Here's one of the proposed solutions of the Cato Institute for the U.S. healthcare system. It's called Health-Status Insurance. It's insurance against rising healthcare insurance. Buy it when you are young, and when rates for health insurance go up as you age, submit Health-Status Insurance claims. The law would have to prevent insurance companies from being able to drop people. I would wince at yet another layer of fine print and all the law suits that would result, but this is the standard fare of laissez-faire that is unprincipled-anarchical economics.

Frankly, this Health-Status Insurance proposal is obvious smoke and mirrors. If the insurance industry can spread the risk via Health-Status Insurance sufficient to reduce overall premium costs for medical, then it could do it without Health-Status Insurance. The fact is that this Health-Status Insurance is just another wasteful layer for higher overall costs and more profit taking by greedy con artists. It would not reduce overall insurance premium costs or medical costs.

What it is, is the exact opposite direction of giving and sharing, which giving and sharing is what Jesus Christ calls for.

I just added another comment to a thread where someone name Ernie Lazar has been attempting to defend certain of the Koch brothers who have funded the Cato Institute.

Ernie Lazar is of Palm Springs, California, according to his own statements on the Internet. He seems to think he's somebody because he says he has "acquired the entire FBI headquarters file on the John Birch Society." How does he know he has "acquired the entire FBI headquarters file on the John Birch Society"? Anyone who thinks that and spreads it but claims others are too loose with their thinking needs to do more thinking.

The comment thread is here: RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS JAMES VON BRUNN WAS A LEFTIST: LIMBAUGH'S POSSESSION ON DISPLAY. That thread, by the way, is very revealing about the demand for "credentials" by the same people who withhold such credentialing. It's a trick of evil. It's part of the dark arts. They tried to pull it on Jesus when they asked him where he received the authority to speak the truth and when they were put off by the fact that they, the Pharisees and others, had not "educated" him.

Charles Koch has been especially patronizing of the Cato Institute.

Koch Industries is apparently not a publicly traded corporation. It is reportedly the largest private corporation in the U.S. by income. Koch is oil and gas, so Cato's laissez-faire, pollution capitalism is tailor made for Charles Koch who funded Murray Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist, Austrian School, Ludwig von Mises disciple, who later was run off because, among other reasons, he was offended when Koch insisted on allowing in Chicago School economists.

In fact, this Health-Status Insurance is the brainchild of John H. Cochrane, a Professor of Finance at the University of Chicago.

Now, to use Ernie Lazar's claimed logic, which you may see from the comment thread, John H. Cochrane has "credentials" and all sorts of data at his disposal and, therefore, he is in a better position to "know." However, I'm completely right that he's simply conjuring up another layer so the takers can take more not by offering the best idea but by offering a stupid idea that they can get their band wagon to make noise about to attempt to get so many additional riders that too many will think it's a great idea to keep it from being pushed through.

Many on the band wagon know full well that it's a fake. They wink at each other because they are getting theirs and to hell with others who don't have the evil sense to do the same while the getting is "good."

Understand here that the driving force behind Koch, Cato, Rothbard, von Mises, Lazar, the Chicago School, laissez faire, and the rest of it, is not God or Christ. It's not righteousness. It's not truth. It's the system of the unrighteous mammon. No Christian has any business spreading any of their ideas as being "good."

Milton Friedman wasn't right. Paul Krugman isn't right.

Let me state here that Populism needs to rid itself of racism and ethnic bigotry. I do not hold with all things Institute of Historical Review, Noontide Press, Willis Carto, Liberty Lobby, and The Spotlight. That does not though mean that they never speak any truths. I no of no groups that never speak at least partial-truths.

I don't say to drive them underground either but rather to meet their intellectual challenges. This view applies to Marxists and White supremacists and Nazi Jews, such as Frank Cohen, alias Frank Collin. By the way, please note how the article is very nearly excusatory. It is written with a view to making Cohen appear to be a sympathetic figure as in it was his father's fault. Well, no doubt psychopaths and sociopaths are the result of a combination of predilection and physical injuries and abuse. The point here though is that this treatment is afforded only to some figures. Hitler and Churchill for instance are not often given the same benefit. Hitler is not because he is not held out to be Jewish (except for some who have claimed his mother was at least partly Jewish). Churchill is not because he, though his mother was Jewish-American, fought the Nazis with fire bombings without hesitation. Churchill's own hyper-racist and eugenicist (including forced sterilization) views are swept under the rug. We are to appease the anti-appeasers. It's the pure hypocrisy of the neocons.

If they say that certain things have never been properly examined to determine if, and to what degree if, some Jews in strategic positions lied about the numbers of Jews exterminated and by what means and where, etc., then the proper way to handle that is to meet their challenges head on rather than outlawing their assertions.

Now, I know that there are some Roman Catholics who have actually moved to do this. They have been going about Europe documenting statements of those still alive who were in positions to know. Those Roman Catholics, with the help of others, are documenting grave sites for future investigation. Let me say that the mission is admirable, but the resources and time it is taking due to a lack of governmental and other organizational support is insane. Also, those Roman Catholics are not directly investigating where and how the claims of certain real holocaust deniers would be completely shut down by facts. For instance, the claim has been made that ground-penetrating sound-wave technology has shown that mass graves are not where certain Jews claimed they must be, in and around extermination camps. The claims take into account the burning of bodies too. The only right thing to do is to conduct independent, highly public and publicized international investigations to either confirm or refute the claims of the holocaust deniers on that specific charge. Not to do so lends an aura of credence to holocaust denial. Understand here that the estimate of six million Jews exterminated requires physical remains even of ash and bone, as any professional and certified cremationist can rightly attest. So, put the claims to rest or revise the numbers, but do not outlaw inquiry else you will find that it can be turned against truth including your own.

It is wrong to hold all Jews responsible for what only some Jews have done or are doing. It is wrong to hold all Jews responsible for the terrorist Jewish Defense League (JDL) who recently ransacked a Palestinian bookstore in Paris, France. (See: "Members of Jewish militant group arrested in Paris." Press TV. July 8, 2009.) Those are Jewish thugs. They are fascist Jews. To call them otherwise is to coddle them and no favor to anyone. It's no blessing to be coddled for wrong doing.

It's not necessary or a blessing to anyone to coddle Jewish thugs or anyone else who commits violent crimes, including Israel when it commits war crimes and genocide and crimes against humanity. It isn't politically expedient either. (See: "Obama's Voters Clearly Have His Back If He Wants to Get Tougher with Israel," by Conn Hallinan. CounterPunch. July 13, 2009.)

According to a recent Zogby International poll, 50 percent of Americans think that the U.S. should "get tough" with Israel. Some 32 percent were "not sure," and only 19 percent said, "do nothing." But once the partisan gap is factored in, Obama supporters overwhelmingly favor "getting tough" by 71 to 18.

It is wrong to hold all Germans responsible for what only some Germans have done or are doing. It is not wrong to hold all Jews or all Germans responsible if no Jew or, in the case of Germans, no German stands up to speak and to do the truth.

How does this figure Biblically? Well, even the Old Testament un-enhanced concept of God held that if there are any righteous among a people that those righteous must be spared. They must be called out from amongst the wicked before the tares (the supposedly irredeemable) are gathered and burned.

As for Ernie Lazar, he criticizes people for not backing up their writings with fact; yet, even though there is enough in the history of Eustace Mullins to show that he has a Nazi/Fascist background, Ernie wrote Ernie's attack on Mullins in which Ernie states that Mullins was arrested for sodomizing a teenage hitchhiker and was thrown out of someone's house for homosexual behavior, but Ernie provides no documentation for those allegations. Not only that, but he carefully included a statement that Mullins had been in trouble many times for child molestation.

Mullins also wrote that:

"Nearly all the disunity among nationalists in America can be traced to the Dilling-Freedman-McGinley axis..." [The reference is to Elizabeth Dilling, Benjamin Freedman and Conde McGinley. 12/19/55 Mullins letter to GLKS].

See April 1961 John Birch Society Bulletin, page 16 for the following Robert Welch descriptive comment: "...the most vicious and most extensive charges ever leveled against me have been by such notorious anti-Semites as Lyrl Clark Van Hyning (Women's Voice) and Elizabeth Dilling (The Dilling Bulletin)..."

This is a strange twist. You get a small picture here of everyone set against each other in a circle. That's the outcome that the divide-and-conquer and divide-and-rule crowd want. It's the outcome that COINTELPRO, by J. Edgar Hoover, wanted.

