James Bovard on Why Government Cover-Ups Succeed
James Bovard on Why Government Cover-Ups Succeed
I wrote this post 2 years ago on the 18th anniversary of the September 11th attacks in 2001. So, Saturday is the 20th anniversary and I am reposting this. It gives information that, if you are still very young, your parents and teachers probably didn’t give you about 9/11. And if you are older it gives you information that the brain-dead, zombie government-stenographer mainstream “news” media also didn’t give us, and they still don’t. (I also will have a new post with commentary on this 20th anniversary shortly.)
Post from 2 years ago:
(Originally posted on September 11, 2019)
Today is the 18th anniversary of the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center, the Pentacon, and in Pennsylvania. Where was I on that day? Well, I was here in this same apartment sitting at my table doing some writing and my father (now deceased) called at around 10 am saying that their trip that they were going to go on that day was canceled and he told me why. Hmm.
The government’s propaganda began immediately on that day and after. 99% of the news media were the White House press spokesmen. There was no discussion of the attackers stated motives, or the history of U.S. government and military’s invasions, bombings and occupations of the Middle East in the 10 years prior to that time. Anyone who did mention those things was labeled “Anti-America,” or “blaming America” for the attacks. Sean Hannity has been especially bad in that regard ever since that time. He is the worst of the worst as far as apparatchiks for the national security state are concerned. I just thought I’d mention that.
However, given that Hannity and all the other radio ditto-heads are accepting of the idea that actual U.S. government FBI, CIA etc. abused their powers including FISA spying in the Russiagate fiasco, maybe now some of these obedient worshipers of the national security state can at least consider the possibility that the official 9/11 narrative isn’t what the government has been telling us for 18 years. (But, I am not holding my breath.)
So, I’m sure that a lot of people reading this post will just skim it and not really take it seriously or click on any of the links for further information. This is because they are satisfied with what the government and its spokespeople of the mainstream media have been telling us since September 11, 2001. All these things they haven’t heard about must be merely whack-job “conspiracy theory” and all that. But there are still some people who are open to the truth.
In the years prior to the attacks, Congressman Ron Paul had several times warned that the U.S. government’s interventionist policies and war that it started against Iraq and elsewhere and Iraqi sanctions would cause blowback and retaliation within our shores. (And the response? Crickets.)
Addendum: For information on the U.S. government’s pre-9/11 sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s and their effects, see Jacob Hornberger, Sanctions: the cruel and brutal war against the Iraqi people, and James Bovard, Iraqi sanctions and American intentions: blameless carnage?
It’s amazing just how brainwashed so many people can be by daily propaganda, watching the TV news, listening to chickenhawk warmonger conservative talk radio, and so forth. “Al Qaeda.” “Osama bin Laden,” and “Islamic” were words that people heard over and over and over, but they rarely heard about Saudi Arabia and blowback.
I don’t know what else to write so I will post links to some new and old articles on the subject, and maybe some videos.
James Bovard on the 9/11 Commission, a bootlicking national disgrace.
Paul Sperry from the New York Post writes this week how Robert Mueller helped Saudi Arabia cover up its role in 9/11.
Related to that, a year ago “28 Pages,” which documents Saudi Arabia’s role in 9/11, had an exclusive article on FBI telling a counterterrorism agent not to help 9/11 victims build their case against Saudi Arabia because that might harm U.S.-Saudi relations. (Doh!)
Paul Craig Roberts writes today:
Over the years I have reported the findings of scientists, engineers, and architects that indicate that the official story is false.I had an open mind for two reasons.One is that having been an engineering student, I could tell the difference from a building falling down from asymmetrical structural damage and a building blowing up.The other is that having been involved in policy issues in Washington for a quarter century I knew that such a humiliating defeat suffered by the world’s only superpower at the hands of a few Muslim terrorists would have brought instant demands from the White House, Congress, and media for investigation into how every aspect of the American national security state failed simultaneously on one morning.Instead the White House resisted the 9/11 families demands for an investigation for one year and never delivered a forensic investigation.Instead, the country was given a 9/11 Commission Report that was merely the government’s official story of what happened.No heads rolled.No one was fired or even reprimanded.To hold no one accountable for such a massive failure and humiliating defeat is not a believable response if the official 9/11 story is true.
