Tom, my comments appear underneath yours preceded by 3 asterisks.

You may be surprised to learn that there are some points I will agree with you on.


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

***Tom, your religious beliefs are irrelevant to my comments. A statement is true or false (or perhaps unknown status) based upon verifiable evidence presented—-not based upon religious assumptions and beliefs.

Ordinarily, I don't allow further comments from people such as you because you knowingly refuse to see beyond your noses. I did say I was done with any back and forth with you, but I'm not a liar 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 (which I will ignore), 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.

***Tom, perhaps the problem is that your replies are so incredibly verbose and insulting. Why don’t you (for example) specify (briefly) precisely what materially important questions you want me to answer that pertain to our dispute that you claim I am dodging and I will answer each and every one so you can stop lying about my character.

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

***I have read every word you have written. Apparently, your position is that since I disagree with you that, ipso facto, means I have no intention of “learning anything or considering anything”. In other words, you are the repository of all wisdom and truth and all of us must adopt your viewpoints or be considered ignorant.

Look Ernie, everyone knows that the FBI can number and renumber anything it wants.

***Tom, have you EVER seen an FBI file and have you ever studied their filing system? I doubt it! So it is easy for you to invent absurd comments like the one above.

If you did know anything about their filing system, you would know how impossible it would be to do what you suggest without being discovered and leaving obvious clues.

Let me give you just one reason. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment, but I merely want to illustrate how deficient your understanding is about this matter.

Suppose a memo is written which contains Tom Usher’s name but the actual subject of that memo pertains to some organization which the Bureau was investigating because the Bureau received information from an outside source (let’s say a police department or military intelligence) which indicated that the organization might be engaged in planning illegal activity that fell under FBI jurisdiction.

That one memo containing your name might be placed in 10 different files at headquarters AS WELL AS be shared among numerous field offices (the Bureau has 56 field offices!) who were involved in investigating the matter.

However, here is where it really gets dicey.

If the Bureau created a “main file” on Tom Usher, it may well have placed that one memo in your main file and assigned it a serial number. BUT, many times serial numbers were not assigned to a document. Instead, the document was considered merely a “cross reference” (i.e. a mention of a person, org, publication, etc. in a file devoted to some other main subject matter) so they place a copy in whatever files are considered related to the MAIN subject.

Example: the Bureau had a main file on the CPUSA but it had more than 2 dozen sub-categories of information pertaining to the CPUSA (such as labor unions, education, legislative activities, youth matters, membership, security, religion, factionalism, party line, funds, underground ops, etc.)

THEN—-there were DOZENS of further sub-categories where the exact same data was filed but by specific geographic areas or by individual CP club names.

Consequently, one memo could easily be filed in 20 or 30 different locations as a cross-reference!

Now, suppose the Tom Usher memo was merely a "cross-reference" which they did not want to index. As a result, the serial would be stamped “unrecorded” – meaning no specific serial number was created for that particular memo.

Since no specific serial number was recorded, that also often means that Tom Usher’s name would NOT be indexed in the Bureau’s manual or automated indexing systems.

This gets even more complicated —- but what I am trying to illustrate is that the Bureau’s filing system could not possibly capture every instance where (for example) Tom Usher’s name appeared. So EVEN IF they wanted to “renumber” everything (as you suggest) it would be impossible to find every instance where the memo mentioning Tom Usher’s name appeared.

THEN (and this is critically important Tom) – what about all the COPIES of that memo (or a summary of the data in that file which included a mention of Tom Usher's name) which is sent to OTHER Justice Dept components, or the President, or other government agencies?

How would the FBI possibly be able to “renumber” documents which may very well be located in 20+ different agencies and departments PLUS copies in Presidential libraries?

Finally——how many people do you think it would take to handle such a massive deception campaign?

Not just within the FBI itself, but all of the Justice Department components, other government agencies, and Presidential libraries?

Don’t you think that such a massive project would mean that SOMEBODY would reveal such a practice if, in fact, it existed over 9 decades?

But this is the beauty of conspiracy arguments!

YOU can FABRICATE anything whatsoever that comes into your mind but you exempt yourself from the responsibility of PROVING anything.

You have a BOTTOMLESS PIT of these insinuations and innuendos and NOBODY could possibly disprove (to your satisfaction) every cock-a-mamie idea you have —- which is why your arguments become self-sealing – i.e. they are incapable of being falsified —- which, of course, is your INTENT!

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.

***I bring to your attention that YOU cited the Church Committee report in one of your replies to me.

I am sure that you know that their findings were based upon extensive research into the FBI’s filing system (as well as other government departments).

By citing the Church Committee report, YOU “trust” their assertions and conclusions. WHY IS THAT THE CASE?

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?

***The Church Committee ALSO “trusted” the FBI to provide the data which the Committee requested about its filing system and its programs—-including COINTELPRO. So your argument against me seems to crumble because YOU rely upon the same ultimate primary source material!

