JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, JAMES VON BRUNN, AND OTHER MATTERS: REAL CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY WAY

Navigation:
• Newer: ABDALLAH FAHD ABD AL-'AZIZ AL-NAFISI, REPORTED KUWAITI PROFESSOR: PREACHING SATANISM, ALLEGEDLY BROADCAST ON AL-JAZEERA TV, FEBRUARY 2, 2009 »
• Older: « RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS JAMES VON BRUNN WAS A LEFTIST: LIMBAUGH'S POSSESSION ON DISPLAY
• BLOG: Most Recent
• The Christian Commons Project™

15 Comments on “JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, JAMES VON BRUNN, AND OTHER MATTERS: REAL CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY WAY”:

1. Ernie Lazar
   Sunday, June 14, 2009 @ 8:32:53 AM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   First, nobody "pays" me. I am retired and I am not connected to any organization -- so that is just a fabrication by you.

   Second, the "Koch family" did not finance the JBS. Only one member of that family was involved with the JBS and his role was very insignificant---mostly just a name on its stationery.

   Third, yes I am familiar with FBI history and your description of
   "Hoover's proposed plan to put all those who disagreed with his interpretation of Americanism into concentration camps" is such an outrageous and deliberate lie that I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian. The "plan" you are referring to, concerned ONLY what would happen to Communist Party members if there were to be a war between the U.S. and the USSR. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover's opinions. In fact, when the Attorney General of the United States REQUESTED that Hoover develop some sort of "plan", it was Hoover who insisted that due process rights be afforded to anyone who was picked up and detained---i.e. specific evidence presented within 24 hours before a judge.

   Fourth, yes, I am familiar with "COINTELPRO" and "agents provocateurs".

   YOUR comments qualify for both categories.

   
   
   
2. Tom Usher
   Sunday, June 14, 2009 @ 1:00:24 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   The date/time stamp of this comment is not correct. The following comment was actually inserted August 19, 2009:

   Bad start:

   I had said a number of things to set the parameters of the discussion here:

   • "Semantical understanding is key."
   • "It is symbolic. It is figurative."
   • "I call upon the world to consider these things that it has never."
   • "Let me make clear and plain that the political spectrum of left and right as used in your article is false. It is a false spectrum designed to avoid the message of Christ."
   • "I can see how my words were taken not as intended."
   • "This is the issue of Semantical Theology that the RLCC is about showing to the world."

   The full context of those statements isn't self-explanatory simply from the list, but if you read on, you will perhaps see that I was setting a wider understanding of language than Ernie Lazar apparently is willing to use or to even try to understand. His agenda forbids it and turns him back to undermining for no good (in the divine sense). He's no ally but rather came with an agenda to shoot down (he started by reading my post about Rush Limbaugh and taking exception to start a debate without bothering then with word sense-meanings) and really to try to paint me with the same brush with which he paints neo-Nazis, etc. Yes, he did.

   I also wrote the following:

   You wrote on your site, "...the Federal Reserve which included his assertion that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution.... Again, this type of thinking is exclusively the product of extreme right-wing ideology."

   Ernie says in this thread that he doesn't give his opinions in his reports, but I pointed out his opinion above as being false on its face. I didn't flesh that out there. There was so much I was already giving Ernie. As it was, he didn't digest a thing, at least that he cared to admit at the time.

   The degree to which, and the manner in which, monied interests on Wall Street used the Bolshevik Revolution as a profit center is something fully known only from God's perspective. In addition, when the "extreme right-wing ideology" as Ernie means that says "Wall Street," it is helpful to keep in mind that Wall Street has tentacles and is a multi-headed beast on a multi-headed beast. Other heads are where one finds other private central banking systems that are nodes of the one beast. As you can see, this is figurative language and is not dependent upon having more than the fruit of the system to show that that system exists and does what results in what we see. Who can audit the bank of little Liechtenstein when the royals don't want it for instance? It would take convincing the royals or just forcing the way in. Even then, would the royals hide the real ledgers and still "honor" them? They hold out at this point that they probably would. It's honor among thieves. Other thieves in Germany and the U.S. want more dominance over Liechtenstein's racket/territory. This is banksterism. It's the banker mafia arguing on the front pages.

   I am not suggesting that extreme rightwingers are prophets and understand the allusions. In fact, they are not and don't fully.

   It is not "exclusively the product of extreme right-wing ideology." The problem is with "exclusively" and also with Ernie's ideological spectrum (opinion).

   I am not rightwing while at the same time, I believe some Wall Streeters would never have left money-making on the table by walking away from one side of the Bolshevik Revolution before getting what could be gotten. In my mind, most Wall Streeters would have walked away for a whole host of different reasons depending upon the individuals in question. However, just as there are double agents and proven and admitted sellouts within the field of governmental espionage, the same selfish, greedy mindset pertains in some on Wall Street; and Wall Street is integrally connected with multinational corporations, multinational banks, many governments, and plenty of intrigue. The lines are not sharp. The public record also contains a huge stream of proven accounts of deep corruption within multinational corporations and multinational banks where the only thing wrong in the minds of many who engage in such corruption is getting caught.

   Is it necessary that I go out and fetch citations here or obtain original copies of the documents to back up this paragraph? Isn't Jonathan Pollard's case readily available now on the Internet? Isn't Enron's corruption as plain as day? Isn't Citibank's money laundering easy enough to learn about via a simple Internet search? Pollard, Enron, and Citibank are not isolated cases. They are representative of systemic corruption that goes to the heart of the debate between mammon and God. I flesh that out via this whole website. If you are interested, you may read it. That's why it's here.

   I also do not believe that a longer-term plan was not in anyone's mind in terms of decades and centuries and the global, imperial chessboard. As with the corruption above, I also flesh out these concepts. Geopolitics where plans span generations is a well known theme among the elites. In the United States, the two names that seem to be most often referenced in these terms are Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger. Both have been attempting to influence global control for many decades now. They play the game between nations and empires as a game of chess, hence the use of the term chessboard in this connection. It's an apt oversimplification.

   Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger are not the first to engage in this type of thinking. It is actually ancient thinking. Also, they represent hundreds and even thousands of other lesser lights (if one can really call them lights), depending upon where one wants to draw the line. Many people are trapped without the luxury of being able to think much beyond where their next meal is coming from let alone which empire will dominate in the next century or two or three or finally forever and how to arrange for it. I've written about both Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger on this site in a way that fits them into the bigger picture.

   When one connects amorality and immorality with very long-term and total-control objectives, all of which is evident, one becomes more demanding before trusting those who tout the lines coming out from the corrupt ideologies. It becomes nearly impossible to overestimate just how evil, evil is. I will give one quick example here.

   Back during the height of the so-called Cold War, in order to continue revving up the lucrative but draining arms race, Donald Rumsfeld and his clique said that the Soviet Union wasn't using sonar; therefore, Team-B, as they called themselves, claimed the Soviets had to have developed a superior technology to sonar. They went on to say that the US should move to develop such a new technology. However, the truth is that the Soviets hadn't developed any such technology. In their public propaganda, Team-B counted the possibility that they were wrong as naively dangerous. It's the same reasoning Dick Cheney uses when he says that those who want to put righteousness first are reckless. He said that the U.S. should torture suspects and that not doing so is "recklessness cloaked in righteousness." Now that's spinning.

   People, including Jewish bankers, thought about eternity and posterity and legacy, etc. The Rothschild's founder's Will, if it has been largely reported accurately, shows this long-term even eternal thinking. I don't, though, say that every anti-Jew statement about the Bolshevik Revolution is correct and that final conclusions about the minutia should not be held in reserve. I do hold them in reserve.

