, for example, to understand Pius XII’s own December 8, 1939, pastoral letter, Asperis Commoti Anxietatibus, addressed to chaplains in the various armies of the warring nations, of whom over 500 served in Hitler’s army? He urged the chaplains on both sides to have confidence in their respective military bishops, viewing the war as a manifestation of the will of a heavenly Father who always turns evil into good, and “as fighters under the flags of their country to fight also for the Church.”5 (Italics added)
This perplexing contradiction is demonstrated again by the pope’s letters to the bishops on both sides. In an August 6, 1940, letter to the German bishops, Pius expressed his admiration for Catholics who “loyal unto death give proof of their willingness to share the sacrifices and sufferings of the other Volksgenossen [fellow Germans].”6 Yet just nine months before, the pope had addressed a similar message to the French bishops, counseling them that they had a right to support all measures to defend their country against these very same “loyal” German Catholics!7 Italian Church metropolitans received like counsel just before Italy joined the war against the Allies.8
Thus when the head of the Church did speak on matters affecting conscience, as did almost all of his clergymen, he applauded the consciences of those who ‘loyally’ served in military forces of any stripe. In fact, when the Vatican’s Berlin correspondent for the official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, once asked Pius XII whether he would protest the extermination of the Jews, the pope told him that he could “not forget that millions of Catholics serve in the German armies. Shall I bring them into conflicts of conscience?”
Were Protestant churchmen any less responsible? Well, note what the Ecclesiastical Council of the German Evangelical (Lutheran) Church, the largest Protestant body, telegrammed personally to Hitler on June 30, 1941:
“May Almighty God assist you and our nation against the double enemy [Britain and Russia]. The victory shall be ours, to gain which must be the main point of our aspirations and actions in all her prayers [the Church] is with you and with our peerless soldiers who now are about to eliminate the root of this pestilence with heavy blows.”
With this kind of direction from their “shepherds,” what else could the flocks do? What they actually did do speaks for itself, does it not?
Was Hitler’s low estimate of the churches away back in 1933 correct? He boasted scornfully that “the parsons will betray their G-d to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages.”(Hitler’s government did continue large state subsidies to the major churches throughout the war.)
To bring home the reality of what Hitler was saying about the churches, a person only needs to ask himself: “If I had been a sincere church member in Germany, Austria, or Italy during that period, what would my spiritual leaders have advised me—and what would I have done?” Suppose you were to say: “I would not have served Hitler.” What would you have faced, not from the Nazis, but from your own spiritual leaders?
Search as he would, Catholic scholar and educator Gordon Zahn could find documented evidence of just one among 32 million German Catholics who conscientiously refused to serve in Hitler’s armies. Aside from churchmen prosecuted for political opposition to the Nazis, he found a total of seven persons between Germany and Catholic Austria who conscientiously refused to take the military oath. You probably wonder why there were so few.
Zahn answers that his extensive interviews with people, who knew these men produced the “flat assurance voiced by almost every informant that any Catholic who decided to refuse military service would have received no support whatsoever from his spiritual leaders.” Ironically, those few who did refuse and stuck to it were actually an embarrassment to their “spiritual leaders.”
For example, in requesting clemency from the Nazi court for a priest who refused, Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg wrote that the priest was “an idealist who has grown ever more estranged from reality who wanted to help his Volk and Vat…erland but who proceeded from the wrong premises.” Others were denied Communion by prison chaplains for violating their “Christian duty” to take the Nazi military oath.
The documented case of an Austrian peasant, Franz Jägerstätter, illustrates what a church member actually faced from his spiritual leaders. Jägerstätter was finally imprisoned for his stand at Linz, Austria, and later beheaded. The Catholic prison chaplain writes that he had “tried to make it clear to him that he must keep his own and his family’s welfare in mind even in following his personal ideals and principles”—just as Jägerstätter’s village priest had argued long before Jägerstätter was imprisoned. “He seemed to have come around to seeing my point,” says the chaplain, “and promised to follow my recommendation and take the [Nazi military] oath.”
