I wish to testify about the Feldenstein Case because it was the most significant trial of the period. It is important not only for the tribunal to understand it but for the whole German people. But in order to understand it, one must understand the period in which it happened.

There was a fever over the land. A fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes, but it was torn by elements within. Above all, there was fear – Fear of today, fear of tomorrow, fear of our neighbors, and fear of our selves.

Only when you understand that can you understand what Hitler meant to us. Because he said to us, ‘Lift your heads. Be proud to be German.’ There are devils among us Communists, liberalists, Jews, churches. Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed. It was the old, old story of the sacrificial lamb.

What about those of us who knew better. We who knew the words were lies and worst than lies. Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we loved our country. What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Hitler, himself, will be discarded sooner or later. The country is in danger. We will march out of the shadows. We will go forward. Forward is the great password. And history tells how well we succeeded, your honor. We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. The very elements of hate and power about Hitler that mesmerized Germany mesmerized the world.

We found ourselves with certain powerful allies. Things that had been denied to us as a democracy were open to us now. The world said go ahead take it. Take it! Take Sudetenland. Take the Rhineland. Remilitarize it. Take all of Austria. Take it!

And then one day we looked around and found that we were in even more terrible danger. The ritual [which] began in this courtroom swept over the land like raging, roaring disease. What was going to be a passing phase had become the way of life.

Your honor, I was content to sit silent during this trial. I was content to tend my roses. I was even content to let counsel try to save my name until I realized that in order to save it he would have to raise the specter again. You have seen him do it. He has done it here in this courtroom. He has suggested that the Third Reich worked for the benefit of people. He has suggested that we sterilized men for the welfare of the country. He has suggested that perhaps the old Jew did sleep with the sixteen-year-old girl after all. Once more, it has been done for love of country. It is not ease to tell the truth, but if there is to be any salvation for Germany we who know our guilt must admit it, whatever the pain, the humiliation.

I had reached my verdict on the Feldenstein Case before I ever came into the courtroom. I would have found him guilty whatever the evidence. It was not a trial at all. It was a sacrificial ritual in which Feldenstein, the Jew, was the helpless victim.

My counsel would have you believe we were not aware of the concentration camps. Not aware. Where were we? Where were we when Hitler began shrieking his hate in Reichstat? Where were we when our neighbors were being dragged out in the middle of the night to Dachau? Where were we when every village in Germany had a railroad terminal with cattle cars filled with children being carried off to their extermination? Where were we when they cried out in the night to us? Were we deaf, dumb, blind?

My counsel says we were not aware of the extermination of the millions. He would give you the excuse we were only aware of the extermination of the hundreds. Does that make us any the less guilty? Maybe we didn’t know the details but if we didn’t know it was because we didn’t want to know.

I am going to tell them the truth. I am going to tell them the truth if the whole world conspires against it. I am going to tell them the truth about their Ministry of Justice. Werner Lampe, an old man, who cries in his Bible now. An old man who profited by the property expropriation of every man he sent to a concentration camp. Friedrich Hofstetter, a butcher, who knew how to take orders. Who sent men before him to be sterilized like so many digits. Emil Hahn, the decayed, corrupt bigot obsessed by the evil within himself. And Ernst Janning worst than any of them because he knew what they were and he went along with them. Ernst Janning who made his life excrement because he walked with them.

The trial conducted before this tribunal began over eight months ago. The record of evidence is more than ten thousand pages long and final arguments of counsel have been concluded.

Simple murders and atrocities do not constitute the gravamen [significant part] of the charges in this indictment. Rather the charge is conscious participation in the nationwide, government-organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principles known to all civilized nations. The tribunal has carefully studied the record and found therein abundant evidence to support beyond a reasonable doubt the charges against these defendants.

Herr Rolfe in his very skillful defense has asserted that there are others who must share the ultimate responsibility for what happened here in Germany. There is truth in this. The real complaining party at the bar in this courtroom is civilization. But the tribunal does say that the men at dock are responsible for their actions. Men who sat in black robes in judgement on other men. Men who took part in the enactment of laws, the decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings. Men who in executive positions actively participated in the enforcement of these laws illegal even under German law.