   Now getting back to semantical understanding, when I wrote to Ernie, "Someone pays you. You are beholden," Ernie did not use what I had written to evaluate the range of context. He rather jumped right in with the following:

   First, nobody "pays" me. I am retired and I am not connected to any organization -- so that is just a fabrication by you."

   I had already read that Ernie claims no membership of any organization before I wrote that. What happened there was that Ernie did not say to himself that this person, Tom Usher, repeatedly referred to semantics and such, is a Christian, and often writes in Biblical terms, so perhaps I may be missing his intent. So, what did I (Tom) mean, even though Ernie didn't bother to think about semantics, etc.? "Someone pays you. You are beholden."

   Bob Dylan wrote a song about it, "Gotta Serve Somebody":

   The rock-and-roll libertarian, atheist, antichrist John Lennon (gave Jesus a little credit) didn't like it and wrote a reply song, "Serve Yourself":

   I wrote more about those two in a post: ON CENSORSHIP AND BANNING: BOB DYLAN VERSUS JOHN LENNON AND MORE

   After having repeatedly mentioned semantics and figurative language, I said to Ernie, "Someone pays you. You are beholden." I did that perchance to open up Ernie's mind so he might better comprehend, or comprehend at all, what goes on in people's minds including the minds of many violent so-called rightwing and leftwing extremists. He has stated that his objective is to expose them for lacking evidence, as Ernie attempts to define evidence, afterall. I was attempting to get him into a position where he might begin to feel the spirit and then move to being able to differentiate between light and dark. He showed no aptitude and rather went on the highly selective defensive. He was just immediately offended that I knew anything he didn't know. He charged me with that about him, which is not true.

   I am not offended that Ernie knows more about the FBI documents he has that I don't. Why should I be offended at that? I do though gage Ernie, not that I know everything about him. I do though have a responsibility to evaluate the source. Ernie comes across to me as that I wasn't supposed to debate his ideological statements upon which he draws his conclusions, etc. He asks too much of others and of me. I won't dumb down. I'm trying to head out of that thinking, not back into it.

   Ernie also said, "Second, the "Koch family" did not finance the JBS." Well, he can't know that for sure unless God tells him. I don't say that the statement hasn't been overstated over the few decades.

   What I object to is Ernie's sweeping/blanket statements wrapped in the false cover that:

   1. Ernie doesn't give his opinions in his "reports," as he calls them
   2. Ernie has no agenda when in fact he has given his opinion and has also clearly stated an agenda in his posts and comments on the Internet and
   3. Ernie does not jump to false conclusions (especially by trusting FBI documents, as if they come from a source that never intentionally lies)

   I find it impossible to completely defer to that kind of mind, that kind of thinking, that kind of black and white assertion where in fact Ernie has the colors flip but is still insisting he does not. It's fundamental. He puts bitter for sweet. It's biblical. He's being the "liar from the beginning." He's being the son of Satan, by biblical definition, by doing what he's doing.

   Now, what happened is that Ernie was offended that I didn't change my position after having read his linked material but rather explained to him where he was failing to see the bigger picture. Rather than allow for that, he claimed about me what he was doing, namely becoming hostile when confronted by someone who knows more than he does about a subject.

   I did not take Ernie's documents away from him. I did not say they were useless or worthless or that he had wasted his time, etc., in acquiring them.... I did say (by implication) that it would be wrong to conclude that the amount of money Fred Koch gave the JBS not being shown in FBI files (is that the case?) definitely means that he gave no money at all, ever. It does not necessarily follow. It is an illogical, final conclusion. More importantly though is that the FBI as a witness has been impeached over and over and over, yet Ernie will trust them for what he demands are worthy reasons, such as numbering systems he insists couldn't have been tampered with by FBI document-experts, etc. It's not logical. He is insisting, though, because he's built up everything upon it.

   Is it okay that a qualifier be added where ever it is stated that Fred Koch gave JBS enough money to signify? Why not? I don't have, and never have had, problems with possibly finding out such things. Rather, Ernie has been offended by my focus that has called into question Ernie's claims that don't hold up on their face. He has selectively avoided those points and, as you will see below, continually attempted to reframe my post, my topic, to narrow it down to something where he is still jumping to false conclusions (misreading me). He has also been offended by and become hostile about my statements that he clearly has an agenda that colors his reporting in ways that should not if he really wants to be as neutral and objective as he claims.

   As for the issue of funding, I don't take FBI files as the final say. Back when Fred Koch was an international business man, he was doing business where he would not have obtained huge foreign contracts (which he did, including with Soviet Russia) without bribing people. It was standard operating procedure. It's the ostensible reason the United States pushed through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as late as 1977. Before that, U.S. companies "legally" bride people all over the world. They even wrote it off their corporate income taxes as a business expense. After 1977, other countries only slowly came on board. The issue is still very hot. Just check into BAE and the Saudi Royal Family, where literally billions were handled as slush funds.

   Slush funds are interesting to our discussion here. Ernie and the FBI certainly can not rule out slush funds where Fred Koch and the JBS are concerned. It would be stupid to rule them out considering the big picture. Even high-ranking JBS members (if their words can be trusted) cannot rule it out. Who can say emphatically that Fred didn't hand over untraceable cash in the furtherance of the JBS? One can at best say that there might not be enough hard evidence to say that it happened. I would wonder about all the smoke if there is no fire though.

   I have no problem, based upon Ernie's statements, with qualifying the statement about Fred Koch and the JBS by saying that one, Ernie Lazar, believes that there is insufficient evidence to support the claim and that it might have started as a mere rumor. I don't have a problem with putting some weight on Ernie's assertions based upon the documents he's obtained and gone over. However, also based upon the back and forth I've had with Ernie, as shown in the totality of this discussion thread, I don't put my full faith in Ernie's analytical and interpretive abilities. I reserve judgment about that. I wasn't born yesterday, and I've seen a huge range in people's abilities. Ernie hasn't demonstrated to me that he is careful enough such that I could just defer to him. If he doesn't like that, well what can be done about it?

   So, I would continue looking at leads. It certainly doesn't seem out of character that Fred Koch would have funded the JBS. Was he a member? Who were the richest people listed on the JBS stationery? Did Fred Koch deny the association? Did he deny having funded the JBS? What corrupt business practices are known about Fred Koch and his privately held companies?

   In addition, the statement that Fred Koch funded the JBS certainly doesn't say that no one else gave them money. It's almost as if people take it that way: without Fred Koch, the JBS would necessarily not have had enough financial backing from anywhere else to have shown up on the national radar screen. It's my understanding that H. L. Hunt was involved. Perhaps Ernie will flip out over that too. He might insist that the FBI file dictate that the Hunt's had nothing to do with the John Birch Society so therefore they couldn't have.

   Here's an interesting link: THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY

   Finally, concerning this funding issue that set off Ernie, I'm not convince that Ernie hasn't jumped to his conclusion by way of thinking that because Ernie thinks Koch was "mostly just a name on stationery" that that necessarily rules out money. It does not. Ernie may have more information on that, but the way he worded his reply suggests that Ernie may have jumped to that sweeping conclusion:

   Second, the "Koch family" did not finance the JBS. Only one member of that family was involved with the JBS and his role was very insignificant---mostly just a name on its stationery.

