[franklin]

johnwk wrote:

Quote:

In regard to the federal government assuming power to tax for, spend on and regulate the personal health care needs of the people within the various united States, I would say the Supreme Court of the United States would disagree that our federal government has been granted such power.

Your thinking and conclusions, except for the one quoted here, seem solid to me.

But, I'm not sure the sc would disagree with the de facto president. The latest member of the sc, sotomayor, is known to have committed at least one crime from the bench (helping a judge cover up bankruptcy fraud, and left that case off her curriculum vitae when she submitted to the senate all of the cases she adjudicated.). Then there are scalia and thomas who hold that a man found innocent of murder in a habeas court, after seven witnesses recanted their perjured testimony, could still be executed on schedule.

I would not look to the sc to understand the constitution the way you do, that is, the way it was written and the reasons for the way it was written. These people appear to know no law, divine or man-made.

Here is an article about the constitutionality of the healthcare issue written by a (surprisingly) constitutionally sophisticated former DOJ attorney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…033.html?sub=AR

[franklin]

Bing, you wrote…

Quote:

I thought that a Hegelian dialectic is when someone is able to move entire societies in one direction by creating a crises and then appearing on the scene with proposed “solutions” to the crises

That's essentially what it is. The crisis can be small or large depending where it stands on the value scale of our would be masters. The common ingredient to all crises in the Hegelian dialectic is that there must be opposing arguments that, left alone would result in a standoff. The HD seeks each side to give something to the other in compromise that makes each side feel they have solved the problem and created unity. [This happens in individual contracts, but the HD is concern with “society” and how it functions with opposing ideologies, such as democracy versus republicanism or socialism versus individual responsibility,not with whether you and your neighbor agree on the price of his pickup truck and you both walk away happy.]

The HD is often concerned with reaching a compromise on questions that shouldn't be on the table in the first place. For example, Sotomayer's appointment to the SC should not be debated, even ideologically as a republican or democratic issue. She has committed high crimes and misdemeanors and exhibited bad behavior that should have dumped her right off the federal court…on her “wise latina” butt. She covered up a financial fraud to protect a colleague from disclosing his cash reserves in a bankruptcy filing. Then she did not put that case on the list she gave the senators so they could review her judicial bona fides.

So the powers that be get a hot argument going about issues that are important to them, so that a compromise can be reached on some issue that should not be on the table at all. For example, health care…with its national id card attached. The government simply has no business in health care, or national id efforts. The Department of Education. The federal government has no business being in national education. etc., etc. These issues become legitimized to the contentment of both sides through the compromise reached via the HD…even though they may be illegal, criminal or unconstitutional in the first place.

So the compromise reached through the HD is the method used to get unlawful agendas legitimized. And those doing the debating feel involved in the process and content to have been so.

And the powers that be couldn't care less what the outcome of the debate is, because after the compromise is reached, the powers that be always change the compromise by increasing demands for compliance with new, and undebated, requirements. For example, the SSN which was going to put a “chicken in every pot” became a national id tracking device. Though it is not required, and cannot be used for identification, the agreement that the debaters made to boiled chicken was then expanded in all aspects of American life to meet the agenda of the socialist powers that be.

So, in summary, the HD wants a good argument between opposing sides about some issue that can later be expanded upon. They want a compromise, and they couldn't care less what the compromise is because they are going to redefine the compromise any way they wish. They just need a jumping off point. For example, airports are staffed with TSA worker bees. At first, they screened luggage. Then shoes had to come off, jackets, belts. Then liquids could be no more than three ounces and they must be contained in a clear plastic bag of a certain size. Then computer hard disks could be downloaded by the government. Now they are doing virtual strip searches. The debated issue was manufactured “terrorism” and the compromise was giving up certain rights for “safety”. Then more and more rights had to be given up after the compromised was reached.

It's a cookie cutter. Using the debating/compromise mechanisms of the HD, the powers that be get an issue 'resolved' and then use that compromise as a starting point to increase their power and control over people.

The defense is to recognize that one is being manipulated into a debate about some hot issue. And then to just say no. NO, sotomayer should not be confirmed because of her criminal activity while on the bench. No debate. If you confirm her you will be out on your tail bone next election.

Look at the difficulty Ron Paul had in the presidential campaigns. He was not allowed by the powers that be to get a debate going on the federal reserve. The powers that be do not want any compromise there. But, he has 50 sponsors to his current bill to have the FR audited. No debate, no compromise, no wiggle room.

