Lies of Omission

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Kill One; Terrify Thousands

Liars generally know that they will be found out at some point. But, in the mean time, they get a thrill out of confusing and confounding those who try to hold them accountable, because all they need are a few more lies to cloud the issue until they wear their accusers out. Most people walk away from a confrontation with a lair with nothing more than that knowledge. He/she is a liar. They get no satisfaction from it, though, as the liar is hardly ever punished, because they leverage their "benefit of the doubt" to the furthest extreme.


For those of us who try desperately to maintain the truth at all times and at all costs, integrity is important. We recognize that if we lie in one instance and it is found out (as it likely always will be) we will not have the faith of others to sustain us when we have no proof. So, we dare not lie.


Which of the two philosophies above best describe that of the U.S. Government?


While I would love to blindly accept that the death of Antonin Scalia was a mere heart attack, it is much more difficult to take it on face value after witnessing (via silent video) the death of LaVoy Finicum. Government agents who feel comfortable not only shooting and killing a man trying to surrender, but providing video evidence of it with the assurance that the media will bring out all of the reaffirming testimony needed to defend their actions, are just as likely to participate in the murder of a Supreme Court justice for the "better good."


Personally, I find it curious that Scalia's death should happen so close to handing the Obama Administration a defeat on the Clean Power Plan it had negotiated with the UN. It was a slap in the face to Obama personally, who bragged to world leaders that the plan would be upheld in the United States. When the Supreme Court allowed for the EPA rule to go unenforced while the appeal is heard in a lower court, it sent environmentalists into hysteria. It made the president look bad.


The sense of underhandedness is only emboldened by the lack of an autopsy. The idea that an otherwise healthy individual, even at 79, should not have the cause of death substantiated by an autopsy seems absurd, especially when it is a Supreme Court justice. That should be a no-brainer. Don't get me wrong, someone who could assassinate a Supreme Court justice would certainly be able to mask whatever poison they used well enough to make it look like a simple heart-attack, it worked with Breitbart.


But, the point I am trying to make here is it doesn't matter if Scalia was assassinated by nefarious goons in Obama's circle of influence or not. It is within Obama's nature and ability to order it done and there are enough obedient sycophants to do it. The Obama Administration is not known for it's integrity, or I might have some doubt. They have not earned that trust and so I am free to think the worst.


The biggest problem I have is that I can't shake the idea that Obama and his goons are proud of themselves for it, that they revel in the new power they have exerted over the Court just as Obama seems poised to issue so many new Executive Orders, most of which would probably have been confounded by the Supreme Court. But not now. Not, if the other conservatives on the court wish to live.


This is the Banana Republic we have allowed to exist by the weakness of the Republican Party and the lack of integrity in our government. There is no stomach to do the "hard" things of holding the line, of going to the mats over Constitutional issues. As Sun Tzu said: Kill one; terrify thousands.

29 comments:

  1. Outstanding encapsulation of the reason our government is not trustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Francis Porretto recently wrote an article that has really stuck with me on this subject. He had a great phrase for it that completely escapes me right now. The only way to stop the liars was to physically stop them or revoke their 1st amendment rights, two things the liberty movement is loath to do.
    It's becoming obvious the DC Tyrants aren't satisfied with lying and slandering folks who disagree anymore.
    In the past society would shun the liars, and now we elect them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This week Bill Clinton said that the San Berdue Shooters were never in the ME

