wxr_rlcc_1312484177_b

This comment answers Ernie's 2009/08/16 at 11:14am submission.

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

In addition, whether you know it or not, the FBI is digitized and digitizing. The whole "national security" apparatus is consolidating as much as the consolidators can manage. Have you not read about the gigantic facilities for the banks of supercomputers to data mine? Do you realize how easy it is to churn out false documents and to make everything jibe everywhere concerning FOI if that's the goal (and it is in the minds of people like John Poindexter)? What part of police-state Total Information Awareness and Full Spectrum Dominance in all things don't you understand? Don't you know who Satan is and what he's doing? Really, don't you know?

Furthermore, the FBI and other organizations are loaded with people who are working at cross-purposes. You know that. There are various mind-sets that prevail from one time to another. Different agents have different ideas about what the FBI is supposed to be about.

You do know that FBI agents argue, even in public. You do know that some are forced into retirement or have been given do-nothing desk jobs, etc., down through their long history, right? You do know that some FBI agents (the more honorable ones, as gullible and naive as they are) were incensed about how their information leading up to 9-11 was literally censored and misrepresented within and that those who did the censoring were promoted and given awards after the fact, right?

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.

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

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?

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? 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 say that I have born false witness against you. I have not. You twist what I say in your mind so that I am saying things I am not.

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?

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.

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 rightwing 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 rightwingers (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.

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.

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 rightwing 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 rightwing 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. 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. You want to destroy his credibility by saying that he was this or that. 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.

My cards are on the table face up. Yours are not by my standard, not your standard. Yours isn't good enough for me. If you don't like that, the word my generation grew up with is "tough."

I don't buy your system, Ernie. You aren't the arbiter of justice and truth for me. You're cloaked of your own admission.

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

Ernie, I take things within a whole tenor and a full context. When I read you, I read you knowing that you don't come out of your hidden-agenda closet. I know that the words that leave your mind and end up on the Internet are with intent. You are struggling mightily to come across after the fact as being one who has not been about the task of destroying Mullins to destroy Mullins' accusations against those he accuses. That's how I read the difference between "According to" and "alleged." I also see what you haven't written. What you don't say speaks volumes to me. This is no straw man I've set up. It's you, Ernie.

...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.

That's says what I'm saying about what you're doing — your agenda you claim not to have but that you claim elsewhere to have.

Personality matters. Associations, if properly characterized, matter. I not one who falls for the term ad hominem, as you appear to use it against others when you engage in it yourself. You peppered your comment with it as if it has any merit whatsoever. A tree is known by its fruit. You don't gather figs from thorn bushes. Of course, not being a follower of Jesus Christ yourself, you'll put stock in Aristotelianism even when it's flat out wrong on its face — self-evident, needing know documentation or further investigation to verify and which nevertheless can't be falsified (after the illogical master Popper himself). Let me put to you some of the technique you attempt to use on me. Have you read Popper's philosophy of science? I doubt it (sound like you?). However, maybe you have.

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.... So once again you appear to favor deliberately lying about my position in order to advance your argument.

No, what I'm doing is getting you to state here that you don't trust J. Edgar Hoover, including to the extent that you should not assume that his notations in files necessarily indicate his true beliefs but rather could very easily (and in fact were, by definition) designed to manipulate. I'm not doing that surreptitiously but rather right out in the open and saying so in no uncertain terms.

I'm not lying about you. I'm exposing your agenda and means and methods. You are what you choose to emphasize and to de-emphasize. You are what you choose to go head-on against and for. You can't escape that simply by saying where and when you choose (that doesn't jibe with other of your writings) that you don't have an agenda, as you've clearly stated in your comment above but that flies in the face of everything you write elsewhere. You have an agenda, Ernie. Admit it. Then be consistent about it everywhere. So far, you are not. That's not bearing false witness about you. That's exposing you to you, if you will learn and grow by it. Why be upset with me about it? I don't have bad motives or intentions toward you.

foremost authorities

Who? Spit it out. You say this over and over. Who is it? Not saying the name while alluding to someone over and over is not instilling confidence.

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?

This shows that you failed to understand my previous comments to you and that you are appealing to others to gage the truth or falsehood of my new (mundanely new and "previously unknown") theology, to gage it based upon popular opinion of incestuous thinkers who have been lifted up by the system of darkness.