It is unfortunate that liberal arts education has disappeared from American colleges and universities. Most people would find it hard to believe that their thoughts actions and consent are determined by philosophers long dead, moreso than they are by behaviorist psychologists such as that rogue B.F. Skinner.

A working knowledge of philosophy is important in order to recognize how its ideas are used to manipulate. In ancient Greece, debate was to get at the truth. In today's kantian/hegelian debates, the goal is to give the government any compromise that they can then build on to expand their power. And to do that the people must remain ignorant. Maybe there needs to be a slogan “NO HE KANT” 😛 based on a book titled “Kant and Hegel for Dummies.” 😆

It is the same problem FG and SEDM point out about the dearth of education in the law. Ignorance is necessary for rogue governments to increase their power.

Then Bing wrote…

Quote:

I recently met an ex Special Forces soldier who was stationed in Northern Europe, and he told me the name of a a fascinating book in which the elite get entire nations to move and think in a certain way. I forget the name of the book. Franklin, do you know of which I speak?

I might.

But it's based on Freud's psychoanalysis not Kant and Hegel. It's the classic text used by marketers on how to get huge numbers of people all over the world to put lead in gasoline because it a good thing to do. Or how to get the western nations to give flouride to kids for healthy teeth when the same substance is used in rat poison. Or how to get much of the world smoking tobacco because it is good for the digestion and weight control (how many smokers have said they can't give up the habit because they'll gain weight if they do?). I'm not near the book at the moment, so I'll wait and get the title just right and send it on to you. It's fascinating reading.

Franklin

[franklin]

I think Springer makes a good point at the end of the post where he suggests that monthly town hall meetings take place and votes cast locally on various issues.

Another point to be made regarding town hall meetings is who calls them.

Right now, they are at the pleasure of the congress criminal. And some of them are so spineless that they will only take pre-screened questions over the phone.

But, that's backwards. Does the gardener servant tell the homeowner when there will be a meeting if and when the gardener feels like having one?

Does the filing clerk tell the CEO of IBM when and where and under what circumstances there will be a company meeting that the clerk may or may not attend or may only take questions by phone.

No.

The underling doesn't say where or when they will face their employers. How many people have never experienced their boss walking by their desk and saying I'd like to see you in my office at 10:30? The time may be off but the point is clear, the boss calls the meeting, and requires the employee to attend.

So…

The monthly town hall meetings should be scheduled and the congress criminal (including senators who are now unlawfully elected by the people) should be notified where and when they will take place. And at the bottom of the notice it should read…”Your presence is required.”

If they don't show up, flood their office with calls and the local papers with evidence of their arrogance. (like the tea parties, this would catch on). And give them another date and demand they appear and explain their insubordination (which is what it is if you don't show up in your boss's office when required) and a brief statement of why they should not step down from office. After all they do not read the bills they vote on, so that's not taking up their time.

No excuses are acceptable for not rearranging their schedules to make the town meeting. If someone in the family dies at meeting time, they will have to document the death and their relationship to the dearly departed. If they are too ill to attend, then a note from their doctor describing their condition and making a prognosis of whether their health is good enough to continue in office would be required.

If the criminal servant says they are traveling (the usual summer jaunts around the world), tell them their information collecting trip will have to be postponed. Your presence is required means well…your presence is required.

At the meeting…

There must be a moderator with a list of questions to ask the candidate. Or a moderator who invites people to the microphone and makes sure the meeting does not degenerate into pandemonium. That simply lets the criminal avoid answering. Whatever means is used to get the question to the criminal, the answer must be on point. Any meandering to tell the group all the good the criminal is doing in congress for their benefit is to be stopped in their tracks. For example,

Question: Congress-critter. You took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution. Does this bill you are planning to vote for comport with the constitution, if so state the Article and the clause. If not, you are hereby ordered to vote against this bill and all of its provisions. If you are not happy with your marching orders, please say so and we will send someone else to represent us in your place.

The moderator would have the authority to interrupt a gabby off-point answer and reask the question. If the second attempt fails, the question is declared “refused to answer” and the moderator asks or allows the next question. Which may well be the same question the critter just refused to answer.

To hold them accountable, they must be held to answer their employer's questions on point. If your boss asks you if you are taking home company supplies for your personal use, you must answer the question and not start in on a long speech about all you've done for the company over the last six months in order to avoid answering.

The town hall meetings need to be orderly in order to pin these weasels down. That is not to say, that it must be quiet or neutral in tone. Orderliness does not mean a person cannot speak with passion or a demanding tone of voice. Or cannot interrupt an off point answer.

