In actual fact, mainstream Holocaust historians have constantly bewailed the appalling lack of documentation that accompanies what is called the Holocaust. In what is alleged to be the most extensive and elaborate program of mass murder the world has ever seen, there has not been found even a single order or instruction given to any German official to gas or otherwise exterminate Jews. There are no blueprints, plans or instruction booklets, or orders for the operation of gas chambers that could be just as lethal for the operators as the victims. Even though the SS and Chancellery was captured practically intact, no plan, program or clear policy for exterminating all the Jews of Europe was found. There is in fact not one mention in any contemporaneous German document of any gassing of any type other than for fumigation of typhus bearing lice in clothes and other articles. There are thousands of documents dealing with executions, hostage reprisals, shootings, hangings and the like but not a single document dealing with the gassing of humans by Zyklon B or any other means. Why would the Germans record matter-of-factly killings by shooting or hanging but not by gas chambers? Is there much difference in America between press coverage of executions by gas, electric chair or lethal injection. Why would Germans record one meticulously and not the other?
The overwhelming "documentation" of the Holocaust comes from statements of Jewish prisoners at a time when rumors ran rife. There is ample documentation of the fact that there was a terrible lack of food and medicine leading to starvation and sickness in the camps at the end of the war. There is copious documentation that there were terrible epidemics that swept through the camps in the last months of the war, epidemics that even the allies had a difficult time controlling after their occupation. International Red Cross teams from Switzerland, America, the UK, Canada and elsewhere inspected the German P.O.W. and concentration camps right up to the end of the war, and they issued detailed and documented reports of the conditions in them. They reported in their documentation about the epidemics and they were specifically asked by the U.S. Government to investigate the many wartime rumors of war crimes and mass extermination. After the International Red Cross completed their investigation, they duly reported to the President of the United States in November 1944 that they found absolutely no evidence of intentional mass killing of Jews or other prisoners. The official Red Cross reports refuting claims of an intentional program of mass murder of Jews is a fact that the mainstream Holocaust historians claim is a spectacular failure on the part of the Red Cross.
That's David Dukeabout it. You may not like Duke's errors concerning race and ethnicity, but is what he has written in just those two paragraphs above correct? Is it holocaust denial or holocaust wondering?
It is a fact that some of the stories that circulated turned out to be false. The one about the Nazis making soap from the fat of Jews for instance apparently turned out to be made up. Also, it is a fact that the numbers of those allegedly exterminated at the various camps has been officially reduced by millions. That's millions.
Look, the Nazis were despicable. They did despicable things to all sorts of people, Jews included. The question isn't whether or not the Nazis were terrible. The question is the degree to which the false Zionists have exaggerated in an attempt to gain spellbound sympathy from bleeding hearts?
Understand here, Real Liberal Christians are bleeding hearts. We stand guilty as charged. We know that Jesus was a bleeding heart while at the same time he was ready to let go of the forever-iniquitous for the sake of the righteous (to be finally out from under).
The Jews don't need lies. They don't need laws saying that no one may ask questions about exterminations. They don't need to lump everyone together on this issue.
Of course, people who hate all Jews are going to look for every bit of dirt they can find. That doesn't mean that everyone who wonders why the stories about soap and the numbers of dead, etc., have changed over the decades is in league with or playing into the hands of racists.
Tell the truth.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)