by Butler Shaffer
April 24, 2013
Originally published here at LewRockwell.com
"Political
language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
~
George Orwell
Events in Boston this past week are a reminder of
the failures of intelligence that have infected this country in recent
years. I am not referring to the inadequacy of government agencies that
have been given hundreds of billions of dollars, and have usurped
police-state powers, to discover and prevent violent attacks upon
Americans. So-called "intelligence" agencies have – like such other
government programs as schools, police, health-care – demonstrated a
systemic incapacity to perform their work, for which their pleas for
more money and more authority are met by a public failure to learn from
Einstein’s oft-quoted observation:
"Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and expecting different results."
No, the
shortcoming of intelligence to which I refer is to be found in the minds
of most Americans who long ago rejected the burden of living with a
highly-energized, focused awareness not only of themselves, but of the
world in which they live. To let others bear this responsibility –
particularly those who will insist upon extended power over them –
reflects what Walter Kaufmann defined as "decidophobia," the fear of
making decisions for oneself. It is this transfer of existential energy
from individuals to those eager to exercise power over others, that
sustains political systems. I have long thought that the motto "In God
We Trust" should be replaced on government currency by the more apt
phrase:
"Ignorance Is Bliss."
Otherwise intelligent people – far
more capable of making life-enhancing decisions for themselves than can
any cadre of well-intentioned philosopher kings, PhD recipients, social
workers, or think-tank "experts" – abandon their lives to institutional
authorities and their media/academic propagandizers. Such voices do more
than simply answer questions that people have; they define the range of
questions it is considered appropriate to ask. It is this process that
created "politically-correct" thinking.
In recent weeks we have
been subjected to an overabundance of insincerity coming largely from
politicians. The murder of twenty small children at a school in
Connecticut, followed by the recent bombing at the Boston Marathon, has
produced genuine sadness among millions of ordinary people who empathize
with those suffering from such brutal behavior. Such feelings, alas,
did not translate into comparable sentiments on behalf of the twenty-one children massacred at Waco in 1993 by government forces; the tens of
thousands of victims of American bombings in the Middle East; nor cries
of righteous indignation for the prosecution of government officials
responsible for such heinous crimes.
The Machiavellian sentiments
of President Obama’s former chief of staff – and now Chicago mayor –
Rahm Emanuel, remind members of the political establishment to "never let a serious crisis go to waste." One after another, politicians
descended upon Boston in an opportunistic frenzy designed to reinforce
the vertically-structured model upon which political systems are based;
systems that had failed miserably to provide their promised protection.
The
state is comprised of such a network of lies and contradictions, that
it is unreasonable for us to expect truth to come from the mouths of its
politicians and other officials. Indeed, one could almost take any
statement uttered by such scoundrels, reverse its meaning, and arrive at
the truth of what policies are being promoted. I am reminded of the
phrase, popular in England, that:
"One should not accept something as
true until it has been officially denied."
So it was with
President Obama going to Boston to express moral outrage over the
bombing deaths at the marathon, even as his administration continues to bomb equally innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan and
wherever else his warring appetites take him. The tens of thousands of persons killed or maimed by American attacks don’t seem to rise to any
discernible level of concern either to him or to the others who came to
speak.
Perhaps the most unfocused babbling came from former
Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, who faithfully gurgled the party line
that terrorists want to destroy our way of life as free people. There
was no break in his non-stop jabbering occasioned by the utter
contradiction between his words and the reality taking place in Boston.
He assured his listeners that Americans will go about their daily lives
as they always have, a statement made during martial law imposed on Boston; with businesses, schools, and transportation facilities closed,
and people ordered to stay within their homes; with tank-like vehicles
prowling residential neighborhoods and police officers going
house-to-house harassing residents. Perhaps this man had in mind that
the Bostonian police-state is now part of the American tradition to
which we shall all respond with our unquestioning obedience!
This
erstwhile solon did pause to remind one-and-all that Boston was the
birthplace of "freedom" in America, a thought difficult to reconcile
with the mob mentality exhibited on television by so many of its
residents. What lover of individual liberty does not harken to the likes
of Sam Adams, John Hancock, Josiah Warren, Paul Revere, and Lysander
Spooner; voices long since drowned out by such modern Tories as the
Kennedys, George H.W. Bush, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, and, of course,
Scott Brown.
Who did plan for and carry out these vicious
killings and maimings in Boston? This is a question that will doubtless
be shoved to the back-burner in political and media babblings. Those who
still cling to such antiquated "technicalities" as due process of law,
trial by jury, and (gasp!) clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing, will
continue to be frustrated by such modern practitioners of Red Queen
jurisprudence as Attorney General Eric Holder, who has informed us that "The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process." It is
enough that someone, somewhere, comes to a decision as to guilt or
innocence and – as the untried prisoners at Guantanamo have learned –
without being inconvenienced by attorneys, who will insist upon such
niceties as examining evidence and witnesses.