Also, there can be no bipartisan infighting among the employers. That only lets the critter off the hook. Everyone, from either side of the political spectrum can ask their questions. And, like it or not, each one needs to be shown respectful silence while doing so. Keep the limelight on the critter. If he or she gets a softball question again the moderator doesn't allow off-point elaboration for the critter to appear in halo light. Even soft-ball questions have to be on point.

That's the moderator's job. The moderator will show no respect for off-point puffery from the critter. Our time is equally as important as theirs.

Town hall meetings can be an excellent way of requiring accountability and respect from the arrogant servants who demand deference, safety from harm, and respect while not providing the same for their employers.

I think this could take off. After a few such town halls, the congress-critters would quickly become scared of not showing up.

[franklin]

From my own reading and thinking, I believe the author is correct about the relationship between the pandemic, the detention centers and the planned genocide of Americans.

But, the connection to the Vatican has always been shaky in my view. The latest pope appears to be controlled by NWO top brass instead of being one of them. While the pope in Innocent III's time (1198-1216) was powerful, there was no Vatican then. And Innocent III did more to discredit religion in England by putting an interdict on the country (i.e. no religious services, baptisms, masses, religious death rites or burial, sacraments, etc.).

When the people discovered that their lives went on as usual after the interdict, and they were not beset by devils the sacraments were meant to thwart, and the king continued as usual, papal authority suffered a serious blow.

Papal authority in England was fully annihilated by Henry the VIII.

His daughter Mary I, “Bloody Mary”, (Katherine of Aragon's daughter), attempted to reinstate papal authority and failed.

Her half sister Elizabeth I, (by Anne Boleyn), reaffirmed the lack of papal authority in England despite her excommunication by the pope (in which he said that no one in England owed her allegiance and anyone who killed her would be rewarded with heaven). She was beloved by the people and one of England's most competent monarchs for 40+ years. All done without papal approval then or now.

So the enduring Vatican connection has never been made with credible documentation.

Neither has the derring do of the Jesuits which is often cited as a controlling influence in world politics by researchers such as this 'judge'.

The other problem is that the author makes a reference to Guy Madison in an 18th century context. Guy Madison was a 20th century Hollywood actor, not easily confused with James Madison of the 18th century. It is small but noticeable mistakes as these that make it difficult to accept the accuracy of the author's research as presented, even though his suspicions about the planned destruction of the American people coincides with what many other responsible people have concluded.

Had he confined his exposition to the Constitution and the documents that show how it was undermined from the beginning, he would have not raised questions about his credibility. He never did really get into his assertion that the Supreme Court was never an Article III court…which conflicts with its establishment under Article III. It's not clear what he meant. He could have meant that it was not occupied by Article III judges, but he doesn't elaborate. You have to read What Happened to Justice to get the full story on the courts.

A good read though. One that coincides with what can be seen on you tube (e.g. plastic coffins, detention centers).

[franklin]

The pursuit of ignorance by the People who sit on grand and petit juries is mind bending to anyone trying to understand it and heartbreaking to realize that their ignorance condemns themselves as much as it does the Browns.

It is mind bending to try and fathom why people will cling so ardently to the federal government for a few paltry social security dollars, which the government borrows from them in the first place.

It is like a movie comedy where a street thug holds up someone, demands their wallet, takes out 100 dollars and says “here I'll give you twenty not to call the cops.” And the victim of the robbery says “thank you so much. I hope we meet again. You're the most generous robber I've ever met.”

And as they walk away the victim turns to his wife and says “Imagine that, honey. He could have stolen the whole hundred, but he gave me back twenty. He's not such a bad guy. Obviously it's true, there's some good in everybody. And he didn't keep us all that long, we can still get home to watch our favorite reality show and see how the rest of the group reacts to Verna announcing she's a lesbian. It'll just kill Bob, he had a real thing going for Verna. But, at least he and Verna now have something in common, they both like women.”

And the robbery is forgotten in the fog created by that mind-altering drug known as TV. And the rest of the story…

The robbery victims were called up for jury duty the next week.

It was a case of a nice old couple who the government says are murderous criminals. Who'd a thunk it. Well, honey, we have to do our duty. Better get them off the streets. People like that nice man who gave us twenty dollars aren't safe with a couple like that running around.

[franklin]

Patricia4jc wrote:

Quote:

It is easy for you to say, “Give it up!”

This is a huge presumption on your part. What makes you think it's easy for everyone but you? That you would be the only one to experience difficulties?

