Thursday, April 18, 2019

Southwest vs Justin Smith

Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

John R. Houk
© April 18, 2019

Below is a relatively even-handed criticism of Justin Smith and my thoughts on Julian Assange being more a scoundrel than a hero. The Commenter goes by the pseudonym “Southwest” and the comments are derived from Groups on the USA Life Social Platform (incidentally to those interested, USA Life is extremely similar to Facebook yet so far – without the Left-Wing censorship used so wickedly on Facebook).

So for some full disclosure. I am quite the fan of Justin Smith. Also I was developing into a fan of Southwest. Unfortunately Southwest is a bit harsh (though respectful) of Justin’s perspective. AND knowing Justin, I suspect he’d be critical of many of Southwest’s assertions. The irony is, it is my sense the two are formed from the same metal of conviction and probably have more in common than not. The two just happen to disagree on some particulars.

Just for the sake of summary, Justin’s position (and to a large extent – my position) is Julian Assange’s indiscriminate publication of transgendered Manning’s purloined Classified data – mixing together both information that needed exposed along with information that risked exposing individuals to physical harm – makes Assange a scoundrel.

Southwest’s stand is a publisher has a right to publish comparable to say the questionable content of the New York Times. At this point I concur with Southwest UNLESS in some fashion Julian Assange was actively involved in the purloining of Classified data as in the now infamous word – collusion to commit a crime. AND either way – simple publisher or colluding criminal – Assange is a scoundrel for grouping people placed in harm’s way with infamous potentially war crime actions.

On the issue of DNC/Podesta email hack, if the data was dropped in his lap he should not be prosecuted for those publications exposing at the infamous character of Crooked Hillary and her Dem operatives.

It is my suspicion Justin and Southwest disagree on how Assange acquired the DNC/Podesta emails. It seems the majority opinion is the Russians did a hack and provided the data to Assange. I know that Assange vehemently denies a Russian connection.

Southwest makes a strong case that the DNC data came from a combination of Gucifer 2 and Seth Rich. Rich was murdered under suspicious circumstances with all the markings of a coverup. Adding to the mystery is Assange offered a reward for info on Rich’s murder adding to the suspicion Rich acted as a whistleblower by providing purloined emails to Assange. BUT to my knowledge, Assange has never confirmed a Seth Rich connection.

On a personal level, I lean to Seth Rich purloining DNC data and being murdered for it. I think but cannot say for certainty, that Justin Smith does not accept the Seth Rich connection to the exposed DNC/Podesta emails.

Whoever is correct, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My interests lay with the obvious culprits in the Dem Party – in and out of government authority – be investigated or re-investigated for crimes against Donald Trump prior AND after the 2016 election.

IF ASSANGE has anything to do with inspiring or speeding along that investigation, scoundrel though he is in my book, needs either immunity or a pardon or both for potential crimes he committed within the U.S. jurisdiction of law.

YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO READ Southwest’s position below. I’ll let you the reader corroborate or disprove his (or could it be her?) assertions – I have decided to not get in the middle of two bloggers whom I tend to both like. And Justin, don’t get to cranky with Southwest harshness. Like I said, it is my sense you guys are stamped from the same metal.

JRH 4/18/19
Your generosity is always appreciated:


Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

USA Life Group Patriots_For_Trump
Posted 4/17/19

John Houk I do respect the fact that you are an honest seeker and because of that I'll comment on the post. I took the time to read it in its entirety. 

It is not that Water Gate papers and tapes did not compromise security, the fact is that it exposed the party that was not in favor of the deep state.

That is point number one which applies to all of the 'leaks' and publications the author refers to and

2) When the government becomes the enemy of the people , it needs to be exposed. No national security concept should cover up to the fact that NSA has been paid millions if not billions of dollars --and this is indisputably and proven-- to Google and had set up an scheme during the Obama administration--just look at the records of their visit to the Obama White House and remember that Obama was a scammer and didn't even record all the visits--it is staggering- to spy on people and to help to remove the president of the US without due process but through slander and fake news media and democrat operatives working in the shadow.

3) All publishers should be protected one endangered national security more than the New York times but they were working for the shadow government and it was okay.