The Bureau approved 2,370 separate counterintelligence actions. 27 Their techniques ranged from anonymously mailing reprints of newspaper and magazine articles (sometimes Bureau-authored or planted) to group members or supporters to convince them of the error of their ways, 28 to mailing anonymous letters to a member's spouse accusing the target of infidelity ; 29 from using informants to raise controversial issues at meetings in order to cause dissent, 30 to the "snitch jacket" (falsely labeling a group member as an informant) 31 and encouraging street warfare between violent groups ; 32 from contacting members of a "legitimate group to expose the alleged subversive background of a fellow member 33 to contacting an employer to get a target fired; 34 from attempting to arrange for reporters to interview targets with planted questions, 35 to trying to stop targets from speaking at all ; 36 from notifying state and local authorities of a target's criminal law violations, 37 to using the IRS to audit a professor, not just to collect any taxes owing, but to distract him from his political activities. 38
(2) to prevent the rise of a "messiah" who could "unify, and electrify," the movement, naming specifically Martin Luther King, Stokely Carmichael, and Elijah Muhammed;
7. New Left. — The Internal Security Section had undergone a slow transition from concentrating on the "Old Left" — the CPUSA and SWP — to focusing primarily on the activities of the "New Left" — a term which had no precise definition within the Bureau. 99 Some agents defined "New Left" functionally, by connection with protests. Others defined it by philosophy, particularly antiwar philosophy.
(1) preparing leaflets designed to discredit student demonstrators, using photographs of New Left leadership at the respective universities. "Naturally, the most obnoxious pictures should be used";

(2) instigating "personal conflicts or animosities" between New Left leaders;

(3) creating the impression that leaders are "informants for the Bureau or other law enforcement agencies";

(4) sending articles from student newspapers or the "underground press" which show the depravity of the New Left to university officials, donors, legislators, and parents. "Articles showing advocation of the use of narcotics and free sex are ideal";

(5) having members arrested on marijuana charges;

(6) sending anonymous letters about a student's activities to parents, neighbors, and the parents' employers. "This could have the effect of forcing the parents to take action";

(7) sending anonymous letters or leaflets describing the "activities and associations" of New Left faculty members and graduate assistants to university officials, legislators, Boards of Regents, and the press. "These letters should be signed 'A Concerned Alumni,' or 'A Concerned Taxpayer'";

(8) using cooperative press contacts" to emphasize that the "disruptive elements" constitute a "minority" of the students. "The press should demand an immediate referendum on the issue in question";

(9) exploiting the "hostility" among the SDS and other New Left groups toward the SWP, YSA, and Progressive Labor Party;

(10) using "friendly news media'' and law enforcement officials to disrupt New Left coffeehouses near military bases which are attempting to "influence members of the Armed Forces";

(11) using cartoons, photographs, and anonymous letters to "ridicule" the New Left, and

(12) using "misinformation" to "confuse and disrupt" New Left activities, such as by notifying members that events have been cancelled. 110

As noted earlier, the lack of any Bureau definition of "New Left" resulted in targeting almost every anti-war group, 111 and spread to students demonstrating against anything.


So, what's Ernie doing? He's gone around the Internet planting his seeds. He's commented here and there leaving his links. He's being quoted a bit here and there. He's being believed by a handful anyway. That handful has a mindset that is anti-Mullins for the right reasons, but is it also anti-Mullins for the wrong reasons designed to gloss over Israeli, Zionist, Jewish (some) wrong-doing? Well, the answer to that is yes. It's clear on its face.

There may be such documentation about Mullins and sodomy and being thrown out for homosexuality. It may be completely reliable. However, that's not the point. The point is that Ernie makes a huge deal about documentation, more than anyone who has ever commented on this site before, but he then throws damning (so far, unsubstantiated) allegations out there about Eustace Mullins who is one of the fiercest critics of Zionism. Why not just stick with the documents if you are one who demands nothing but from others. I don't. I believe in seeing souls by their words and deeds even when those words and deeds are mischaracterized by others, as in the case of the war crimes by Israel that the mainstream media, largely controlled by Zionists, mischaracterize as anti-terrorist measures.

Lastly, Ernie Lazar ends his article with the following:

One wonders, therefore, how such conspiracy believers explain why Mullins (an alleged RIGHT-WING "patriot" who is routinely recommended by extreme right-wing individuals and organizations) nevertheless has spent so much of his life associating with, working with, writing for, and/or promoting and recommending such Hitler-admiring and supposedly "collectivist", and/or "leftist", and/or "socialist" individuals, groups and publications as:

Adolf Hitler

The quote is from the 10/06/08 version. He may change it now that I've written this. If he does that correctly (which would include giving textual and linked credit where due), then fine. Otherwise, you'll just know further who he is.

Adolf Hitler a socialist? That is only true where the only real spectrum is where laissez-faire capitalist is one end and "liberty" and everything else is toward the other end. Reality though is that that is a false spectrum. That spectrum is the anarcho-capitalist's spectrum, which doesn't exist in reality. Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises were only dreaming. The Chicago School, with Milton Friedman and the monetarists, only dream too.

Real liberty is being free of evil, and money is always the unrighteous mammon. It was an evil invention that came out from selfish hearts. It was ruination.

By the way, if you are one of those "there is no conspiracy" dupes, then read the following:

Mind Control Cover-up
The Secrets of Mind Control
This mind control summary is based on astonishing excerpts from three landmark books: Bluebird by Colin Ross, MD; Mind Controllers by Dr. Armen Victorian; and A Nation Betrayed by Carol Rutz. The authors provide hundreds of footnotes to support their groundbreaking research. This highly revealing information is based on 18,000 pages of declassified CIA mind control documents. To order these key documents directly from the U.S. government, click here. Join in powerfully building a better world for all by spreading the word.

The Secret Agenda of Mind Control

Please note: the letters and numbers after each paragraph denote the book and page number from which the mind control information was taken. BB-Bluebird MC-Mind Controllers NB-A Nation Betrayed.
A declassified CIA document dated 7 Jan 1953 [1] describes the creation of multiple personality in 19-year old girls. "These subjects have clearly demonstrated that they can pass from a fully awake state to a deep H [hypnotic] controlled state ... by telephone, by receiving written matter, or by the use of code, signal, or words and that control of those hypnotized can be passed from one individual to another without great difficulty. It has also been shown by experimentation with these girls that they can act as unwilling couriers for information purposes." BB 32

Continue reading:

I read all nine pages years ago. It's amazing that people are still completely in a spell. They fall into what Ernie is into. It's not Christianity!

Ernie Lazar ought to like that material because it's from CIA documents. Also, this much of the material has run through Congressional and Senate committees and hearings and been accepted. The U.S. government at the level of President has even apologized for some of the evil experiments. So, don't be a dupe. This stuff occurs. They admit it. They apologize. They say they won't do things such as these again. Then they do. The cycle repeats and repeats and repeats because the people keep following monsters the people falsely imagine are providing safety, security, morality, abundance, peace, etc. They are not. They are providing first and foremost and often exclusively for themselves and then their own immediate family members unless they are fighting, even murdering, them for wealth, power, and control.

Now, the thing is, who's asking whom to believe what? Those calling themselves Zionists in Israel and the U.S. are constantly up in arms about holocaust denial, but then lied through their teeth about using white phosphorus against Gazan civilians. Anyone who had seen the videos and photos of the white phosphorus being sprayed down on Fallujah just after George W. Bush was supposedly reelected could readily see the Israelis were doing the exact same thing against the Gazans. Yet, the IDF lied and lied and lied about it. So, why should I believe proven, unrepentant perjurers about the holocaust? Why should I just take their word for it? Why should I do what I'm doing now such as not buying the official governmental fable about 9/11? I didn't believe all the lies about Iraq and WDM and al Qaeda. I was right not to. So why believe the same liars about the holocaust without verification of the alleged facts?

I'm not buying into the Zionists' propaganda about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. The U.N. and others had said that Iraq didn't have any WMD anymore. The U.N. has been saying that Iran has been cooperating every bit as much as Iraq ever did and that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Iran says it doesn't want or need a nuclear weapons program. Well, North Korea believes that the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is the only thing that has held back U.S. aggression and imperial ambitions toward North Korea.

Anyway, the European Union has supposedly made it illegal to demand evidence and proof of things now where Jewish matters are concerned. I don't buy it. I don't buy it concerning anyone. I judge according to deeds — consistent, righteous words and deeds. If they don't like that, too bad for them.

They've actually hurt themselves with this latest move. Anyone who outlaws asking questions is that much more suspect in my book. Freedom of academic inquiry and factual research is required. Only the false-hearted seek to disallow it. Oh, there are limits. The Nazi and CIA experiments linked to above crossed the line. They didn't have a God-given right to such license they took. That's why those of them who have already given up the ghost are paying to the last penny. They have created their own Hell.

Please also see my update of July 20, 2009, for the post: "TALMUDIC LIARS AND HOLOCAUST DENIAL"

If you want to know more about how Ernie's mind works and where he places the Holy Spirit within his worldview, read this article of his: "Purpose of Conspiracy Theories." It's far, far, far from God. Ernie would peer review the feeding of the five thousand.

Is Ernie a 9/11 Truther, or does he buy as acceptable that the 9/11 Commission had its hands tied? Does Ernie buy the magic-bullet theory put forth by the Warren Commission concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy, or does he need to check his own credentials before determining that the magic-bullet [update] theory (the official conspiracy theory at the time) was a flat-out lie and a very stupid and transparent lie at that? If he's a 9/11 Truther, he knows that the evidence that would prove to the rest of the world that 9/11 was an inside job to some degree is being deliberately withheld to cover-up the massive crime by those who were running the U.S. government at the time. Perhaps he thinks that people are so vastly less evil than King David was when he ordered the murder of Bathsheba's husband so David could steal his wife who was carrying David's baby the result of David's adultery. To think that that was a mild crime by a ruler who is now held up as one of the best rulers. Perhaps Ernie doesn't believe that there are people in power right now who are every bit as depraved as were Caligula and Nero. One doesn't have to be as wicked as Caligula to know that there are Caligulas walking around on the Earth right now.

  • 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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.


    1. Ernie Lazar says:

      As a postscript to my previous comment, I would like to encourage Tom Usher to write and post an article which would explain his research methodology.

      In other words, tell us HOW you go about determining what is fact versus fiction.

      Tell us what sources you consider reliable and authoritative when, for example, you want to know factual data about Eustace Mullins??

