Lies the government told you (33 page)

Furthermore, the threat of harsh federal penalties creates further inequities in terms of the power differential between prosecutors and defendants. One
Reason.com
article states:

Many critics have pointed out that disparate punishment by state and federal jurisdictions for the same crime invites abuse of prosecutorial discretion at both state and federal levels. State prosecutors may use the threat of a federal prosecution as a bargaining tool to wrangle a guilty plea. Federal prosecutors may decide to prosecute only those defendants whose convictions will bring political rewards. Federal prosecutors are free to cherry-pick high-profile or politically expedient cases, knowing that the cases they reject probably will be prosecuted in state court.
⁵¹

Under RICO, people are charged with
racketeering
(which could realistically be anything), instead of the actual crime (such as fraud, illegal gambling, etc.). William L. Anderson, an economics professor at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and one of the country’s leading authorities on abuse of the criminal law by state and federal prosecutors, points out the difference in standards the prosecutor must meet in RICO cases versus regular criminal prosecutions:

Because RICO cases are tried in federal courts, U.S. attorneys do not have to prove to juries and judges that the accused engaged in the aforementioned crimes (which as a rule are violations of state criminal law); they must show only that it appears the defendants carried on those activities. Moreover, for a RICO conviction, the prosecutor must meet only the civil standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” not the higher standard of “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” that historically has been required for a criminal conviction.
⁵²

Moreover, many of the “crimes” being prosecuted at the federal level are plainly not federal in nature, meaning they were meant to be handled by the states. Thus, the misappropriation of RICO violates the constitutional principle of federalism and contributes to the inefficiencies of the federal court system.
⁵³

Many absurd examples of RICO’s use have arisen over the years. Professor Anderson recounted a story about his friend who was charged with racketeering under RICO. The friend’s company was raided by a federal SWAT team in 1996, despite evidence that actions taken by company employees were done in good faith and without criminal intent. Anderson explains that his friend’s assets were frozen after the SWAT team invasion, and he was therefore forced into using a public defender. Instead of taking the government’s plea bargain of four years in prison, he went through with the trial. Then in 2001, a federal judge sentenced him to ten years in prison, and all of his assets were seized.
⁵⁴

The federal government can also use RICO to get around statutes of limitations. If the federal government, for example, wants to prosecute someone for fraud, it must do so within five years and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If successful, the feds get jail time for the defendant and restitution from him for the harm he caused. If the feds cannot prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt within that time, there’s a way out: They can use RICO, which has a
ten
-year statute of limitations and a lower standard of proof. If successful, the government can wipe out the defendant via RICO’s treble (or triple) damages provisions.

In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court refused an opportunity to address the overuse of RICO in civil lawsuits against large corporations. This refusal to address the issue came after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s National Chamber Litigation Center (NCLC) filed a brief asking the justices to review whether the RICO laws were being used properly in civil cases because the expansion of RICO in this capacity would “undermine business partnerships and adversely impact the economy.”
⁵⁵

It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court failed to address the overuse of RICO because this abuse is impacting our economy in many ways. It forces expensive litigation on behalf of the nation’s businesses, expensive prosecutions using government money, and the crowding of jails with long-term sentences often for nonviolent criminals. And why do we have RICO? Because the federal government fanned flames of fear about some aging mob figures whose wealth it wanted to seize, but whose guilt it could not prove.

Don’t Give In! Our Democracy Depends on It.

In times when the nation is fearful and hysterical, we are generally willing to give up some rights. Yet, even giving up
some
of our civil liberties sets us up for danger. As with most constitutional rights, there is a slippery slope. Once some rights get taken away, other liberties are more easily curtailed; and then the process repeats a generation later. Soon, more rights are lost, and the entire notion of democracy falls apart.

We cannot acquiesce in the destruction of our liberties; we cannot allow the government to hoodwink us into being an obedient flock of sheep. Fear is a powerful weapon for the government, and it knows it. One of the great thieves of life and fortune in American history, FDR, told us as much when he articulated that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Unfortunately for 2,700 American sailors at Pearl Harbor, he knew exactly what he was talking about.

Do you still think that the rights God gave you and that are
guaranteed
by the Constitution can be exercised in bad times, as well as in good?

Lie #14
“Your Boys Are Not Going to Be
Sent into Any Foreign Wars”
¹

In 1915, a German U-boat sank the
Lusitania
, a British liner carrying nearly two hundred Americans. It was an event instrumental in bringing the United States into the war in Europe. The sinking of the ship, however, was not a surprise. There is significant evidence pointing to the fact that not only were the British aware there were German submarines in the area, but also that the Americans had knowledge of an impending attack. The British wanted the Americans involved in World War I to strengthen their chances of victory, and President Woodrow Wilson wanted innocent American deaths to justify politically American entry into what he called “the war to end all wars,” so that after the war, he could “make the world safe for democracy.” The United States fought for about a year and a half in World War I, from April 6th 1917, until the war ended on November 11th 1918, and lost 116,502 lives, 53,402 of which were lost in combat.
²

It was not the first time, nor the last, that the United States government created fear and hysteria to justify war; and then used war to enhance fear and hysteria. It is commonplace in America for our leaders to lie in order to enter or initiate armed conflicts. Despite this tradition, Americans continue to stand on the sidelines while the government hijacks power, often leading us into imprudent and devastating wars. Less frequently, the government has waged war for good reason, but lied to win our consent. Regardless of their intentions, our leaders do not get elected or appointed or paid to lie to us. They are elected to protect our liberties and our way of life, but not to use their authority to deceive and exploit us. It is the American experience and experiment that the government works for
us
, and not the other way around.