4) The crimes reported by Seth Rich via Hillary/Podesta emails need to be brought to light. To this day the so called 'elite' drink the blood of children they kill (this is another article that I don't have time to explore here but this is proven fact the substance they get during the torturing of children that sips in their blood is what prolong their lives notice that they live to be over 100 years old?

Please save this post John. When people start splitting words for content and this is what Justin Smith does and it is very appealing for people like me and you because it forces your mind to reason and we may be addicted to reasoning the problem with that is that the main point is lost.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH HAS TO REMAIN FREE! If we split words to justify Assange imprisonment, then we will go down the path Hitler used to stop people from telling the truth.

Mueller and NSA cohorts and Google needs to go to prison, not Assange for telling on them. Noticed that no one is talking about the killing of children after molesting them and drinking their blood? Does it sound like legal or normal or decent? No, they talk about Assange who ONLY PUBLISHED what Seth Rich did And no one is talking about the hit job done by Hillary through the FBI to kill Seth Rich who went to the FBI to ask protection from Hillary and got killed by a weapon from the FBI who says that the weapon was stolen from their car when they went to meet Seth Rich.

Does it look like a set up to you? Does the FBI need to be investigated or Julian Assange? To be honest, no one can receive wisdom except from God. Intelligence is not enough, power to be argumentative is not enough and Justin Smith is lacking this wisdom that comes from God.

His articles are interesting but without wisdom he is a blind man leading the blind. I won't read any article from this man again because I know where he is coming from, he is trying to sort things out by rational without having a moral compass and that doesn't work.


John Houk - We are supportive because we know who placed the Gucifer 2, NSA and FBI. And we know who leaked the emails: Seth Rich. How do we know? I hope I’m not repeating this too much--this was a fat file and the forensics can determine and has determined that, meaning it was a physical transfer such as a USB or drive, so there was no break into the DNC computer.

Afraid of Hillary, Seth Rich contacted the FBI, as you may know Washington pays residents of certain areas to have a camera. Let me say this more accurately, Washington reimburses people who install cameras. Consequently everybody has a camera in that area and often two.

The camera that filmed the shooting of Seth Rich was removed, clean[ed] up. [An or The] Attorney sued the police to get a copy, to no avail. The FBI got some weapon stolen from the car ... the same weapon that killed Seth Rich. The story doesn't end there. It is long and I'll leave it for another time.

Just one more thing: the internist that took care of the shot behind Seth Rich's neck said it was not lethal and he would survive. He posted on Facebook that something strange had happened, a bunch of FBI agents came over and told the internist to leave the room and not to come back until he was told. So, he obeyed, not knowing who Seth Rich was, he posted the story Facebook that when he came back the man was dead.

When he found out the man worked for the DNC he removed the post, which other people have photographed. Nowadays the connection with DNC and Democrats may be a death sentence, unless you do as they please ... You remember what happened with the Judge against illegal immigration? His body washed on the shore and many other Bill and Hillary assassinations. But not everybody in the FBI is corrupted, just the Elite on the 7th floor.

And no one can blame Assange for that. Why they don't prosecute the New York Times because it is doing their bidding and because it is against our laws to sue publishers.
Southwest vs Justin Smith
Two Likeable Guys that Disagree

John R. Houk
© April 18, 2019
Southwest Comment to ‘Thanks to Justin Smith, More Thoughts on Assange’ 

Edited by John R. Houk


  1. It's Southwest who wants to parse words and pick and choose which commandments of the Bible to follow. My moral compass is finely tuned and completely intact. But Southwest would have people ignore one sin to rationalize and justify his ends and all those of all who think as he does.

    Assange facilitated espionage against the United States. No rationalization there, just plain fact.

    Southwest either cannot read past the level of a third grader, or he does not have a cogent thought process and does not comprehend what he reads too well. I clearly stated in my piece that I DO NOT Have ANY Problem with WHISTLEBLOWERS. There are channels set in law for facilitating their actions. Manning avoided them and Assange helped, and that made what Assange did nothing remotely close to "journalism".