      Perhaps you could expand that last item to tell us how you would go about performing research into someone's background? What primary sources do you trust?

      And most important of all, when two or more sources contradict each other about materially important matters, please tell us HOW you go about determining which source to believe?

      Do you recognize as "expert" ANY source whose judgments DIFFER from your own? OR do you require agreement with your personal beliefs and evaluations in order for you to consider a source to possess legitimate expertise?

      For example: if someone disagrees with your comments and beliefs about the FBI COINTELPRO programs or about the Birch Society or about Eustace Mullins or any other matter --- do you immediately DISMISS or DEVALUE everything they present because it does not conform to your personal beliefs?

      • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:


        You have such problems with my brand of Christianity. It just doesn't fit neatly into your propaganda.

        Ordinarily, I don't allow further comments from people such as you because you knowingly refuse to see beyond your noses. I'm not a liar, though, in letting you comment again and replying. I always reserve the right to try one more time with a fallen brother before it's too late. I sure wanted to preclude your going away thinking sour grapes were I to have ignored your latest comment.

        I tell you now, though, that if you submit another dodgy comment, you will not be in a place where you will have any support in saying to yourself that I feared your truth. I've seen other dodgers pull that one before in their minds and try to undermine me in my own mind with such a stunt. It didn't work, but I don't want you to even feel you can do it to any effect. I want you to be faced with having to repent to God.

        So far Ernie, you've just trolled around here never with the intention of learning anything or considering anything you've never considered before.

        Look Ernie, everyone knows that the FBI can number and renumber anything it wants. If you want to take it as sufficient to say that you received everything the FBI had on the subject just because a sequence of numbers is in order, that's your choice. You want to be confident that there isn't a sub-number that you didn't receive. You even mentioned a subcategory yourself. The point is that you trust the FBI while I do not. They have a terrible track record and have not repented, but you go on ahead and trust them as if their word to you is Gospel.

        You just go on ahead and trust those who brought the nation COINTELPRO while I will not until they repent in earnest, which by the way, Ernie, would necessitate leaving the FBI. Seeing as how you don't believe in God or Christ, you reject that though.

        So you had one other point but want to insert another about Eustace Mullins (completely ignoring my points by the way), therefore I let you reply here — hot coals on your own head, Ernie, not because that's what I want for you but because you insist on doing it to yourself rather than repenting.

        I am not "upset that [you] quoted Rick Cooper's comment concerning a 1950's incident involving Mullins." I do not insist that, "such a comment has no place in [your] Mullins report because there is no adequate proof that the information is accurate and truthful." You're dodging the point and putting words in my mouth, which is your demonstrated pattern.

        If someone alleged things, then say so. You didn't present it that way. You presented it as a foregone conclusion while you attack others for doing exactly the same thing (jumping to conclusions without hard evidence, as you like to think of it). You could have said "so and so" alleged that ... but I [Ernie] have never seen proof positive about it. It might just be hearsay. You could also take my position, which is better, and that is that even if Mullins got some things wrong, such as racism or ethnic bigotry, it doesn't mean that he never got anything right. You'll ignore that point though. You'll twist your agenda to suit you.

        As for Mullins, all I've ever said is that just because someone says one thing or more that is or could be in error, does not, thereby, mean that every last thing the person imparts is false. You, Ernie, state facts that can be accepted even though you come to all sorts of final conclusions that fly in the face of the obvious. You somehow believe that J. Edgar Hoover was right to stir up trouble, or was he always wrong in doing so? That's your problem. I don't hold with it. I don't like entrapment that is often, and on a certain level, nothing more than offering up more evil temptations.

        I happen to know that Mullins is an ethnic bigot. He danced a bit around it, but he didn't dodge being made or ID'd. He definitely wrote things that give it away that he means genetic Jews are all bad in some genetic way such that none of them can be righteous, which is utter nonsense. I don't like that about him. I don't hold with it. I stand against it. That though does not mean that everything everyone says against him is fact or that everything he ever wrote about the Federal Reserve System, etc., is false. He wrote some obvious facts. Is there anything wrong with sorting out the truth from the false rather than throwing everything out one way or the other? You don't think that way though, apparently. You don't think that way with much conviction, if at all, else you'd not have taken the approach here you have.

        Look, Thomas Jefferson owned his own mistress with whom he had a bunch of children he kept in the slave quarters and he never acknowledged apparently even on his own estate, yet I've given him credit for getting it right that violence and coercion hardens hearts. He was a deist and didn't know God; but he did get that bit right. What should I have done though in your mind? Should I say that because Jefferson was a slave-owning ass toward his children that therefore I must reject the truth he spoke when he wrote that coercion hardens hearts? That would be stupid. I don't do that. I don't do it about Jefferson, who was a racist and plenty more that was wrong; and I don't do it about Eustace Mullins whether you or anyone else likes it or not.

        Where specifically did you say that if your lumping everything Mullins wrote into the dustbin offends me that I "can certainly totally ignore it...particularly since it is not relevant to the 18 pages of documentation I provided concerning Mullins long history"? Refresh me on that. Point me to it, please.

        However, I warn you Tom: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! I am in the process of preparing another edition of my Mullins report and it will contains even more damaging information concerning Mullin's life-long associations with neo-nazis and sexual deviants.

        There's no doubt about much of his character and background. You just don't get it, or you just don't care since it's not your job to sort so that the truth is left. (whole truth to the best of your ability)

        Here's one of the huge thrusts of this site: knowing that everyone, even Satan, tells partial-truths, and that it is good, right, and proper to sort that true part from the false and never to discard the truth or to be afraid of it but rather to love it.

        I am not a racist or ethnic bigot. I am opposed to greed, violence, and sexual depravity, in which I include homosexuality. I'm against the coercion that was used to murder Jesus. You, though, don't seem to value those things in the Highest. What's your problem with what I stand for? What part of anti-greed and anti-war and anti-sexual harm is it that you so hate?

        Why is it obvious to you that I "think Mullins is a swell human being, nothing will satisfy" me? Satisfy me about what? I'm interested in the facts about how the world bankers set up nearly the entire planet on a stupid and inherently evil system of usury. If Mullins has some historical timeline that I need to take with salt because he embellishes it with his anti-Jew, anti-DNA, agenda, so what? I can do that. Can't you?

        You see, I'm not afraid to do that. I know that doing that doesn't make me in agreement with that with which I do not agree. I don't have to run away just because Abe Foxman stupidly says that Mullins is anti-Semitic, so I must discount everything he ever wrote even though the fact is that the Federal Reserve System was a terrible idea that was railroaded in by shifty minds. Do you disagree with that?

        Look, as for Hitler, the same goes for him too. I just posted two posts where I said that if Hitler hadn't been stupid about what he set the nation to producing (weapons), his economic process would have been great (relatively speaking). His industrial capitalism {as opposed to the finance capitalism that has drained this nation (the United States) and caused so much boom and bust and environmental and other damage in third world nations now} reportedly lowered the unemployment rate in Germany faster than anywhere else during the Great Depression. FDR did fairly well at following Hitler-style Keynesianism, and the only time the U.S. lost ground was when he caved into the idiotic call for prematurely balancing the budget. FDR, though, didn't employ any real slave labor as part of his program. He rather put people on the government payroll (far from what was enough but enough to make great progress). There's much more he could have done, but there were too many blind, self-centered, laissez-faire types running around just as now.

        So, Ernie, I really have no problem with having a mundane truce with you provided you qualify your work more. I don't mean cite FBI documents. I mean stop acting as if you have all the information but rather push back from the table and think about the big picture. What are you trying to accomplish?

        I want to see Heaven on Earth. What do you want for the people?

        I think it was fine that you pressed the FBI under the Freedom of Information Act to get everything you could. Understand though that there are people in government who do lie for the sake of whatever: Empire, those who pay them, etc. You do know that people kill in cold blood for pay for the imperialism of the U.S. don't you? I mean, you don't deny that, do you?

        Well, I really do wish you well. I'm not attempting to curse you or something. I don't want enemies.

        It would be better if you opened up somewhere with some fleshing out of your philosophy of life or religion or something rather than coming across as simply wanting to focus on some extremely narrow anti-? What are you against while you aren't against enough to be wholly consistent? Have you read the open things I addressed to Alex Jones for instance?

        He's trying his best to avoid anti-Semitism, racism, and what he would think is unjustified violence. He believes in violent revolution when it is to uphold the Bill of Rights, as he sees them, that includes the right to bear arms, which is not altogether beyond understandable given that so-called Supreme Court Justices argue over exactly where the right starts and ends. Technically that amendment as Alex reads it allows him to own a live, nuclear missile or even countless of them. I happen to be one who says the right, in the mundane, only pertains to the need for the militia as contemplated, which is now moot in many respects, although I could certainly argue the other side if I weren't interested in ultimate truth.

        Frankly, if you've read this site, you already know that I don't hold with the U.S. Constitution or the Founding Fathers' governmental vision. They didn't bring forth a new nation that was right. They brought forth (forced on everyone or they could leave the land those Founders stole or live in prison) some grotesque, unGodly thing. Sure, there was plenty wrong with what they were leaving behind, but that doesn't mean that what they set up is right from here on out. It was not.

        Well, okay, I wrote enough about your position so that anyone Googling you and digging enough will run into this so that they won't just buy your position uncritically.

        If you want to post another comment to qualify so that readers might see that you aren't an FBI-Hoover sycophant, I would recommend it.