Furthermore, MOST of the most damning evidence about illegal or unethical conduct by the FBI has come from researchers who FOUND that damaging data in FBI files and documents!

If your theory is correct, then why didn’t the Bureau “renumber” or destroy ALL documents which presented adverse data about its conduct over the past 80+ years—-and particularly its COINTELPRO programs?

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.

*** Tom, it is not a matter of “trust”. It is a matter of understanding their filing system (which you obviously do not).

Incidentally, I usually ask for FBI “search slips” and “correlation summaries”. I doubt you are familiar with any of this but if you knew anything about the FBI filing system you would instantly recognize how preposterous your ideas are.

***But to be very clear, YES, there are documents which the Bureau withholds or extensively redacts. But that is different from corrupting the serial progression of an entire FBI file.

Incidentally, some FBI files that I have requested total 75,000+ pages (for example files pertaining to the CPUSA).

Suppose Tom Usher’s name appears 4 times over a period of 50 years in those 75,000 pages.

Do you honestly believe that the Bureau would expend the time and effort to “renumber” 4 documents (assuming they could find them!!) just because 30 or 40 years later they might decide that Tom Usher’s name in a document might embarrass them?

And, then, they would send Agents out to God knows how many other agencies and departments to find copies of those 4 memos so that those could be “renumbered” too?

***Incidentally, please specify how you think the “re-numbering” would work. For example, if the 4 memos containing Tom Usher’s name are serials #122, #377, #650, and #1632 ——- in your scheme of things, would the Bureau just eliminate those serial numbers and all references to those serial numbers which appear as cross-references in all other FBI files or in correlation summaries and search slips? Do you have any idea how much time that would take—-again, assuming they could even find every instances where Tom Usher's name appears??

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.

***Your remark about me and my position re COINTELPRO (above) is not only bigoted and unChristian but a total lie. You obviously do not believe in God’s 9th Commandment so please refrain in the future from describing yourself as either Christian or possessing any sort of religious values.

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 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.

It is, in YOUR scheme of things, nothing more than merely rumor.

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).

***Your comment here seems to support my original statements about your position which you quoted above and then object to!

You object to the manner in which I presented Cooper’s comment.

I’m not sure what you object to however. I clearly stated in my report that it was Rick Cooper’s comment based upon his understanding of what happened and his independent research into the matter.

I did NOT present it as a “foregone conclusion”. I simply inserted a SINGLE SENTENCE which factually reproduced what Rick Copper stated based upon Cooper’s intimate knowledge of the people and events involved with the ANP/NSWPP and I suggest that he is in a position to know something about the matter.

Most significantly, YOU have presented NO evidence to the contrary. You just object to me reporting what Cooper stated based upon HIS investigation. [Tom Usher: That is your shortsighted opinion about me. You would call it lying if the tables were turned. I do not "object to [your] reporting what Cooper stated based upon HIS investigation." I have said what it is that I object to, and it isn't as you've characterized. I object to your agenda and the means you've employed while claiming no agenda and claiming neutrality and objectivity. Every honest person will see this about my objections and will reject your twisting of my words.]

I also remind you that LONG before Cooper’s report, there were OTHER people within the neo-nazi movement in the U.S. who reported the SAME data (and they did so 40 years before Cooper!!!!]

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.

***Tom—-are you aware that you are making a fool of yourself?

What you claim is absent from my report is precisely what I said!!!

Here, again, is the entire paragraph.

“According to an article by the late Rick Cooper, (Cooper was the former Business Manager of the National Socialist White People’s Party) Eustace Mullins, Matt Koehl, and another individual were arrested near Middletown, New York circa 1955 in connection with their sodomizing of a hitch-hiking teenage boy in the back seat of a car in which they all were travelling.”

According to” is equivalent to saying “so and so alleged” – isn’t it?

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.

***Tom—-once again you are FABRICATING a straw-man. Please read this next paragraph carefully so that you will stop deliberately lying about my Mullins report.

***My Mullins report is a summary of his life-long associations and affiliations. It does NOT (repeat: DOES NOT) address the point you raise concerning the merits or demerits of what he has written.

The next edition of my Mullins report, however, will address more of the substance of some of his writings.

However, to be clear, it IS demonstrably indisputable that Mullins often deliberately lies – but my current report is primarily focused on presenting his background because many people who recommend Mullins have no clue about the type of people he has chosen to associate himself with over his lifetime and the organizations which he has recommended or endorsed.

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.

***I don’t know what you mean by this comment since I have never written anything about Hoover in the context you reference.

My reports (all links here: http://ernie1241.googlepages.com/home )

merely summarize what Hoover and senior FBI officials concluded about various persons, organizations, issues, and controversies.

As a libertarian myself, I oppose a lot of what Hoover’s FBI did and I have been very critical of that behavior when anybody asks.

Furthermore, I frequently recommend or cite articles and books written by our nation’s most knowledgeable scholars about FBI history and those scholars are universally HOSTILE toward Hoover. So once again you appear to favor deliberately lying about my position in order to advance your argument.