    ReplyDelete
  4. TLD,

    The title of your blog is a conundrum for many, especially for those we should call bros and sis. I too am a daily follower of Jesus, however, outside the mold of the Rockwell idea of a Christian. I grew up lower middle class in the south with an overbearing Father (weren't they all) who (me) just doesn't ken to the idea of submitting to someone this side of Deity. I stumble and repent daily fully aware of my desperate need for a Savior. That said, I struggle monthly at Deacons meetings over the meaning and context of Romans 13. Dont get me wrong, although some are not as old school as me - to a man they love Jesus and demonstrate daily, likely, publicaly more than me. However, we do have Girly metrosexual Deeks that claim R13 means unquestionable submission to to the "Authority" cuz god put him there, crusty me and those like me say a godly ruler is a Godly ruler capiche? So, why am I contacting you? I have reached out to Kenny Lane, the Wirecutter, crusty like me but seeking to serve God in his own way, he just needs our leading/assistance to meet Christ on His terms. Reached out to CA at WRSA and others in the liberty community like MB, Sparks, Dan Morgan, etc. CA at WRSA and Sam Culper at FO Mag floated the idea of making Leviathan respond to multiple "threats"/events. I am down with that seeing that even if you are an ignorant yet well meaning instrument of evil, let's say the local cop (I have 3 - 5 in my church that are presently still in the Fabian socialist soup, just following orders crowd) or county board member. I am not trying to hurt anyone in particular just trying to throw sand in Leviathan's gears, was wondering if you could use your blogs influence to effect same. My email is jehu2k920@hushmail.com.

    I know stepping out personally sets me up for retribution but no more so than you guys who live daily in the blogosphere and Sauron knows who you are. I am tired of just reading and want to do my part for the cause. I am tired and prolly ranbling but am really a reasonably intelligent guy who according to CA, sees things VERY clearly and just wants to contribute. I am in NC, Brock is too, thought you were but maybe not? Whatever, what can I do to help? Be a research assistant, co-author, agent provacateur - lemme know.

    Donk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was good to hear you express yourself honestly and openly. I commend you for it.
      I kindly would invite you to consider the following:
      First of all, sin will never pay for itself; that is, breaking the commandment of Romans 13, 1st Peter 2:13-17,and 1st Timothy 2:2 will not work in the attempt to do some good act, such as the overthrow of evil. What is more, God who is in control of all things, not man, will not bless our efforts.
      If God would wish to strike down those tyrants whom he has installed in office, he will strike them down himself. Recall what the Son of God told Pilate in John 19:11, "You could have no power at all against me unless it had been given you from above." Indeed, in time Christ's persecutors were punished in this life and in that to come. Pilate was stripped of his office, banished to Switzerland, and died a suicide. Caiaphas lost his high priesthood. Herod died in anguish.
      Furthermore, after it was pointed out to Jesus that the governor, Pilate, had killed Galileans unjustly (see Luke 13:1), what did he respond? "Overthrow him! Kill him!"? "Unless you would repent, you will likewise perish." To be sure, on another occasion God permitted King Herod to put the apostle James to death. Yet on another, Peter was spared (see Acts 12:2 & 7). Why? We do not know. This is part of the hidden will of God that he has chosen not to reveal to us (see Isaiah 55:8-9; Romans 11:33-34). Just the same, God has given this unbreakable pledge to his gospel-believers: "All things work together for good to them that love God" (Romans 8:28).
      Then why do we have bad government? Ask yourself Gideon's question: "If the Lord would be with us, then why has all of this happened to us?" (Judges 6:13.)
      The answer will be: God is against us. Right now he is in a punishing mode against America and the rest of the world. This happens whenever a people or a nation no longer would repent and would believe the gospel of salvation. As a result, God will send them, among other things, bad government, as he has threatened to do, and oppressors, as occurred, for example, in the biblical book of Judges.
      Furthermore, the Lord did not command his followers to obey only good rulers, while they were to disobey and to rebel against tyrannical ones; that is, to obey only good fathers, teachers, and employers, but to rebel against and to put to death bad ones. Indeed, if tonight at midnight God were to put to death everyone who ever acted as a bully, how many of us would still be alive at one a.m.?
      What could we do in America in our current predicament? Go to my web site and click on the "article" tab and see "What you could do." Also there is a more thorough article concerning Romans 13 and 1st Peter 2.
      Thank you for your kind attention and consideration.