        Your position that I'm a fraud though was wrong. I am exactly what I'm saying. I have no problem with documentation. I think it's a good idea.

        I do have a problem with people saying things like "Palestine was a land without people for a people without land" and then horning into that land and then horning out those who were there, all while claiming God gave them leave to do it. Liars! Where do you stand on it? Is that all right with you that I hold that way? If it isn't, then may God have mercy on you because Satan sure won't.

        I don't agree with how this continent and hemisphere were colonized either. It wasn't Christian. I firmly believe that even the warrior American Indians would have responded very well had true Christianity been on offer. The whole hemisphere could have been a Christian Commons. Of course, the greedy in the Old World would have had to ruin it, right? Maybe not. Maybe it would have worked so well that the Old World would have seen the light too.

        As for your second comment today, my reply here (written in response to your first comment) really answers every one of your questions in your second, even though you never did the same concerning all of my many questions to you — telling and typical.

        Lastly, if you do avail yourself of the opportunity I offer you to qualify your statement, dispense with the obnoxious smattering of ALL CAPS, please. Thank you.

        Peace, Ernie.


        P.S. I edited my comment, but Ernie replied before that.

    2. Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

      And Ernie,

      What do you make of the way I handle the following? NIALL FERGUSON, THE ASCENT OF MONEY, THE ROTHSCHILDS, AND SPIN

      I posted that before you left your last two comments. That linked material shows exactly how I handle documentation and taking things with a grain or even a block of salt.

      Have you not completely misjudged, misstated, and falsely questioned how I handle evidence? I regularly tell people that I reserve final judgment until I have more information upon which to make major decisions. I don't say I'm perfected yet, but I don't blow off such things.

      I reserved judgment concerning the coup in Honduras until I had read the Honduran Constitution and the non-binding survey question in total. After doing that and reading the criticism of Zelaya (the so-called legal decisions against his survey, etc.), I came to the correct conclusion that the coup was legal under the Honduran Constitution and international law, which I have also studied.

      If Zelaya had been moving to put out a binding referendum granting him another term in office, I would have said that he had clearly acted illegally and unconstitutionally. That would have been a mundane conclusion, as the whole system of such laws is fraudulently based.

      I'm improving on reserving judgment too. When I use the term judgment by the way, it doesn't mean condemning and sentencing and punishing either.

      It's not easy for me to communicate with people on such matters because they are wholly ignorant about the New Testament. Even so-called experts and lifelong scholars don't read it correctly and steer clear of discussing the ultimate conclusions with me for that reason. Theologians with "fully accredited" doctorates have been here by the way.

      They don't want to engage to conclusion because they know what they are preaching is fudging or obfuscating Jesus's points. It's the truth.

      Therefore, they marginalize, censor (I'm censored all over the place), isolate, ostracize, and try mightily to ignore. They pray that the common people don't listen, not because I'm some violent extremists but because if society were to do what I'm offering, the powers that be would not be lording it over the common people anymore but rather serving one and all, as it should be.

      One day, it will be. Then you'll remember me.


      • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:


        Hello Ernie,

        Today's my birthday. I'm giving you the best gift known to man.

        There are a few other things I want to add here.

        I've only said that you ought to qualify your statement with more language that indicates that you do not hold out the FBI as a paragon of virtue. They may claim integrity, they may teach it to their recruits, but everyone who has ever looked into it knows that the FBI has a history of engaging in unethical and even illegal behavior and that it has time and again said that it would not but turned around and done it again and again.

        You know they rationalize it all.

        Also, concerning the numbering of files, you cannot know what is not referenced. You cannot know that there are not other files. You can only go on faith.

        That brings me to a riddle for you.

        Has the FBI ever used what they called a psychic to solve a crime? Has a crime ever been solved only by employing the use of such a psychic? If that's the case, how did that work? What "hard" evidence did the psychic consult? If the hardest case was or cases were solved by spiritual means, then why does testing of spiritual ability not test out by scientific means?

        As of August, 2009, this one say police admit using psychic. Wikipedia is much less "supportive" of the claims.

        What I'm getting at here is that I do not rely on the same level of evidence you do when I'm dealing with anything. I do go with what is rightly called the movement of the Holy Spirit who will be tested only as the Holy Spirit sees fit. Human beings are not in charge of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not confined by the parameters of what will bear out via the so-called scientific method. The Holy Spirit is metaphysical. The limits of that scientific method are set by the Holy Spirit and not the other way around.

        So, you asked for me to impart knowledge to you that you do not have. I just did. I suggest you make it your own. Why deny what is in front of your face? Whom do you trust and why?

        Are the contents of FBI files holy script to you, or do you believe that any deception has been played on you by virtue of what was placed in the file you have?

        Do you believe that J. Edgar Hoover never misled his men?

        What were Hoover's politics? What was his religion? What did he worship? Why did he carry out the Palmer Raids rather than going another route? For whom was he working? Who had power over his position?

        In 1919 and 1920, some 16,000 people were rounded up and held without trial. There was no hard evidence against them. There was only ideology. The U.S. was supposed to be a constitutional, representative, limited, democratic republic where the Bill of Rights is enshrined. However, political opponents were ostracized even though they had broken no laws. How do you justify J. Edgar Hoover's hand in that? Why were the Wobblies' legal, political views not held to be as sacrosanct and inviolable as those of the self-styled, laissez-faire, fascist Christians heading up major corporations?

        Why were socialists removed from the New York legislature just because they were socialists? Why were they second class citizens? They were democratic socialists. To my understanding, they were not engaging in violent insurrection against the democratic process in America.

        Why is socialism so tarred and feathered except that the descendents of those self-styled, laissez-faire, fascist Christians are still heading up major corporations?

        Isn't it greed that is the driving force behind the power that was behind J. Edgar Hoover? Are the spirits behind that power the problem with everything? Would the world be Heaven without that spirit of greed? Wouldn't the spirit of giving and sharing be vastly superior? Don't you have a choice, or are you enslaved to the spirit of greed?

        Peace is truth, Ernie.


    3. Ernie Lazar says:

      There is not enough space here to reply to every falsehood and sinister innuendo as well as the extraordinary ignorance contained in this article.

      However, I will reply to one question posed, i.e. how do I know that I received the entire FBI main file on the Birch Society.

      Well, it's pretty simple: The file number is 62-104401 and the serial numbers are in sequential order which normally progresses by date.

      So, for example, serial #1 in the file is dated 9/12/57 and discusses Robert Welch's self-published magazine, entitled One Man's Opinion (which later changed its name to American Opinion and became the official organ of the Birch Society), and then the serials progress through serial #3918 which is dated November 12, 1990.

      In addition, there is a "sub-A file" which consists of about 3000 pages of newspaper and magazine articles pertaining to the Birch Society.

      However, if Tom Usher has any FACTUAL knowledge (instead of smart-aleck comments or sinister innuendo) to establish that the 12,000 pages I received for HQ file 62-104401 is, somehow, not the complete main file on the JBS (or the additional 7000+ pages of field office files I have received are are NOT the complete field office files) I certainly would be HAPPY to learn about whatever material Tom has discovered that I have not seen.

      One other final word re my Eustace Mullins report. Tom is very upset that I quoted Rick Cooper's comment concerning a 1950's incident involving Mullins. Tom insists that such a comment has no place in my Mullins report because there is no adequate proof that the information is accurate and truthful.
      As I have told him previously, if that data offends Tom's sensibilities, he can certainly totally ignore it...particularly since it is not relevant to the 18 pages of documentation I provided concerning Mullins long history.

      However, I warn you Tom: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR! I am in the process of preparing another edition of my Mullins report and it will contains even more damaging information concerning Mullin's life-long associations with neo-nazis and sexual deviants. Obviously, since you think Mullins is a swell human being, nothing will satisfy you---but, regardless, there is a lengthy historical record (albeit requiring considerable independent research) regarding Mullins.

      Meanwhile, I merely point out that someone like Mullins who writes the article "Hitler: An Appreciation" should not surprise us when we dig into his record.

    4. Ernie Lazar says:


      I wish to briefly address this comment by you:

      I've only said that you ought to qualify your statement with more language that indicates that you do not hold out the FBI as a paragon of virtue. They may claim integrity, they may teach it to their recruits, but everyone who has ever looked into it knows that the FBI has a history of engaging in unethical and even illegal behavior and that it has time and again said that it would not but turned around and done it again and again.

      Once again, this reveals the apparently irreconciable differences between us. You want me to insert my PERSONAL opinions into my reports.

      I refuse to do so.

      My personal opinions are totally irrelevant!

      Let me try to put it this way: Are you familiar with the concept of a neutral "AUDIT"? The relevant definition of "audit" in this context is "a methodical examination and review"

      The auditor does not express his personal opinions, his religious beliefs, or his judgments about the data he discovers.

      The "audit" is a factual summary of data available.

      Therefore (for example) if I want to "audit" FBI documents about subject "x", or person "y" -- my ONLY objective is to accurately report what is contained in FBI files and documents on those subjects.

      Whether or not I agree with observations made in FBI documents is COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.

      BY CONTRAST -- your comments about Hoover or the FBI consists of NOTHING BUT your subjective personal evaluations. I could not care less about your personal opinions.

      When I object to your comments, I do so merely to illustrate the absence of FACT in your remarks -- such as your totally ridiculous comments about the FBI filing system or your bogus claims regarding my supposed "defense" of the FBI.