Did this advice come from a Nazi? No—it came from a priest in good standing long after the war! But that was not the only pressure from spiritual leaders. Bishop Fliesser of the same Linz diocese reveals that he, too, had “known Jägerstätter personally,” and argued “to no avail” that Jägerstätter was not responsible “for the actions of the [Nazi] civil authority.” The bishop said that his was “a completely exceptional case, one more to be marveled at than copied.” Bishop Fliesser was writing to a priest after the war in explanation of his refusal to allow publication of Jägerstätter’s story in the Linz diocesan paper. The story might “create confusion and disturb consciences,” he said.
Thus Bishop Fliesser viewed a man who followed his conscience as an “exceptional case”—not to be copied. “I consider the greater heroes to be those exemplary young Catholic men, seminarians, priests, and heads of families who fought and died in heroic fulfillment of duty,” he continued. Even the Nazi’s court-appointed attorney Feldmann used this argument in an attempt to get Jägerstätter to compromise, noting the millions of Catholics, including clergy, engaged in combat with a “clear” conscience. Finally, Feldmann recalls, he challenged him to cite a single instance in which a bishop in any way discouraged Nazi military service. He knew of none. Do you?
From as early as 1987, there was talk of plans by the Catholic Church to produce a document acknowledging its responsibility in the Holocaust. So there was great expectation when in March 1998 the Vatican Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews released the document entitled We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah. While the document was appreciated by some, many were dissatisfied with its contents. Why? What did they find objectionable?
Anti-Judaism and Anti-Semitism
The Vatican document makes a distinction between anti-Judaism, for which the church acknowledges guilt, and anti-Semitism, which it disclaims. Many find the distinction and the conclusion to which it leads unsatisfying. German rabbi Ignatz Bubis said: “To me it seems like a way of saying that it’s not our fault; it’s someone else’s fault.”
Although Italian Catholic historian Giorgio Vecchio accepts the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, he points out that “the problem is also that of understanding how Catholic anti-Judaism may have contributed to the development of anti-Semitism.” It is of interest that the Vatican paper L’Osservatore Romano, of November 22-23, 1895, published a letter stating: “Any sincere Catholic is, in essence, anti-Semitic: so is the priesthood, by obligation of doctrine and ministry.”
The part of the Vatican document that provoked the most criticism, however, was the defense of the actions of Pius XII, appointed pope on the eve of World War II. Pius XII had served as nuncio (papal legate) to Germany from 1917 to 1929.
The Silence of Pius XII
Italian jurist Francesco Margiotta Broglio did not think that the document “offers new or explanatory elements on the widely debated issue of the so-called ‘silence’ of Pope Pius XII, on his alleged German sympathies, and on his diplomatic actions toward the Nazi regime both before and during his papacy.”
The majority of commentators agree that no matter how one views the import of the document We Remember, the question of why leaders of the Catholic Church remained silent about the genocide in Nazi concentration camps “remains wide open.” According to American historian George Mosse, by choosing silence Pius XII “saved the church but sacrificed her moral message. He behaved like a head of State, not like a pope.” Well-informed Vatican observers believe that what delayed the release of the document was the difficulty in handling the role of Pius XII in the Holocaust.
The document’s defense of Pope Pius XII has irritated many. “Silence on the ‘pope’s silences’ makes this document disappointing,” writes Arrigo Levi. Elie Wiesel, winner of the 1986 Nobel Prize for Peace, said: “It seems to me that claiming we Jews should be grateful to Pius XII is a heresy, to put it mildly.”
The document adopts the traditional distinction made by Catholic theologians, according to which it is claimed that the church as an institution is holy and preserved from error by G-d, while its members, who are sinners, are the guilty parties for any evils perpetrated. The Vatican commission writes: “The spiritual resistance and concrete action of other Christians was not that which might have been expected from Christ’s followers. . . . [Such ones] were not strong enough to raise their voices in protest. . . . We deeply regret the errors and failures of those sons and daughters of the Church.”
However, attributing guilt to single members of the church rather than accepting it as an institution seemed to the majority to be a big step backward, compared with recent explicit requests for forgiveness. For example, the Roman Catholic Church in France issued a formal “Declaration of Repentance,” asking G-d and the Jewish people for forgiveness for the “indifference” the Catholic Church showed toward the persecution of Jews under France’s wartime Vichy government. In a statement read by Archbishop Olivier de Berranger, the church admitted that it had allowed its own interests “to obscure the biblical imperative of respect for every human being created in the image of G-d.”