Have you never read what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence so you could live in freedom? Read it and be aware of your apparent lack of courage and of faith.

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/decl_men.htm

Patricia4jc went on to make her commitment clear:

Quote:

The time may come that my monthly money will only be good to start a fire, however till then, I will stay a “Public Officer” of the US Government.

Well, you have told God where you stand in relation to his law and the unlawful acts of the misnamed 'lawmakers'. And I'm sure he heard you.

But, the contradiction lies in the following… (keep in mind that contradictions never lead to truth, they are always false).

Quote:

I give money to my church monthly of which I attend weekly.

I make cards and mail them out to the folks on my church's prayer list weekly.

I give money to The Mission and Mel Trotter's in Grand Rapids, MI.

I knit baby hats and donate them all over the world.

I buy and give food to families who don't have enough food to feed their children.

My list can go on and on and on and on.

I am preparing for end times. My food pantry will feed not only me but my neighbours and strangers.

And she asks…

Quote:

Who are you to judge me?

Calling your attention to contradictions and inviting you to reflect on them is not judging you. You may have already been judged because…

When people make it plain to God that they will follow the law-breakers for what benefits they can reap and only abandon them when the benefits become worthless, as you have done in your above statement of commitment to being a public officer, and when they continue to act like Godly people, he is just as plain in his response to you…

Quote:

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name?

Did we not drive out demons in your name?

Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?

[Did we not give money to the church?, and attend weekly?

Did we not make cards to send to people on the church prayer list?

Did we not give money to The Mission and Mel Trotter?

Did we not knit baby hats and donate them all over the world?

Did we not buy and give food to families who don't have enought to feed their children?

And could I not go on and on listing all the things I do so that I may proclaim to God be the Glory?]

Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evil doers.” Mt. 7:21ff.

You are not being judged or even criticized Patricia, only invited to rethink the contradiction you present so plainly to God, who has so plainly responded to you in the gospel of Matthew.

[franklin]

The problem with waking up and recognizing there are criminal thugs with botox lips and no id papers in the house (and the senate) using your copy of the constitution to house break their puppies, is that it is not clear what to do next after you realize you've been had big time.

When people get angry and take to the streets with chants and slogans, they feel like they are doing something.

But all they are doing is depleting precious energy. Energy that could be put to use in studying the strategies necessary to wage and win the war before a shot is fired, or before the first patriot winds up in a detention camp on a military base under martial law.

It is the same strategy that America's enemies began to use against it in 2000. When 9/11/2001 was blamed on Islamic terrorists, one commentator said that Islam had no need to fly planes into buildings or to attack America in any way other than to stop using the dollar. That would effectively bring America to its knees.

And it is indeed happening as the real superpowers in the world call for a new world currency to replace the dollar. The reason for the invasion of Iraq was that in 2000 Iraq began to trade oil for euros. And it had to be stopped.

All three members of dubya's “axis of evil”, Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, were following suit.

So how do we bring the Constitution's enemies back in line and put them in their 10square mile cage?

It is the simple strategy of sedm and fg — stop participating in all of their franchises. What can they do when no one takes their benefits or their trillions of pieces of worthless paper.

It's really that simple (though they'll try to make any grab for freedom difficult).

How do the states regain their independence, which is something often overlooked by patriots — not by legislative resolutions declaring their sovereignty, which just make legislators feel like they are doing something meaningful. That's the equivalent of the fed up American carrying banners in the street.

The states, just as the individual citizens of the states, have to stop taking government handouts. Then go outside to the flagpole and fly the state flag above the federal flag where it belongs. And send two senators chosen by the legislature to displace the illegal ones sitting in their place.

If no one took advantage of government subsidies (including the universities) the criminals' power evaporates. Without the wherewithal to bribe people as well as state and local governments with monopoly money, their influence is zero. With appointed senators who cannot ignore their “electorates” and continue their criminal activities, the states can recall those not acting in the state's interest and prevent illegal bills from being passed.

Just like the world's solution to US hegemony is simply to withdraw its consent from US economic control, the states and the people have the same power to withdraw their consent from receiving bribes which they, their children and grandchildren must pay back.

But to exercise that power takes will power and that's another issue altogether. As an able-bodied highly productive journalist neighbor of mine said “I don't care about the constitution, I like my $27,000 a year in social security.” As another well-heeled neighbor of mine, with a main home and a beach house, said: We couldn't make it without our social security checks. Those “perks” that someone else will pay for, are the epoxy that binds people to the criminal government. Even those who are unhappy with the government.

