Help support alternative media by visiting our advertisers

The Federal Govt Thinks They Are The Good Guys

They are pulling out all stops to do whatever it takes to manipulate, control, influence, and withhold evidence from the jury

The Federal Govt Thinks They Are The Good Guys

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THINKS
THEY ARE THE GOOD GUYS

“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to
answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not Guilty’.”  ― Theodore Roosevelt

by Loren Edward Pearce

In the past and future trials of the Bundy et al defendants, who have been imprisoned for over 489 days without a guilty verdict, the federal prosecutors along with their team mate, Gloria Navarro, are attempting to show that the defendants are anti-government and in the language style of Trump, “bad people, very bad”.

Speaking in lawyer-ese, the federal team are essentially saying, “the government are the good guys, the defendants are the bad guys” and that the defendants should be punished for daring to stand up to the “good guys.”

The prosecution is hoping to convince the jury, and the public at large, that the Bundy et al defendants and their supporters are the bad guys, and that they are “domestic terrorists” worthy of hate and extreme punishment for daring to act upon a belief that their government is capable of wrong doing.

Paul Inman says it well,

“The United States Government wants, We the People, to believe that this quote is attributable to Cliven Bundy, or one of his sons who are currently jailed as political prisoners, Ryan, Ammon, Dave, or Mel.

The US Government, and the corrupt mainstream media have worked at presenting the Bundy family and others who believe similarly, as anarchists, anti-government, etc. The Bundys believe in the US Constitution as a legitimate document meant to govern and guide the actions of the federal government; they even believe that it’s inspired of God.

That is far from being anti-government; in fact, it’s pro-limited government, and there are some extremely important differences.”

THE OPPOSITE OF AN OXYMORON

The Bundy et al supporters have stated that, “we are not anti-government but anti-corrupt government”.   However, the expression, “corrupt government” is known as a tautology, opposite of an oxymoron.

A tautology is the opposite of an oxymoron, two words that contradict each other, such as the living dead. The words of a tautology mean the same thing: a dead corpse is a tautology because corpse itself means “dead”.

Corrupt government is a tautology.  Government, the more powerful it is, will inevitably become corrupt. I base this on the many statements of the founders of the USA and others, who were concerned that giving power to a few was a sure recipe for corruption.

THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS CLAIM THAT THEY ARE THE EXCEPTION

Lord Action, British politician known for his statement about power corrupting absolutely, seemed to be speaking directly to the federal prosecutors when he said:

Like popes and kings, the federal prosecutors would have us believe that the federal government are “unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they do no wrong”.

Tragically, much of the American public buys what the prosecutors are selling, that the federal government of the USA is the exception to the rule.  What happened in other civilized countries like Germany, Russia, China, Japan, Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. in terms of centralized corruption, simply cannot happen in the good ole USA because the USA has checks and balances against corruption.   Therefore, what happened in all other countries throughout history, cannot happen in the USA because the USA is special and an exception.

The government narrative is strengthened by Obama, who told students at a commencement exercise:

“They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.”  Obama to Ohio State University grads, 2013.

So, according to Obama, the rising generation has nothing to fear, and that what has happened throughout history, government corruption, will not happen in the USA.

EXAMPLES OF CORRUPTION IN THE GOOD OLE’ USA

“When the President does it , that means that it is not illegal.”  ― Richard M. Nixon

President Nixon would have made a good federal prosecutor.  Myrhe and his band of prosecutors, apply the same logic of Nixon, but to the entire federal government.  In the federal prosecutor world, Dan Love and the BLM law enforcers can do no wrong. Why? Because they have the benefit of being federal and all things federal are protected by federal statute, federal immunity and federal unlimited resources.

Whether we are talking about Watergate or we are talking about other examples of USA government corruption, history is rich in examples.

As the author of the following linked article points out, the corruption in the USA is more sophisticated than in Mexico with local level bribes, but the USA government corruption, based on an economy worth $16 trillion, is far more extensive than the petty bribes in Mexico.   He says:

“The US has a vast gulag of 2.2 million prisoners in jail and penitentiary. There is an increasing tendency for prisons to be privatized, and this tendency is corrupting the system. It is wrong for people to profit from putting and keeping human beings behind bars.

This troubling trend is made all the more troubling by the move to give extra-long sentences for minor crimes, to deny parole and to imprison people for life for e,g, three small thefts.”

A JURY OF PEERS, THE LAST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST RAMPANT FEDERAL CORRUPTION

The federal team (judge, prosecutors, marshals, alphabet soup agencies, etc) are desperate to get as many convictions as possible from all the Bundy et al defendants.  It is my opinion, that the desperation arises from a concern that they can checkmate or control everything, except the jury.

Although, with regard to the jury, they are pulling out all stops to do whatever it takes to manipulate, control, influence, and withhold evidence from the jury in such a way that they can get a guilty verdict. While it is pure speculation, one can almost picture Harry Reid checking in each evening, asking for debriefing with the federal team and participating in the strategy formulation or, if not Harry Reid, some other higher up in D.C..

AMMON BUNDY SPEAKS FROM PRISON

Known for his beautifully simple and simply beautiful wisdom, Ammon Bundy has stated in a recorded conversation from prison:

“Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”

Ammon is right, “What does history teach us?”. If we listen to the federal prosecutors, history is not relevant, rather, according to the federal team, what is relevant is what they say is relevant.

“Imagine a problem in psychology: to find a way of getting people in our day and age – Christians, humanitarians, nice, kind people – to commit the most heinous crimes without feeling any guilt.