    Theft and espionage against the United States do not equate to "journalism" or FREE Speech. Free speech would have been the discovery of the information surrounding the CRIMINAL acts of Obama and those in his administration and writing an ACTUAL News story about them, as opposed to dumping all the information gathered, top secret classified documents outside of just the DNC dump, and endangering the lives of good and decent Americans serving the U.S. government and in the Armed Forces honorably.

    There is no virtue in Assange. Those who celebrated his “transparency” in the Manning document dumps forget that responsible reporters who gain access to classified material carefully vet that material to make sure that their disclosures do not needlessly endanger innocent Americans, and they carefully weigh the value of the disclosure against the gravity of the harm. Assange and Manning did not seem to care about the men and women they betrayed.

    In the end I am happy that they revealed many of the evil acts that occurred under Obama. But the same thing could have been done by going through the Uniformed Military Code of Justice, per law. And they would most likely have been revealed by Trump's own good men and women eventually, just not as soon.

    You want the rule of law to be cast aside and picked over to see which parts should be obeyed and which should be ignored. A republic doesn't stand for long that way, no matter what other ills are going on within the government.

    The difference between reporters at the New York Times and Assange is that they only print information they find through their sources, or that is leaked to them, they do not hand out the means to hack government passwords and facilitate espionage, thus becoming part of the story.

    Free speech is fine. Assange can and still does say anything he wants, and it is being printed. But the piper still must be paid for the crimes he committed, which ARE NOT ANY MATTER OF FREE SPEECH.

    You really should consider taking a course in ethics.

    I don't split words. I call matters for what they are, unlike you who have mischaracterized what I stated.

    And you have the nerve and the arrogance to speak of morality.

    Whether You read any of my future articles or not is of little concern to me. Stay steeped and wallow in your own brand of ignorance for the rest of your small-minded little life.

    ~ Justin O Smith

  2. Standing on his high-horse, Southwest suggests that I am not as concerned with protecting the Republic and stopping the treason that originated under the Obama administration, and he finishes with his finishing touch and cry that he will never read my articles again.

    He never read them in the first place, because if he had, he would realize that much of what Assange revealed had already surfaced here and there from numerous other sources; however, Assange's act of espionage did place his info in the limelight. If Southwest had read my stuff at all, he would have seen that I have been one of the patriots on the forefront of many battles, from the Fast & Furious scandal, to immigration policy and halting illegal aliens and on to matters such as the ILLEGALLY Obtained FISA Warrants used to surveil Trump; he would also know that I am one of the staunchest defenders of the ENTIRE Bill of Rights that one may ever know, having castigated Pres. Trump over his signature on the FISA Reauthorization Act and on HR 76 [allows warrantless searches] and on his executive order allowing the DOJ to violate the 2nd amendment by banning bumpstocks. And, I have been figthing to stop the spread of Islam in America and the flow of Muslim immigrants since 1979, all for great reasons and sound purpose.

    So You see, I don't care who it is trampling on freedom and liberty ... Obama, Assange, or Trump or anyone else. The cause of Freedom and Liberty for all people is ALWAYS my primary focus and goal.

    Get an education and get a life, Southwest.

    Rather than attack me, why don't you go after the REAL Enemies of Freedom in Congress ... the Democrats and RINOs ... and all the illiberal bureaucratic petty tyrants distributed throughout the federal government and the judiciary. America has significantly greater problems than just the Assange affair at the moment.

    ~ Justin O Smith

  3. John Houk ... You state that You don't want to get in the middle of "two bloggers" whom you like, but that's precisely what You have done by posting this and forcing my response to an idiot who wouldn't understand "morality" if it jumped up and bit him in the ass, and yet he wants to act as if he knows anything at all about me from this one article, as he attacks me personally rather than starting any conversation with me based on the merit of fact.

    This fool is a pseud-intellectual who couldn't pour piss from a boot with directions written on the heel.

    It's Your blog, but I'd thank You to allow whoever wants to criticize me to do so on my post alone and not make me the focus of one of Your posts, since it takes time out of my busy schedule to answer each fool that may come along ... time that could be better spent on addressing REAL Problems that America faces.