   It is also worth pointing out that Fred Koch was the patriarch of his family. If Ernie wants to treat Fred Koch as not the head of the house of Koch, the family Koch, in this manner, then let him cooperate to define the terms of the debate before going off halfcocked. Defining terms is how I started out with him. It's why I mentioned, to the point of clearly emphasizing, semantics, etc. That approach/thinking went completely missing with Ernie. He has his rigid, structured language that others must speak, and Ernie is not going to learn any damned language of any revelation of Jesus. In Ernie's view, as you will see below, it is absurd even to suggest his religion matters here. This is why I can't get anywhere with Ernie. It is not because I have been unwilling or unable to comprehend Ernie's position and statements, far from it. I knew how to speak Ernie's language before I learned Jesus's. Ernie doesn't appreciate it, as you will see below.

   So, we got off to a bad start and haven't recovered if such recovery is possible with Ernie. I did call for a truce but was met with what I take as more spit.

   Please understand here that I wrote a post about Rush Limbaugh and Ernie replied to it with errors from my perspective. Ernie has written in Ernie's report things that attempt to support Limbaugh's false position that Nazism was socialism rather than rightwing fascism. (Yes, I've seen Hitler's references to socialism. I read lots of things attributed to Hitler. I did that on purpose. Hitler was an imperial monarch — the sovereign — in the making, far from a socialist.) I pointed this out right from the start. Ernie ignored it and rather went for selective items:

   • Whether he's rewarded (by the spirit of Satan is what I meant but he didn't get that)
   • The issue of Koch supporting/funding the JBS, and
   • The issue of J. Edgar Hoover and the Palmer Raids mentality and what that probably (I believe it does, for a number of reasons) tells us about Hoover's ideas and real plans during and around the McCarthy Era, contrary to what Hoover "documented" such that people like Ernie might later see

   Ernie cannot ever understand why I hold the way I do about Nazism, Fascism, Socialism, and Liberalism without coming to understand "liberal" as used by Isaiah, whom Jesus understood and upon whose scripture Jesus built. I've attempted to engage Ernie in that, but he refused at every turn — his loss.

   The date/time stamp of the following comment is correct:

   
   
   
3. Tom Usher
   Sunday, June 14, 2009 @ 8:22:36 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   Ernie Lazar,

   You read into my statement an exclusion of retirement funds and their source. You worked for someone for your money. You worked within a system for those funds. That system is no fabrication.

   Secondly, the Birchers are not as well-defined as you make them out to be. The Koch family does not have to hand money directly to anyone to fund and facilitate them. However, there is the following:

   The Koch Brothers
   Charles Koch ($19 billion) and David Koch ($19 billion)

   Studies show that the most likely job of any child is that of their parents. If your mom or dad is a janitor, you’re more likely to be a janitor than anything else, according to the statistics.

   Charles and David Koch are no exception to the rule—only much luckier. Like their father, Fred Koch, they run the largest privately owned energy company in the U.S. Koch Industries—with annual revenues nearing $100 billion—is also one of the biggest polluters in history.

   Fred founded Koch Industries in 1940, and during the Second World War, he made a bundle helping the USSR’s ruler Joseph Stalin build up an energy infrastructure in his country. After the war, however, Fred "saw the light" and became one of the founders of the right-wing anti-Communist John Birch Society, which helped whip up a hysteria during the McCarthyite witch-hunts of the 1950s.

   When Charles and David took over the family business, they also took over dad’s right-wing political projects. The Koch Brothers fund a host of conservative groups through the Koch Family Foundations. They founded the pro-corporate libertarian Cato Institute [wicked tobacco pushers], and David Koch was the vice-presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party in 1980.

   The brothers also provide money to Americans for Prosperity, the outfit that helped organize the right-wing "tea parties" earlier this year and that toured non-plumber Samuel Wurzelbacher (a.k.a. Joe the Plumber) through Pennsylvania to present a "working-class" speaker against the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation that would make it easier for working people to organize unions. (Source: "How the other 0.00000003 percent lives," Voltaire Network. June 8, 2009.)

   Now, if that's wrong, please take it up with that site's owners(s) and keep me apprised; but don't waste my time with idiotic propaganda.

   While you are at it, you might want to go edit the Wikepedia article on Fred Koch that says, "Koch was also a founding member of the John Birch Society."

   Also, concerning J. Edgar Hoover, you didn't address the Palmer Raids. Why not? Do you hold with those raids?

   It is not "an outrageous and deliberate lie" that he proposed confining American citizens in camps. It is ridiculous to say that Hoover was not putting forth the plan as consistent with his opinion concerning the Communist Party and its members. You appeal to Hoover's propaganda when you speak of his concern by citing "due process rights." COINTELPRO and FBI agents provocateurs shows exactly where Hoover stood concerning Americans' civil rights.

   You are an apologist for J. Edgar Hoover. You seem to assume or at least hope that others will be so naive and gullible as to buy into the idea that Hoover would have wanted all those concerning who he had no evidence to walk free within 24 hours.

   Is it mundanely illegal to espouse Marx? Then is it to be mundanely illegal to espouse Jesus? How about the Talmud? The real law is the New Commandment. I cannot coerce with violence. Hoover could and did. His spirit is not in my Heaven.

   Anyway, the questions are also if a war were to have broken out, why would it have done so and why was it ever a "crime" to be a member of the Communist Party in the U.S. Perhaps then it should be a crime to be a member of the Republican or Democratic parties because I don't hold with their platforms and more importantly their actions that are evil. Well, there are not such parties in Heaven. Thank God!

   How dare you say that you "don't understand how [I] can call [myself] a Christian." You are one boldfaced spirit. Repent.

   Who pays you? You lose.

   Truth!

   Tom Usher

   
   
   
4. Ernie Lazar
   Monday, July 13, 2009 @ 11:23:51 AM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   Tom: Unlike yourself, I have the actual copies of memos that were exchanged between Hoover and various Attorneys General on the subject matter of detaining certain individuals in time of national emergency.

   Furthermore, I have the Bureau's entire Security Index file which includes the memos pertain to DETCOM (Detention of Communists).

   The TOTAL number of people listed on the DETCOM list was very small and it was limited to people who were thought likely to engage in sabotage, or who were likely to finance underground Communist operations, or who would engage in any sort of activity that would impede our national security---such as undermining the morale of our military forces in time of war.

   I repeat again: you are TOTALLY ignorant about this matter and you are substituting your personal bias for FACTUAL information.

   One does not have to be "an apologist" for Hoover to simply recognize that FACTUAL data is important to any principled discussion.

   Finally, with respect to Fred Koch --- once again, unlike yourself, I have copies of documents regarding meetings of the Birch Society National Council plus I have acquired over the past 40 years a considerable amount of private correspondence between and among the original founding members of the Society. Consequently, I have a FACTUAL basis to make judgments about the roles played by each of those individuals.

   Fred Koch was NOT a major figure with the JBS. He rarely attended the quarterly National Council meetings. He almost never gave any interviews. He had no impact upon the JBS movement in his state.

   Apparently, you are so naive and gullible that you think Wikipedia is always the last, final word about everything. Wikipedia is NOT an encylopedia. Its articles are NOT written by or peer-reviewed by experts in the subject matters they discuss. For example: the Wikipedia article on the John Birch Society has been revised DOZENS of times and if you look at the "discussion" page you will notice that there STILL is a major argument over what should and should not be included.

   Furthermore, I personally have corrected NUMEROUS factual errors in Wikipedia articles--including by ignoramuses like yourself whose zeal and ideology overcomes their reasoning ability.

   
   
   
5. Tom Usher
   Monday, July 13, 2009 @ 6:44:05 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   Look Ernie Lazar,

   J. Edgar Hoover was an ass. He was a lying ass. He sent agents into organizations to stir up trouble that would never have occurred otherwise.

   He had his underlings create fake documents. What you possess you can't prove is even at all an accurate description of reality. COINTELPRO really happened, Ernie.