We must not allow the government to continue treating the Constitution, and our natural rights, and our pursuits of happiness as minor speed bumps along its path to unlimited power, especially when its plans involve the sacrifice of American lives. Niccolo Machiavelli, the famous Florentine philosopher and political theorist, stated the following in his treatise entitled
The Prince
: “[M]en are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.” Let’s stop proving him right; there’s just too much at stake. But right he is.

Building a Tradition of Deception

As we learned in an earlier chapter, some of the biggest misconceptions concern President Lincoln and the Civil War. Lincoln was not the “Great Emancipator.” He did not oppose slavery. Before the Civil War, he rarely spoke about slavery. When he did, Lincoln stressed that the president was not constitutionally permitted to do anything about slavery, and suggested that if anything was to be done, the blacks should be shipped to Africa;
whether forced to come here or born here. While working as a lawyer, Lincoln represented slave owners, and in that capacity he prosecuted fugitive slaves, returned them to their masters, and was paid handsomely for it.

Furthermore, the Civil War initially was not about slavery. It started because the South vehemently opposed the federal government’s increasing power at the expense of the states. The tipping point occurred when the federal government, upon Lincoln taking office, passed a high tariff that benefited the North and harmed the South. The high tariff forced the South to purchase higher-priced Northern goods, and cut off its business relationship with Europe. Lincoln did not introduce the abolition of slavery as a goal until two years into the war, and his Emancipation Proclamation was grossly ineffective.

Lincoln did
not
attempt to free the slaves in the “border” States of Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, and Missouri. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation expressly
permitted slavery
to exist and remain lawful in those states. Nevertheless, Lincoln is viewed as a hero and is falsely recognized by the government and its school systems as the greatest United States president. He was a tyrant.

The point of this story is that the government—and especially our presidents—continually seek to control the news, lie to us in order to reach their objectives, and smother or even prevent dissent. During the Civil War, Lincoln shut down thousands of newspapers and charged thousands of editors and writers with treason. Many of Lincoln’s critics were
executed
, and many more were
jailed
, because of their exercise of
free speech
. Our leaders do not employ such drastic measures today, but they lie and instill fear in us to argue for the necessity of war. Unfortunately, we do not discover their true motives until it is too late.

Lincoln’s war killed over 650,000 Americans, more than have been killed in all wars in American history combined. He arrested newspaper editors, state legislators, and even a Republican congressman who merely spoke out against him. He suspended the writ of
habeas corpus
. His soldiers robbed American banks, burned American courthouses, raped American women, and killed American civilians—
all with legal impunity
.

In 1898, President William McKinley used the sinking of the USS
Maine
in Havana Harbor, Cuba, to gather American support for the eventual Spanish-American War. President McKinley claimed that the
Maine
had been sunk by a Spanish mine on February 15th 1898, while the American captain of the ship asserted that it was sunk by a coal bin explosion. On April 19th 1898, Congress issued a resolution ordering Spain to give up Cuba. It also authorized the president to use force if Spain did not comply. On April 25th, the United States declared war on Spain. The United States fought for about four months in the Spanish-American War, and it cost us 2,446 American lives, 385 of which were lost in combat.
³

These events show that when the United States government wants to go to war, it uses certain incidents and circumstances to make the use of force politically palatable to American voters. It happens all the time.

“Your Boys Are Not Going to Be Sent
into Any Foreign Wars.”

—President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
⁴

After World War I, the country was disillusioned by the failure of America’s idealistic commitment to make “the world safe for democracy.” The overwhelming majority of Americans favored isolationism over fighting another war. In September 1940, a Gallup Poll revealed that 88 percent of Americans opposed war with Germany. This poll was taken after Hitler annexed Austria and occupied Poland and blitzed London. Germany had conquered most of Europe and was sinking American ships in the Atlantic Ocean, but Americans at home wanted no part of Europe’s war.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt purported to adhere to American public opinion, stating numerous times that he would not enter “Europe’s War.” Roosevelt, however, wanted to get involved in the war, believing that a Nazi-dominated Europe would execute his bellicose but freedom-preaching second cousin, Winston Churchill, and would prove a difficult trading partner for the United States. Surmising that Americans would only rally to oppose an overt act of war on the United States, Roosevelt and his advisers sought to provoke such an overt act.

Roosevelt targeted Japan, which on September 27th 1940, signed a mutual assistance treaty, known as the Tripartite Pact, with Germany and Italy; the three countries were known collectively as the Axis Powers. If Japan committed an overt act of war on the United States, Americans would certainly not object to attacking Japan. Based on the treaty, Germany would then have to come to Japan’s defense, and thus, the United States would be able to sidestep American popular opinion, and get a crack at the Nazis.

On October 7th 1940, just ten days after Japan entered into its Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum of the Office of Naval Intelligence submitted a memorandum proposal, known as the “McCollum memo,” to Navy Captain Walter Anderson, the Director of Naval Intelligence. In an era before the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Naval Intelligence ranked high in the President’s armament of intelligence-gathering government agencies. The memo outlined options available to the United States in response to Japan’s actions in the South Pacific. It included an eight-part plan to counter Japanese hegemony in East Asia. The memo also indicates that at least one individual in the Office of Naval Intelligence promoted the idea of
provoking
Japan into going to war with the United States. The memo states, “It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado [ . . . ] If by [the eight-point plan] Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.”
⁵
From this point on, the Roosevelt administration worked to implement McCollum’s plan, showing that it was absolutely committed to going to war.