The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common. Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime is guilty.

Herr Rolfe further asserts that the defendant Janning was an extraordinary Jurist and acted in what he thought was in the best interest of his country. There is truth is this also. Janning to be sure is a tragic figure. We believe he loathed the evil he did. But compassion for the present torture of his soul must not beget forgetfulness of the torture of millions by the government of which he was a part. Janning’s record and his fate illuminate the most shattering truth that has emerged from this trial. If he and all the others, the defendants, had been degraded perverts, if all the leaders of the Third Reich had been sadistic monsters and maniacs then these events would have no more moral significance than an earthquake or any other natural catastrophe. But this trial has shown that under a national crisis ordinary, even able and extraordinary men, can delude themselves into the commission of crimes so vast and heinous that they beg of the imagination. No one who has sat through the trial can ever forget them. Men sterilized because of political belief. A mockery made of friendship and faith. The murder of children. How easily it can happen.

There are those in our own country too, who today speak of the protection of country, of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at it throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy. To rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. To me the answer to that is – survival as what? The country isn’t a rock. It is the extension of ones self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world let it now be noted that here in our decision this is what we stand for – Justice, truth and the value of a single human being.

And lastly, the final exchange between Ernst Janning and Chief Judge Dan Haywood in Janning’s prison cell just prior to Judge Haywood’s departure for home. 

Judge Heywood, the reason I asked you to come – those people, those millions of people, I never knew it would come to that. You must believe it. You must believe it.

Herr Janning, it came to that the first time you sentenced a man to death believing he was innocent.

Now to my Treatise

You will recall in my introduction I mentioned 28 genocides that resulted in the deaths of nearly 62 million persons. To put this in perspective, I was reviewing the 2010 U. S. Census and the population by State. What I discovered was startling. Each of the following groups of States, except group six, have a combined population which equals approximately 53 million citizens. The sixth group, the Florida group, would require 10M additional citizens to equal 53 million citizens. By extension each of the six groups, as explained, would require 9M additional citizens to reach the total of 62 million in the 28 genocides mentioned. As you look at the groups, ask yourself which group’s citizens would you be willing to exterminate?

1. California, New Jersey and Washington

2. Texas, New York and Virginia

3. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina

4. Massachusetts, Indiana, Arizona, Tennessee, Missouri, Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado

5. Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, and Alaska

6. Florida, Illinois, Alabama, South Carolina, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming plus 10M others

If you were to total all the deaths attributed to war within the United States from the Revolutionary War to the present, it would only be 1,152,000 military members. You would have to multiply the death of each military member by 46 to reach 53 million military members and by 53.8 to reach 62 million military members. These two numbers, 53 and 62 million, have particular significance to us as a nation. Let us look at them separately.

First, let us look at the number 62 million. How strange it is to me that the world is hellbent on repeating the history of the World War II era. When world leader after world leader turned a blind eye to Hitler’s drive for world dominance through acquisition of nation after nation and the subjugation of millions. A subjugation that resulted in the deaths of six million Jews and a like number of other political adversaries. When world leader after world leader also turned a blind eye to Tojo’s drive for dominance in Asia, which resulted in another five million political deaths. These two leaders alone were responsible for 17 million of the 62 million deaths by genocide in the twentieth century.

I understand that hindsight is 20/20, but can we as a world at least learn from this experience? Today is the situation any different concerning the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, his puppet leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic of Iran? Was “Mein Kampf” any less clear on the ambitions of Hitler than the interpretation of the Koran by the Ayatollah and his religious zealots who head the Islamic Republic of Iran? During World War II, the vast majority of the German people were rendered of no consequence because a militant minority hijacked their nation. Today Islam boasts 1.3 Billion followers but once again the vast majority of them are rendered of no consequence because a militant minority has hijacked their ideology and way of life. Hitler had the SS and the Brown Shirts to do his dirty work all across Europe. Today Iran has Muslim Extremists and groups, such as, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood, to do its dirty work all around the world.