The French declaration stated in part: “The church must recognize that in regard to the persecution of the Jews, and especially in regard to manifold anti-Semitic measures decreed by the Vichy authorities, indifference by far prevailed over indignation. Silence was the rule, and words in favor of the victims the exception. Today, we confess that this silence was a mistake. We also recognize that the church in France failed in its mission as the educator of people’s consciences.”
More than 60 years after the terrible tragedy of the Shoah, or Holocaust, the Catholic Church has not yet managed to come to terms with its own history—one of ambiguity and silences, to say the least. But there are some who have never had to take any such step. By Jenny Steinberg

If there are any doubts at all that the church was involved in or complicit to the nazis after reading the article above please view pics below


Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin, 1935



Chaplain with a machine gun unit (Source: axishistory.com)
Most wars are justified on religious grounds.
Of course if a soldier felt uneasy about slaughtering others, they could always turn to a chaplain who would then patiently explain to them that killing is allowed by God and about the righteous morality of war. He might then give a few Biblical examples of God ordained killings. And then he might tell them that Jesus will forgive them and send them to Heaven if they should happen to die.




Nazi Chaplin’s Visor Hat




Hitler signing his autograph for a Christian fan (Source: Hitler in Seinen Bergen, Heinrich Hoffmann, Berlin, den 24.9.35)













The Fuhrer in FrankenAdolf Hitler (center) at the monument for the war dead in Franken Germany. According to Ray Cowdery, Hitler rarely missed an opportunity to visit war memorials, even when a photographer was not present.(Source: Hitler: The Hoffmann Photographs, Vol. 1, Ray Cowdery, Ed., 1990) 

greets Muller the “Bishop of the Reich” and Abbot Schachleitner

 Nazi GravesOne must not forget that Germany represented the most Christianized country in the world in the 1930s and 40s. Nazi Christian soldiers died as Protestants and Catholics and their grave markers testified to their religion.
Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler.
Note Joseph Goebbels (far right) and Wilhelm Frick (second from right)
(Source: USHMM, Photo source: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek [Bavarian State Library]) An Archbishop with the NazisArchbishop Cesare Orsenigo, head of the Diplomatic Corps, attending the Nuremburg Party Rally in September 1933.
According to Dr. Paul O’Shea, Orsenigo, as Dean of the Corps, it was the Nuncio’s role to lead the Corps at all major government functions. After 1935 Orsenigo did not attend major government propaganda displays.
(Photo source: A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen) [Note, Goldhagen incorrectly attributes this photo to Cardinal Faulhaber.]

Deutsche Christen (German Christians)
The Deutsche Christen (DC) became the voice of Nazi ideology within the Evangelical Church (the Religious Right of their day) and approved by Hitler. They proposed a church “Aryan paragraph” to prevent “non-Aryans” from becoming ministers or religious teachers. Most church leaders solidly supported the “Judenmission.” Only a very few number of Christians opposed Nazism such as the “Confessing Christians” (a Church movement not recognized by the Protestant orthodoxy) headed by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The support of Nazism by the majority of German Christians and German Christian leaders shows the danger of mixing religion with government.
Note the flags with the Christian cross with the swastika in the middle (also described as the Double Cross) To see a movie trailer about the Deutsche Christen, from the documentary film, “Theologians Under Hitler,” click here.
(Photo sources: unknown)



Deutsche Christen (German Christians) ABOVE TWO PHOTOSThe photo on the left shows Christian worshippers of Christ and Nazism on the march in front of the Berlin Cathedral. SS guards stand at attention. The head of the march shows members in party and SA uniforms while pastors follow in the rear.
Note the flags with the Christian cross with the swastika in the middle (also described as the Double Cross) To see a movie trailer about the Deutsche Christen, from the documentary film, “Theologians Under Hitler,” click here.
(Photo sources: unknown)

So spoke Jesus Christ
A front page of the Nazi publication, Der Stuermer.
The headline reads, “Declaration of the Higher Clergy/So spoke Jesus Christ: You hypocrites who do not see the beam in your own eyes. (See Matthew 7:3-5)
The cartoon depicts a group of Hitler Youth marching forth to drive the forces of evil from the land. The caption under the cartoon reads, “We youth step happily forward facing the sun… With our faith we drive the devil from the land.”
Hitler leaving Church
Hitler leaves the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven.
(Source: The German Propaganda Archive )