   Hoover's 1958 publication MASTERS OF DECEIT: THE STORY OF COMMUNISM IN AMERICA AND HOW TO FIGHT IT:
   Thus the Party, through its specialized and immediate demands, is able to gain entree into various groups and create favorable working conditions for future revolutionary action. Very quickly, for example:

   • veterans' meeting endorses "peace."
   • nationality festival passes a resolution for "peace."
   • youth affair favors "peace."
   • neighborhood group comes out for "peace."
   • women's rally fights for "peace."

   Whatever its composition, the group, once under communist control, is switched to the Party line. The feigned interest in legitimate demands is merely a trap.

   Even holidays are used to enhance the Party's aims. For example, the Daily Worker once headlined a story "Mothers' Day to Be Marked by Peace Tables..." Postcards should be distributed on Mother's Day, the story continued, "declaring the deepest need of all American mothers to be a ban on A and H-bombs..."

   What a bunch of utter crap that was, Ernie. Hoover would have put Jesus down in Hoover's little black book as the dupe of Marx.

   Hoover wasn't the hero. Frank Church was much more the hero, although he didn't go nearly far enough.

   You think that the NSA should have been allowed to do a total warrantless dragnet on domestic communications? Don't tell me they didn't. I have firsthand knowledge about it. It happened directly to me. I had asked the PLO what evidence they had about the Kach and Meir Kahane and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. I'm not going to share more with you about my personal experience with the NSA, CIA, and FBI; so don't ask me to. You are far from trustworthy. I include those Wiki links for the sake of the general readership, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. I don't hold out the Wikipedia as the Gospel. It's a propaganda war zone just as all the media.

   You jumped to a completely wild conclusion (no facts) that because I suggested you might want to edit a Wikipedia article that that necessarily means I believed about the Wikipedia all that you claimed I must have therefore believed about them. Yet, you think you are so smart to come here to debate. What's more, you won't apologize about this. You'll just come back with more of the same.

   The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., really happened with the FBI right there.

   You like capitalism. You like secret agents. You like the bull about the war on terror, don't you? You buy and sell crap, false-propaganda.

   Did you sell the lies that were used as a pretext to invade Iraq, or were you as I was, one who called them lies the moment they were rolled out?

   You don't have Hoover's files. They were moved and supposedly destroyed. You have nothing that proves Hoover's benignity. He was a malignant cancer who is dead and not in Heaven. He was not next to God. You're a fool to be defending the FBI and/or Hoover, and you are doing that despite feigned objectivity. You have an ego problem about your father.

   You think that the memos that flowed weren't couched? What is wrong with you?

   You think that the detention of communists would have stopped were your stupid memos claim? Tell it to the Japanese-Americans who were interned. Tell it to all the people rounded up and held without evidence during the Palmer-Hoover Raids.

   Take your "national security" baloney and peddle it somewhere else. You're a dupe and willing minion for the greedy, violent, decadent Empire, just as was Hoover without a doubt.

   "...personal bias...." is right, and it's not based upon falsehood. The results of Hoover's police-state tactics were and are on full display. I know him by his fruit. I know who you are by the same token.

   "...principled discussion...." Sure, when Jesus was being tempted by Satan, it was just Satan's attempt to engage Jesus in a "principled discussion." After all, the fact was and is that anyone who bowed down to worship him was given raw military power. Might makes right in that book. What principles are you talking about. You're being an unprincipled-Machiavellian troll whether you think so or not.

   As for Fred Koch, did you take it up with voltairenet.org?
   If so, tell me where it's posted. I want to see your comments there and their reply.

   As for your utterly moronic and baseless assumption that I agree with everything on the Wikipedia, I've written posts about the CIA troll-editors who have been caught falsely propagandizing the Wikipedia. So, you're in the dark on that too.

   You stink at your troll job, Ernie. This is spiritual warfare, and you're unarmed. You aren't winning and never will. Your side fails. Fascism loses. You better get right with God before it's too late.

   You're all swelled up with yourself and your files. Well, let me tell you something, God knows better than do you, or do you doubt that?

   Jesus didn't have the "files" of the Pharisees, Ernie. He didn't need them to know what was really going on.

   The U.S. is a military bully. It's an economic and military bully that is fast showing its truly depraved stripes; and if it continues without repenting, it will crash and crash to dust. Hoover was a huge "success" in sustaining the imperial build-up. I don't and never have held with the violent Marxists. I don't and never have held with Hoover either.

   Hoover was a game player. He did his dirty work behind the scenes well out of your ability to ferret out with the documents that he let survive and to be placed where little minds could get them to help continue the scam that is the American Ponzi scheme.

   Hoover had enough real dirt on people that he could have exposed the lies for the real sake of the people. He never did it. He was about empire building. The FBI was his violent, bureaucratic empire. Destroying the wicked powers that be would have meant self-destruction of his own wicked device: the FBI.

   Take your garbage propaganda and try to pass it off as principled to the unrighteous, non-believers, Ernie. I don't fall for Satanism. If you don't want to continue falling, you better compare your files against the news from Jesus's mouth.

   Don't post here again unless it's to repent. Do you have an aptitude?

   
   
   
6. Ernie Lazar
   Monday, July 13, 2009 @ 8:17:31 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   There are so many malicious falsehoods in your reply that it would take me 10 or 15 pages to respond with appropriate factual rebuttal.

   However, briefly:
   (1) Our nation's most knowledgeable scholar about FBI history (and Hoover) is, arguably, Dr. Athan Theoharis. Much of the FACTUAL information that has been discovered about illegal and/or morally indefensible FBI activities was discovered and publicized by Dr. Theoharis. However, acknowledging that the FBI sometimes engaged in indefensible and illegal activities does not mean one must agree with every cock-a-mamie allegation that is made. Valuing factual data is NOT the same as "defending" Hoover.
   (2) Some of Hoover's personal files were destroyed but there were copies of documents from those files which were placed in other files and many of those documents are still available. [Tom Usher: It's the ones that were destroyed where no copies exist that matter most. The surviving documents are damning. Consider the files that were destroyed the contents of which would have brought down the Empire, just as many of the recent revelations are mounding up on top of all preceding revelations that all point to the inevitable conclusion that the system is inherently evil and fatally flawed and must and will go. You are mistaken if you think you can prevent that by painting me with Eustace Mullins or by condemning me for citing the same sources you do and secondary sources and for not just taking your word and interpretation but rather further questioning you and refining.] As you correctly point out, the Church Committee revealed a lot of unfavorable information about the FBI --- but this was possible because the incriminating documents have NOT been destroyed. [Tom Usher: What about Richard Nixon's CIA Director, Richard Helms, ordering the destruction of the incriminating CIA's MKULTRA files in 1973, Ernie? What do you know about what was in those files since you don't have them?]
   (3) With respect to Iraq, I opposed our intervention from the outset and I continue to do so. Your malicious falsehoods and insinuations about my actual position are simply straw man hallucinations which you attribute to me.
   (4) You obviously cannot abide anyone who knows more about any subject than you do and you become hostile when corrected. That is why NOBODY quotes you. NOBODY recommends you or your website.

   
   
   
7. Ernie Lazar
   Monday, July 13, 2009 @ 8:35:11 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   One final point regarding your following comment:

   "As for Fred Koch, did you take it up with voltairenet.org?
   If so, tell me where it's posted. I want to see your comments there and their reply."

   The brief synopsis about the Koch family on that webpage is accurate with one exception. Neither of Koch's sons have (to my knowledge) funded or supported any right-wing extremist organizations. They HAVE funded and supported standard conservative and libertarian organizations.