The modern
standards for "due process" are now in the hands of Madame Defarge and
Judge Roy Bean. So many Bostonians have articulated the premise "verdict
first, trial later," joining with government officials and their media
cheerleaders to declare the two accused brothers "guilty" without the
necessity of any formal trial system. These young men began as
"suspects," and their status quickly morphed into "criminals,"
"scumbags," and any other handy epithets.
"Truth is the first casualty of war."
It has long been said
that "truth is the first casualty of war," a proposition that has
metastasized its way throughout all aspects of state action. "Truth" is
now negotiable, and a lie will serve as an adequate substitute as long
as a sufficient number of people believe it. Facts that stand in the way
of ends sought by the state must be repressed and shoved down the
memory-hole. Those who raise questions that do not fit within the
official script will be labeled "paranoid conspiracy advocates," making
it easy for the normally-neurotic to take comfort in their ignorance.
No
decent person can defend these murderous acts, any more than they can
the bombing deaths carried out by the United States in such places as
Afghanistan and Iraq. But though guilt of wrongdoing by bombing victims
in the Middle East matters little to most Americans, it would be nice if
guilt on the part of the Boston accused could be established with more
certainty than the fiat pronouncements of politicians and media hacks.
In
ferreting out the perpetrators of these recent atrocities, it would do
well to begin with the question handed down to us by ancient Romans, but
is considered improper by well-conditioned minds: cui bono (i.e., who
benefited?). Sound reasoning would demand such an inquiry in order to
arrive at possible motives for the crimes. This does not mean that those
who stood to benefit were, in fact, the wrongdoers; only that it sets
up more focused questions to ask.
Who
benefited?
The federal government and,
particularly, the FBI has been involved in many "sting" operations in
which its agents have lured unsuspecting victims into criminal –
including "terrorist" – acts in order to arrest them. A variant on what
has long been known as "provocateuring," FBI agents have provided fake
weapons and explosives and, on some occasions, have driven the sting
victim to the scene of his intended crime. In a 2012 New York Times article, it was reported that:
"Of the 22 most frightening plans for
attacks since 9/11 on American soil, 14 were developed in sting
operations."
Did the FBI – or any other government agency – help
to engineer this attack in Boston? Obviously, I do not know, but I do
know how to ask relevant questions, and this is one upon which
intelligent minds should insist. One of the experienced marathon
runners, Alastair Stevenson, reported that, at the start of this
marathon, "there were people on the roof looking down onto the Village
at the start. There were dogs with their handlers going around sniffing
for explosives, and we were told on a loud announcement that we
shouldn’t be concerned and that it was just a drill." Stevenson added
that he had never experienced anything like this in previous marathons
in which he ran.
Why were such exercises being undertaken, and
why did they fail to prevent the very harm they were presumably set up
to address? Were the bomb blasts part of the "drill?" Were the bombs
part of a "sting" operation that went awry and inadvertently exploded?
Or, were the accused young men acting wholly on their own? Their mother has stated that her older son "was controlled by the FBI, like for
three, five years. . . . They were controlling every step of him."
Our
understanding of what caused these terrible crimes in Boston will
depend upon the quality – and the range – of the questions brought to
the inquiry. No doubt another whitewash "investigation" will be
undertaken by a "blue-ribbon" committee chosen by the political
establishment. This committee will, like its predecessors, do its
appointed job of calming the public herd and urging an extension of
government authority to police an already overly-policed populace. But
independent journalists, along with men and women who use the Internet
and other technologies to communicate their searches for truth, may find
out more than we have thus far learned from babbling politicians and
make-believe journalists.
Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author
of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign
Against Competition, 1918–1938, Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats
to Peace and Human Survival, and Boundaries of Order. His latest book is
The Wizards of Ozymandias.
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth.
I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors.
Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves.
Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom,
and may God bless each and every single one of you.
Yes, you read that right.
The Florida Highway Patrol (Troop C: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk, Pasco, Hernando, Sumter and Citrus counties) has announced plans to set-up highway checkpoints to target drivers to inspect their drivers license, insurance, and vehicles in February. FHP says the checkpoints will be conducted during daytime hours.
This Feb. 2, 2013 ABC Action News article has a list of all affected roads: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/traffic/traffic_news/fhp-announces-daytime-driver-license-vehicle-inspection-checkpoints
The question on every Floridians' mind is: "Is this legal?"
The answer is: "No, it is not legal. It is a Policy."
Not only does this policy expressly violate Florida statutes, it also violates the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the Constitution of the United States of America.