      [Tom Usher: You don't understand what constitutes "defense" here, Ernie. You are using the term "defense" too narrowly here. By waiting for others to draw out your criticism of the FBI, you are (perhaps unwittingly) by inattention at the very least, defending the FBI. You are in the role of a shield — a reducer of hard examination of evil doing on the FBI's part. If you don't want to make FBI wrong-doing standout front and center, that's your choice; but I say that's your mistake. I don't buy what you think you're doing that justifies your approach in your mind. I disagree with your approach/motives. I don't like purposeful fence sitting until someone else calls people off the fence. It's not being part of the solution. It's being a drag. It's going to take a whole hell of a lot more than what you've been doing to get things on the right course. You aren't trying hard enough. If you disagree, well, you've said our views are irreconcilable.]

      The problem here is that you are so opinionated, you apparently do not and cannot recognize the concept of a "neutral audit" which merely presents factual data and then lets everyone make their own judgments about that data.

      Same situation applies to my Mullins report. Every comment I attribute to Mullins is factually accurate, and I present the specific source which anybody can check to establish that I have quoted him accurately.

      By contrast, you want me to offer my personal opinions about his writings---i.e. you want me to acknowledge that some things he has written have been truthful or factual. I will not do so because that is NOT the purpose of my Mullins report.

      Significantly, in your comments to me you have made derogatory (and false) assertions about my religious beliefs, my political convictions, and you have asked me questions concerning J. Edgar Hoover's religious or political beliefs.

      [Tom Usher: Your religious beliefs are as they are projected. You do not project Christianity. That's a fact. You do not act as if you even want to project it. You have also jumped to all sorts of conclusions about where and when I've made hard and fast statements about your political views. Regardless, you still don't deal in the subtleties of semantics regarding these issues. Where I say that your approach is indicative, you say it's not. You deliberately leave people hanging concerning what you stand for and what you'll openly defend. Who can trust that mindset? I don't.]

      Obviously, THAT data is what YOU think is important. I do not.

    5. Ernie Lazar says:


      I have not made false assertions about your religious beliefs because if you believed in God and Jesus you would not write what you write the way that you do. You can claim God or Jesus, but that does not constitute belief. Belief is doing.

      Merely asserting that you are a Christian is not adequate Tom.

      I suggest that you send a representative sample of your website articles to the Chairperson of any 10 religion departments at any religious educational institutions of your choice and ask them to read your comments and then tell you if they consider your remarks to be Christian---and let us know the result.

      Furthermore, if you believe as you claim, then put all the thousands of documents on the Web and let them speak for themselves. Who needs your interpretive reports that you claim are objective?

      This comment reveals that you have never even read any of my reports because I DO NOT interpret anything.

      [Tom: You've stated your agenda and written in ways to attempt to support it. Your manner in which you word things is designed to support your thesis and hypotheses. Simply duplicating documents and presenting those documents without comment doesn't do that unless you deliberately leave out countervailing documents. You deny having a thesis. Your writings show otherwise. You've tried to use me as a case in point to prove your thesis. You have said that I prove nothing; however, I provided plenty of supporting links and other support that you call so "incredibly verbose." Anyone following those links and considering the material will not be justified in drawing the same sweeping conclusions about me that you have tried to get others to draw here for no good reasons. I have even supplied links to material that you cannot refute and that show that you have misstated things here about me. One example concerns Hoover's plans for rounding up people during the Cold War.]

      Instead, I quote extensively from HUNDREDS of FBI (or other agency) documents and let them speak for themselves.

      Again, you seem willfully obtuse about how a researcher goes about auditing something like an FBI file and then reporting what is contained in the file. Almost always, there is no "interpretation" involved.

      The only time I have inserted analytical comments has been when I found data (for example) appearing in file #2 which clarifies something not fully discussed in file #1.

      Example: in my discussion of the Birch Society's evaluation about what they considered the status of our internal security, I used data from the FBI's Security Index file--and I included definitions which the FBI used for why someone would be included in their Security Index.

      Incidentally, some of the files or documents I reference in my reports ARE posted on the web--so anyone can check them for themselves. In addition, I have always been willing to assist anybody with making their own FOIA requests.

      Many scholars and researchers have contacted me over the years to request copies of documents in my collection -- which I did share with them -- and they then used them in their own writings. Can YOU identify ANY scholar who has cited something YOU have written or any NEW data YOU have discovered??

      You are not neutral.

      Actually, Tom, if you carefully review all of our exchanges, you will notice that YOUR main criticism of me is that I AM NEUTRAL -- i.e. I refuse to take positions that conform to yours and I refuse to insert my personal subjective opinions into my reports. For example: It is YOU that demands that I insert "qualifying" language to express misgivings about the FBI or other sources.

      You will have one last opportunity to show that you see any light whatsoever. After that, no additional submissions will be accepted if they do not contain repentance. There's no point in it.

      By "repentance" you mean, of course, a critic must accept YOUR interpretations. This is why nobody takes anything you write seriously.

      Peace is a word that you grossly undervalue at this point.

      • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

        I am not Jewish. I am not a zionist. My personal views about the Middle East correspond to those of Patrick Buchanan.

        Well, he wasn't going to reveal his ideology or politics or personal views, but there you go. Of course, one does not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist, not that I'm saying Ernie is a Zionist. We can now all see that he's anti-Zionist if he's being honest about it. That should tell readers much more about where Ernie is coming from, as they say. By the way, I never said Ernie is a Zionist. Read it carefully. I really didn't know but wanted to draw him out here, which I did.

        Ernie though took my questions as follows:

        ...demonstrates that you are a bigot and a chronic, habitual, pathological liar.

        Who's libeling whom?

        Well, no, my questioning him about whether or not he's a Zionist does not demonstrate that I am a bigot and a chronic, habitual, pathological liar. What my question and Ernie's answer and response quoted above does demonstrate is that Ernie can't think his way out of a wet paper bag (Too harsh? It's not "serpent," verbatim anyway) while he spits in everyone else's face with his still partially hidden agenda he denies having.

        Ernie doesn't understand that if his views on the Middle East correspond to those of Patrick Buchanan, then others can eliminate Zionism as part of his mental process in determining what Ernie thinks is worthy of his research-attention. He does his best to make out that he can be completely dispassionate in his holding forth, but I've avoided posting his full screed against me. It is livid. He's fuming. He's still drawing all the wrong conclusions about me, as he thinks I'm doing about him.

        Oh well. God knows both of our hearts better than we each know our own. My motives are not wicked. Ernie also thinks his motives are pure.

        I HAVE NO AGENDA—but YOU DO!

        Ernie challenges me to cite anywhere that he's claimed some agenda. He wants people to believe that he has to have laid claim to an agenda by way of writing something akin to, "The following is my agenda," in order to have one and to be employing one.

        Ernie focuses his research on what he thinks is exposing rightwing conspiracists who don't do what he has done (purchase certain FBI documents and use Ernie's mythology and methodology). He says it. He though also says that, that doesn't constitute an agenda. Well, he's having difficulty with semantics and connotations. I'm not trying to throw him.

        I do say that his agenda has a deep basis in his mind: conscious and subconscious. Ernie can become upset and yell that that's just my opinion. He can request that I list out all the documentation to support my "lie" about him regarding that.

        Really, Ernie pigeon holes and compartmentalizes his thinking in support of his whole mental state. He absolutely refuses to consider the vast majority of what I've written. His screed always comes back to his narrow, circular thinking (broken).

        Well, that's what I do too. I believe in the narrow way, and I believe it's consistent.

        Ernie places zero value on it, at least so little value that he insists upon not discussing it since somehow, he believes it would what, open him up?

        But if we employ Tom Usher Logic, we must conclude that sinister forces within the FBI MANIPULATED the "Church Committee leadership" in order to prevent them from discovering anything worthwhile. I am using YOUR logic now. Disprove my assertion.

        That doesn't follow from anything I've written. Ernie's not using my logic. Ernie isn't using my logic to save his soul. He wants black and white only when it comes to critiquing his methodology, but he wants shades of grey when pointing at me. Well, that's not how the divine logic works. Unless Ernie becomes willing to delve into theology though, he'll remain completely ignorant about it. What I won't do is ask him how many theological documents he has as some measure of his knowledge or worth though, since the divine law can be written entirely in one's heart.

        I wrote, "Look, I have not said that I trust everything that came out as the Church Committee report. I leave room. The report itself shows limits. It was only scratching the surface. But it isn't necessary to see all the putrefaction within to know it's there when the fruit is so utterly rotten."

        Anyone who thinks that the FBI, CIA, NSA, and others opened up everything to the Church Committee in public doesn't remember that certain things were still "national security" and not divulged. Furthermore, I never said that I believe for an instant that no facts came out. In order for Ernie's syllogism to pertain, I would have written that the Church Committee revealed nothing worthwhile or words to that effect. I didn't. Ernie's logic is broken. I said, as anyone is free to see if he or she opens his or her eyes, that Ernie needs to reserve more, take more with a grain of salt, not take so much for granted, consider how he could be being deceived, etc. It is a judgment call. It is going by gut reaction. There are such things as hunches that do pan out.

        Ernie does that whether or not he admits it to himself. I'm simply saying that he draws the lines where he ought not. He has his opinions though. He has his wholly subjective methodology. I say that from my theological position, concerning which he has adamantly refused even to consider. Interesting how he comes here demanding that I consider the whole body of his work and that I'm not allow in his mind to reject his first premises, which I do. He rejects mine. That's that. I tried.