   [Tom Usher says:

   Ernie Lazar has said that the Koch brothers don't support wicked causes, such as the John Birch Society that Ernie identifies as evil (not his word; his terms are "standard conservative and libertarian organizations" versus "right-wing extremist organizations").

   All you need to do is Google what's between the following parentheses ("Americans for Prosperity" "Koch Industries") to get a huge list of links to sites that document how the Koch brothers support what is called Astroturfing where company employees (captives who had better not refuse if they know what's good for them; it's illegal actually) could be bussed by the thousands, on company time and at company expense in many instances, to various staged, political rallies and town hall meetings for and against political positions as dictated by those employers, who hold huge economic threats over the employees who are therefore under duress in many instances. Wait for some to be terminated and can feel free to discuss how they were coerced into participating.

   The Koch brothers (two of them) control Koch Industries and the Koch Family Foundation. Through those entities, those brothers manipulate employees and the public via unethical and deceptive means concerning the hugely important political and societal issues of the day affecting the entire planet's current and future health.

   Those Koch brothers have lobbied hard (funded lobbyists) against climate change legislation and against any public aspect for universal healthcare among other things. I raise these points solely to show the evil that is greed. Those Koch brothers' greed causes them to go against what is best for the whole of humanity. They are being wicked, selfish, and shortsighted — all synonyms.

   Are they boogiemen? Yes, they are real boogiemen. They are possessed by evil spirits and they manifest that evil outwardly. It's a self-evident fact. The evil is obvious and undeniable. Only wicked souls will say there is no evil there.]

   
   In any event, my original point still stands. Fred Koch was too busy with his businesses to become very involved with the Birch Society. His JBS involvement was inconsequential -- particularly in comparison to other JBS National Council members. But if you prefer to create a boogeyman--be my guest. It only reveals you to be a fool.

   As often happens with inherited wealth, the sons discard the political beliefs of the father.

   For example: Berkshire Hathway Inc. billionaire Warren Buffet's father (Cong. Howard Buffet) was a JBS member whereas Warren in no way subscribes to his father's wacko conspiracy ideas.

   Your comments about this (and the other matters we have discussed) reveals that you have VERY superficial knowledge.

   You cherry-pick a few unrelated pieces of information and then pretend you have thoroughly examined and evaluated the most compelling available data about any subject under scrutiny.

   You throw around terms like COINTELPRO -- but it is highly unlikely that you have any real understanding of how the program originated OR what is was designed to accomplish OR what specific activities were undertaken in pursuit of the several different COINTELPRO programs which the FBI created. By contrast, just FYI, I have many thousands of pages from FBI COINTELPRO files --and-- one of my friends is one of our nation's foremost scholars on the FBI's COINTELPRO program. In fact, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject and he has written and been published extensively in numerous scholarly journals.

   You, sir, are a fraud.

   
   
   
8. Tom Usher
   Monday, July 13, 2009 @ 10:05:01 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   Okay, Ernie, those were your last comments that will be allowed here.

   If it would take 10 to 15 pages to respond, then get your own blog and do it. What's your problem? Are you afraid of the comments you'll get?

   Who agrees "with every cock-a-mamie allegation that is made"? You throw this stuff out there while saying nothing of value.

   ...acknowledging that the FBI sometimes engaged in indefensible and illegal activities does not mean one must agree with every cock-a-mamie allegation that is made.

   What it does mean, however, is that one cannot put his full faith and trust in the FBI at any point. You claim you have verified sufficiently. You have given your reasons. They aren't good enough for me. I don't trust what you are trusting for the reasons you give. Your reasons aren't convincing enough for me to place full trust. Your reasons haven't overcome my doubt in the FBI. I still doubt them and the documents they've given you. The documents might be accurate, as in they didn't monkey with them before they gave them to you, but even if they didn't, I still don't know, and you don't know, the degree to which they mischaracterized for the sake of manipulation later on, such as right now with you.

   Furthermore, you use the term "insinuations" but you never ask. You just assume.

   Also, what's the difference between "right-wing extremist organizations" (John Birch Society) and "standard conservative and libertarian organizations" (Cato Institute)? I know there are differences, but you legitimize Cato in some way that you don't legitimize the JBS, where I do not. I find the Cato Institute reprehensible and don't trust your judgment. You're a loose canon.

   Fred Koch was too busy with his businesses to become very involved with the Birch Society. His JBS involvement was inconsequential -- particularly in comparison to other JBS National Council members. But if you prefer to create a boogeyman--be my guest. It only reveals you to be a fool.

   "...create a boogeyman...." Fred Koch, whether or not he funded the JBS, showed himself an enemy of Christ. You think that everything here rises or falls on the number of dollars Fred Koch gave toward the JBS? You think you've exonerated Fred Koch's pollution? You have some FBI documents from which you've concluded/assumed that Koch didn't cut any checks or reach into his wallet for cash. I notice that nowhere did you say that the FBI files state that Koch gave no money. Yet, you call me the fool without cause and say that I bear false witness against you.

   You say that the FBI engaged in illegal and/or morally indefensible ... activities, but you can't see the forest for the trees. You're into the minutia but aren't seeing the big picture. You have shown that you are prepared to trust the documents of an untrustworthy enterprise.

   Did you break in and get info that was never supposed to get out? Did you have a mole who wasn't tricking you? Did you have a real whistleblower? Notice the question marks. Do you know a question from an emphatic statement?

   Also, the Church Committee was in 1975. Had it been in 1971 before Hoover died in the flesh, things might have been much different. Your idea that Hoover did not prearrange that the things he never wanted to get out were available elsewhere is just your opinion. The documents that had been duplicated were not the most sensitive. How can you discount how bad the one-off files in Hoover's office were? At the time, shortly after his death, nobody suggested that everything in Hoover's office was a duplicate. You know that.

   In addition, for a person who claims to be a document researcher and analyst of any note, why don't you try responding to questions as questions rather than as, "malicious falsehoods and insinuations about [your] actual position are simply straw man hallucinations which [I] attribute to [you]." You're being a jerk.

   I asked you a question. I didn't make a statement. The point was, if you didn't believe the lies about Iraq, then why are you so quick to believe the documents that you have that are only copies anyway? You aren't nearly as bright as you think you are. You haven't shown that you know anything of value over and above what I know.

   I have never claimed to know all the facts in the world. There are people with more of an encyclopedic mind than mine especially in their specialties. That though does not necessarily mean they have a better handle on truth.

   You obviously cannot abide anyone who knows more about any subject than you do and you become hostile when corrected.

   What were you doing when you thought that up, looking in the mirror?

   I know plenty of people who know more about certain subjects than do I, and I get alone with them famously.

   What is hostility? Have I antagonized you? I have no bitterness toward you. Grudges are not my thing. Does that bother you? I forgive you, but you still haven't repented. I mentioned God and Jesus. You've obviously avoided both. You have a big problem.

   As for being corrected, you haven't corrected me. You provided nothing. All you've said in essence is that you demand that I see things your way. Well, no way.

   Lastly, you are an ignoramus to say that nobody recommends me or this site. This site has been commended many times by a diverse audience. What's your problem? Are you jealous? Where's your website with all the lauding links? Who holds you out as the expert you claim to be? Actually, it doesn't matter, does it?

   It appears that you are attempting to use the statements that others have made about you against me.

   Go build your ego. Get a site. Defend yourself. Write a book. Become a best seller. Get loads of links. Signify absolutely nothing in Heaven.

   You're an expert in the obvious, Ernie. Do you really think that you've taught me that not all sons follow after their fathers? Have you read the Bible? Do you know my long family history?