Washington’s Blog: Everything we’re doing now was planned before 9/11. And Washington asks, Will the mainstream media ever report on the numerous admitted false flag terror attacks? Many examples given. And another post about U.S. government’s foreknowledge and aiding and abetting the terrorists.
The Guardian: Osama bin Laden had ties to CIA
David Ray Griffin asks, Where is the evidence that Osama bin Laden had responsibility in 9/11? (Remember, Hannity et al. have been complaining ad nauseam, and rightly, that people accusing Trump of “Russia collusions” do not have any evidence, and so on. Evidence is important.) The FBI’s 10 most wanted list included Osama bin Laden because of the African embassy and USS Cole bombings, but NOT because of 9/11 because they had no evidence linking the two. Further info from the Muckraker Report. Read Griffin’s book, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
In 2009 the Daily Mail asked, Has Osama bin Laden been dead for 7 years?
An early 2002 Dan Rather CBS News report on bin Laden’s serious illness:
A December, 2001 Fox News story, still online: Bin Laden already dead.
Of course, how could Osama bin Laden have been killed and thrown out to sea by SEAL Team 6 in 2011 if bin Laden had already died in 2001 or 2002? Paul Craig Roberts again with some questions.
Another question to ask is what caused the helicopter crash in Afghanistan that killed several SEAL Team 6 members who were involved in the Osama bin Laden “killing” just a couple months before that.
And Paul Joseph Watson on the Bin Laden fable shortly after he was “killed” in 2011. While Steve Watson explains the U.S. government’s history of fake bin Laden tapes.
Former CIA asset Susan Lindauer, a whistleblower who was railroaded and labeled a psychiatric case by USGov, explains more truth about 9/11, and the missing security tapes for the World Trade Center.
Here is an interview in which Lindauer tells about her experiences:
James Corbett with an hour-long discussion on who was really behind the 9/11 attacks:
And here is a video documentary from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth explaining the evidence that explosions brought down the World Trade Center, and not the fire caused by planes crashing into the buildings:
I admit it. I’m a “truther.” That’s because the truth is important. And as the late Justin Raimondo wrote, the opposite of a “truther” is a “liar.”
Don’t blame Joe Biden for the problems in Afghanistan as U.S. troops are withdrawn and the Taliban takes over the war-torn “graveyard of empires.” Blame George W. Bush. He started the war, based on lies.
Bush started this war of aggression against Afghanistan and authorized the U.S. military to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Why did Bush order the invasion, bombing and occupation of Afghanistan in the first place?
After 9/11 the Taliban were harboring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and Bush demanded that the Taliban release bin Laden to the U.S. government. The Taliban required Bush to provide evidence of bin Laden’s role in the September 11th attacks, and Bush said, “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.”
Who needs evidence with these things? Certainly not the President of our great USSA, that’s for sure.
The truth is, there was never actual evidence tying Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks, believe it or not. (Although there was a link between bin Laden and the CIA!) Ed Haas at “The Muckraker Report” during the 2000s contacted the FBI regarding why its Most Wanted poster for Osama a.k.a. Usama bin Laden did not mention the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks, only the 1998 African embassy bombings. Haas wrote:
The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”
Who knows why just days after the 9/11 attacks, “a special charter flight…whisked 11 members of Osama Bin Laden’s family off to Saudi Arabia” from Boston, according to investigative reporter Greg Palast.
But George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were obsessed with invading Afghanistan and Iraq from the get-go. According to MSNBC and the BBC, and the Washington Post, Bush was planning to start a war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and a war against Iraq, well before 9/11/2001. (Those Internet links are thanks to Washington’s Blog, which sadly is no longer around.)
Bush started the war in Afghanistan, and did the same against Iraq, also a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush’s father George H.W. Bush started the first war in Iraq, for no good reason, in 1991. That war, the bombings, sanctions and no-fly zones were continued by Bill Clinton, causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians throughout the 1990s, leading up to 9/11/2001.
So not only is the Afghanistan failure George W. Bush’s (and Dick Cheney’s) fault, but I am hearing especially conservatives on the radio complaining about now Afghanistan is now going to be an authoritarian, theocratic Sharia Law society, “thanks to Joe Biden.”
