James Clapper said what about Russians? He said they are "almost genetically driven" to lie. What is hypocrisy? What is ethnic bigotry? Why do those things matter so much concerning what's going on right now towards the Russian government, it's leaders, and the Russian People, who voted them into office and who give them extremely high ratings concerning the jobs they're doing running that government on both the domestic and international levels?James Clapper:
On June 5, 2010, President Barack Obama nominated Clapper to replace Dennis C. Blair as United States Director of National Intelligence. Clapper was unanimously confirmed by the Senate for the position on August 5, 2010.
Following the June 2013 leak of documents detailing NSA practice of collecting telephony metadata on millions of Americans’ telephone calls, two U.S. representatives accused Clapper of perjury for telling a congressional committee that the NSA does not collect any type of data on millions of Americans earlier that year. (Source: "James Clapper," last visited June 4, 2017.)
James Clapper, a man proven to have lied to the American People and some of their highest representatives in government concerning something absolutely fundamental to preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, is cited as some sort of moral authority and a man to be trusted without question concerning allegations made against the Russian leadership en masse. A proven professional liar pointing the finger at others and calling those others liars while pretending his own lie was above the law, is the very definition of hypocrisy. He admitted he lied but made excuses. His excuses were what we call lame. He was not fired for lying. Meanwhile Michael Flynn was fired for supposedly lying. I don't think Michael Flynn was trying to cover up anything. I think he just wasn't prepared not to make any mistakes and not to underestimate the lengths Russian-haters will go.
Megyn Kelly interviewed the duly elected President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Megyn said that Russia had admitted that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons by virtue of Russia brokering a deal whereby Syria would divest itself of all chemical weapons. Vladimir Putin quite correctly made clear that, that conclusion does not follow from the premises and that Russia never agreed with the statement that the Syrian government had used the chemicals they were accused of having used.
After the first accusations but before Russia began brokering that great deal, the Obama administration and the US government in general was stating emphatically that the Syrian government had committed the alleged acts. Many members of the public disputed that the Obama administration and rest of the US government had evidence to support such emphatic statements. After more and more of the general public began to see that there was not proof positive but only hyperbolic accusations, apparently Barack Obama asked James Clapper (the same James Clapper above) whether there was proof. Please pay close attention. James Clapper told President Obama that it "was not a slam dunk." After that, President Obama backed completely off and made the deal with the Russians and Syrians. Let that all sink in for a bit. It was Clapper admitting to lies again.
Who hated that deal and why? Who wanted Barack Obama to use the lie as a pretext to bomb the Syrian government into oblivion if that's what it would take to oust Assad? Who still doesn't care that no "Red Line" was actually proven to have been crossed? Who still lies to the American People via false propaganda, twisting, omission, and the like, trying to get the American People to falsely believe that what happened never happened and that James Clapper never admitted to President Obama that Obama had been backing a lie and that if he were to continue doing so, he'd be exposed and go down in history as worse than he already was?
Consider the Iranian nuclear deal. There was never any proof there either. The exact same scenario played out except we don't have Obama having openly stated that it was James Clapper who also had to admit that there was no proof the Iranians had been doing all the things alleged. Was it James Clapper? It was someone or some group. Who hates that deal with the Iranians and why? Why are they willing to lie and lie and lie?
So, we have that same James Clapper testifying that the Russians are "almost genetically driven" to lie. There was no proof about the Syrians. There was no proof about the Iranians. Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs. Saddam Hussein's forces did not kill incubator babies. The list of lies used by the US as pretexts for war is gigantic. Whom do you now believe? Whom do you trust?
Who's out front in the current propaganda campaign (this one against Russia)? It's the neoconservatives. Who are they? Where did they come from? What do they believe?
The neocons (for short) started a movement from socialism to capitalism. They were Jews, all of them. Consider that in conjunction with the issues of hypocrisy and ethnic bigotry. They were Trotskyists. They believed in worldwide revolution for anti-capitalist ideals of the militant-Marxist variety. However, things didn't work out as planned with Trotskyism in their estimation (generally accepted history with which I don't disagree but for different reasons). Their godfather if you will was Leo Strauss. Strauss's philosophy is centered on the issue of esotericism. The "modern" neocons based their own doings on the idea that they, those particular Jews, have an understanding that is hiding from lesser intelligent people and that using Platonic techniques is required. Plato advocated deception for the greater good. I find that abhorrent. Now you see what's really going on, but will you retain it and use it to free not only yourself but humanity?
Keep in mind that the lies are constantly being massaged to deflect and to change the subject and history.
There's a great deal more than meets the typical American's eye. The pot is calling the kettle black, but the kettle isn't necessarily black. This is the "secret." It's right there in plain sight, but cognitive dissonance has prevented a great swath of the American People from casting off the hypnotic spell. You will not be as free as possible until you cast it off completely. There is no middle ground.
The Jewish neocons went from Trotskyists to pro-Likud Zionists. Think about that. Let it sink in. Why destabilize the whole of the Middle East and even the world? Who's using whom? The US is large. Israel is small. However, neocons have how much wealth, power, and control in the US and over US foreign and domestic policies and practices? What do they want? They say it's democracy, but how do they even define democracy and to whom do they want it to apply and where? Do they want Palestinian Arabs (Muslims and Christians) having an equal vote concerning the government over the whole of historic Palestine? Do they even tell the historical truth about Palestine, or do they defend the statement that Palestine was a land without a People for a People (Zionists) without a land? For a time (recently) they tried to distance themselves from such statements and even went so far as to claim it was never made by Zionists.
What you'll also see and hear is the term "anti-Semite" trotted out to silence analysis. It's a fear tactic. It's part of the hypnotic process. It's used to trigger cognitive dissonance. Jews who analyze other Jews are branded with the label "anti-Semitic." However, this tactic is being broken right before your very eyes. More and more Jews are rallying to the truth and breaking the spell: evil, lying spell. They are standing up to their fellow Jews and saying, "Enough of your lies! You do not represent the Jewish People as a whole. We don't accept your plan for the world. We want the whole People of the world to have the real truth, not your lies. We don't want your wars fought for you by your duped proxies."
You see, I'm the farthest thing from an anti-Semite as it gets. What are you?
Do you fall for all the neocon accusations against the Russian government? Do you even believe the accusations are grounded such that they even ever merited the US government spending huge amounts of time and energy "investigating" the supposed foregone conclusion that Russia did all of, let alone any, of the things alleged or believe that many of those things were even wrong or unusual for any nation-state to do or say when working to ward off neoconservatism's global lies.
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)