I attached the corresponding text at the bottom of this blog, which lists the three legal precedents violated by this policy.
I have advised all of my family and friends to print this information out and keep it in their car in case they are subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure that violates the Rule of Law and their unalienable Rights as enumerated.
"You have Rights antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe." — John Adams
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” — Patrick Henry
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” — Frederick Douglass
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing a people to slavery.” — Thomas Jefferson
"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." — Franklin D. Roosevelt
We the People must defend our rights. Or one day we will wake up having none, and our children and our grandchildren will inherit despotism, and may never know the blessings of Liberty. Death by a thousand cuts, it's called. Incrementalism; creeping normalcy, the way a major change is accepted as the normal situation. But only if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or over a short period of time.
These are the four reasons why the American people are allowing our Liberty to be overthrown by enemies foreign and domestic:
- Normalcy Bias
- Stockholm Syndrome
- Learned Helplessness
- Cognitive Dissonance
If you don't know what they mean, please look them up, so that you can avoid falling into their trap.
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6)
Government originates and derives its power from the People, and as such exists only with the consent of the governed. When government becomes a self-serving means to its own objectives—when it becomes as George Washington warned, "a dangerous servant and a fearful master,"—it then ceases to be government and becomes a criminal entity serving its own self interest at the expense of the very people it is sworn to represent. At such time the People have an obligation to put aside differences and put down such a criminal tyranny by all necessary means and restore the freedoms of the People and of the Republic as clearly defined in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of Confederation.
Recognize that any law which violates these principles is null and void from inception. The Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803) ruled that "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Furthermore, the People have an obligation not only to ignore such laws, but to actively overturn them by any and all means. Those that support such illegal laws, actions, and objectives are guilty of treason, by definition, at the very least, and must be held accountable for their actions. As you know, treason is a crime prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. The United States Code 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states, "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies… is guilty of treason." Likewise, Presidential executive orders, by their very nature are illegal, treasonous, and are null and void from inception.
These revenue-generating highway checkpoints are similarly illegal, are repugnant to Florida Statute Title XXIII, 316.60, the Constitution of the State of Florida, and the the Constitution of the United states, and are therefore null and void from inception.
As for our elected representatives in Florida, it is your duty to defend the people of your State from illegal actions by those under your supervision. As a citizen of the United states of America, I am your constituent and I respectfully request that you take immediate action to stop this abuse of civil rights.
Represent us!
Thank you in advance for honoring your Oath to the Constitution of the State of Florida and the Constitution of the United States of America.
"Papers, please."
The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XXIII
MOTOR VEHICLES
Chapter 316
STATE UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL
316.610 Safety of vehicle; inspection. — It is a violation of this chapter for any person to drive or move, or for the owner or his or her duly authorized representative to cause or knowingly permit to be driven or moved, on any highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles which is in such unsafe condition as to endanger any person or property, or which does not contain those parts or is not at all times equipped with such lamps and other equipment in proper condition and adjustment as required in this chapter, or which is equipped in any manner in violation of this chapter, or for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required under this chapter.
(1) Any police officer may at any time, upon reasonable cause to believe that a vehicle is unsafe or not equipped as required by law, or that its equipment is not in proper adjustment or repair, require the driver of the vehicle to stop and submit the vehicle to an inspection and such test with reference thereto as may be appropriate.
(2) In the event the vehicle is found to be in unsafe condition or any required part or equipment is not present or is not in proper repair and adjustment, and the continued operation would probably present an unduly hazardous operating condition, the officer may require the vehicle to be immediately repaired or removed from use. However, if continuous operation would not present unduly hazardous operating conditions, that is, in the case of equipment defects such as tailpipes, mufflers, windshield wipers, marginally worn tires, the officer shall give written notice to require proper repair and adjustment of same within 48 hours, excluding Sunday.
History. — s. 1, ch. 71-135; s. 1, ch. 76-31; s. 1, ch. 78-112; s. 24, ch. 83-216; s. 7, ch. 83-298; s. 328, ch. 95-148; s. 17, ch. 2003-286.
Note. — Former s. 316.285.
Constitution of the State of Florida
As revised in 1968 and subsequently amended
SECTION 9. Due process. — No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.
History. — Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.
SECTION 12. Searches and seizures. — The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against the unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated. No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained. This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
History. — Am. H.J.R. 31-H, 1982; adopted 1982.
SECTION 23. Right of privacy. — Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
History. — Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.
U.S. Constitution
Amendment 4. Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment 5. Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I work very hard and spend countless hours researching and digging out the truth.
I have nothing to sell; no advertising, no contracts, no corporate partners nor contributors.
Please help me by donating the amount you feel this information deserves.
Thank you for contributing to the restoration of Liberty and Freedom,
and may God bless each and every single one of you.
