That’s pretty much it. Stop blocking full disclosure. If there is no list and Ghislaine Maxwell doesn’t have dirt on you or the rest of our would-be rulers, then what’s the problem in hearing her testimony?
Bacon, Guns & Whiskey
…with a side of Freedom and Liberty. Common-ish sense in uncommon times.
-
-
Yep, it’s Jeffrey Epstein. His client list was on the Attorney General’s desk back in February, but suddenly it doesn’t exist. So was Bondi lying then or is she lying now?
The suicide tape erased because of an “error”, but now suddenly it does exist. How is that possible?
Both of those are to drive home one conclusion: nothing to see here. Again, how is this possible?? People are crying foul, but that will only last for a few weeks (at least that is the historical trend in circumstances like this). Is it because Epstein’s own words sound like they implicate the person in charge of the people suddenly coming to these magical conclusions — that person being his “closest friend”? Or is it because there actually was/is a list and someone on it paid enough for the list to meet an unfortunate end? Us peasants will probably never know.
Jeffrey Epstein and His “Closest Friend” As the old saying goes, “[q]uis custodiet ipsos custodes?” [“Who watches the watchers?”] The answer is us, except, it’s become hard for us to watch anything because we’re too busy fighting amongst ourselves, watching the latest “reality” show, or any of the other things out there that are successfully dulling our wits, allowing us to just accept what we’re told without question, and generally distract our attention from the things that actually matter.
It’s how we’ve gotten into $37,077,892,193,371 [as of the time of this writing] of debt without as much as a squeak from the average person — but that’s a topic for a different day.
-
Benjamin Franklin famously said “[t]hat it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer”. So vile the concept of injustice was to Franklin that he went on to quote Thoughts that posited that “the very Thought of injured Innocence, and much more that of suffering Innocence, must awaken all our tenderest and most compassionate Feelings, and at the same time raise our highest Indignation against the Instruments of it.”
Yet, we, as a country, are quick to agree to things like the PATRIOT Act, mass detentions (even if innocent Americans get picked up and are eventually released), and a surveillance state that rivals those of countries like China and parts of Europe.
The Cato Institute wrote about this topic and noted that 60% found imprisoing the innocent was unacceptable, while 40% disagreed or had qualified answers. This should terrify you, because it means that 40% of Americans have been conditioned to accept that punishment is more important than protecting liberty.
So how do we fix this? We recondition ourselves to value liberty and freedom above all else. We push back against things like the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty [Enforcement] Act (AEDPA)… wait, I lost you there, didn’t it? AEDPA raises the bar in habeaus petitions for appelate relief, despite some of its provisions being considered “radical” — yet the word “antiterrorism” likely made you take a moment of pause. “Terrorism” is the word that has brainwashed us into accepting the restriction of more civil liberties than any other concept in history. And with that word at the very front of it, what AEDPA has done is raised the bar so high for appelate courts that it has effectively wiped out any habeaus protection at the federal level. Don’t take my word for it, take the words of Duke Law School, Cornell Law School, and Congress’s own words (though theirs is admittedly written in very flowery language). That last one should really and truly terrify you.
If you think about it, the word “terrorism” has become a dog whistle that has gotten people to think more about accepting punishment and government control than of preserving and protecting liberty. After all, those TSA security checks aren’t so invasive, are they? And the “border search” exception to the Fourth Amendment helps keep drugs and terrorists out, right? And you’re innocent, so you have nothing to worry about, right?
Wrong. The ‘if you’re innocent, then you have nothing to hide’ is repulsive — waive your civil rights or we’ll think you’re not innocent because innocent people have nothing to hide — and was precisely what Franklin and the other Founders spoke out against. Yet we accept it because it makes us “more secure.”
Ben Franklin had something to say about that, too, as it happens. Franklin’s quote that “[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” has taken on a different context in the digital age than it’s original. Originally, it was said in the context of taxation and defense, but I would argue that he would accept it in today’s context of government surveillance and intrusion into every aspect of our daily lives.
Bottom line: innocent people being picked up or having their rights violated in pursuit of safety from scary things and punishment of criminals sounds great — until it’s you. Something to think about.
Bacon, Guns & Whiskey 