But guess what? Thanks to Bush and Cheney, Afghanistan already has been a Sharia Law society since the Bush administration agreed to the new Afghan Constitution in 2004-2005, which makes Islamic Sharia Law as the law of the land there. (Didn’t you know that?)
Afghanistan shall be an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
The sacred religion of Islam is the religion of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Followers of other faiths shall be free within the bounds of law in the exercise and performance of their religious rituals.
No law shall contravene the tenets and provisions of the holy religion of Islam in Afghanistan.
And it’s the same in Iraq in its constitution also from the mid-2000s, thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Speaking of Jacob Hornberger, a very important must-read article from 2005 he wrote is The Troops Don’t Defend Our Freedoms.
The ones to blame for the terrible situation in Afghanistan right now are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (and all their neocon interventionist cohorts), because foreign interventionism and especially starting wars of aggression against other countries, besides being immoral and criminal, have long-term consequences.
It’s the 76th anniversary of the U.S. military dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians. On Monday it will be the 76th year of the U.S. military dropping The Bomb on Nagasaki.
Many Americans are indoctrinated to rationalize the bombings and mass murder as justified, whether to “save millions” more or to “end the war,” or whatever. But it is never justified to murder an innocent person, war or not.
Here are some articles to read that contradict the government-approved official misinformation most people have been given in their government schools and by their parents or elders. The articles also point out the moral depravity of government rulers such as President Harry Truman who authorized the bombings.
Ralph Raico: Harry Truman and the Atomic Bomb.
Justin Raimondo: Hiroshima, Mon Amour.
Jacob Hornberger: Why Aren’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki War Crimes?
And finally, a must read: Murray Rothbard: War, Peace, and the State
On the LRC blog, Thomas DiLorenzo linked to one of his past articles, Happy Secession Day, and I thought it was appropriate now, for this day at this time.
From the article:
… America’s most prominent secessionist, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration, was very clear about what he was saying: Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and whenever that consent is withdrawn, it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” that government and “to institute a new government.” The word “secession” was not a part of the American language at that time, so Jefferson used the word “separation” instead to describe the intentions of the American colonial secessionists.
The Declaration is also a states’ rights document (not surprisingly, since Jefferson was the intellectual inspiration for the American states’ rights political tradition). This, too, is foreign to most Americans. But read the final paragraph of the Declaration which states:
“That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other things which independent states may of right do (emphasis in original).”
Each colony was considered to be a free and independent state, or nation, in and of itself. There was no such thing as “the United States of America” in the minds of the founders. The independent colonies were simply united for a particular cause: seceding from the British empire. Each individual state was assumed to possess all the rights that any state possesses, even to wage war and conclude peace. Indeed, when King George III finally signed a peace treaty he signed it with all the individual American states, named one by one, and not something called “The United States of America.” The “United States” as a consolidated, monopolistic government is a fiction invented by Lincoln and instituted as a matter of policy at gunpoint and at the expense of some 600,000 American lives during 1861—1865.
Jacob Hornberger describes the kind of free society we were supposed to have here in the U.S., in his article, Repeal MLB’s Antitrust Exemption?
It looks like we will have a turn to the left with more socialism if Joe Biden gets in power, which means President Kamala Harris, and probably AOC as the Speech and Thought Commissar who will distribute a long list of those the administration has determined to be “racists,” etc, i.e. anyone who disagrees with the Regime.
So this will be a time in which those who believe in the freedom and principles of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights will have to seriously consider, if not full secession and genuine independence then nullification of the further federal edicts that Biden or Harris will attempt to shove down our throats. (And this isn’t just because of the illegitimacy of their presidency given that they imposed a coup via a massive organized racketeering operation of fraud and vote tampering and fabricating.)
To get a good idea on the right and importance of nullification, I recommend Tom Woods’s book from 2010, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century. Here it is at the Mises Institute store, and Amazon.
I have quoted before from this blog post by Tom Woods and will again, in his explanation of the relationship between the states and the federal government:
If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.