   "...right-wing extremist organizations. They HAVE funded and supported standard conservative and libertarian organizations." What's the difference? You just don't get it if you're even trying to be honest about it? Standard conservative and libertarian organizations are antichrist. Where do you think you are commenting? Wake up!

   David Rockefeller ran the day-to-day affairs of the Trilateral Commission to have founded it, is that your level of thinking? Well here's a huge sarcastic "brilliant" for you. Do you know who is the richest person in the world? Do you think you know? Brother

   "Fred Koch was too busy with his businesses to become very involved with the Birch Society." Oh, that proves he wasn't a reactionary Bircher for you does it. Does Satan exist? Do you know? Do you have a file on him?

   "Berkshire Hathway Inc. billionaire Warren Buffet's father (Cong. Howard Buffet) was a JBS member whereas Warren in no way subscribes to his father's wacko conspiracy ideas." He has his own set of wacko ideas. Anyway, not everything JBS is wacko. They have their partial-truths just as do you.

   "Your comments about this (and the other matters we have discussed) reveals that you have VERY superficial knowledge." What's the subject matter? You have revealed nothing here. You are incapable of connecting the dots. Your worldview is shallow. You have your nose on the documents. Try backing off to look at what they tell you.

   What were the Pentagon Papers, just a bunch of pages to be parsed or did they say something about inherent evil underlying the whole system that you apparently can't see or just want to fool others into not seeing?

   You cherry-pick a few unrelated pieces of information and then pretend you have thoroughly examined and evaluated the most compelling available data about any subject under scrutiny.

   That's total baloney. I have never held that out. You can't demonstrate that I've done any of that. You stink as a prosecutor. God's the jury by the way.

   There's your problem right there: "unrelated." You can't see relationships that are right there in plain site. Let me ask you, did the Pharisees conspire to have Jesus murdered? You're working for evil, Ernie. Go ahead, jump to some more stupid conclusions rather than thinking first. Reading your mind? Is it possible?

   "...throw around terms like COINTELPRO...." Mentioning COINTELPRO in conjunction with a discussion concerning Hoover and providing a link is to be throwing it around? What kind of thought-terminating garbage is that? You have no idea about what I know about COINTELPRO. Do you have my file? Even if you did, how would you know whether you have the whole thing and which parts are made up?

   but it is highly unlikely that you have any real understanding of how the program originated OR what is was designed to accomplish OR what specific activities were undertaken in pursuit of the several different COINTELPRO programs which the FBI created.

   You have no idea the circles I've run in, but you think it's highly unlikely...blah, blah, blah.

   What do I know about the Mafia? You haven't a clue, but you're sort of sure enough about the FBI that you can call me a fraud. You're a dangerous person. You are your own worst enemy.

   You, sir, are a fraud.

   Based upon a "highly unlikely" in your mind, you can charge me with being a fraud. Do you know the penalty for bearing false witness? I do.

   You have to account for every one of your idle words here.

   one of my friends is one of our nation's foremost scholars on the FBI's COINTELPRO program. In fact, he wrote his doctoral dissertation on the subject and he has written and been published extensively in numerous scholarly journals.

   I'm not impressed. It proves nothing. You savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

   If he's so great and you're his friend, why didn't you name him (Dr. Athan Theoharis)? Plenty of total airheads match his description concerning myriad subjects.

   What are you, an atheist? You can't see any better than one. That's for sure.

   Any further submission from you, Ernie, along the same lines will be treated for what your comments have already become by definition, which is trolling commentary. Forewarned is forearmed.

   Peace

   
   
   
9. Tom Usher
   Sunday, July 19, 2009 @ 7:31:27 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   J. Edgar Hoover said that COINTELPRO was "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities."

   • He conducted illegal wiretaps.
   • He got the IRS to harass people via audits at his whim.
   • He had his agents illegally (warrants or not) to break into private property to steal or copy documents and to plant eavesdropping devices.
   • He had his agents plant false stories in the media.
   • He lied and cheated to do all of that. He lied to people about other people to get them all arguing with each other rather than focusing on what Hoover was building up and seeking to maintain, which was and remains inherently evil.
   • He selected his targets based upon his ideological views.
   • He was paid well for it and given immense power and impunity.

   Do you automatically trust the file-copies that come out from the FBI, or do you look at the fruit of J. Edgar Hoover's ideology and the ideology of those who paid him — the plutocrats he wouldn't touch because they could have crushed him and taken away his power and authority in an instant?

   Ernie Lazar (aka ernie1241) doesn't subscribe to Jesus's instruction that we shall know people by their results. People say plenty. What they do often belies their mouths.

   What was the result of J. Edgar Hoover's work? Was he fighting only against all that is unholy, or was he fighting for only that which is unholy?

   Ernie doesn't understand that Jesus teaches correctly when he says that Satan sets demons against each other and hence Satan's house falls (faster than he can build it).

   Were the means of J. Edgar Hoover to result in Heaven on Earth? Was that Hoover's goal? Whose means and ends are to do that and will do that though — bring Heaven to Earth? What is Heaven? How does one get there by behaving contrary to it: Heaven?

   Ernie doesn't bother with those questions. He rather poses a whole set of questions designed to lower the emotions to completely mundane considerations all to avoid seeing what is by its results.

   He is, therefore, not a man of God.

   The John Birch Society and it's founder, Robert Welch, held out and still hold out to varying degrees, a semantical view that Communism and communism are to be defined as fitting their assertions about Communism and communism. Everyone does this. It is not possible not to. The arguments in this worldly world are semantical. What is "Heaven"? Define it.

   That's what Jesus was about doing and still is doing for those who believe him, as do I. What is it like? What is Heaven like? Is it capitalism or communism? I don't mean Marxism, of course. Marx was an atheist who didn't believe in spirit, while God is spirit.

   Ernie holds with giving weight to things by virtue of elitist popularity. He weighs the value of his position according to how many "experts" mutually support Ernie's whole worldview that is exclusive of Jesus Christ.

   Now, Ernie came here with an agenda. He knew where he was commenting. His intention was to discredit anything he could in a vain attempt to bring down the house.

   His prime claim is that Fred Koch was not a "founder" of the John Birch Society (JBS). Ernie uses as evidence certain FBI documents. Around and around she goes....

   Ernie claims he's a libertarian. You can do a Google search yourself: http://www.google.com/search?&.....gar+Hoover

   He wrote here that Fred Koch's sons didn't follow after their father. One of Fred's sons funds the Cato Institute. (http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....oundatio n)

   Well, I've written plenty about the Cato Institute. Cato was big on tobacco. It's was/is a libertarian thing. "I have the right to ruin my own health." Well, the issue was really about capitalists having the "right" to addict others and to give them cancer and heart disease while lying through their teeth about it. That's was/is Cato. Ernie calls David Koch a supporter of "principled" conservative/libertarian causes.

   Oh, Ernie could spin this endlessly for his masters. Ernie is an "independent researcher." Ernie is retired he says. No one pays him he claims.

   Ernie, Satan pays you. You work for him. Everything isn't defined by checks for the unrighteous mammon still flowing directly from your mundanely understood employer. Your spiritual employer is Satan by the very fact that you are anti-Christ: against Jesus, which you clearly are.

   It all comes down to this. This is the only war.

   Let no one forget that Koch is oil and oil is money and Empire (worldly Empire). "Another Oily Tie That Binds: Koch Industries," by Wayne Madsen, Special to CorpWatch. February 14, 2002.

