The Law is a Murder Weapon by Bill Buppert

Publisher’s Note: I may be one of the few who is not surprised in the least a Grand Old Politburo dominated state apparatus is increasing laws, spending and theft at astronomical levels.

“So why isn’t the GOP going to do a budget? Because the vote on the 2019 budget — the last one Congress will consider before the 2018 midterm elections — will reveal that all the Republican promises on the deficit and debt, including its blind belief on dynamic scoring, were completely bogus.”

Mrs. Ryan and Mrs. McConnell know exactly what they are doing.

Per the latest kerfuffle on the Deep State coup, this is nothing new. Remember that Comrade Ted Kennedy sought assistance from the USSR in 1980 to torpedo the Reagan election.

And please don’t be mistaken that the Grand Old Politburo is allergic to communism since the party was built on Lincoln’s Marxist project during the brutal war on the Southern exit strategy. The Republicans have been a big government party since their inception.

“We might also note that for six of Reagan’s eight years, he enjoyed a Republican-controlled Senate (from 1981-1987), all the while racking up record-breaking deficits.

So, is a vote for the GOP a vote for less government spending, more fiscal restraint, and “personal responsibility.” It’s hard to see how one could possibly construe that from the historical record.”

Commies gonna commie.

On another note, as a “defense observer”, I want you to get a taste of what your tax dollars are funding. The DoD acquisition system is a very expensive financial wrecking ball that hasn’t produced a single new successful large weapons program since retiring the A10 Thunderbolt II rolled off the factory floor in 1984. You’ll note the B1B, F22 and B117 are either moribund or cancelled.

Here is what 20,000,000,000 debt-bucks delivers now posing as a functional aircraft carrier. Keep in mind the Navy accepted this pig. I want you ton know if I took one debt-buck and stacked it up 20bn times, the tower would be approx 1,360 miles high.

 “As of June 2017, the program estimates that EMALS has approximately 455 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failures (MCBCF) in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. While this estimate is above the rebaselined reliability growth curve, the rebaselined curve is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBCF.

 In June 2017, the Program Office estimated that the redesigned AAG had a reliability of approximately 19 Mean Cycles Between Operational Mission Failures (MCBOMF) in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft. This reliability estimate is well below the rebaselined reliability growth curve and well below the 16,500 MCBOMF specified in the requirements documents.”

In English that means the aircraft carrier cannot reliably launch aircraft sorties. And we haven’t even discussed the problems with the F35 disaster.

F35: Construction costs stand at $400 billion at the moment, almost twice the initial estimate. In a time of budgetary restraints and cutting back, the federal government insists on sinking $1.45 trillion over the next 50 years on a plane that is proving itself to be a lemon. Considering the estimate was only at $1 trillion in 2011, the $450 billion increase in required funds indicates that the $1.45 trillion will likely increase further.

The U.S. atomic bomb Manhattan Project cost $26 billion in its entirety measured in today’s dollars. To put it in perspective, the F-35 program costs grew by “approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012.”

That is your money forcibly drained from you.

That’s what you pay for (and your unborn grandchildren) under duress.

They are debt-bucks after all.

If you aren’t preparing for the worst, you aren’t paying attention. -BB

“But now, in which direction has latter-day American Liberalism tended? Has it tended towards an expanding régime of voluntary cooperation, or one of enforced cooperation? Have its efforts been directed consistently towards repealing existent measures of State coercion, or towards the devising and promotion of new ones? Has it tended steadily to enlarge or to reduce the margin of existence within which the individual may act as he pleases? Has it contemplated State intervention upon the citizen at an ever-increasing number of points, or at an ever-decreasing number? In short, has it consistently exhibited the philosophy of individualism or the philosophy of Statism?”

– Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945) From the Introduction to Spencer’s forgotten 1884 classic, The Man Versus the State

The latest internecine conflict between the wings of the uni-party in the swamp deserve some credit for revealing the absolute buffoonery of our overlords where they can’t even conduct a conspiracy worthy of the name.

My case in this essay is that no law can possibly grant freedom without taking from another. None.

In the larger scheme of things, what the 13^th Amendment granted in removing chattel slavery did indeed replace that servitude with another codified in the loathsome 14^th Amendment.

Malum prohibitum and malum in se laws have both been used and abused to point where one can’t be distinguished from another.

“These are what the law classifies as malum in se, as distinguished from malum prohibitum. Thus, murder, arson, robbery, assault, for example, are so classified; the “sense” or judgment of mankind is practically unanimous in regarding them as crimes. On the other hand, selling whiskey, possessing gold, and the planting of certain crops, are examples of the malum prohibitum, concerning which there is no such general agreement.”

I called the rule of law into question before and want to tease out a thread from the argument that probes even deeper into legitimacy.

John Hasnas makes the case:

“For with the acceptance of the myth of the rule of law comes a blindness to the fact that laws are merely the commands of those with political power, and an increased willingness to submit oneself to the yoke of the state. Once one is truly convinced that the law is an impersonal, objective code of justice rather than an expression of the will of the powerful, one is likely to be willing not only to relinquish a large measure of one’s own freedom, but to enthusiastically support the state in the suppression of others’ freedom as well.”

