Lies of Omission

Lies of Omission
An Amazing Documentary

Andrea Shea King

Media Appearance

Friday, February 26, 2016

Change Will Come

What are we to make of this? It was reported in Yahoo News that a Colorado man, Martin Wirth, killed one deputy and wounded two more before being shot and killed by officers. Wirth, a member of the Occupy Movement in Colorado was facing eviction from his home in Bailey, CO. He was described by neighbors as "reclusive" and by his cohorts in the Occupy Movement as a "sweet, quirky, kind-hearted guy."


Wirth ran for pubic office in 2014 as a Green Party Candidate. At one time he sued Governor Hickenlooper, the Colorado Attorney General and a judge in 2013 in an attempt to stay in his home.


"He wrote disparagingly of police, the federal government and corporations on his candidate page on Facebook and praised former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who leaked millions of documents about government surveillance. He made regular posts criticizing leading presidential candidates from both parties."


It seems that Wirth was attempting to make a "Bundy" stand when he called on the Colorado Foreclosure Resistance Coalition to join him in a "non-violent eviction resistance."


While I understand that this story was designed to further the gun-control agenda, to me it sort of backfires on that intent. By illuminating the fact that the idea of armed resistance to government corruption is not solely a "Republican, conservative, religious" point of view, it destroys part of the narrative. How are they to explain that this Green Party candidate is a right-wing nut? Without that, the public is forced to consider that maybe there is something wrong with government control that deserves armed resistance.


It also signifies that this sentiment is far more widespread than previously acknowledged and while I do not expect much to change before the next economic crisis, that is rapidly approaching and it might be significantly more contested than the last one. Consider for a moment that the last economic crisis was hoisted upon a population that had never seen that level of government and corporate corruption in the United States. Now, they have.


There is a price for injustice, a price that our government has been able to avoid for many years, but I believe there is a limit to that which the American people will tolerate. There is a line, that when crossed, brings disparate philosophies together. Perhaps it will foster an unlikely and unfortunate combination that will utterly destroy those freedoms we seek and rights we defend, but change will come.

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.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Sovereignty Is The Cheapest Asset

Implosion is imminent. Gold is up, stocks are down, (with much more room to drop) banks are slowly admitting their compromised positions with government paper and some have moved to stronger gold positions. Global recession has been on the map since China's economy started contracting. U.S. debt has soared and the paper the treasury issues is becoming devalued, but there is truly nowhere for it to go as our own economy slows. Oil has lost 70% of its value, taking the economies of the Middle East with it, though they have been able to stave off drastic cuts in domestic spending so far, it has come at a high price as they now try to sell bonds to institutions that are already holding too much government debt.


It must be obvious to anyone (if they aren't too busy taking selfies) that our indebted government has no intention of every repaying that debt. They will not repay China, or the UK, or Japan. The U.S. Government is a deadbeat. But, it has collateral. It has vast amounts of Western states it has occupied for over one hundred years.


The question one must ask oneself is this: What happens when the debt collector comes to collect?


One thing we can all agree on is that our government is full of cowards and negotiators. We know this because they have not stood up for principle when it came to Constitutional violations. They turned a blind-eye to scandals of the Obama Administration that would have brought down any other president, even with the traitors in the media providing cover.


It is no mere coincidence that the economic crisis of 2008 and this one arrive as a two-term president is leaving office. Some balls can only be kept in the air for so long, but on the eve of pinning someone else with the blame is as good a time as any to let them drop. But, this crisis might be much more severe and much more damaging than any before in history precisely because nothing substantial has been changed since the last one. The only true difference is that there are no more deep pockets out there to tap, except the private accounts of citizens and large corporations.


The U.S. Government's violations of the Constitution and the promise of a small federal government focused mostly on internal conflicts between the states and external conflicts with other nations have lead to the debt. Its constant meddling in internal state's issues and the desire to expand its power and control over everything have led it into every aspect of our lives.


The last economic crisis led to the Tea Party, which was a rebellion of middle-class individuals angered over the way the last economic crisis was handled, which was basically bailing out the banks at the expense of small businesses and individuals. There was no debt-relief to compensate them. There was no tax-debt relief to ease their conditions. So, average people rose up to challenge the powers that forgave every debt, but the ones they owed. Because they were decent people, they stopped short of violence. They worked within the system to elect different representatives and changed the House and Senate into Republican controlled institutions.


Promises were made for their votes: promises to de-fund Obamacare; to hold bankers accountable; to reduce public debt; to re-establish Constitutional controls over the federal government. They reneged on those promises and now they get Trump.