The theology on this site is not to be found anywhere else. It is built upon the words and deeds of Jesus and not upon falsehood mounded up over the centuries by minds the deviated from Jesus's clear and plain message. So, no, you will not find that others have grasp the truths on these pages sufficiently that they will let go of their Pharisaic positions. Do you know who the Pharisees were and are?

Of course, the same can be said of Jesus Christ even after nearly two thousands years, with the exception of this lone site. If you don't like that, there's nothing to be done for you but for you to change your hardened heart toward me.

What a dimwitted thing it is to gage truth by popularity amongst the self-important who suck up to each other for places to be seen of other men. Have you bothered to even read Jesus?

Do you also know how the capitalists publishing industry works vis-a-vis the libraries of which you speak? Have you studied it? I have. I've documented it on this cite. It's a racket to perpetuate a wicked system that will fall.

Are you aware of the hurdles capitalist, monopolist publishers place in front of blacklisted authors? I'm so far removed from what they want to use to further brainwash the masses that I'm deliberately censored.

Tell me, Ernie, where have you been censored? I been censored by Google. Have you? I've been censored by ABC News. Have you? Shall I go on? The list is long and growing.

One is not known simply by where he is repeated but also by where and why he is censored.

Jesus was censored to death, Ernie. Wake up.

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.

No, Ernie, this is not my fabricating a straw man. You've twisted my point. You haven't said what Mullins wrote that was true in your view. I'm not lying about your position on this. You have avoided stating your position on this. State your position. Did Mullins right any truth? If so, what was it?

If you do that, you'll be doing what I do. Then you'll be like me. You'll be out on a limb in your mind, but I Am the root he says.

You see, I know that your hidden agenda (hidden to others but not to me) is to defend some false definition of "Jewishness" in a way that is indefensible. I conclude this by virtue of what you avoid and what you attack and how. That's my prerogative, and your demands about using FBI files to substantiate my view is your effort to spin to avoid and deny without taking a first-principle position on philosophy or religion and having to defend that. You simply say that such is irrelevant. I count that stupid.

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.

I read the 12 pages too and came away with the same conclusion about your agenda.

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.

Don't use "patriotism" against me. I'm not a false-hearted patriot. My country is Heaven, and it will come here and takeover, thank God Almighty whether you like it or not.

Why is it that you don't consider that the manner in which you couch things is not a matter of accuracy? That's your problem. You have your nose close to the pages, as I said. The big picture is not your game. You avoid it because being consistent is so much more difficult when dealing with it. It's what the reprehensible former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales encouraged the Senate to do — to avoid the tough questions simply by looking at things differently and more myopically.

I am not a racist or ethnic bigot.

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

Yes, many do. Your question shows huge ignorance. I don't say that to you to score points against you or to condemn you to Hell but only in the spirit that others and you might see.

Racists and ethnic bigots show through by everything they say and do. Are you of the view that I'm a racist or ethnic bigot? If so, upon what are you basing that accusation? It's the tree being identified by its fruit again. So, what fruit are you about producing? What's the logical conclusion of your thrust? Are you doing a good work here at this blog? You won't say or haven't. Rather you've wanted your cake and to eat it too. You have no agenda, but you have an agenda.

You can do that in the same space at the same time, in the same brain at once. How? The fact is that you can't. It's only a trick you are playing on yourself for reasons that only deep soul-searching will reveal to you. Will you bother, or is your other "work" so much more interesting and important?

Have you read this site concerning all the Jews who are anti-war and anti-greed about whom I've written? I thank God for them. Have you read about those who have stood up to AIPAC and the rest of the Jewish Lobby? Have you read about the Jews (dwindling on account of the lies of the rightwingers in Israel and elsewhere) standing between illegal settlers and Palestinians? Where's your concern about those rightwingers? They are every bit as fascistic in outlook as any non-Jewish fascists, or do you deny it the way Abe Foxman (who doesn't matter to you) claims?

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.

You don't hate anybody? So, you didn't hate Hitler. I did. I forgive him in the same way Jesus did from the cross though. Did Jesus feel superior by disagreeing with the Pharisees? Where's your vaunted logic?

I love Hitler and hate Hitler at once. I can do that via my clear, plain, open, honest, and direct agenda that is anti-elitist (the opposite of the type of supremacism with which you are attempting to, but failing to, paint me). I can do it without being illogical. You don't hate anybody though. You don't have an agenda either, even as you go about the Internet leaving a trail of comments for some reason unknown to you or actually that you just won't take a clear stand about. Am I engaging in setting you up as a straw man no matter what I point out? No, I'm not.