   Notice how one of the Koch brothers blows the whistle on his two brothers (who according to Ernie, aren't chips off the old block):

   Bill Koch, a brother of Charles and David, told CBS's 60 Minutes II last year that Koch Industries is "engaged in "organized crime." The company has been fined for environmental spillages in Texas and has been accused of ripping off oil from native American tribal lands in Oklahoma.

   So, who is Ernie? Where did he work before "retiring"?

   The JBS has been discredited in the mass media. Of course the two Koch brothers distanced themselves. What they are still doing though is dirty oil. They are paying out multimillions to twist minds, brainwash, hypnotize, the masses into the confused position of supporting oil burning, as if it's some sort of God-given energy gift to humanity and no problem for the planet. That's what selfishness does. It recruits in unholiness.

   Now, where do they find their recruits? They find them amongst those who are most dead set in favor of that which runs most contrary to giving and sharing all with all. That means those who are the most antichrist whether or not they recognize that terrible failing within themselves. These are the Libertarians. These are the little fry, capitalist, dupes and minions.

   Jesus was and is a communist. He was never and is not now a Marxist. Figure it out! He forced no one. He forced no one to reap the rewards of unselfishness in the end. He still stops no one from reaping the punishing rewards of selfishness in the end. He only tells the truth. You can try to spin his parables to say otherwise, but it doesn't work. You can try to spin the cleaning of the temple. You can try to spin the parables about the king and cutting souls to pieces. You can try to spin the parables about mammon into Jesus's support for capitalism, but it's all a lie. You can try to spin his words into self-licensing of sexual iniquity too. If you do any of that spinning rather than seeking the whole truth, you are following liars who are following liars and on and on right back to the beginning of lies.

   There is no violence, no money, and no sex in Heaven. Figure it out!

   Look, if you want to delve into all of this, you'll have to look into Freemasonry, the Mormons, and all the Zionist interconnections. It's muddled, but that's Satan's way.

   That's Ezra Taft Benson (1965) who was the most powerful Mormon politician in Washington, D.C., up to the present. He states quite clearly that the then President of the Mormons endorsed his speech. The Presidents of the Mormon Church are considered infallible prophets in matters of faith and daily living. The Mormons are highly militaristic, capitalistic, and secretive in matters of sex and their so-called esoteric religious rites. Ezra falsely conflated Jesus with the Americanism of Ezra Taft Benson's defining. The Mormon President and Benson were completely wrong.

   Now, if you think that Koch's oil isn't a curse, read this (if you can finish it — not the author's fault): "THE CURSE ON THE KOCH BROTHERS ONE OF THE BIGGEST FAMILY FEUDS IN BUSINESS HISTORY MAY SOON COME TO A CLIMAX. YOU THOUGHT $1 BILLION COULD BUY HAPPINESS? NOT FOR THESE GUYS," by Brian O'Reilly and Patty De Llosa. CNNMoney. February 17, 1997.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....d_H._Ko ch
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....rles_Koc h

   "The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard," by David Gordon. LewRockwell.com. April 22, 2008.

   By the way, the Bible is loaded with family evil. It's the whole point of Jesus's movement — to get people to come to understand how we humans should be and can be (at least some of us). If you can be, you will be.

   Then, consider where "Ernie Lazar" fits into all of this.

   Peace

   
   
   
10. Tom Usher
    Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:26:34 PM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    Under attorney general A. Mitchell Palmer, J. Edgar Hoover crushed the socialist/populist unions, especially the Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World). They deported some 16,000 organizers in 1919-20 even though there was no hard evidence against them.

    It was just the Red Scare, and we can't be sure that the "anarchist" bombs sent to politicians weren't, to some large degree, false-flag for a pretext for the deportations.

    Don't necessarily buy everything in the following linked page. Just consider that J. Edgar Hoover is far from the final word. I don't automatically trust any of his judgments or hand-written annotations. He always appeared to be manipulating for confused, ultimately sinister ends.

    http://www.marxists.org/archiv.....unions.htm

    There is plenty more on the Internet about Hoover and the Palmer Raids too.

    
    
    
11. Tom Usher
    Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:39:28 PM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    Recently declassified documents reveal that in 1950, Hoover, the former FBI Director, wanted authorization to lock up some 12,000 people Hoover wanted the government to consider basically treasonous. The plan hearkens back to the Palmer Raids he directed in 1919-1921 against radical leftists (like Jesus) in the United States. People were labeled as violent anarchists. Most of them were immigrants. The truth is that there were militants who did commit violence; however, many innocents were rounded up as well. The militancy of some was used as an excuse to purge the country of egalitarianism, to throw the fear into those who would stand up for even real Christian principles.

    In 1950, Hoover planned to suspend the right of the Writ of Habeas Corpus. He wanted his plan to extend to territory "legally" occupied by U.S. troops.

    He wanted hearings to "not be bound by the rules of evidence."

    Here's in-depth coverage: "FBI's Hoover Planned Mass U.S. Jailings: Report." The New York Times. December 22, 2007.

    The same mindset of Hoover back in 1950 is permeating the neocons today only worse. At least Hoover wanted to limit things to "legally" occupied territories — at least on paper, to begin with. The neocons today don't care that the Iraq War and U.S. occupation are illegal under the mundane international law to which the U.S. is signatory and bound under its own Constitution.

    The most important thing to observe is what didn't happen. There was Hoover wanting to go after 12,000 he fingered as dangerous. However, he didn't get his way and the 12,000 didn't go about committing terrorists acts.

    It must be stated that in light of the recent revelations about false-flag planning and operations carried out by the official U.S. government against itself and others, there is no telling, without serious historical investigation, the degree to which violence before the Palmer Raids was done via false-flag operations. We all know that Hoover had his agents infiltrate, and instigate violence within, groups he hated, including for racist reasons. His agents worked to divide groups and to turn them against each other. In fact, he incited violence against the citizenry of the United States, in whom the government rests. Therefore, it was Hoover who was treasonous. He worked to overthrow peaceful representative democracy by preventing people from duly organizing politically. In other words, he was a repressive jackboot on the necks of the poor whose faces he ground in the dirt.

    Thanks to truthout for providing a full copy of the article on The New York Times (cited above).

    According to the Constitution, habeas corpus must prevail "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." But Hoover's proposal broadened that to include "threatened invasion" or "attack upon United States troops in legally occupied territory," the Times said.

    Prisoners would have the right to an eventual hearing from a board made up of one judge and two citizens. The hearings, however, would "not be bound by the rules of evidence," Hoover's letter added.

    Oh yeah, J. Edgar Hoover would never....

    Ernie wrote:

    I am familiar with FBI history and your description of
    "Hoover's proposed plan to put all those who disagreed with his interpretation of Americanism into concentration camps" is such an outrageous and deliberate lie that I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian. The "plan" you are referring to, concerned ONLY what would happen to Communist Party members if there were to be a war between the U.S. and the USSR. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Hoover's opinions. In fact, when the Attorney General of the United States REQUESTED that Hoover develop some sort of "plan", it was Hoover who insisted that due process rights be afforded to anyone who was picked up and detained---i.e. specific evidence presented within 24 hours before a judge.

    What planet is Ernie living on? Hoover planned to imprison some 12,000 people on Hoover's list (his black book). It was the Palmer Raids redux.

    
    
    
12. Tom Usher
    Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:51:45 PM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    The cover on COINTELPRO was blown in 1971, when a group calling itself the Citizens' Committee to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office in Media, Pa., outside Philadelphia, and stole documents detailing parts of the operation. Hoover shut down the program a month later.