If you are referring to COINTELPRO programs, it may interest you to know that I have provided FBI documents in my collection to one of our nation’s foremost authorities on the FBI's COINTELPRO programs and he has cited me as his source in those articles.

Incidentally, before I forget—-since you are so critical of my research and my positions, would you PLEASE LIST all of the articles you have written which have been cited in any book or article written by another published author?

OR, at a minimum, please provide links to webpages which cite YOUR seminal research into some subject matter which has revealed NEW previously unknown data available for the first time.

And, lastly, if I use standard databases and references such as the WorldCat database, will I find ANY published material by you which is available in ANY library anywhere in the world?

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.

***No, Tom, this (again) is you FABRICATING a straw-man in your own mind.

I have never said that Mullins never wrote anything truthful about the Federal Reserve or about other topics.

In fact, my Mullins report mentions “Federal Reserve” only ONE time – when I quoted a comment made by John Birch Society President, John McManus concerning Mullins’ book.

Here again was the comment by McManus:

“I also recall meeting the man who financed the Mullins book on the Federal Reserve. He told me that he was very angry about having spent money for such a poor piece of work.”

So, once again, we have established that you are a deliberate liar about my position. Why is it necessary for you to fabricate something about my position or beliefs instead of quoting something I write and presenting your best case against what I have ACTUALLY written?

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.

***You have misquoted what I said. I told you that if my one paragraph quoting Cooper’s comment “offended your sensibilities” then you could "totally ignore it" because it is not relevant to the remainder of my report. In other words, the report stands or falls upon the 12 pages of quotes and documentation I have provided —- NOT upon one isolated statement by Rick Cooper.

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.

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 agree with your general sentiment regarding the need to separate fact from fiction.

I am HAPPY to correct anything I have written in any of my reports and, in fact, let me share this fact with you:

The current edition of my John Birch Society report is 90 pages. The first edition (in 1989) was 6 pages. I have made NUMEROUS corrections and revisions to accommodate the objections made by JBS members and sympathizers who brought errors to my attention or who presented what I thought were legitimate objections to the manner in which I presented my data.

However, most JBS members and supporters who have contacted me have shared your general approach to debate, i.e. they prefer ad hominem slurs or attacks upon my character, integrity, and patriotism. Oddly (but significantly) they never even once quote something I have written and dispute its accuracy. Instead, they (like you) just offer their personal opinions.

I am not a racist or ethnic bigot.

***Do people who really ARE racist or ethnic bigots admit it?

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?

***I don’t “hate” anybody or anything Tom. This is just part of your straw-man fabrication because you apparently need to feel superior to people you disagree with.

Why is it obvious to you that I "think Mullins is a swell human being, nothing will satisfy" me? Satisfy me about what?

***Re-read our entire exchange.

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?

***Who cares what Abe Foxman says? All that matters is what Eustace Mullins says and writes. His classic, The Biological Jew, tells you everything you need to know about his beliefs. Why do you bring Abe Foxman into the discussion—-unless you are trying to make some adverse point about Jews in general?

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?

***Again, you seem totally unaware of what I am doing.

Most of my reports are presenting data which has never been previously available.

An honest researcher reports what he finds and he doesn’t care if it is approved or disapproved by any particular reader or audience.

The factual data discovered and revealed by any researcher merely informs the public debate. People are then free to argue over the significance of the data discovered — but it is recognized as factual—even if inconvenient.

By contrast, you have formed very strong opinions about certain people and issues and you become hostile toward anyone who does NOT share your beliefs.

Then you present ad hominem attacks upon their character, integrity, religious convictions, motivations, etc. instead of just presenting your ALTERNATIVE evidence.

***Tom—-this may be the hardest part of this message for you to understand but in the THOUSANDS of words you have written you have not presented ONE SINGLE INSTANCE where you disputed anything I have reported based upon your own personal investigation into that SAME primary source evidence.

For example: my Mullins report is FILLED with direct quotations (they appear in blue font). You have NEVER ONCE disputed the existence of any of those quotations.

Which means, EVERYTHING you have written thus far amounts to you sharing your personal opinions and beliefs—-which is fine.

But my purpose is ENTIRELY different. My purpose is independent research into primary source documents that often have never been released previously (OR perhaps released but not discussed or not generally known).

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

***I don’t “want” anything. I have spent 40 years and about $35,000 of my money merely to acquire primary source materials which pertain to the subject matters which interest me. You, however, have a crusade to make people believe what you do, and that is irrelevant to my interests.

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?

***My philosophy of life or my religious beliefs are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.

Why would you bring that up? It is ABSURD!

For example: suppose somebody wants to write a new biography of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, or of Julius Caesar, or a history of the Yankees baseball team.

Who gives a damn about the author’s “philosophy of life” or their religion?

ALL that matters is

(a) what new factual material has been discovered and

(b) whether or not the author presents new insights and verifiable assertions and/or credible analytical observations.

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.