In Woods’s Liberty Classroom page on nullification, he writes:
1) The states preceded the Union. The Declaration of Independence speaks of “free and independent states” that “have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of individual states, which they proceeded to list one by one. Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states “retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence”; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to “retain” it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted. The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
2) In the American system no government is sovereign. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
3) Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power. No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether the agent has or should have such-and-such power. In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created. James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800.
There is further information on that Nullification resource page. And Woods answers some of the objections to Nullification, such as the claims that it violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause, that it doesn’t appear in the Constitution, that the Supreme Court ruled against the idea, that it was used by the southern states to defend slavery, and other objections.
So of course people have the right to live their lives however they want, as long as they are peaceful. Given that the Declaration of Independence recognizes the unalienable right of each individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then of course the people of the states have a right to nullify federal diktats.
For example, healthcare. As I wrote in my June of 2011 article on disobeying dictators,
Now, by “disobeying dictators,” I am not advocating violence, but only that people live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not intrude on anyone else’s equal right to do the same with their lives. So there comes a time when civil disobedience is in order. By civil disobedience, I mean acting in defiance of government-imposed rules and dictates that have nothing to do with protecting life, liberty and property. This includes individual- or state-nullification of federal orders. I believe in the Non-Aggression Principle and oppose the use of aggression as an initiated means toward an end.
Like in the old Soviet Union, Obama’s government-controlled medical scheme will not only be harmful medically, but the increasing police state we are experiencing will be used to enforce the controls, and also will be used against individuals who show dissent from the government’s authoritarian dictates.
We The People don’t need all that, and we don’t want it. We want freedom and peace. (At least I do.)
Now, what would happen if doctor’s offices, hospitals, medical equipment manufacturers, drug and supplement makers, and insurers just decided to do their business with their consumers – honestly and peacefully, and without aggression or fraud – and totally ignore federal regulations, mandates, fees, licensure laws and other intrusions? Frankly, those intrusions’ only real purpose is to protect established physicians and businesses’ profits from prospective competitors and start-ups. (The medical establishment was already corrupt well before ObamaCare.)
The contracts involved in the relationships between doctors or other medical providers and patients, or between insurers and patients, are private contracts, and third parties such as government bureaucrats sticking their big noses into those private contracts are committing acts of criminality, of trespassing, in my opinion.
Acts of nullification are necessary for Americans to be better served in their medical needs. With freedom, the consumers would determine what is needed, not the government, and the producers would serve the consumers – quality of medical care would then rise and the prices would fall.
So I definitely recommend Tom Woods’s book on nullification, which people should send to their state legislators and even their U.S. congressmen and senators.
On the Amazon page it quotes “from the inside flap”:
Unconstitutional laws are pouring out of Washington…but we can stop them.
Just ask Thomas Jefferson. There is a “rightful remedy” to federal power grabs–it’s called Nullification.
In Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, historian and New York Times bestselling author Thomas E. Woods, Jr. explains not only why nullification is the constitutional tool the Founders envisioned, but how it works–and has already been employed in cases ranging from upholding the First Amendment to knocking down slave laws before the Civil War. In Nullification, Woods shows:
* How the states were meant to be checks against federal tyranny–and how a growing roster of governors and state attorneys general are recognizing they need to become that again
* Why the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reinforces the rights of states to nullify unconstitutional laws
* Why it was left to the states to uphold the simple principle that an unconstitutional law is no law at all
* Why, without nullification, ordinary Americans will continue to suffer the oppression of unjust, unconstitutional laws
* PLUS thorough documentation of how the Founding Fathers believed nullification could be applied
Nullification is not just a book–it could become a movement to restore the proper constitutional limits of the federal government. Powerful, provocative, and timely, Nullification is sure to stir debate and become a constitutional handbook for all liberty-loving Americans.
We already have a lot of federal bureaucracies and agencies which shouldn’t exist and should be abolished along with all of their regulations and fees and fines. None of them is authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and if they exist, then the people have a right to nullify them. Of course, it is helpful if such nullification is made official in state laws by the state legislatures.
Sunday is the 57th year of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Charles Burris has a lengthy and informative article with many links to other articles and books on that fateful occasion: Remembering The November 22, 1963 Deep State Coup d’état.