Wrong: "Re-writing history of the Holocaust is immoral" - Putin - YouTube

It's important to always keep in mind that people lie. When one credible survey put the number of dead in Iraq at least as high as 600,000, the US government was saying that it wasn't trying to keep count the way it did in Vietnam but that they estimated fewer than 50,000 dead. Why the huge difference? You figure it out.

Raul Hilberg didn't come up with 6 million Jews but 5.1-5.3. He wasn't deemed a denier since he was a committed Zionist. He was lauded. A number of his sources used in his books have been more than called into question but shown to be utter perjurers: telling huge whoppers (you should have seen that fish that got away).

I don't know how many Jews died in Nazi Concentration Camps, but I do know that Zionists are some of the biggest liars on the planet if not the biggest. After all, they said Palestine was a land without a people for a people without a land while they were ethnically cleansing Palestine to steal the land they coveted that they claim was promised only to them by God per the Torah even though the Torah said Abraham's seed, which includes many Palestinian Arabs, and also even though the Torah clearly wouldn't include atheists and homosexuals taking the land but rather lumps them in with the people the Israelites were called to exterminate (wholesale genocide right down to the last baby).

As for Vladimir Putin's speech about it, who knows whether he has been exposed to the debate over the things held out to be evidence on both sides of the issue. He was raised under the legacy of Stalin. To fight the Nazis, the Russians conjured up all sorts of propaganda, just as the Nazis did in the opposite direction. Let's not forget that the Nazis weren't the only ones working evil. We need to remember the Holodomor right along with the later Nakba too. Oh, and let's not forget the Rhine-Meadows Death Camps. Hardly anyone has ever even heard of those, but you can find out about them if you're interested in hard truths the way I am.

No, making it illegal to debate what the Jews have managed everyone to call the Holocaust (with a capital H and with it's focus on Jews nearly to the total exclusion of all the others who died in WWII) would be the immoral thing.

Here's a post I did on it that Vladimir Putin needs to read: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2015/01/26/a-group-of-very-dangerous-jews-call-for-european-totalitarianism-to-avoid-totalitarianism.html

The above is a comment I posted on the video on YouTube. https://plus.google.com/103999169783297625959/posts/fJiuwsu8yde

Here's the video:

Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed any attempt to conceal or re-write the horrors of the Holocaust, labeling such attempts "immoral" Tuesday. He was speaking at an event at the Jewish Museum in Moscow marking International Holocaust Remembrance Day. This year has special significance because it is the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Holocaust. Bookmark the permalink.