The Axis Powers finally force the world to war to reestablish freedom and liberty. Today, Iran has the world at war already but “political correctness” requires today’s world leaders to be in the words of Ernst Janning “deaf, dumb, blind” to Iran’s desire for a worldwide Islamic caliphate with a Caliph at its head under Sharia Law. Iran which is manipulating an ideology, masquerading it as a “religion of peace,” is in truth through, their interpretation of the Holy Koran saying, “Convert to Islam or die!” This interpretation of their ideology requires the destruction of the Western Christian World, along with their democracies and our Constitutional Republic in particular. Why our nation in particular? Why are we identified as “the Great Satan?” It is because we seek through self-determination for the worldwide freedom and liberty of all men and women looking forward into the 21^st Century. Their ideology for the world looks backward to the Seventh Century with its serfdom of the majority of men and the subjugation of all women. (Why is it that “Women’s Rights” groups are not speaking out on the subjugation of women under Sharia Law in our nation?)

How large must the Islamic Genocide grow before western world leaders will call it what it is and say, “This will not be no matter what the cost!” Does the world need “a record of evidence [which] is more than ten thousand pages long” as noted by Chief Judge Dan Haywood in Judgment at Nuremberg? Do not the suicide bombings and terrorist attacks perpetrated by Iran’s “henchmen,” as stated by Judge Haywood, constitute their worldwide “government-organized system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principles known to all civilized nations.” Judge Haywood further stated, “The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common. Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime is guilty.” Will not our world leaders also stand condemned at the bar of Almighty God for being knowing accessories and being, as Ernst Janning said, “deaf, dumb, blind” because of “political correctness?” Are We the People, individually and as a nation, “content to sit silent” in the face of this genocide? Are we “content to [just[ tend [our] roses?”

Second, let us consider another genocide. A single genocide which to date has claimed an unthinkable 53 million victims. A single genocide in which the death toll continues to climb, day by day, toward the total deaths of 28 of the worst genocides of the Twentieth Century. A genocide being perpetrated against the unborn in our nation through abortion.

On 22 January 2012, this nation will mark the 39^th anniversary of Roe v Wade wherein the Supreme Court, “Men who sat in black robes” legalized abortion in the United States. As Judge Haywood noted in the movie, “Men, who took part in the enactment of laws, the decrees, the purpose of which was the extermination of human beings.” In this case, the extermination of unborn babies, “children of God.”

Since then there have been numerous attempts, some successful, to limit the effects of the far reaching genocide that ensued. Further by Judge Haywood, “Simple murders and atrocities [abortions and partial-birth abortions] do not constitute the gravamen [weight] of the charge in this indictment. Rather the charge is conscious participation in the nationwide, government-organized [legislated] system of cruelty and injustice in violation of every moral and legal principle known to all civilized nations.” Further from Judge Haywood, “The principle of criminal law in every civilized society has this in common. Any person who sways another to commit murder, any person who furnishes the lethal weapon for the purpose of the crime, any person who is an accessory to the crime is guilty.” From the testimony of Ernst Janning are we to conclude that “abortion” is but a “sacrificial lamb” along the progressive road of “political correctness” toward the Welfare Social State and the destruction of our Constitutional Republic?

The Pro-Choice and Pro-Life factions of the argument continue to debate the morality of an issue which was defined by our Founding Fathers as they declared our independence from England in 1776 and before they even established our Constitutional Republic in 1787. Within the words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, we find, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” [Emphasis added]

Two questions come to the mind of this writer. First how does the “Creator” define “Life?” And second, If we can determine how the Creator defines “Life” do we as His children, or as a nation, have the right to interfere with His “unalienable Right” to “Life” granted to “all men?”

According to our Judeo-Christian text, the Bible, God told Noah as he exited the Ark after the flood, “But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.” [Genesis 9:4] He also through His prophet Moses taught, “Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.” [Deuteronomy 12: 23; see also Leviticus 17:10 - 14] It would seem then that there is some credibility that “Life,” as defined by God in the Scriptures, begins between 18 and 22 days after conception. I state this window because science has not or cannot determine the precise day blood forms in the human embryo.