    I cannot leave such dribble unanswered because the it gives a weight of crediblity to whoever makes their fallacious assertions about my "moral compass", when their own morals are flawed and far from exemplary.

    I am not the one creating the problems in America. I am not a public official. I am not trying to harm America, as Assange is so obviously doing if the IDIOT Southwest had ever read his many illogical and erroneous outright LIES aimed against the United States. I am not out there bashing good and decent Americans who are trying to do right and help America.


    I noticed that Southwest claims to be a "Trump Patriot" and that explains it all. he is so focused on winning for Trump that his own moral understanding is skewed and if it benefits Trump it's right and good and if it doesn't it's wrong, no matter that the first act violates God's law.

    And you put this idiot in the same breath as me when he has no true understanding of what is or isn't moral. He isn't someone I'd sit down and have a beer with; he's not my intellectual equal, which isn't to say I'm any better than him as a man in God's eyes. But essentially, I'm damned picky about who I associate with on any level.

    He seems to be the type that I probably wouldn't have a problem breaking his jaw for him ... just for general principles ... if he ever approached me in public as he has here

    If I wanted contact with morons, I'd seek them out. Please never do this again.

    Thank You. ~ Justin O Smith

  4. A MORAL individual wouldn't have exposed the names, addresses and phone numbers of the decent men and women serving in government and the U.S. Armed Forces, along with the people committing crimes and treason in our federal government, Southwest ... and a MORAL person wouldn't have dumped them in with the bad guys. he would have made a concerted and real effort to differentiate before releasing ANY information.

    You would DESTROY INNOCENT AMERICAN LIVES and possibly get them murdered through your flawed understanding of what is moral and ethical. Do You really think the innocent must be sacrificed in order to get to the bottom of government corruption?

    Go talk about morality to someone who understands it less than I.

    Southwest --- a Condescending American ASS.

  5. Southwest ... Please ... please ...please ... do stop reading my articles. The world needs shining examples of idiocy to remain for all the youth to see, so as to never follow your own warped version of morality.

    The Obama administration condemned him, conservatives called him a traitor, and Donald Trump said WikiLeaks was “disgraceful,” adding that there should be the “death penalty or something” for its actions. Fast-forward to 2016, and WikiLeaks enjoyed a reputational renaissance on the right. Why? Well, WikiLeaks was the same organization, but its target had changed. Rather than taking on alleged American imperialism, it was the conduit for an alleged Russian hack that was systematically embarrassing Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party in the middle of a hotly contested presidential election. “I love WikiLeaks,” Trump declared to rousing cheers at a rally. Sean Hannity defended him during the election and even referred to Assange to advance his absurd Seth Rich conspiracy theory. Even worse, the special counsel’s office has alleged that a “senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact Stone about any additional releases and what other damaging information [WikiLeaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign.” Trump “loved” Wikileaks, and his campaign allegedly endeavored to get information from WikiLeaks — the same organization that had just a few years before conspired with a traitor to place American soldiers and American allies in mortal danger.

    Julian Assange is an enemy of the United States. Just because he is the enemy of our enemies as seen in the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, and you now consider the enemy Assange to be your friend, that doesn't make your "friend" Assange any less the actual entity trying to undermine American security, divide American society, and even threaten American lives.

    I have no problem whatsoever with TRUE Whistleblowers who take precise aim at SPECIFIC WRONGS and SPECIFIC Crimes they have found within the U.S. government. But even then, there are proven and viable methods within our government for just such cases, and Manning never made the first attempt to take his concerns to his superiors and the proper chain of military command, as outlined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice, and Assange HELPED HIM CRACK THE CODES TO ACCESS TOP SECRET MILITARY FILES. That's called ESPIONAGE IN ANY DAMNED LANGUAGE YOU WANT TO USE, COMRADE SOUTHWEST, OR IN ANY DAMNED COUNTRY YOU WISH TO NAME.

  6. My parting Adieu to You, Southwest, is please never place my name in your mouth again ... And An Extremely Well Meant FUCK YOU. ~ Justin O Smith

  7. John Houk ... if You want me to have a discussion or a debate with ANYONE --- Don't ALLOW them to use a pseudonym. At least give me the damned courtesy of knowing exactly who I am speaking with, in the same manner everyone knows who I am when they see my articles. I don't hide in anonymity like the cowards of this world.

