Calmeyer Lawyer 1s
Web Design

Hans Calmeyer Righteous Gentile 1903-1972

“The Dutch Schindler”

 Lawyer for Life

3000 Deaths

Why Save a Life ?

Is the saving of 3000 lives relevant in any way to the taking of 3000 lives?

Click on picture to go to a moving memorial of this horrible event, tiny compared to the Holocaust, but every life sacred, whatever the race or faith ... (approx. 10 minutes)


An act of war against America... Thus the Holocaust was 2000 times as horrific an act of war against the Jews. Calmeyer was a lawyer/soldier in that war, on the Right side.

The problem in this Muslim War on Christianity and everyone else is that it is largely a war of terror intimidation. Granted, the West is stronger economically and militarily, but Islam is stronger in masses who are willing to be tougher, and who are willing to intimidate. The West is willing to be intimidated, in return for taking the easier moral high-road: back down and shut up at the mildest suggestion that the West might be perceived as a provocation by Islam.

Muslims  intimidate prominent people and  leaders. They assassinate or put out a fatwa on someone who defies them  and it becomes clear to the leaders that their lives too are in danger ... once  the leaders are afraid for their lives, they capitulate and the Muslims are then in control. This appears to have already happened in France, Britain and Sweden. For  instance, the Muslims are now intimidating the French population and the government does nothing about it. Muslims are blocking the streets  every Friday by praying on the streets and sidewalks. People are unable  to leave or enter their homes. Businesses are unable to operate for  about two and a half hours. This is illegal and a naked attempt to bully the French population. The Muslim coup has succeeded, the Muslims are now the bosses. Next they will try something else to intimidate the population, and as the leaders capitulate,  there will be an all out "religious cleansing". They have been using  these tactics for centuries.                                       ( from cradle of freedom)

And now a similar issue: We know that in the USA, someone has the right “to build a mosque within sight of the 9-11 Memorial” or “to burn Qu’rans in retaliation for regular burning of Bibles in Muslim countries” ... but is this right something that is wise to exercise when it is hugely sensitive? Calmeyer would have said that the Nazis obviously had the right by law to impose partial-heredity measurements on Jews, but he showed in retrospect that he did not respect their implementing that right, he did all he could to circumvent these rules and qualify Jews for exemption even when the evidence was questionable or even doctored (by his own team). These are issues not just for his times, but for our times.

Clearly, burning Qu’rans or Bible, or building mosques that appear to be victory monuments on other’s sacred ground is unwise, as Obama himself implied. Both sides should back down and show restraint and make their actions less offensive, though it is of course their right (in America at least) to get publicity and express the fundamental points they wish to make.

That said, it is generally Islam that refuses to be sensitive and accomodative, condoning Islamic exclusion of other religions outside the USA while claiming full rights within the USA to say anything defamatory about other religions and driving Jews into the sea, while also claiming to be mortally offended by any free-speech criticism of Mohammed or the Qu’ran, In France and Holland, Muslim riots and mass sit-ins are their mildest form of protest, Fatwa murder the most extreme. The choice of the 9-11 site for a Grand Mosque on the Cordoba model and the Dome of the Rock model are provocations, just as burning Qu’rans is a provocation, but which, indeed , is the more permanent and thus more serious provocation? Both sides should go out of their ways to avoid lasting and repeat acts that specifically wave offensiveness in the others’ faces. Without self-motivated restraint, the Clash will become inevitable.

From the website supporting Qu’ran Burning:

  • Is Islam really peaceful? (Hint: Surah 9 is chronologically one of the last things Muhammad said)
  • What is Islam’s goal? (Hint: Look up Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6981)
  • Is burning books really the right way to get this message out?
  • immediately followed by, what is the right way? (and if you answered just don’t say anything, you have unfortunately answered  incorrectly.)

If violence happens in reaction to this, the violence was not caused by us, it has just been exposed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
                            United States Constitution, 1st amendment

Islam is incompatible with the 1st amendment. You are not allowed to  leave Islam once you’re in. Suppression of free speech is standard in  many Islamic countries, and even if it’s not done by law, when anyone  speaks out against Islam they are immediately met with death threats,  which causes most to back down. Even the Gainesville Fire Department has stepped in to aid the suppression of free speech by using an  unconstitutional application of a burn permit.

But We Do not Believe in Provocation !

 ... so what do you say when you want to save more future lives but you are faced with the prospect of more deaths if you stand up to the intimidation from those who want to force death upon you?

Simple Questions and Simple Answers?

If it is tolerated for Muslims to burn the Bible, chop off heads,  desecrate Christian and Hindu sanctuaries, then why is it that Pastor Jones does not  have the First Amendment right to do what he plans to do? The answer is he has the right, but it is not necessarily wise to use that freedom in that way. The answer involves common sense.

How much  American Christian blood must be spilled for  Muslims who curse the Holy God and Holy Prophets? For the Muslims who dug up the Christian graves in Damour so that  they could play soccer with the skulls of Christians? The answer is that western blood may well continue to be spilled for the benefit of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Perhaps the “good Muslims” are in the minority among their extremist brethren and therefore unable to reign in those extremists, or a majority of Muslims is intimidated, or they all fully believe in every extremist phrase in the Qu’ran and the Hadiths, but if sacrificing American lives is right for any of those numbered among the righteous, then America will do it, as Calmeyer was willing to risk his life for the unknown Jews he saved. America has always fought for the people, even when after the second world war when this eventually benefitted some Nazis that remained in power, even when few thanks come from Muslims for all American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. There, many lives have been saved, many more than the lives lost as a result of American intervention in situations that could not remain the way they were. If America runs out of treasure to intervene on behalf of peaceful Muslims, than the extreme Muslims will take over and be unrestrained in all countries they inhabit.

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained.” It is ultimately about avoiding the Clash while coming to God in prayerful and peaceful manner, not in provokation of the other side. In America, we do not have to give up our rights, we need to exercise our rights responsibility. In Christian thought, we have ample freedom to sin, but a relationship with God that gives us an inner spiritual compass to avoid doing that which is sin and to be able to discern the sometimes subtle differences between individual freedom and individual responsibility to do the right thing. This is what God lays on our hearts.

The reason not to burn Qurans is that it's unkind -- not to jihadists,  but to Muslims who mean us no harm. The same goes for building a mosque  at ground zero -- in both cases, it's not a question of anyone's  "rights," it's just a nasty thing to do.


Trade Center