The Republican establishment hates Trump, they hate Cruz and struggle mightily to support anyone, Bush, Kasich or Rubio, anyone but Trump or Cruz. They want someone they can control when the next economic crisis hits, because they will need someone who will divert all funds toward their purposes and deflect blame away from those who most deserve it. This is not to say that electing Trump or Cruz will mean the end of their efforts, it will probably just put those efforts into overdrive to coerce them, if that is with whom they are forced to work.


Here's what will not happen: the people will not be forgiven of their debts or the taxes they owe.


They will be held accountable for every penny. Their assets will be liquidated to supply the insatiable appetite of their betters. Their labor will be needed as bargaining chips with the rest of the world. The natural resources of the citizen's land will be needed to pay for the excesses of the establishment. In fact, the establishment is not even that concerned that the United States remains an independent nation. They would gladly make an agreement with the UN and perhaps even China to "resolve" their differences by forfeiting sovereignty. Sovereignty is the cheapest asset they have with which to bargain away their debts.


The only ones left to pay for it all are the people. Many of these people don't understand or appreciate the values of this nation enough to understand the import of that agreement. They have become accustomed to slavery already. They crave the safety of slavery over the sacrifice of liberty. They will not stand up for anything. For all of the flag-waving and anthem singing done at every public event, there is no patriotism left in the United States, because it has boiled down to nothing more than a flag and a song. The principles behind them are meaningless to them.


But, what of those Constitutionalists, those patriots, those who do hold the self-evident truths to be the height of human accomplishment? They will be annihilated, because either they will be imprisoned or dead as they struggle for the righteous restoration of those principles. Perhaps those principles will die and the world will go back to the natural order of dominance and slavery, where higher principles of logic and liberty will be banished for good.


Understand one thing: every government agent, from local cop to the president is an author of the death of those principles and the death of liberty. When it comes your time to die for those principles, before you are enslaved to a foreign power, remember how proudly they sold them out.      

Friday, February 5, 2016

Newsweek Goes Off The Rails

Newsweek recently put forth a theory about right-wing extremism. It was a fantastic piece of fiction. After they had waded through all of the crimes committed by right-wing extremists, totaling them up as more than Jihadists had committed, it came up to much less than one day in September of 2001.


They carefully crafted the discussion to begin in 2002. During which they claimed that "Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead." But, that only leads one to question what definitions they used. From the obviously stilted tenor of the story, it is logical to conclude that they vastly minimized "Islamic" terrorism and vastly maximized "right-wing extremist" terrorism. It also leads to one other question: how many police departments have killed unarmed people in the same time frame? Here's a hint: In Albuquerque alone, of the 20 instances of people being killed by police over half were "unconstitutional." Extrapolate that and it is totally frightening and makes the murders by either group inconsequential.


But, there were further distortions. Later in the story they claim:  "...many experts maintain that the movement was a product of the financial crisis for farms in the 1980s, rapid economic and cultural change, and the adoption of gun control and environmental protection laws. In recent years, an explosion in the number of militias has been linked by experts to the beginning of the Great Recession in December 2007 and the election of Barack Obama months later."


Well, well so it was all due to recession. They seem to have left out the federal abuses of the combination of the BLM and the EPA that fired up the Sagebrush Rebellion. Not a word of how ranchers had been pushed off their land with threats and trumped up fines and criminal charges that fueled the resistance of the 1970's, not some recession.


They left out the murders of son and wife of Randy Weaver for which the federal government later settled with Weaver for $3.5 million.


They left out the 76 men, women and children burned alive in Waco, Texas.


They left out the financial crises aided and abetted by federal policy, lax oversight and willing complicity in fraud. They left out the trillions of dollars of further federal debt to bail out banks, auto manufacturers and "shovel-ready" transportation projects.


We are supposed to forget that virtually none of those "shovel-ready" projects materialized and when it did, the jobs went to already hired union workers. The money to bail out the auto industry was a hat tip to unions which dominate U.S. automakers and that the program eliminated hundreds of privately owned dealerships not surprisingly most of them owned by conservatives.


The banks that were bailed out busily foreclosed on homes across the land, refused to give loans so small businesses so they could restructure their loans either because the banks had their funds tied up with toxic debt, or they used the "new" money to purchase other banks. None of the trillions of dollars taken from future generations of Americans was used to actually fix anything.


They left out the fact that opposition to Barack Obama had nothing to do with the increase in liberty-minded groups, rather it had to do with Barack Obama's policies that infringed on Fourth Amendment rights to privacy; First Amendment rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly; and Second Amendment rights to arms.