        Ernie really takes the view that he who has the most number of FBI files wins: very strange. I have a few FBI documents on computer, but I don't have every file I've ever seen. Neither do I even remember every file I've ever seen or care to. I suppose that will irk Ernie by devaluing having FBI files, but that's not my point.

        Ernie is desperate for approval by those he "worships." I put that in quotes because Ernie might flip out some more and yell at me with more bold ALL CAPS that he doesn't worship anything.

        In the abstract, ANYTHING is possible. For example, it is POSSIBLE that Tom Usher is a Communist disinformation agent. But should we expend our energy on researching and considering that possibility"

        I'll give Ernie the benefit of the doubt because he did capitalize the C in Communist. Hello Ernie, I'm not a Communist disinformation agent. I'm a communist (lower-case, meaning in this case, non-party member, non-Marxist) information agent. There's no disinformation in it, not that you are alleging that (just planting seeds, subconscious or elsewise). I'm just informing the folks who may not realize that Jesus is a small-c communist, whether the university religion departments think so or not (more on them below).

        Ernie is obsessing about the FBI file system. He's treating it as the Holy Grail. He's being completely black and white about it. Either you trust all or none. Well, Ernie, I have news for you. I don't have to, and you can't make me — sound childish? Well, do you understand it? I'm a figurativist/literalist, Ernie; but unless you are prepared to learn something about theology, you won't really ever come to comprehend what I mean. Even if you study theology all your life and have more theology books than anyone else in the world, you still might not get it. In your case, right now, with your frame of mind, I say you still wouldn't get it.

        Ernie harps on methodology, as if I've never studied it. My degree is in science. I pulled top grades in the scientific method, but Ernie is worried that I'm unaware of his tools and methods. Ernie, I have to tell you that I've read your stuff and learned nothing new about research methodology or writing or reporting. It's all old hat to me, so get over it, as the kids say. And no, I'm not going to post my academic record or a litany of my independent research for you. I'm supposed to trust you that you have all the thousands and thousands of FBI documents, but you insist that I submit my "credentials" to you — just the way the Pharisees did toward Jesus, concerning whom they weren't fit to tie his shoes. You don't get that though, do you? You put stock in what those you worship do.

        Ernie thinks his stated methodology is the be-all and end-all. I disagree. I have my reasons. I've written them all on this blog. Ernie's not interested, but I'm supposed to count his work as high, even though he refuses to give any of his full views. He said he wouldn't divulge any of them (he'd argue that of course), but he did anyway by saying he agrees with Pat Buchanan about the Middle East — so much for the patronage of the Zionists. Perhaps that explains why Ernie is a mere footnote when he wants to have the limelight. He sure spends a great deal of time dropping all his networking (no names — just his view of his worthy, nameless connections; okay) such that we are all supposed to be impressed. Yet, he's still a footnote, even though he's been trying not to be (playing by their rules) for decades.

        It's strange that Ernie claims libertarianism but doesn't seem to believe in the concept of gatekeepers, which gatekeeper concept is a completely valid (valid on its face; self-evident truth), typical libertarian view.

        He's so fact-based but doesn't seem interested in the fact that the world is a mess because of the wicked hearts at the top of the worldly pyramid and because of the entire system that has them there. Does Ernie hate it that I'm not small-minded enough to miss it? Does he want me to shut up about it because he knows that if people come to my way of understanding, everything Ernie worships most will fall? It will.

        You all know that Ernie hates Jesus. That's what he's been working here: his hate of Jesus — what Jesus asks of souls. He figures that if he can punch holes in anything I've written, which he hasn't been able to do, to his utter frustration, it will bring down my whole Christian position. Then more people will be of the mind to allow more of what is really at the heart of Ernie's desires, which definitely fall short of Godliness, else he'd be for God and Jesus. That's logic. He can attempt to twist this, but he's had ample opportunity to delve into Christianity but has deliberately avoided it so he can continue on in denial. How many times did I raise the issue with him? I'm not the only one.

        The only thing Ernie has demonstrated here is taking things out of context, reframing them in Ernie's disjointed language, and deliberately taking things wrong for effect to manipulate the gullible and weak-minded for the sake of greed, coercion (likely violent), and license to depravity by effect.

        You’re right. I am not concerned with your subjective opinions about what you think constitutes "righteousness". I am only concerned with facts.

        He doesn't look, but concludes that what I hold out as righteousness is subjective. Only Ernie is objective here. He has a handle on the absolute. I'm just floating around somewhere in relativity.

        Well, Ernie, the fact is that God is there, alive, and knows what your real motives are no matter how much you attempt to hide. The fact is also that God is righteousness. That's absolute. That's not mere opinion. You're just ignorant about it. You haven't been given it to understand. You haven't deserved it. You're too haughty. You refuse to humble yourself before God. You refuse to examine your heart and soul to see where you are coming up deficient, in fact. You aren't sorry about your selfish ideology that many self-styled and false Christians, including in university religion departments, share with you in many respects, which ideology is killing people, even murdering them.

        QUOTE SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN which supports your accusation that I think everyone should agree with me OR admit that you are a liar.

        Prima facie, Ernie — your spiel here says it as plain as day. You are the FBI-document god. We are all to bow down to your vaunted and lauded (footnotes) wisdom on all things methodological, etc., etc., etc.

        Look, my intention was not to get you going. I sincerely wanted you to see some light, but you refuse. You reject even looking. I let you comment here. I read your stuff. But you show zero reciprocation here. Religion is beneath you, even though you will never understand the minds of the people you are out to take down as you've stated (rightwing conspiracists who don't follow your dictates concerning methodology) without understanding religion.

        There is nothing I could do to affect Mullins one way or another. This is your paranoia revealing itself. One person who reveals what Mullins has written over the years or who reveals Mullins' associations is, apparently, one too many in your scheme of things.

        What nonsense. Ernie's out to "expose" Eustace Mullins, which if fine (I'm hardly fearful/paranoid about it; I've exposed him myself), but Ernie's not really out to affect Mullins," as in destroy him and by implication much or all of what Mullins is saying. In other words, this is the chilling effect: you wouldn't want to read Mullins because Mullins is one of those weird conspiracy thinkers, and what's more, he's a neo-Nazi. If you're caught reading him or quoting him, even if you qualify as Tom does (sorting the truth from the fiction), you too will be painted with that brush, as in the mindless form of guilt by association. It's the standard Abe Foxman (of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League) approach about which Ernie wrote, "who cares."

        Well, I care because I'm being censored by people in powerful positions ("gatekeepers") who don't want people to be able to sort things out. Sorting things out would lead to their downfall, the downfall of the very people Ernie worships or sucks up to with all their publishing houses (that must give me a passing grade before I'm acceptable to Ernie) that censor facts, such as the Babylonian Talmud says Jesus is boiling in sh_t in Hell. Getting that fact into the debate, front and center, on FOX News and everywhere else wouldn't do for the Zionists Ernie is also against (a la Pat Buchanan — Roman Catholic). Ernie doesn't see that circle though, probably because J. Edgar Hoover's boys never pointed it out to Ernie in the holy scripture that are the FBI files Ernie has amassed, making Ernie the world authority to whom all must defer really on everything: Ernie's worldview.

        you have not disputed even one quotation which I included in my Mullins report---not one.

        So what? That's not what I've been writing about. I've been writing about your agenda that you won't fully state but that one may discern if one refuses to be hypnotized by the system that will fall and is falling and has already fallen (Another riddle?).

        I won't include here Ernie's "private" email to me and attachment to same, which I haven't read and probably won't since the email shows nothing but a continuation of Ernie's baseless, illogical, disjointed diatribe. I showed Ernie many of Ernie's errors, but he never acknowledges. It's here. He does what he accuses me of doing. It's funny and sad at the same time.

        Merely asserting that you are a Christian is not adequate Tom.

        I suggest that you send a representative sample of your website articles to the Chairperson of any 10 religion departments at any religious educational institutions of your choice and ask them to read your comments and then tell you if they consider your remarks to be Christian---and let us know the result.

        I'm here, and that's known. If they want to brave it, let them. I don't seek credentials from them, Ernie. They didn't instruct Jesus. Why don't you take some of your own advice and look into Christianity before shooting off at me about what you know little to nothing even in the mundane?

        Why don't you expose me by sending some of my most clearly "theological" writings to them yourself and ask for their written opinions to be shared with the world. Try "ABOUT OUR NAME: REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH" and the Christian Commons. Then share them in full with the world. Put the replies right on your site. Go ahead.

        I don't think you want to. You'll spend "$35,000" on FBI documents, but you won't spend $20 to bring down Tom Usher using the very means that you've suggested here would do the trick. Go ahead. It doesn't matter to you what I think. It's what everyone else will be able to conclude from the replies from those religion departments, Ernie.

        Having second thoughts about your challenge? Put some more of your money where your mouth is, Ernie. Will those religion departments go straight at the heart and soul of my theological positions? Try it. Let's see through you, how good and brilliant they are. You value their opinions so much, do it. I'm waiting but not holding my breath.

        None of this is to say that there aren't any "scholars" out there who might get much of it right in the most mundane sense by the way after really thinking about it.

        Also, Ernie, you'd have to sort the mere religion instructors from those who have the highest credentials as specialists in Christianity. Aren't they the ones you worship most where "facts" about Christianity are concerned? Wouldn't they be the best judges of Tom Usher's Christianity? Let them pass judgment on The Christian Commons, Ernie. Do it if you think you know what you're doing. You may find out that they won't appreciate you.