    The documents led to the 1976 congressional Church Committee - named for its Democratic chairman, Sen. Frank Church of Idaho - and investigations into the FBI and CIA. http://www.commondreams.org/ar.....7/03/10070

    
    
    
13. Tom Usher
    Sunday, July 26, 2009 @ 11:55:41 PM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson made an unprecedented grab for presidential power, and ordered his attorney general, Mitchell Palmer, to take whatever steps necessary to drive radicals, socialists and anarchists out of the country.

    During the Palmer Raids, tens of thousands of suspected radicals were detained without trial. Some were deported; many more were eventually released. Only a few were successfully prosecuted.

    Palmer said, "I apologize for nothing the Department of Justice has done in this matter; I glory in it."

    Palmer's protégé, a young attorney named J. Edgar Hoover, eventually became director of the FBI.

    During his 48-year tenure, the government spied on targets of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's communist witch hunts in the 1950s and mounted lurid dirty tricks campaigns against Martin Luther King Jr. and other political figures in the 1960s, creating more than 500,000 FBI investigative files on "subversives" from 1960 to 1974. Not one yielded a conviction. http://www.groundsforimpeachme.....ryexec.htm

    
    
    
14. Tom Usher
    Monday, July 27, 2009 @ 12:14:19 AM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    Reporter Tim Shorrock reaches as far back as the Regean Administration [meant Reagan] and culls evidence of a secret and potentially illegal database maintained by the National Security Administration called "Main Core." The existence of such a database has been the subject of speculation for years, but never confirmed. This database would presumably be the focus of any large-scale congressional investigation. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi.....spying.php

    Oh, it exists alright. It's so huge, they need huge facilities to handle it. Don't be fooled the the recently announced plans cover the whole thing.

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/f.....print.html

    Don't be fooled into thinking that the lines between all the agencies haven't been torn down to a great extent. There are still turf wars, but Cheney and Rumsfeld set out to destroy Frank Church's work and largely succeeded, since Obama is way too weak and ignorant to put things at all back. What we really need is to do away with the whole thing: total, global disarmament and an end to all espionage, etc.

    God can and would protect the planet. Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith?

    
    
    
15. Tom Usher
    Monday, August 3, 2009 @ 7:51:06 AM (Pacific Time)
    
    

    CATO INSTITUTE, WICKED HEALTH-STATUS INSURANCE, CHARLES KOCH, MURRAY ROTHBARD, ERNIE LAZAR, AND MORE

    
    
    

1. 
   
   Tom Usher
   

   Standing Comment, all posts and pages:

   To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:

   Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.

   Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.

   I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.

   Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.

   Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.

   ---

   The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.

   ---

   TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH

   Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.

   Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.

   If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?

   If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?

   If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?

   The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.

   What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?

   The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.

   Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.

   Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.

   What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.

   The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.

   I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.

   I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.

   Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?

   We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.

   Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.

   As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.

   Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.

   Now, if you submit a comment:

   • Will it be twisting my words or taking parts or the whole out of context (the biggest picture)?
   • Will it be with an eye to finding out first or attacking without knowing? What are your intentions? Are they good or evil?
   • Are you with the takers?
   • Are you with the oppressors?
   • Are you for greed, selfish hoarding, violence, war making?

     The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords. (Psalms 55:21)

   • Are you for depravity and harming others and yourself sexually and psychically, torture, waterboarding, espionage, deceiving, and/or all or any of the rest of the evil spirit; or are you contrite with me toward the real God who is always peace?
   • Will you submit your real full name or be cowardly without cause? (Some have some mundane fears? I don't seek anyone's unknowing, unwilling sacrifice.)
   • Will you post on the post to which you refer, or will you slip over somewhere else thinking you'll barb me? You won't. You'll barb yourself.
   • Will you "instruct" me, or will you look for mutual edification or spiritual growth?
   • Will you complain, attack, and seek to come off as offended for others and/or yourself, or will you truly seek ultimate truth and impart real light here and to the world?
   • Will you be nothing but an Internet troll?

   What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.

   Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.

Please Comment:

Navigation:
• Newer: ABDALLAH FAHD ABD AL-'AZIZ AL-NAFISI, REPORTED KUWAITI PROFESSOR: PREACHING SATANISM, ALLEGEDLY BROADCAST ON AL-JAZEERA TV, FEBRUARY 2, 2009 »
• Older: « RUSH LIMBAUGH SAYS JAMES VON BRUNN WAS A LEFTIST: LIMBAUGH'S POSSESSION ON DISPLAY
• BLOG: Most Recent
• The Christian Commons Project™

Most Recent Posts:
1. WHEN OBAMA'S HOPE AND CHANGE AREN'T GOOD BUT RATHER EVIL PSY-OPS
2. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-08
3. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-07
4. POSITION CONCERNING VIOLENT REVOLUTION BY AMERICANS AGAINST THE ILLEGAL, AND THEREFORE SO-CALLED, GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
5. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-05
6. WAR IS WRONG: OKAY; GREED IS WRONG: OKAY; HOMOSEXUALITY IS WRONG: ATTACK
7. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-04
8. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-03
9. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-02
10. ALEKSANDR DVORKIN'S SECULAR RUSSIAN INQUISITION LARGELY MODELS WHAT SOME IN THE U.S., SUCH AS CHIP BERLET, WANT FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD
11. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-02-01
12. TONY BLAIR IS PULLING THE CHENEY: NEVER ADMIT YOU MADE A MEANINGFUL MISTAKE, AND NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR ONE
13. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-31
14. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-30
15. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-29
16. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-28
17. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-27
18. U.N. FOOD AS A WEAPON OF WEALTH, POWER, AND FASCIST-CAPITALIST CONTROL
19. EVERY LITTLE SAVER FOR SELF IS AT BEST A LITTLE NABAL
20. TWITTER DAILY UPDATE FOR 2010-01-26

---

The Righteous Appeal to Softening Hearts

501(c)(3) and Additional Info

Recent Donations

Recent Donations | Show All

Period: Last 20 Donations

Donations: 7 received

---

I know you won't bury it. You are in my prayers Tom!	10.00
Anonymous	5.00
Still planting!	10.00
Hi Tom, It was my eyes! I did not see the "click here"	10.00
Anonymous	10.00
Anonymous	5.00
Anonymous	5.00

---

Donations Gross:	55.00
Paypal Fees:	-3.71
Donations Net:	51.29

---

Current Goal: 6.06E+13

WE STILL NEED:

< 60,599,999,999,948.71 >

— reflects cleared transactions only —
On the PayPal payment-page, enter a note in the "Add special instructions to merchant" text box. Your note will show in the chart above once your transaction has cleared.
— World GDP: to translate it all into Christian Commons —

To Donate Via Credit Cards, etc.:

This button opens a new, secure window/tab with 3 options. Choose your option. Choose/fill in your terms. Click the option's donate button. Your terms will appear on the secure PayPal site. It's easy.

To Donate Via Checks, Money Orders, etc.:

If you pay bills and bank online and only want to make financial donations via that method, please consider setting up an open-ended automatic payment (donation) schedule.

Make your check(s) or scheduled payments payable to the order of:

Real Liberal Christian Church

Mail your donations to:

Real Liberal Christian Church
15904 4^th Avenue South, #33
Burien, Washington 98148-1278
U.S.A.

Home/Blog | About Our Name | The Plan: The Christian Commons | Our Store | Ways to Support the Real Liberal Christian Church | Church Growth | Education and Training | Finance | Fundraising | General Administration | Human Resources | Information Technology | Membership (Join Us) | Ministers (Our Clergy) | Statement of Faith | Contact Us Securely | Privacy Policy | Report Site Errors | Links (Left Column) | Advertise On Our Site

---

Copyright © 2006+ Real Liberal Christian Church