Your problem is that you have identified your own position as being as easy to knock down as a straw man. Your, no-agenda position while being set on destruction of the good with the bad, is though, your agenda that is as easy to knock down as that. All that's required is saying it, which I just did. Done.

Be convicted by your conscience.

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?

Oh, does that ever give you away. How does my bringing up Abe Foxman make some adverse point about Jews in general? Are you lumping all Jews together, as if Abe Foxman represents all Jews? You just did. That opens up Pandora's Box. Now you have to defend that. Ah, that's exactly what I've been saying all along about what you are about doing.

Ernie, contrary to your thinking, my raising Abe Foxman does not say anything about all Jews. That's your thinking. That's denying all those who are Jews who are not represented by Abe Foxman that hyper-false-Zionists.

I take Jews one at a time. You've made clear here that you think that when anybody raises the issue of Abe Foxman's false definition of Jew that that one is then therefore engaged in anti-Jew thinking. You are flat wrong. This is extremely telling about you and your now not-so-hidden motives.

You have a real problem with my widening the discussion to encompass more of the big picture. If I raise something completely germane, you myopically rush back to your narrow "area of expertise." I don't admire that.

Furthermore, "The Biological Jew" does not tell "you everything you need to know about his beliefs." That's been my whole point throughout. You are attempting to discard everything Eustace Mullins alleges (and even what is substantiated by obvious history) with this sweeping statement of yours. It's the Abe Foxman approach. It's the "make any open discussion about Nazism illegal in Europe and elsewhere" approach whether you hold with that or not. You're facilitating censorship where it ought not to exist.

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

Then why did you put stock in whether or not I have been approved by the powers that be? Don't you see the hypocrisy in anything you write? You just spoke against yourself. You just proved my point above that your valuing me by whether or not I've been peer reviewed, published, accepted, approved is stupid. Come on, Ernie. Admit it. Admit you're wrong.

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

My evidence is character, integrity, religious convictions, motivations, etc.

Ernie, you live in a different universe. You are in the dark.

It was character, integrity (lack thereof), religious convictions, and motivations that murdered Jesus Christ. It matters. It's everything. What's wrong with you?

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).

Yes, it is fine. Now it's fine. It wasn't somehow fine before though. Yes, that's sarcasm (sparing).

However, I don't count the movement of the Holy Spirit as mere opinion. Furthermore, you do put forth your opinions and beliefs even though you try to convince others that you aren't in fact doing that. Lastly on this point of yours, you want to be accepted as putting forth "independent research into primary source documents that often have never been released previously (OR perhaps released but not discussed or not generally known)"; however, you don't count my interpretation of scripture as being exactly that same thing. I have put forth on these pages a semantical theology, Isaiah-Jesus Liberal/Semantical Theology, that has never been furthered anywhere else and is exactly right, yet you have not bothered with it even while you attempt to score points against me for never having written anything original on such a level.

You, however, have a crusade to make people believe what you do, and that is irrelevant to my interests.

Well, you have your crusade, and I have mine. Overcoming yours interests me. You are not interested in converting, but you sure are interested in undermining, aren't you? Admit it. That's what you came here to attempt to do. Rather than undermine, however, you've managed to be more exposed as being up to no good, per my definition of "good," the definition I share with God.

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

Why would you bring that up? It is ABSURD!

You're on a religious site, and you say that bringing up religion is absurd. You are strange.

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.

I shouldn't laugh, but I can't help it (cut and paste, Ernie).

What's funny, sadly funny, is that everything you just wrote applies the Mullins. If you believe what you just pasted in, why the Hell then are you writing about Mullins associations with neo-Nazis? You're saying that his views don't and didn't color his writing, but at the same time, you're saying that people should discount him (his writings) because of his associations. Can you have it both ways, or are you really saying that what is "IRRELEVANT" is really relevant and that it is you that people should also take with a block of salt?

You see, what I do is know that Mullins is a Jew-hater (all Jews) while also reading his stuff and sorting.

You really are one disjointed thinker, Ernie Lazar. You get completely tangled in your own talk. It's on full display here.

If you reply in your existing frame of mind, all you'll do is dig your hole deeper. There really isn't more to say to you. You have so much to think about already that should send you back to square one, where I began when I decided to start over.

Do it. You need to for your soul. You do have one. It's dead, but you could come back to life. Trust me!

Tom

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.