So we’ve established that in this mortal coil it is impossible to overcome human bias but that when harnessed to an “impartial judge” who derives their existence and succor from the state instantiates a conflict of interest writ large. This may be one reason why so many judgements in the US are rendered in favor of the government especially at the Federal level. As a matter of fact, human objectivity is equally impossible. All humans and interactions are exercised through individual bias filters.

Furthermore, so much of the scientific revolution in “law imposement” [laws cannot be enforced unless imposed via political fiat] has been proven to be the worst kind of paranormal chicanery.

Hair analysis has been used by the coproach community in America for decades and it has no more scientific basis than Erick von Daniken’s fantastical Chariots of the Gods.

“In July 2013, the FBI admitted that the foundations of what it called “hair comparison evidence” – a technique that its agents had used in hundreds of criminal cases nationwide and spread through the training of state-based detectives potentially through tens of thousands of other cases – were scientifically invalid. A preliminary review of the FBI’s follicular flaws found that:

• Microscopic hair analysis could not scientifically distinguish one individual to the exclusion of all others.
• Statistical weight could not be given to comparisons to suggest a likelihood that the hair derived from a specific source.
• Expert witnesses should not cite the number of hair analyses they had conducted in the lab to bolster the idea that they could definitively state that a hair belonged to a specific individual.”

Even the FBI has been forced to admit deceit and malpractice.

“The Washington Post published a story so horrifying this weekend that it would stop your breath: “The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.”

Dogs have been fashioned by Hollywood to lead generations of Americans that their noses cannot lie. Not so much.

“You’d think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who’d been convicted — and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who’d tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution’s dog handler “as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen.”

Even the Fabian Australians have started to come to their senses about the voodoo surrounding drug dogs.

“Instead, they are resulting in thousands of people being subjected to intrusive bodily searches every year, while doing little to fulfil their stated purpose of deterring drug use and catching drug suppliers.

The statistics suggest that in 2015, NSW police carried out 12,893 bodily searches, of which 69 percent turned out to be false positives – where a dog makes an indication but no drugs are found during the subsequent search.”

Fingerprints have long been disputed and fallen out of disfavor but are still stubbornly clung to by a public that doesn’t understand the science. Errors are rife in latent fingerprinting and it gives a perverse incentive to the government to increase the incidence of gathering fingerprint data from its captive populations. One of the outgrowths of the imperial mischief abroad has been the introduction and conditioning process of making biometric data gathering a harmless enterprise for governments.

A 2006 U.K. study by researchers at the University of Southampton found that the error rate of fingerprint analysts doubled when they were first told the circumstances of the case they were working on.

Forensics labs have famously been found out to be no better than paranormal shysters in the manifest malpractice and malfeasance at the forensics “labs”.

“Nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,” the newspaper reported, adding that “the cases include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death.”

I recommend you read the entire Atlantic article if you have the stomach for it.

In West Virginia alone, Zain may have lied in as many as 182 different cases. And in addition to his work in a Texas crime lab, Zain served as a forensics consultant to 10 other states, creating the possibility that he lied across thousands of primarily rape and murder trials. As one would expect, the costs of cleaning up after the trail of investigative mayhem have been astronomical. West Virginia alone paid $6.5 million in compensation to innocent people convicted by Zain’s deception, and the state of Texas shelled out $850,000.

He is the tip of the iceberg.

The FBI scandals are the tip of the federal crime industry iceberg.

I think that the lie detector scandal has been thoroughly covered elsewhere.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded that “[polygraph testing’s] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?”

There are innumerable examples of this kind of fraud, deceit, disinformation and immorality committed by the vast “just us” system in the US. If you think that is not true, just examine the Comrade Comey the Clown and his sycophantic protection of Pantsuit Negan in the summer of 2016.

I simply wish to buttress the point I made at the beginning, not only is the rule of law a myth but the law we all suffer under today is rife with misrepresentation and chicanery.

I’ve made the case that the rule of law is an illusion you cling to at your own peril.

I’ve also made a brief case that many of the tools the “just-us” system employs are simply fraudulent.

The final observation is that the law never maintains or expands freedom. Unless laws are revoked like the Volstead Act, no freedom obtains from law.

None.

But then again, the repeal of prohibition in 1934 was on the heels of even worse laws to come. It would ironically give birth to the wretched BATF at the same time. While the repeal stopped prohibition, it did not lead to decriminalization but merely the legalization of alcohol heavily regulated by the federal and state governments.

Prohibition didn’t work but decriminalization does; the moment something is regulated by law, it is encumbered by the state and becomes a weapon against freedom to choose.

Ask the whiskey distillers harassed by George Washington at the head of his army in 1794.

Laws never advance freedom. In the history of this country, the very fact that the Constitution didn’t read: “and Congress shall make no law.”

The government began its stranglehold on every aspect of human transaction.

Laws by their very nature don’t advance freedom and liberty. They restrict, regulate and exsanguinate.

A new law or power by the government is never a road to liberation.

Resist. Rinse. Repeat.