They left out the fact that when citizens protested the disaster of Obamacare, (freedom of assembly) trying desperately to keep this abomination from becoming law, they were harassed and intimidated by the IRS. That when political opponents of Obamacare tried to form non-profit groups they were denied that status by the IRS. (and Eichenwald has the gall to ask why these people don't just vote? They have voted, restructured the House and Senate and Obama just writes an EO)


To hear it from Newsweek, this irrational opposition to the federal government is just a bunch of malcontents driven by unfortunate economic conditions.


The article paints legitimate political opposition as people who believe "...(they) have to engage in armed combat with their own government rather than vote, kill their fellow citizens rather than tolerate differences, blow up buildings rather than just get a job?"


My question to Kurt Eichenwald, the author of this daffy distortion of U.S. history, is what makes the federal agents believe they have to murder women and children to get their way? What makes the federal government believe that murder is better than talking and working out resolutions for the land rather than taking the property, livelihoods and lives of American citizens? The occupation of Malheur Wildlife Refuge was nothing other than an armed sit-in. From the very early stages it was clear that there was a protest element to the takeover. Bundy openly talked to federal agents about their grievances and met with them on several occasions. The group had allowed the media to interview them. Sorry, Kurt, that sounds like people with a grievance they are willing to negotiate, not evil murderers bent on killing government agents.


Kurt Eichenwald writes this news story as if it were a blog post, devoid of fact, devoid of reason with stilted statistics and verbal insults aimed at those he despises. It is quite instructive that he asks what right the so-called "right-wing extremists" have to kill their fellow citizens rather than tolerate difference. But, Eichenwald does not seem very interested in tolerating the differences he might have with gun owners, or Tea Party members, or true political opponents of a government unloosed from its political moorings. He intimates, through his hate for those he does not want to understand, that the feds should just kill and imprison them all.


At one point Eichenwald quotes the Constitution, something he must have picked up from a lawyer he talked to once. The part he quoted was misquoted as: "Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, the Constitution grants Congress full authority to make all rules and regulations for the management of federal lands."


I guess he didn't actually quote it, because it would refute what he claims it says. Here is the actual quote: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.


But, Eichenwald is no scholar or he would have put that clause in context with this one: Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.


So, yes, the Constitution grants Congress the right dispose of federal lands and to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory (for Eichewald's edification: States are not Territories) or other property belonging to the United States, which in the further citing is inclusive only of the District of Columbia (ten miles square) or other property belonging to the United States.


They are given "like authority" over "other property" belonging to the United States, but then it is limited by the purposes in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings. Vast tracts of Western states varying from 35% to 85% are neither Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, or buildings.


But then, such is the stupidity of a Newsweek "reporter" who does not understand the difference between radical racists and legitimate political opposition. Who lumps all actors and agencies together, without the rational intelligence to differentiate between those who identify violations by the government of the actual Constitution and violent nuts.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Opportunities Lost

I took a few days and I went to Burns, Oregon. I did not connect with Pacific Patriot Network or Idaho III%. I attempted to contact these groups, but I had limited time available and they did not respond to my inquiries. I did not go out to the wildlife refuge as that was not my purpose. I simply wanted to make the human connection with these groups, to establish trust.


My intention was to respond to a call to action. I did so, but without being able to contact PPN, my ability to work in connection with their efforts was lost. I guess they did fine without my participation and I am happy that they did.


My experience illuminates one of the very difficult issues of this community. I don't mean to criticize either group, but if one puts out a call to action, but has no organization that is capable of responding to contact and therefore marshaling forces, they lose the advantage of trust. Obviously, I will not bother wasting my time responding to such calls in the future. Sure, they had bigger fish to fry and I assume, somewhere, they were busy voicing all of our concerns. For that I am grateful.


I made the best use of my time in Burns gathering intelligence. The first thing that stands out, is that Burns, Oregon and the wildlife refuge in particular are probably the worst places in the nation to engage in such an occupation. Logistically, it is horrible. There are about four or five ways into town, all of them exposed for long stretches of road with nothing in between. The land is open, offering little or no cover. The closest interstate is over a hundred miles from Burns. What few motels they had in town offered only opportunities to aggregate hostiles, making it easy to track down combatants. The wildlife refuge itself is a long drive down an isolated road.


I have criticized the initial action of taking over the refuge for many reasons and my assumptions proved true once I arrived in Burns.


But, I did what I wanted to do. I supported the call to action. I went there. I tried to participate in a show of force. I paid my respects to the memory of LaVoy Finicum.

About Me

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