There is only one solution – doing just what we do now: you make them governors, superintendents, officers or policemen, a process which, first of all, presupposes acceptance of something that goes by the name of government service and allows people to be treated like inanimate objects, precluding any humane or brotherly relationships,

and, secondly, ensures that people working for this government service must be so interdependent that responsibility for any consequences of the way they treat people never devolves on any one of them individually.”

― Leo Tolstoy, Resurrection

3 Comments on The Federal Govt Thinks They Are The Good Guys

  1. I’d point out that the Constitution existed BEFORE the Federal Govt, and was looked at askance by many of the states. Despite the system of checks and balances so integral to it’s design, many state governments saw tyranny lurking around the corner if so powerful a central authority was formed. The charter of this central Govt, published by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, did NOT go into effect automatically, but rather was a proposal submitted to the state governments for their approval. If they did not approve, if they refused to sign on and ratify this proposed new government, it – the Constitution – would have no issue, and ratification was very much in doubt. In order to persuade for ratification, it was determined by many state governments that at the very first US Congress of this new Government additional declaratory and restrictive clauses would be amended to the Constitution, spelling out explicitly what the Fed HAD to do, and what it was absolutely forbidden to do. Over 180 such clauses were submitted to the first congress, many of them redundant. Our Bill of Rights is the distilled essence of these. Forward to today, and a time when the “Government Interest” is promoting itself ruthlessly and is aggressively dismantling any obstacle to it’s power. Personified by a judge who can’t stand the sight of a Constitution in her courtroom The Fed is hell-bent on destroying a potent threat to it’s power, the Bundy Family and those of us who have risen with them. My question to folks out there is; will they succeed ? Ammon has said “We can’t allow this kind of abuse to become the norm”….

    • As always, great comments Neil. Fast forward today and what founders intended is unrecognizable.

  2. “… “we are not anti-government but anti-corrupt government”.”

    Therein lies the crux of the problem. You see, our governments can never be bad, as they are set out in writing, they are the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution. But, the people who SERVE WITHIN our governments can be, and most are, corrupt. That is a huge difference. Not only that, but the people WHO SERVE WITHIN our governments – state and federal – have NO AUTHORITY, no power. What they are ALLOWED to do is use the authority/power that was delegated TOO THE BRANCH OR TO A NAMED OFFICE WITHIN A BRANCH. The US Constitution is the supreme contract to all who serve within our governments at all levels. There are requirements for them to be able to LAWFULLY use the power of the branch or named office within a branch, a contract that they are required to follow, and fulfill. That contract says exactly what they can do, must do, and if it is NOT assigned to that specific branch or office within a branch that they serve within, then it is forbidden to them to do.

    The US Constitution says in writing exactly what those duties are, example; The US Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
    — Military defense, international commerce & relations;
    — Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
    — Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
    — With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.

    St John Tucker: “The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;…”

    J. Reuben Clark: “God provided that in this land of liberty, our political allegiance shall run not to individuals, that is, to government officials, no matter how great or how small they may be. Under His plan our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up. So runs the oath of office of those who participate in government. A certain loyalty we do owe to the office which a man holds, but even here we owe just by reason of our citizenship, no loyalty to the man himself. In other countries it is to the individual that allegiance runs. This principle of allegiance to the Constitution is basic to our freedom. It is one of the great principles that distinguishes this “land of liberty” from other countries”.

    This is a long way to say this, basically those in the judicial branch are BOUND to the US Constitution – to support it, to defend it, and to do their duty as it is laid out in writing for them to follow. The US Constitution is their supreme contract, and when they no longer use it, then they no longer have any LAWFUL power here in the USA. Those that follow their unlawful orders to remove, someone, etc are all also REQUIRED to be bound to the US Constitution also; not to any judge. when they see, or hear, an unconstitutional trial, etc going on, they are REQUIRED by their Oath to speak up and try to put a stop to this,or they are complicit in these unlawful acts being committed AGAINST our country, against the American people, against our legitimate government. The US constitution is what LETS everyone who serves within our governments have and be able to use the authority of the branch or office they are occupying – and it does come with requirements from those that serve. It maters not if they are a judge, a US President, a representative, a street cop, lawn maintenance at the WH, military – all are REQUIRED to be bound by Oath to the US Constitution.

    Thomas Jefferson: “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights; that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no farther, our confidence may go…. In questions of power, let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The Habeas Corpus secures every man here, alien or citizen, against everything which is not law, whatever shape it may assume.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “It is left… to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “If the question [before justices of the peace] relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact.” Notes on Virginia, 1782.

    Thomas Jefferson: “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps… The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution”

    As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others authority/powers are reserved by the States OR The People…. What does “or the people” mean. It means that the people did NOT delegate all authority over themselves to our governments – state and/or federal; instead the people retained much power/authority over themselves instead of delegating all to the state or federal government.

    The US Constitution makes that clear when something mentioned within it is NOT assigned to one of the branches or to an office within a branch sch as the Grand Jury, Grand Jury Investigations, Militia (only requirements that those who serve within our government use the Militias ONLY for certain things – Enforce the US Constitution (supreme Law of this land) and each state’s Constitution (highest Law of the state except in conflicts with supreme Law)), Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY), Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

    St. George Tucker: “The Federal Government is the creature of the States. It is not a party to the Constitution, but the result of it – the creation of that agreement which was made by the States as parties. It is a mere agent, entrusted with limited powers for certain objects; which powers and objects are enumerated in the Constitution. Shall the agent be permitted to judge of the extent of his own powers, without reference to his constituent?” (Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in his edition of ‘Blackstone’s Commentaries On The Law’ (1803))

Comments are closed.