How to get people to want to be free from an extra $27,000 a year…or to live in one house instead of two is the problem. It's a problem because the vast majority of American free-loaders will dismiss the real solution to criminal government — avoidance of franchises — which renders the only effective strategy useless. No point having a highly effective weapon against the criminals if you're unwilling to use it.

Maybe the Narlo people need to receive the sedm franchise document on their fax machine.

Perhaps it would give them an effective means to channel their energy and anger to achieve the goals they say they want. But my bet is that many of them are getting some kind of “benefit” that they would be loathe to give up.

[franklin]

Quote:

I'll be waiting for a reply from “admin”.

Well, go ahead and wait. But, I can tell you this about admin but you didn't hear it from me :ph34r:…she gets mighty uuhhmmm…let's say testy 😡 if posters to the forums don't do their homework first before asking questions that put the burden on others to provide answers readily available to them in the published work here.

On the other hand, a good smiting now and then can prepare us for judgment day when we have to explain why we didn't do what we were supposed to do back on the plantation. That works. So, it's a win win situation. Study or wait, there'll be a benefit either way. 🙄

[franklin]

Quote:

Can I do these things and somehow maintain my Registered Nurse status?

The question is not can I do these things. The question is will I do these things after I go back to the home page, look at the top of the page and then make the life-altering decision to click on the button that says Start Here.

Then you will answer your own question…and decide whether you want to be free, or you want to be registered. <_<

Welcome.

[franklin]

According to your plan, people would be sending you, an unknown, personal information for no good reason. And then, they would only know that they are on your list.

Just because a person is not on your list does not mean they are not on the government list. Your list would seem useless as a fact checker.

[franklin]

Even those who think that they must continue to fight and would do so willingly must now stop and rethink what they are doing. Major Cook said he would gladly go to Afghanistan if there is in the white house a legitimate commander in chief giving him orders.

There are other posts today on this website which indicate that military brass is now concerned whether there is a chain of command…whether there is a legitimate president.

With all due respect to the scholars of this site…this point bypasses concerns about morale among the troops and the bible as well.

If there is no lawful chain of command, a soldier is acting in his personal capacity and can be tried as a war criminal (as Maj. Cook fears).

One of the principles that members of these forums use against the rogue federal government is that the worker bees at the IRS lack authority legitimately delegated to them from the People to the president to the Secretary to the Commissioner to the group manager to the worker bee. And the point is made over and over that without a proper chain of command and properly delegated authority, the worker bees are acting in their own capacity and are liable under their own civil and criminal federal statutes.

A soldier acting without legitimate authority is not a soldier, but a private individual, and he will be accountable as such.

I think every soldier fighting in a non-constitutional, non-declared war, needs to ask himself and herself whether they have to make a choice to continue what they are doing. The war in Iraq was the personal project of george w. bush and tony blair. The Congress did not declare war, it gave the president “authority to use force against Iraq.”

The People never delegated discretion to congress to give the president discretion to use force against anyone. There must be a formal declaration of war by the Congress, not the president. And without that declaration there is no commander-in-chief.

Thus, the war in Iraq is a personal war of bush/blair and is now being continued by someone the military suspects more and more is occupying the oval office in non-compliance with the rules and regulations laid down by the People in the Constitution.

It is the right and the duty of every soldier to make sure that the government is putting them in harm's way with lawful authority. There is no legitimate contract without that lawful authority. A rogue government cannot be protected on the premise that to question it or, for good cause, refuse to obey it, merely on the chance that to do so would reduce morale among the troops.

My advice to the soldier who is troubled over his participation in Iraq would be the advice that is stuck under the nose of every newbie who comes to these forums (and rightly so). That is, don't whine about the situation and hope that someone will rescue you (aka spoon feed you).

Instead study the posts about the very real possibility that there is no chain of command in the military and that, in itself, puts this country at grave risk. Because if that is the case, every soldier can, and must, lay down his or her arms until the lawful chain of command established by the People is verified. That alone could possibly leave us vulnerable to attack from some of the enemies the rogue government has made for us in our name.

[franklin]

Maybe being a member of the sheeple won't be such a bad thing in the upcoming disasters the criminals have planned.

What I mean is what if there is no active resistance? That would be a good thing. Ghandi brought the british empire in India to a halt by sitting down and saying no. Martin Luther King and others used the same principle. Which is…if the people use violence, that provides the necessary reason for the criminals to use their laws against the people.

That is the basis of the non-violent approach. Make the criminals act without the benefit of even their own laws.

