Comey's Opening Statement and Why There's No Impeachable Offense There

Here are the two concepts that cannot be separated: 1) " is possible we understood the phrase “honest loyalty” differently..." and 2) "I had understood the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December. I did not understand the President to be talking about the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to his campaign." (Source: "Jim Comey Backs Up Trump’s Story, But It’s Not All Good News for Trump.")


Tom Usher

When taken together, it indicates that Comey understood that he, Comey, did not know what President Trump was thinking in the first case but assumed he did in the second. All we have from Comey is that Comey took something Trump said to mean something when it didn't necessarily mean it. Trump's language regarding Flynn, his words directed at Comey concerning his, Trump's, desire regarding Flynn, did not have to be taken by Comey the way Comey says he took them.

At this point, I have to say that had I been in Comey's shoes, I would have probed the President on exactly what the President meant. I would have explained why too. There is no way I would have allowed the conversation to end without knowing whether or not the President was aware of how his questions and/or statements could possibly be taken and that I had no choice but to pin him down to be sure one way or the other (for the sake of the nation and certainly not in any way prejudging what the President was intending). If I had received the wrong answer, I would have resigned on the spot and gone public.

I can also say that for the foregoing reasons, there is no way in Hell that I'd even begin impeachment proceedings based upon Comey's statement. I'd take that position no matter who the President is, no matter what his or her ideological beliefs, no matter how much I may or may not agree or disagree with him or her.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Banksters versus Putin and the People

Putin immediately faced a depression (deliberately caused by the West) that made the Great Depression in the US look like a picnic. He ousted oligarchs who weren't doing a thing for the People but only for themselves. Those oligarchs were lauded and fully backed by the West. He did not institute democratic socialism. He did place a great deal of emphasis on the welfare state and social democracy of the economic type, not with the social-anarchist bent pushed by so many in the West.


Tom Usher

Who's against him and why? Western bankers and their international financial allies are the driving force behind the movement to take him down. They want to be the top dogs everywhere. Putin's central banker gets technical/show awards from the global central-banking community, but she answers to Putin, not to those at the pinnacle of that banking cartel.

Xi is being tolerated and even lauded to drive a wedge and to attempt to embarrass Trump (relatively), but Xi will have the rug pulled out from under him the moment the top banksters decide he can't be handled and used enough to suit them. He's much more an authoritarian than is Putin, but the US MSM is given its talking points by the banksters' messengers.

The CIA, NSA, and Pentagon work for the banksters. Those who rise within the ranks of those institutions who don't finally catch on and don't finally go along are targeted and destroyed. That's your deep state. Edward Snowden and plenty of others don't yet know that. They will.

Putin didn't light the fires in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, or anywhere else.

The stories claiming he ordered hacking the US election are part of the scheme to install the banksters atop Russia (and Iran and China, not that Iran and China are ideal, far from it).

The real war is between laissez-faire capitalism and grass-roots democratic socialism. It's a war between the economic classes. It's a war between 1) those who will condone anything so long as they have the top economic and financial power and 2) those who want to eliminate poverty but don't want social and cultural license granted to do anything one might want to do regardless of the negative consequences for others. There is such a thing as decadence. That fact is being ignored for effect: to aid in toppling Putin. It's like aiding al Qaeda only to have that come back to haunt you: very shortsighted.

Is Putin the leader of the revolution? No. Is he its enemy? That remains to be seen. He's certainly also wrong on AGW. As for all the deaths of journalists, the CIA has a history of killing people and making it appear that the CIA's real target did it or ordered it. Putin doesn't say that he knows who killed whom. He does admit that there are Russians he considers patriots who will take matters into their own hands to save Russia from Western imperialism (actually bankster imperialism).

Posted in Libertarian Capitalism | Leave a comment

James Clapper, Megyn Kelly, Vladimir Putin, Neocons, Trotskyists, Leo Strauss, Hypocrisy, Ethnic Bigotry, and the Platonic Technique

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?


Tom Usher

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment