Glenn Beck is worse than a bull in a china shop, but the 400 rabbis listed in the linked article want everyone walking on egg shells concerning in what context the terms "holocaust" and "Nazis" may be used.
Look, rabbis, you don't own those terms, and I'll be damned if I'm going to fret over when and where I can use them just because you're part of the lying-Zionist-propaganda machine that never admits the huge lies,Â deliberate fabrications, Zionists have told about the concentration camps. It's well documented and available on line, even though you guys try your best to censor, suppress, and cover it up.
Yes, there are nuts amongst the holocaust deniers, but there are some really careful people who have come up with excellent points that expose as utter liars the tiny handful of Zionists upon which the whole "Final Solution" thing is built.
The Nazis were and the Neo-Nazis are maniacs but so were and are the Zionists.
The Zionists lied that they invaded Gaza because of rockets being Â fired from there. They made it sound as if thousands of rockets were landing and blowing up right before the invasion. The facts though are that the rockets don't even blowup upon landing and there was a huge lull or ceasefire understanding in place concerning which Hamas had been scrupulously adhering. Fewer than 2 dozen glorified bottle rockets landed during about six months before Operation Cast Lead. Concerning those, it's been rather undisputed that Hamas severely punished the rogue entities in Gaza that launched them. In some cases, I'm told Hamas even killed a number of them in gun battles.
The Zionists also routinely lied during and after Operation Cast Lead about using White Phosphorus and human shields and indiscriminate firepower and many other aspects of that illegal and wicked operation.
Those are very far from the only times the Zionists have been shown to be utter liars and war criminals, so why should I trust those same people concerning the, in some cases completely ridiculous, claims about what they've termed the Jewish Holocaust?
The Soviets were behind huge parts of the negative propaganda against the Nazis. Are we all supposed to trust Joseph Stalin's regime? It has come out that many of the deaths blamed on the Nazis by the Soviets were actually committed by the Soviets. I been informed that many Polish soldiers were mass executed by the Soviets who had blamed it on the Nazis. It was the Soviets who liberated Auschwitz and continued doing their utmost to make the Nazis come out looking even worse than they had actually been — which was certainly well beyond bad enough to merit condemnation.
Why am I, why is anyone, required to just accept all the nonsense about human soap and tattooed-skin lampshades and shrunken heads and the rest without critical evidence and when only 3 or 4 Zionists who have zero evidence are the sources of the whole holocaust industry?
The "gas chamber" at Auschwitz was "recreated" after the liberation — walls torn down and roof hatches installed, etc. However, reportedly, the walls do not contain the gas residue that the delousing areas contain even now, and it was for delousing that even the Zionist holocaust-experts have said that some 95% of the Zyklon B was used. That's something the general population of the planet isn't supposed to know though. When they think gassing and Zyklon B, they're supposed hypnotically to think that Zyklon B was there at the camps only to murder people in mass.
Concerning the other "death camps," the maps are extremely detailed but they don't even show a place to store the gigantic amounts of wood the "survivors" claim were used for months while dead bodies were cremated on open-air grills. Supplying and storing that wood would have been a major operation in and of itself. Also, the numbers of buried dead and the size of the claimed pits (never scientifically verified) do not seem to add up. The number of dead, before being dug up, burned, and reburied, doesn't seem to add up what with the claimed size of the pits and the claimed water-table levels (per the "witnesses"). The parts of the testimonies of the witnesses that appear to impeach them are left out of the story as it is continually revised as aspects are shot down by "deniers" or researchers.
Even the Zionist experts do not agree on the 6 million figure. The most lauded of them, Raul Hilberg, wrote that 5.1 million was more in order; and he was basing that lower number still upon discredited "witnesses/survivors." At Auschwitz alone, the number has dropped by 2 or even some 3 million depending upon to which "expert" Zionist one is referring.
The list of possible impossibilities concerning the claims of the key Zionist witnesses upon which the whole story is built is extremely long. It makes the best lists of 9/11 questions look almost weak by comparison in many places, and there's certainly enough concerning 9/11 that the majority of Americans do not buy the government's official conspiracy theory.
Yet, the "Holocaust" is sacrosanct. Nonsense. It's an event that is and should always be until put to rest subject to challenge, just like any other "historical" claim.
Frankly, I know the Nazis did many atrocious things, just the way I know the Zionists have done so in Lebanon, Palestine, and Gaza, etc., and just as the US did in Vietnam and wars before it and after it, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Knowing that does not in anyway fix any number of war dead; and I sincerely now believe that the Zionists in conjunction with the Soviets especially, have deliberately lied about and exaggerated the crimes of the German people, not that what they actually did wasn't extremely criminal, as Cast Lead was extremely criminal and the ethnic cleansing of Palestine has been and is extremely criminal.
The ADL's Abe Foxman is upset with Jewish Funds for Justice for publishing an ad signed by 400 rabbis taking Fox News Channel to taks [sic] for diminishing the Holocaust.
Abe is upset because the ad, appearing in today's Wall Street Journal and Forward, quotes his own critiques of Fox's Glenn Beck. JFSJ is free to do so, he said — his remarks are part of the public record — but it's tacky for him to be used for a campaign he does not endorse.
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)