That is what Hank Rearden tells the kangaroo court in Atlas Shrugged. When they demand he enter a plea he refuses (so did Jesus). He points out to them that they need his consent (by entering a plea) to given the court legitimacy to convict him. He denies them consent. He will not consent to go to jail if they convict him. He tells the three judge panel they will have to bring in their thugs with their guns and drag him into jail. They are confused and dumbfounded and cannot take any legitimate action. Case closed.

They had to murder Jesus after a mock “trial” because he would not enter the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin, of Pilate or of Herod. And remember Pilate was amazed at him. And Pilate's wife advised her husband not to mess with this guy.

Maybe, just maybe, the sheeple will be non-reactive to the extent that they do not activate the bogus laws that have been prepared for their genocide. Even if they fail to act from a principle of non-violence, the effect of their failure to act and their lethargy may have the same good effect of confounding their potential jailers and murderers.

However, I'm not that optimistic about the last point. To really undermine the criminals, the non-violent approach has to have the clarity and effect of a laser pointed intentionally right at the eye of the cyclops, so that they feel and understand their lack of power.

One important point about the Hank Rearden court scene is how disturbed he is after it is over.

He realizes how small and how weak the enemy has been all along. How people empowered their enemy government by believing its power to be massive and its codes to be lethal. How with a few words based in truth, and in Ghandi's case just with the word NO, the enemy government cannot continue to govern without the active consent of the governed.

The idea basic to non-violence (which requires more courage than violence does) is to confront the criminals and then totally screw up their plans…by doing nothing to go along with their agenda.

There is a wonderful scene in the movie Ghandi where the small group of dissenters is confronted with soldiers racing at them on horseback. Instead of running before the charging brigade and being cut down, one man understood that if they made a carpet of their bodies, the horses would not run over them (because a horse's main defense is flight and they have an instinctive fear of getting their feet stuck in untested turf). The men laid down before the stampede. The horse's reared and would not carry their riders any further on their murderous task.

We should learn the same lesson Hank and Ghandi did…that violent governments are inherently weak and that there are highly effective ways of taking back the sovereign powers lent by the People to a rogue government. (Just don't lay down in front of any tanks.)

[franklin]

Orly Taitz, singlehandely, rouses active military to investigate whether or not they have a commander-in-chief. It is a rare person who can bring out the finest in others…and she is clearly doing it.

Let us hope and pray that no harm befalls her for shining the light of truth into the face of darkness…for disinterring quo warranto and forcing judges to read it…perhaps for the first time.

[franklin]

Social disorder is the goal. The concentration camps are built and the untested vaccines will keep the cost of feeding detainees down.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/con_camps.htm

[franklin]

Stija wrote:

Quote:

I must comment on the mention of 'holocaust'. I always do, sometimes to my injury.

The 'holocaust' is not only about jews. It bothers me immensly when I hear people refer to 'holocaust' as being something that was done against jews only and specifically. This just isn't the case. Many scholars have actually come forward and stated that there were millions of other ethnic groups that were in those camps. I have second hand knowledge (grandparents) that more than half of people in those camps were not jewish. In fact, middle class jews got preferential treatment.

Then there are scholars that argue against the true nature 'holocaust'. I won't be disrespectful to people who had family perish during that time so I won't comment on that. Feel free to investigate for yourself. I will have to say that it is a fact that Israel was created and given to jews shortly after the 'holocaust'. Cui bono?

I may have been too subtle in the original post but I did not refer to the holocaust in that casual way most do where it means only Jews were interned in the camps. I referred to Ruthless Ginsberg as a “holocaust promoter” (the semantic opposite of a “holocaust denier”) and characterized it as “hate speech”. If the Jews who, among others, died in the camps (most likely from illness and disease that comes with such unsanitary confinement), knew to what uses their deaths were being put, they would surely turn in their graves.

I agree with you, as do many individual people and organizations, such as the Red Cross investigators who were on the scene in various concentration camps. And even Jewish organizations have dropped the 6 million figure to a fraction of that (which can only mean that the numbers are fabricated and arbitrary no matter what they are). The hate speech of holocaust promoters, those who limit the camp deaths to Jews simply because they were Jews, is a belief of Ruthless Ginsberg and her ilk. I meant no disrespect to anyone, including Jews, who died in those circumstances. My disrespect is reserved exclusively for the living who use those deaths of innocent Jewish civilians and the rarely alluded to non-Jewish civilians, to promote throughout the world their hatred of humanity.