    That should tell everybody all they need to understand the difference between my moral standing and that of Southwest's.

    ~ Justin O Smith

  8. Southwest --- a God damned half-wit preaching morality. You don't penalize the innocent in the process of taking down the bad guys. Do no wrong __ Mean No Harm ___ Take down the treasonous and the TRAITORS to America ONLY and PROTECT the INNOCENT.

    I would be entirely on Assange's side, if he had broken his stories in the manner of a TRUE journalist ... sought out sources, received and verified their information and then published a story targeting those who had abused our system, our institutions and our republic.

    But that's not what he did, and even though human rights organizations begged him to redact some of the information, he refused to do so.

    Dumping files is not free speech or journalism, when one helped steal them. And it certainly isn't "moral". Or perhaps you have never known or properly understood the meaning of the word.

    A true journalist has an ethical duty to ensure that ALL innocent parties are cause no harm by way of his proposed expose, and he must do all within his power to protect them as such.

    As for rationale [not rational] it is the same thing as reason and logic from which mankind has historically found wisdom. Without these reason no longer exists, and it was through the Force of REASON that Western Civilization was built, by way of God's grace and infinite wisdom.

    You are arrogant in Your presumption that I do not base my analyses in correlation with God and His principles set forth in the commandments of the Bible. I'd say it is You who is without any wisdom, in all Your arrogance and condescension. ~ Justin O Smith

  9. Assange produced appeared for a time on RT, a government-owned cable channel in Russia. Huffington Post reported that although WikiLeaks promised a major Russia dump in 2010, that never materialized. And despite his spat with Snowden, in which Assange espoused total transparency, WikiLeaks criticized the release of the Panama Papers as a U.S. government ploy to undermine Putin.

    In other words, Assange was arguing that it was the motivations for a leak, rather than the material, that mattered. This is ironic, since many of those observing Assange, both his critics-turned-fans and his fans-turned-critics, seem to have become fixated on his motivations at the expense of the information he releases. The irony seems to be lost on Southwest and Assange both.

    Go ahead, keep on defending an anti-American piece of shit and the indefensible, Southwest. Something is either right or it's wrong. There are no gray area's unless you subscribe to marxist socialist moral relativism and other such mindless dribble. Tell me again about how righteous and moral you are as you join the Trotskyites and other Reds who so love Assange.

  10. Southwest ... answer if You can ... Why leave obvious, serious charges on the cutting-room floor? Mueller brought a dozen felony charges against the Russian operatives with whom, we’ve been told for over two years, Assange conspired. So why isn’t Assange charged with at least some of these felonies?

    Some argue that the Justice Department is nervous that, as a pseudo-journalist, Assange may have First Amendment protection from such charges. But then why charge the Manning conspiracy? The theory of Assange’s guilt is the same in both the Russian-collusion and Manning-espionage situations: The WikiLeaks chief was not merely a journalist publicizing sensitive information; he was aiding, abetting, counseling, inducing, and procuring the theft of the sensitive information (to borrow the terms of the federal aiding and abetting statute). The Justice Department plainly believes that complicity in the theft shreds any claim to freedom of the press; there is no First Amendment right to steal information.

    If this is the Justice Department’s position, then why not charge Assange with the 2016 “collusion” conspiracy, too? If I were a cynic (perish the thought!), I’d suspect that the government does not want Special Counsel Mueller’s Russian-hacking indictment to be challenged.

    I accept the intelligence agencies’ conclusion, echoed by Mueller, that Russia was behind the hacking of Democratic email accounts. Nevertheless, there is a big difference between (a) accepting an intelligence conclusion based on probabilities, and (b) proving a key fact beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

    The intelligence assessment here may be sound, but the legal case Mueller would have to prove to a jury has problems. To state the most obvious: The Justice Department and FBI did not perform elementary investigative steps, such as taking possession of, and performing their own forensic analysis on, the servers that were hacked. Instead, they relied on CrowdStrike, a contractor of the DNC, which has a strong motive to blame Russia.