        If they wouldn't give you the time of day, get your friend with the most "credentials" to do it. You do the leg work. All he'd need to do is sign. Do you have any sway? Let's see. You build yourself up to all of us by claiming powerful connections. Show us. You're always demanding proof of everyone else concerning his or her credentials. Prove yourself.

        By the way, let them say openly if capitalism, violence, and/or homosexuality are Christian.

        Ernie is so ignorant about Christianity that he thinks it's a democracy where people being Christian rise or fall in Heaven based upon worldly university departments.

        What makes you think those in the universities have more of the Holy Spirit, Ernie. Where are they in calling for The Christian Commons? They are nowhere. They don't have the lead. They aren't standing in the gap, Ernie. They are standing back, behind, in the dark, Ernie. Now, I've taught you endlessly more than you've taught me, but you won't give credit.

        Listen, Ernie, those religion departments don't even know what to do with Jesus. He called them serpents, Ernie. He called the Pharisees "serpents" and the children of Satan, proper. He said many other things that your ad hoc panel doesn't understand no matter how many of them pat each other on the back for being geniuses.

        Ernie, you've really messed up here and need to repent. You need to turn to Jesus and realize how hard-hearted you are that you attacked me here over and over and over, all while refusing to look at the big picture where you might (just might) come to understand why they were serpents and what it implies about those very university departments you think can pass judgment on me.

        Ernie, I don't care what those people think about me in the way you do. They need to care what I think about them.

        Your cause is lost. You've shown yourself wrong here. You don't value what truly matters. You don't know truth from falsehood. I haven't born false witness against you. It's the other way around.

        Not once did I state an untruth about you. I asked pointed questions, which you hesitatingly answered only in some instances. I frustrated the Hell out of you, but Hell is still there inside you, else you wouldn't hate me so for exposing the error of your whole way, which is quite atheistic and allows for all sorts of things you refuse to acknowledge in public. I refer to Chip Berlet, concerning whom you couldn't bring yourself to say to me that his homosexual agenda is evil. You may not be a Zionist, but you aren't anti-homosexual with much if any discernable conviction. Maybe you can rectify that libertarian error. While you are at it, perhaps you can also overcome Capitalism in all forms in your heart.

        Now, finally, I don't think anyone can accuse me of not allowing Ernie to state his position here. I've put up with it. I don't have to have him going on and on here in the same vain though. It will serve nothing. Some people think that by doing this, by allowing Ernie to engage me in this way that I'm somehow being un-Christian. That's obviously not how I see it. I believe Christians are not to shrink away into the feel-good only. The only difference between now and when Jesus walked is that more people knew when they lost against Jesus, and I've used the exact same logic with Ernie where in Jesus's day they dropped their stones and walked away but Ernie claims I'm a liar. Well, some people did hold that Jesus was demon possessed, and they did crucify him. I'm in good company when Ernie tries to sift me as wheat. I'm not taking the bait. I'm not falling to Ernie's temptation. I'm not going with him where he's going. I'm heading for Heaven. I know the FBI isn't there.

        You will note that Ernie ducked the riddle (riddle? not really), among many, many other things.

        Peace, Ernie. God bless you.

    6. Ernie Lazar says:

      Tom, I will reply to a few of your comments but most of your rant is just your personal opinions which are irrevelant to me so I will ignore most of your "reply".

      Wow Ernie,
      You sure do miss the points. You and I talk right passed each other. At least you give the public the impression that you don't get what I'm saying.

      Yes, I've seen FBI files, Ernie.

      Do not merely assert that you have seen FBI files. SPECIFY WHICH ONES. Tell us if you have seen both headquarters and field offices files and on what subjects so anyone following this discussion can determine the scope and quality of your knowledge.

      Your view about how difficult it would be for them to fool you is just that, your view.

      But what you call "my view" is based upon 30 years of research into FBI files and the acquisition of more than 400,000 pages of their documents. Please tell us HOW MANY YEARS you have spent researching FBI files and HOW MANY PAGES you have acquired.

      For you to know that you can trust that view, you'd actually have to go out to deliberately find out whether they have in fact tricked you. You'd have to go to all the branch offices you mentioned.

      No---that is not correct Tom and it reflects your ignorance of their filing system AND (more importantly) the alternative methods which could be used to confirm whether or not all documents are being released.

      You'd have to get them to release more information. Then, you'd have to be confident that they weren't one step ahead of you. Could it happen? Sure it could.

      In the abstract, ANYTHING is possible. For example, it is POSSIBLE that Tom Usher is a Communist disinformation agent. But should we expend our energy on researching and considering that "possibility"

      I haven't said otherwise. In fact, I encourage whistle blowers who will show it.
      Also, not only have I studied file systems, I've designed and set them up in more than one multi-million dollar facility.

      Tom, it does not matter what filing systems you have created. What we are discussing is whether or not you have EXPERIENCE and KNOWLEDGE concerning the FBI's filing system. Have you, for example, read the various books and articles written by historians and political scientists concerning the FBI filing system? If so, TELL US WHICH ONES you have read.

      I don't say that to toot my own horn the way you repeatedly brag (yes, brag) about spending "$35,000 of [your] money." I only discuss file systems here because of your claims.

      I am not "bragging". I am giving you an indication of how extensive my experience has been.

      At one point the Bureau told me I was their largest single requester (i.e. 5% of all FOIA requests that they received).

      As of March 2007, they identified 8900 FOIA requests that I had submitted to them since 1980. PLEASE PROVIDE COMPARABLE DATA FOR YOURSELF so we can get some idea of your credentials.

      Look, I have not said that I trust everything that came out as the Church Committee report. I leave room. The report itself shows limits. It was only scratching the surface. But it isn't necessary to see all the putrefaction within to know it's there when the fruit is so utterly rotten.

      Again, you misrepresent what I wrote. I merely stated that YOU cite the Church Committee report as reliable evidence about FBI files and programs— (as I do myself!!) but BOTH OF US are relying upon the same ultimate source of information.

      The Church Committee requested and saw FBI documents concerning their filing system and the Committee received sworn testimony by senior FBI officials. So when FBI data supports your beliefs, then you think it is reliable; but if FBI data contradicts something you believe---then the Bureau probably "renumbered" documents or suppressed data. How convenient to your argument! You win--no matter what!

      Have YOU personally seen the files and documents which the Church Committee references in its hearings and its reports?

      In many cases, I HAVE THEM in my possession. For example, I have the entire FBI "Security Index" file which is about 75,000 pages. Do you have it?

      The Church Committee leadership was largely the result of those who were rightly mortified by other forces operating in government.

      But if we employ Tom Usher Logic, we must conclude that sinister forces within the FBI MANIPULATED the "Church Committee leadership" in order to prevent them from discovering anything worthwhile. I am using YOUR logic now. Disprove my assertion. The people whom YOU claim were "mortified" were actually just PRETENDING to be critical of the FBI. Disprove my theory. See-- I can assert ANYTHING (just like you do) without having to prove anything!

      You know that. There were those within the FBI and even CIA and NSA who wanted the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., to be reined in, obviously.

      Why "obviously"??. Maybe it was all pretense as part of disinformation campaign to fool gullible people like you! Disprove my theory.

      Good for them! They get credit for better thinking than say a Dick Cheney, who is so possessed he often doesn't know it, although he wonders and it's killing him. Don't you care? I do.

      Tom---you again entirely miss my point. The Church Committee DOES NOT support your contentions about the FBI filing system. Your comments are FABRICATIONS.

      Why is it permissible for YOU to "trust" a particular source (which you probably have never independently researched) whereas it is impermissible for me to use a source which I HAVE independently researched?
      You are couching this as black or white whereas I am not and have not. There are facts in FBI files. There are facts in FBI files that show that the FBI will trick people. Therefore, why take so much on face value without reserving a place in your mind where you realize that the level of deception could be beyond what is discernable solely on the face of the document? A good investigator will read people and things in ways that that investigator can't even relate to another investigator. It's called gut reaction in some circles. Don't you ever employ it?

      But unless you specify your methodology, there is no way to know whether or not your "gut reaction" is accurate or merely delusionary assumptions.

      What if I change my argument entirely? What if I tell you that MY "gut reaction" falsifies EVERYTHING you have written to me about the FBI and its filing system?

      What possible basis would you have to object since MY "gut reaction" would be (in your scheme of things) just as valid as anybody else's because there is NO methodology specified for separating fact from fiction.

      What did you do, pick out some area where no one ever did a freedom of information request just so you could have just one area in life where you could claim exclusive insight?

      Not "exclusive insight" Tom --- but EVERY researcher hopes to find NEW data available for the first time. Are you so bigoted and obtuse that you do not recognize the importance of discovering new material--particularly when that new material changes public perceptions about some matter?

      Having the files in your possession doesn't make you insightful in the way that will matter in the end. Money can't buy that, Ernie. It isn't for sale for thirty pieces of silver or $35 thousand. Besides, the FBI has all those files and many more. You don't see the FBI leading the people down the path of righteousness, do you? That doesn't interest you though.

      You're right. I am not concerned with your subjective opinions about what you think constitutes "righteousness". I am only concerned with facts.

      You say that I have born false witness against you. I have not.

      Yes you have ---repeatedly. You are NOT a Christian. You routinely violate God's 9th Commandment.

      You twist what I say in your mind so that I am saying things I am not.

      No—you are a chronic, habitual, and pathological liar.

      If your comments above were true, then I would sincerely apologize for misunderstanding your intent.