Hitler greets a Catholic Cardinal (Source: USHMM)



Hitler’s mother’s grave Klara Hitler was a pious Catholic mother who raised Hitler according to her beliefs.
Hitler felt grief-stricken over his mother’s death. She was buried alongside her husband in Linz, Austria. German soldiers here pay their respects to the grave in 1938.
Note the Christian cross on her monument.
(Source: The Importance of Adolf Hitler, by Eleanor H. Ayer, Lucent Books, 1996, p. 25)
To see what the gravesite looks like today, click here.



Priests giving the Hitler salute
Priests giving the Hitler salute at a Catholic youth rally in the Berlin-Neukolln stadium in August 1933.
(Source: A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen)



Ludwig Muller, a Nazi sympathizer, and a candidate of Hitler, was elected to the position of Reich Bishop in 1933 as Hitler attempted to unite regional Protestant churches under Nazi control. Hitler did not practice separation of Church & State. Although Hitler had problems with the Catholic Church and eventually wanted to replace Catholicism with his brand of Christianity, the very fact that Hitler wanted a united German Church proves that he supported Christianity.
Berlin, Germany, November 17, 1933.
(Source: USHMM)



Mother’s Cross (Mutterkreuz)
Hitler encouraged several programs for the growth of a strong German Nazi Volk. These programs involved the encouragement of the virtues of German motherhood for the purpose of increasing the size of their families and the abolition of abortions (except for the mentally ill). In 1938, Hitler instituted a new award to honor German Nazi motherhood, especially for large families. He awarded such mothers the cross of Honor of the German Mother (Ehrenkreuz der deutschen Mutter).
Although the German Iron cross usually appears symmetrical this particular cross, by lengthening the vertical member, emphasizes Christianity.



When you see a crossage from the anti-Semitic German children’s book, “Der Giftpilz” (The Poisonous Mushroom)The text reads, “When you see a cross, then think of the horrible murder by the Jews on Golgotha…”see 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15, “…the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men”

Leave a Comment » | $55 customized graffitiwall drawing done in facebook, Pope Pius XII, Promoting Pius XII | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


Dhimmi President Peres hangs out with celebrities like Shakira and ignores Jonathan Pollard’s request to see his father before he dies.

June 23, 2011
…and now for a little grab ass…
As if catering to the Arabs actually work. Already Egyptians are saying…

Shakira must be boycotted! Which is just what a few new Facebook groups are calling for. Shakira is scheduled to give a concert in November in Egypt, and some Egyptians are calling for a cancellation of the concert. Four years ago, the pop star performed in Egypt at the foot of the Pyramids. via elderofziyon.blogspot.com

dirty old man and a Lebanese whore… the man who practically put a gun to Yitzhak Rabin’s head by lying to him about Arafat and his goals.  Here he is with Media_https3amazonaws_bjbeiShakira. She says she is, “Proud of My Lebanese Origin”. Says “I am convinced that the road to peace has to be traveled hand in hand with education because that is the only way perhaps that we are going to achieve global stability and peace,” she told the AP. via naharnet.com and via news.yahoo.com and via upi.com
Shakira you Wrong, bitch!…The Arabs have enough indoctrination… Shakira can do her beauty pageant elsewhere.
…This is who the  President of Israel hangs out with when he should be on the phone to Obama screaming at him to do the right thing and free the hostage? …no not just Gilad Shalit.
Jonathan Pollard.


Leave a Comment » | $55 customized graffitiwall drawing done in facebook, boycott, Brand Israel, face, Gilad Shalit, Jonathan Pollard, Peres, Shakira, Shimon Peres | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon


facebook Beacon – if this image offends you please get off my facebook profile

December 8, 2008

please note… this woman is not necessarily nude…
..this image was made to protest facebook’s administration…

Leave a Comment » | $55 customized graffitiwall drawing done in facebook, Behavior, facebook Graffiti, music, Rabbi facebook, sit on my face, social network tyranny of Scoble and Zuckerberg, STEP ON FACE | Permalink
Posted by Noah Simon