    Mueller’s team knew that no Russian defendant would ever actually be tried in a U.S. court on the hacking allegations. The indictment was more like a press release than a charging instrument. It was meant to be the last word on hacking: An authoritative version of events pronounced by a respected U.S. prosecutor that would never be challenged by skilled defense lawyers. The point was to put to rest the nettlesome “How do we really know Russia did it?” question raised by some former intelligence agents and hardcore Trump supporters.

    But now . . . here comes Assange. He has always insisted that Russia was not WikiLeaks’ source. I don’t believe him. I see him as a witting, anti-American tool of Moscow. But, to my chagrin, some in Trump’s base — not all, but some — have made Assange their strange bedfellow, just as many libertarians and leftists embraced him when he was exposing U.S. national-security programs, intelligence methods, defense strategies, and foreign-relations information. These Trump supporters have convinced themselves that raising doubt about Russia’s culpability exonerates the president — even though the special counsel has already cleared Trump, regardless of what Russia (and Assange) were up to.

    Where is your "morality" now, Southweast? What is going on here?

    You want your cake and ice-cream too and you speak out of both sides of your mouth ... or is it your ass from whence you speak?

  11. Southwest ... answer if you can ... Consequently, if Assange were charged with the Russian-hacking conspiracy that Mueller has alleged, and if he were ever brought to the U.S. to face trial, he would maintain that he did not get the Democratic emails from Russian intelligence. Remember, a defendant does not have to prove anything: It would not be Assange’s burden to establish Russia’s innocence; the Justice Department would have to prove Russia’s culpability.

    Assange’s fans would give lots of sunshine to his effort to exculpate Moscow. Indeed, even without Assange mounting a challenge to Mueller’s Russian-hacking indictment, some Trump supporters have tried to cast doubt on Russia’s guilt. And a group of dissenting intelligence-community veterans will continue arguing that CrowdStrike’s analysis is flawed.

    To sum up: If the Justice Department had indicted Assange for collusion, Mueller’s Russian-hacking indictment would no longer stand unchallenged. Assange would deny that Russia is behind the hacking, and prosecutors would have to try to prove it, using hard, admissible courtroom proof — not top-secret sources who cannot be called as witnesses without blowing their cover, or other information that might be reliable enough to support an intelligence finding but would be inadmissible under courtroom due-process standards. If the prosecutors were unable to establish Russia’s guilt to a jury’s satisfaction, it would be a tremendous propaganda victory for the Kremlin, even if — as I believe — Russia is actually guilty.

    This is part of why it was a mistake to indict the Russian intelligence officers. An indictment is never an authoritative statement; it is just an allegation, it proves nothing. We didn’t need it to know what happened here. The indictment says nothing significant that we were not already told by the intelligence agencies’ assessment released to the public in January 2017.

    Adversary countries are a security challenge, not a law-enforcement problem. Because they don’t have to surrender their officials for an American trial, an indictment is a pointless gesture. But now, having with great fanfare filed charges against Russia that implicate Assange, the government shrinks from lodging these same charges against Assange — who, unlike the indicted Russian officials, may be in a position to put the government to its burden of proof. This just makes Mueller’s indictment of Russians look more like a publicity stunt than a serious allegation. If the government is afraid to try the allegations against Russia in court, people will naturally suspect the allegations are hype.

    Meanwhile, let us remember: Despite a dearth of evidence that he was complicit in Moscow’s hacking, President Trump was forced by the Justice Department and the FBI, urged on by congressional Democrats, to endure a two-year investigation and to govern under a cloud of suspicion that he was an agent of the Kremlin. Now we have Assange, as to whom there is indisputable evidence of complicity in the hacking conspiracy, but the Justice Department declines to charge him with it — instead, positing the dubious Manning conspiracy that may very well be time-barred.

    Where is Your "morality" now? What is going on here? Your position is FAR from "MORAL" and posits the same DOUBLE-STANDARD so often used by our Democrat commie opponents. And you have the hubris and audacity to speak of "wisdom"? Your false piety rings with the hollowness of a FOOL'S words.