we've already dealt with the statistical issue that the first article (hardly a reliable source, by the way, do you cite things like that in school papers? expect no lesser burden of proof with any reasonable person), it was resolved in 1992. what you seem to be doing is questioning current estimates, and you apparently have no reasonable proof for why you're doing that. the second article just talks about joe lieberman's primary. sure, he's jewish, but i don't know what that has to do with the holocaust.
despite the fact that you, i'm sure, are a consumate historian and have personally visited former holocaust sites and poured over the primary sources yourself. i'm sure that's the case. either that, or a racist. but you know, whatever. go ahead and question the terrible, tragic torturing and death of millions of people. you have every right to do that, of course. (please note my sarcasm here).
you also say that you're happy that it will never happen again, but when people belittle deaths, question the magnitude of a tragedy, and do both with no proof to show, it most certainly could happen again. it's a very, very slippery slope and it starts with disrespecting the event itself, just like you're doing.
this also has nothing to do with your first amendment rights. you're allowed to say what you want, and the government won't stop it (that is, of course, what the amendment says. anyone that's ever read it knows that it doesn't free you from private-sector censorship), but it does not free you from criticism, however harsh, when you choose to show your true colors. we'll stop calling you a racist or a bigot when you stop acting like one - that's OUR first amendment right. and until you get some proof that's not from a shoddy, unreliable, half-broken website about an inconsistancy corrected in 1992, you're still being a holocaust denier. denying the magnitude of the tragedy is just as bad as denying that it ever happened at all.