      With kind regards,

      Gene Urtel The Rivertown Press

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure what denomination the author of this piece may be , but in my opinion, he does a pretty good job of summarizing Paul's message to the Jewish first century Christians and it is straight out of the Bible. I hope this helps.
      http://www.kingwatch.co.nz/Law_Government/romans_13.htm

      Delete
    3. So based on this analysis the founders acted in error, contrary to Gods will and we are simply paying the price for their errant actions those many years ago.

      Who knew?

      Delete
    4. God didn't give s this government Gene. Folks like you did.

      Delete
    5. God didn't give s this government Gene. Folks like you did.

      Delete
    6. http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Spirituality/ChurchvState/Rom13-ShouldChristiansAlwaysObey.pdf

      Delete
    7. "God didn't give s this government Gene. Folks like you did." Times two.

      OK - So WTF does that mean in basic English? You copied two times.

      Delete
  5. There was an east and west germany.

    We need a free USA and slave USSA.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think there will be many sins, by both sides, before this conflict is settled.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the pillow over the face story is true, then assigning a natural-causes death over the phone is something out of a Pink Panther comedy. If a professional wanted it to look like a natural death, he would rearrange the pillow. This leads me to believe that the killer might have been an amateur. My scenario is that the ranch has some very green eco-weanie staff. If one saw Scalia's name on a computer as an incoming staff, that person informs one of their social circle who has been agitating to "do more" for the environment etc. The guy at the meetings who has been suggesting burning new developments or doing other action-oriented monkeywrenching. The staff opens the door, and lets the "action guy" in while Scalia is taking a nap. Hold down the pillow until no more struggling. Leave pillow in place in order not to have the death image in mind. Also leave pillow in place to lesson the chance of a spontaneous revival of breathing.

    The larger point is that the bedroom should have been treated as a crime scene, and the pillow checked for fibers, hair, DNA etc. Scalia's decisions mean billions of dollars won or lost to major corporations, so that is enough potential motive right there to examine every SCOTUS death as a possible homicide. Too much money and power hangs in the balance to simply embalm and bury a dead SCJ without an investigation.

    But the pillow left in place tells me it might have been an "ideological hit" made as an attack of opportunity by a zealous environmental fanatic or pro-abortion fanatic who saw Scalia as the devil incarnate, and a man deserving to be killed on the spot, given the opportunity to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Matt it could have been an amateur. Then again it could just as well have been done with sanction by a "contactor" who knew that there would never be an investigation. There is a long and well polished history of political assassination in the US using "contract" agents (something you should know as a former member of one of the finest teams of assassins ever created). The only "take away" from this is that like Kennedy, we will never know the truth. People very high up the "food chain" made sure of that. ---Ray

      Delete
    2. The pillow wasn't a mistake, it was a message.

      Delete
  8. Typo/error in my comment above, I meant to say "If one saw Scalia's name on a computer as an incoming GUEST."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the lack of autopsy proves the hit was sanctioned at the top. An innocent pres would have demanded a full investigation just for optics if nothing else. The pillow is the Won trademark middle finger to one and all.

      Delete
    2. I think the lack of autopsy proves the hit was sanctioned at the top. An innocent pres would have demanded a full investigation just for optics if nothing else. The pillow is the Won trademark middle finger to one and all.

      Delete
  9. I, as you TL, are one of the terrified thousands. As sure as anything terror has been struck into my heart as I am sure it has been into yours. Those of us who will in the end be flames in the darkness Know no fear. Regards and take care my friend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably the terror is about the enormity of the evil, rather than one's internal fear of anything in particular for oneself. That's my guess anyway. TL and many others, likely including you, are "fearless" in this manner.

      It's almost always true, you know---"Fear is a liar." That's one reason that remarkably, we're still here!

      Delete
  10. "For those of us who try desperately to maintain the truth at all times and at all costs, integrity is important."

    What a line; it's what we share. Ultimately integrity means being as scrupulous with oneself as one is with others. It's the only thing we control, after all.