After destroying Christianity and our Judeo-Christian Heritage as the basis of Constitutional Law in the 1960s, it was easy for our “Men who sat in black robes,” our Supreme Court Justices, to take the next step and attack our unalienable right to Life from our Creator. They did this through the opinion rendered in Roe v Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973) that during the first trimester a woman had the right to an abortion. In the dissenting opinion MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST stated that there was no constitutional basis for the ruling:

The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.

The result of this ruling according to the National Right to Life Committee and the Guttmacher Institute [www.lifenews.com/2010/01/22/nat-5910] has been the genocide [murder, extermination] of 53 million babies most of which have been done for no other reason than “birth control.” The hypocrisy of the law can be seen in this fact: If a pregnant woman is murdered, the murderer can be charged with two counts of murder – the mother and the unborn child. But, if a pregnant woman aborts [murders] her unborn child there is not even a misdemeanor charge.

The choice, for those of the pro-choice movement, is not the choice of abortion or birth; rather, it is the choice of abstinence or sexual intercourse. Once that choice is made, there are consequences to either decision which are out of, or beyond, the control of the decider. Can the Creator, who grants us the unalienable right to Life, hold the mother, her accessories or the nation who permits such a tragedy – guiltless? From Judge Haywood’s analysis and the subsequent paragraphs, one would have to conclude that our “Men who sat in black robes,” our Supreme Court would be found guilty at the bar of Almighty God for the genocide of 53 million plus aborted unborn babies, “children of God.”

Do the Justices of the Supreme Court today, men and women who sit in black robes, reflect as Ernst Janning did, “And then one day we looked around and found that we were in even more terrible danger?” You ask, “Danger from what?” The danger of moving from abortion, the murdering of the unborn babies; to eugenics, the sterilization of those not fit for the production of good offspring; and finally, euthanasia, the termination of life of those perceived as a burden to our nation. Are not those responsible for ObamaCare, regardless of their persistent denials, seeking these very things as evidenced by the written law? ObamaCare must be repealed!

Will they, our Justices, plead to Almighty God, as Ernst Janning did to Judge Haywood at their last meeting, “those people [babies and other], those millions of people [babies and others], I [we] never knew it would come to that. You must believe it. You must believe it.” Roe v Wade must be overturned! Will we as a nation also stand condemned at the bar of Almighty God for being knowing accessories and being, as Ernst Janning said, “deaf, dumb, blind” because of “political correctness?” Are We the People, individually and as a nation, “content to sit silent” in the face of this genocide? Are we “content to [just[ tend [our] roses?”

Perhaps We the People, individually and as a nation, need to reflect on what Judge Haywood said as he concluded the decision of the tribunal, “There are those in our own country too, who today speak of the protection of country, of survival. A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at it throat. Then it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy. To rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. To me the answer to that is – survival as what? The country isn’t a rock. It is the extension of ones self. It’s what it stands for. It’s what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult. Before the people of the world let it now be noted that here in our decision this is what we stand for – Justice, truth and the value of a single human being.”We the People, individually and as a nation, must let it be known before Almighty God and the world that what we, as a nation, stand for is Justice, truth and the value of a single human being. That with our Founding Fathers, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for the “born” as well as those who are “unborn,” for the “young” and for the “aged,” for every “single human being.”

I will end with a personal reflection. It is both informative, interesting and sobering to me that Judgment at Nuremberg was filmed in 1961. A time before the Supreme Court, our “men who wore black robes,” destroyed our Judeo-Christian heritage, our status as a Christian nation and our unalienable right to Life granted by our Creator. A time when Hollywood still had a sense of morality and felt an obligation to the nation for what it portrayed upon the “silver-screen.” I doubt that this film classic, Judgment at Nuremberg, would ever be produced today!

May God Bless and Save the United States of America.
Our Constitutional Republic !