      However, my understanding of your numerous slurs against me and your objections to what is contained in my Mullins report has been that you do not think that Cooper's comment can be substantiated, therefore it should not appear in my report.

      I said it should be better qualified and not used in the furtherance of your agenda, with which I do not agree. I doubt that there is documentation on it; but if there is, I wouldn't be offended by its revelation.


      You are a closet false-Zionist, aren't you? You hold that Jews were right to horn into Palestine and violently and fatally in many instances horn the Palestinians out, don't you? Well, don't you?

      I am not Jewish. I am not a zionist. My personal views about the Middle East correspond to those of Patrick Buchanan. This again demonstrates that you are a bigot and a chronic, habitual, pathological liar.

      If you don't, say it here rather than being a coward on the subject right here and now. Go on public record about it right here. Then tell me again how what Abe Foxman thinks is irrelevant. What's the matter, Ernie? Does that thought make you nervous? Sure it does.

      I will repeat one more time----All that matters is what Eustace Mullins thinks, says and writes. If I were writing an article about Tom Usher, I would rely primarily upon your writings and speeches --- not upon what some other person said about you--particularly if they had no direct connection to you i.e. they were not a friend, relative, business associate, political ally, etc.

      Look, put it down as that I'm saying that in the vast configuration of what you are trying to do, it appears that you have an agenda that you are unwilling to state. You go to great lengths to make out that you are only interested in getting out facts. However, in other places, you make quite clear that your agenda is to stand against and to bring down/expose right-wing conspiracists. I have no problem with that, per se, but only where they are wrong. I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water.
      I want the right-wingers (all of them) to see the light of Jesus. I want them to come to know the real meaning of the term "liberal," not the one put forth in the so-called Enlightenment where "liberty" is twisted into enslavement under libertinism in its most negative sense: greed, violence, and sexual depravity rather than giving and sharing all, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness (as in Heaven). You avoid those subjects.

      Correct. I have no interest in researching those subjects.

      My interest is in reporting what appears in government documents--particularly those which have never previously been released. You have (perhaps unintentionally) revealed YOUR AGENDA in your comments above. I do not share that agenda.

      I do have a problem with someone who simultaneously says he is and isn't putting forth an agenda in the mundane. You clearly are. You do not approach the FBI materials without an eye to carrying out your preconceived view. You defend your worldview in doing so. In doing so, you do exactly what you accuse others and me of doing. You are not objective.

      Again, Tom, instead of lying about it, why don't you SPECIFY what you think MY agenda is and then QUOTE SOMETHING I have written to demonstrate what evidence you are using to arrive at your conclusion?

      I admit my agenda. I, unlike you, describe in great detail how I have arrived at my worldview. I love my worldview. I don't like yours. I hate it. You don't like mine. You try to say that bringing in Heaven on Earth has nothing to do with anything. Therefore, you and I are left with having no choice but in going our separate ways. You go where your view and standard and objects and motives will take you, and I'll do the same concerning myself.
      You don't like what the right-wing vaguely defined neo-Nazis are up to. Neither do I. I don't like what the false-Zionists Likudniks are up to either. What about you, or do you conveniently say that they don't interest you while the right-wing neo-Nazis do? If you hold that way, you are wrong.
      You say to everyone that they should agree with you, while you say that I'm wrong for saying that everyone should agree with me.

      QUOTE SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN which supports your accusation that I think everyone should agree with me OR admit that you are a liar.

      You say it in a way that more than suggests that all should not agree that there is anyone with whom all should agree. All though should agree with Jesus. You don't though. You're hypocritical. It shows through the whole thread on this site.
      Look, you want to destroy Mullins because of your agenda that you are unwilling to flesh out.

      Completely false. There is nothing I could do to affect Mullins one way or another. This is your paranoia revealing itself. One person who reveals what Mullins has written over the years or who reveals Mullins' associations is, apparently, one too many in your scheme of things.

      I have no interest in "destroying" Mullins or anybody else. I merely want everyone to have FACTUAL DATA about what he believes and his associations – based upon HIS OWN COMMENTS – not my personal opinions (or yours).

      You want to destroy his credibility by saying that he was this or that.
      His credibility does not depend upon anything I have written.
      However, by the same token, one could destroy you by your immersion in the whole system you refuse to denounce. Yet, you call what I am doing "convenient." That's hypocrisy.

      AT THIS POINT I am going to stop responding because everything further that you write is merely your libelous ad hominem comments about me, my character, and my motivations – and I have no interest in any of those comments.

      Here is the bottom-line to our entire exchange. Despite all your self-serving comments about your superior intellect and morals -- you have not disputed even one quotation which I included in my Mullins report---not one.

      Anybody can go to the publications which I identify in my report and see for themselves that Mullins wrote exactly what I quoted him as writing.

      Furthermore, anybody can request the FBI serials I identify in all of my reports in order to confirm that I have accurately quoted from them as well.

      In short, my reports are FACT-BASED. They do not depend upon anybody's "agenda", or "religion" or anything else.

      • Tom Usher Tom Usher says:

        Please notice that Ernie complained that whenever he "debates" with people he lumps in with me, he's offended that they don't quote where he's misquoted FBI documents he has in his possession and that they don't all just accept Ernie's methodological parameters, such as believing the FBI could not possibly have tricked Ernie via the documents they supplied him even though Ernie also states that anything is possible in the abstract. The FBI lying to people and tricking them is hardly abstract. It's history, which Ernie apparently wants the whole world to believe happened to others but could not have happened to him. Ernie cites the Church Commission as part of his reasoning along these lines.

        Of course, at the time of the Church Commission, there were FBI and CIA and NSA agents who were desirous to stop the unethical and illegal practices they had seen going on around them in those organizations. Ernie went off wildly when I raised that obvious point, asking me how I know that those agencies weren't just tricking the world by exposing nothing but fake dirty laundry. How can one take that seriously? To accept Ernie's point , one has to believe everything or nothing. However, one doesn't have to do that. There would be nothing to gain by faking all the documents that keeping everything secret would not have accomplished. The Church Committee did not have to pull teeth. If the executive branch had wanted to stand on its privilege and even destroy of continue to conceal documents, it could have. It could have devolved into a constitutional crisis. That was not the prevailing mood at the time. The mood was to get the airing over with so the country could move on to some degree after Nixon — to satisfy the bulk of the citizenry that was shocked by the misdeeds of the Nixon White House, etc.

        I believe that major abuses occurred for myriad reasons. I believe that many abuses never saw the light of day. There were agents who wanted to tell the general public more about the abuses but were constrained. There were other agents who were against airing anything. Those latter agents were Dick Cheney-minded for example.

        The agencies didn't expose all the dirty laundry but enough to satisfy Frank Church and others that they could have the support of enough of the general voting public to put through laws to help preclude future governmental abuses, at least of the worst kind. If Ernie doesn't like it that he's not convincing me, too bad. If he doesn't like it that I'm writing about it, again, too bad.

        Opportunities to out wrongdoers are not level across time in the eyes of whistleblowers. Even fairly recently during the George W. Bush administration, there were plenty of examples where people who blew the whistle were marginalize, ignored, shuffled about, given do-nothing jobs, cut out of the loop, terminated, prosecuted, gagged, threatened, and who knows what else. Much of that is designed to have a chilling effect.

        When Ernie or anyone else requests copies of documents from the FBI or elsewhere, he or she can't be positive that the documents given him or her have not been tampered with to mislead, etc. Ernie asked for documents over a span of decades. He started asking decades ago, and the documents he has span decades. The people who serviced Ernie's requests were not static all that time. Different minds and administrations came and went. Different attitudes about revealing "secrets" came and went. It is naive to believe that during that time, no one who wanted to continue hiding FBI dirt wouldn't have weighed in on Ernie's requests, especially if Ernie is correct that he holds the record for Freedom of Information Requests with the FBI — all the more reason to focus on him and what is given to him.

        One of the ways to be sure that different minds come and go is seeing that the results of Request for the same information often, even usually if always, results in different redactions. This could be because the FBI has determined that it can make the source appear static. They could easily have a file system of phony documents that are reissued with different parts redacted so as to make the source documents appear static. They could easily catalog on computer all matching real documents across the FBI and concerning those that have been issued to other agencies, etc. In fact, if they haven't had such a system for decades, then they are much dumber then one should think. It's very convenient for the government to appear to be less networked and controlling within such agencies.

        Put it this way, whistleblowers are the rare exception. Things have to be very egregious before "patriots" will blow the whistle. That's shown by history. I have never heard of or read about a whistleblower who disagrees with the basic idea of governmental secrets to protect so-called national security for instance. They were all willing to lie provided certain subjective lines weren't crossed.

        You will also notice that one who has no agenda, as Ernie asserts about himself, and is neutral, as Ernie also asserts about himself, can hardly engage in debate with other parties unless one is speaking of moot debate. Even then, however, there is an objective even if only to hone debating skills, often deception. Ernie goes out on the Internet to try to get the world to believe that one must accept all of Ernie's methods as superior and to discount the points others and I have raised.

        While asking for documents is good, they must remain somewhat suspected. Ernie doesn't like that. He doesn't like that floating feeling concerning whom to trust. He doesn't like having to think and write, etc., always bearing such in mind. It's too much for his mind to process and handle nonstop. Well, that's not my fault. It's his problem. I'm not going to adopt his lower thinking. As I said, I rose out of it. There's no benefit in falling back into it.

    Comments are closed.