    The simple truth is that the United States of America was formally founded on February 2, 1781 with the ratification of the AofC by Maryland and the ceremony was held at high noon on March 1, 1781.

    It's also the truth that the Constitution was a bloodless coup of the USofA in 1789, with the "Whiskey Rebellion" being ruthlessly squashed less than two years later. "Since ancient Greece at least, it's always about the money."

    The Consitution was the first document in history that purported to control the power of the government, rather than the actions of the citizenry. More truth--it didn't.

    To this day, I strongly affirm many of the principles that appear within it. For my money, give me the 2nd and 4th Amendments alone and I'm down with it...I would consent.

    Problem is, things are what they are, not what we wish them to be. This is the nature of the truth. And the truth is that the Constitution both empowered and provided cover for immensely evil acts from that Whiskey Rebellion right up to the setup, ambush and killing of LaVoy Finicrum, as well as the arrest and no-bond holding of Cliven Bundy, not to mention the disgusting re-imprisonment of the Hammonds.

    I'm not looking to argue because I see nothing but individuals out there and I well understand the internal motivations that lead good men to be snookered into believing that which isn't true. But integrity demands that one accept the truth. As you so perfectly note TL, one abandonment of the truth inevitably leads to others.

    So I thought I'd mention this, ahem, inconvenient truth. Besides, SCOTUS itself ruled just last summer that what any law says doesn't count anyway, and this would necessarily include the Constitution itself---“In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase…” Because of the role of precedent, this is now the law of the land too.

    Also, not that it matters a whit, the truth is that lodge owner Poindexter clarified that the pillow was over his head, not over his face. This proves or indicates nothing, but is a fact nonetheless.

    Personally I believe that the truth eventually outs and that the truth shall set us free. It's the only intent behind this comment and there are no ulterior motives. As I trust you understand TL, that's how I live my integrity. Thanks for the space.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, you are right. As I consider myself a Constitutionalist, that is only in the context of what it is and where it is being violated, but I make no guarantee as to its strict legality. It was noted that for two days September 26 and 27 the delegates debated as to whether they had the power to create a new charter rather than simply alter the AoC, but subsequently they decided amongst themselves not to hang each other for treason. The SCOTUS itself is dubious since it did not have jurisdiction to hear Marbury v. Madison from which it assumed the role of Constitutional arbiter. But, this is a much longer conversation than this venue will allow.

      Delete
    2. Lol, I think it's much shorter. "Who owns you?"

      Then it's, "But what about..." Okay, what about it? Does it change the answer to the question?

      Delete
  11. Poindexter said the pillow was not over the face. Apparently Scalia slept with his head jammed into the pillow. I do that quite often, myself.

    He was not in all that good of health; it was not publicized. Some shoulder surgery was not done (per his doctor) because of concerns about his condition. Typically, that means a negative reaction to anesthesia and possible shock. I had a doctor tell me the same thing, one time, although in my case at a young 69 it was of no consequence.

    Presidio County deputies should be well-acquainted with both foul play and natural deaths, just from experience.

    Desertrat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm just saying that the government, at this point, does not deserve the benefit of the doubt; that I don't trust a deputy to make a medical determination. I know they don't even know enough about their own jobs to secure a possible crime scene, because without the death taking place in a hospital, every death is presumed murder until determined otherwise. This was not my elderly grandmother, after all, it was a justice of the Supreme Court in turbulent political times.

      Delete
  12. The old saying about how nothing in politics happens by accident...if everything that happened was legit, why then cast a shadow of doubt on the circumstances of his death? It's impossible that there is no sinister intent, even assuming the best case scenario, which merely reinforces the author's statement that the government is untrustworthy at any point.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is nothing new.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

    Who knows what was done to get Owen Roberts to fold. All we need to understand, was that there were people available to get it done.

    Depending on 9 old farts to secure your liberty is a fool's dream.

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.