When 'Anti-Government' Violence Erupts, Who Is Really At Fault?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

This past week, I have been examining a recently leaked document from the Department Of Homeland Security entitled “Domestic Violent Extremists Pose A Threat To Government Officials And Law Enforcement.” (Yes; the title leaves nothing to the imagination.)

Generally, such documents are not classified. But it is internally accepted within establishment agencies that they should not be shared with the public. Similar documents like the Missouri Information Analysis Center report titled “The Modern Militia Movement” and the Virginia Fusion Center’s Terrorism Threat Assessment are not designed to import in-depth knowledge to law enforcement. In fact, if you actually investigate these white papers thoroughly, you will find they read like a mentally challenged middle-school student’s last-minute book report on liberty groups in America.

Rather than convey the complexity of the conflict between federal bureaucracy and constitutionalists, the papers linked above are meant to indoctrinate law enforcement officials against even considering what we have to say or why we take the actions we take.

Often, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a shameless propaganda outlet known for its Saul Alinsky tactics, is tapped as the primary source of “data” for these reports. At no time have I ever seen a government report on “domestic extremism” accusing liberty activists that actually allows a subset of the liberty movement to personally describe our position.

Often, the DHS will claim to LEOs that there is a “disparity in our beliefs that makes us unpredictable” or that they do not have a full understanding of our motivations during a particular event. The confrontation at Cliven Bundy’s ranch was the latest shock, after which federal officials acted as though the standoff attitude of armed liberty activists was incomprehensible.

The reality is that establishment cronies know all too well why Americans are angered to the point of taking up arms.

In any piece of propaganda, including the leaked DHS report, the goal is to paint opposition to state power in the darkest manner possible, so that the useful idiots (oath breaking LEOs and federal agents) can maintain the false sense that they hold the moral high ground. It is the information that such propaganda fails to mention that holds the key to unraveling the government position. For instance, the paper overtly mentions armed patriots at Bundy ranch as a brand of escalation, but does not mention the heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents and contracted snipers that came first, seeking to terrify the Bundy family into compliance.

Nor does the paper mention the trampling of protester 1st amendment rights with the BLM’s absurdly inadequate, fenced-off “First Amendment Area.” In light of this, I ask: Who triggered the confrontation at Bundy ranch?

Is the federal government really all that surprised that liberty activists from all across the country came armed and ready to fight or even die? Some people believe the establishment is so ignorant or blinded by hubris that they can’t see the typhoon at their door, but I don’t think they are as dumb as they pretend.

Tragedies like Waco and Ruby Ridge do not have a shelf life. They accumulate in the minds of the people over time, and generations can pass without the rage ever fading. At Bundy ranch, the liberty movement resolved that we would not allow another such event to occur again without direct consequences – meaning nonsensical false-flag terrorism like the Oklahoma City bombing will never be our method, though the Feds would like you to assume as much. No, our method is to stand in between the aggressors, whoever they may be, and the victims, whoever they may be, and stop the tragedy before it happens.

At Bundy ranch, the BLM and its military contractors ran away, returning Bundy property as they went. Thus, the liberty movement removed the immediate threat and prevented another possible Waco. This is called “escalation of violent extremism" by the establishment. I call it de-escalation of violent government abuse by liberty activists.

The federal government would have you believe that the rise of “militias” and violent opposition is somehow taking place in a vacuum; that government officials can’t understand why such escalation is occurring now; that it must be a product of “racism” due to a black president; and that it’s all a chaotic, self-mutating mess of extremist insanity. This is ridiculous.

Why are people gearing up for revolution? I’ll break it down simply:

If you try to take our freedom, our chance at prosperity or our lives, we are going to fight you until one side or both sides dies. Period.

I’m not sure how this could be difficult to comprehend, and I do not think the feds haven’t grasped it. I think if they are surprised at all, it is because they have been steamrolling over Americans for so long that they are not used to the idea of regular people stopping them cold. Powder kegs are revealing themselves all across the U.S., from Bundy ranch to Ferguson, Missouri, and all caused by authoritarian overreach by federal and state officials.

In Ferguson, anger over perceived as well as legitimate state abuse has developed into street activism, but also random looting. Michael Brown himself is not necessarily an endearing character, but that is not a rationalization for the outright execution of suspects by the police, which has taken place with increasing frequency across the country in recent years.  The strange behavior of Ferguson officials at the onset of the shooting combined with a lack of immediate transparency leads some to believe a cover-up is in progress, while others in government seek to exploit the event to ignite race divisions.

Whether or not Michael Brown actually "charged" at Officer Darren Wilson is not yet confirmed.  However, we do know that regardless, Brown was unarmed, and that the officer in question had less-lethal-means at his disposal, including a taser and pepper spray.  Whatever new facts come to light, it was still the choice of Darren Wilson to fire his handgun six times into Brown's head and arm, instead of using other available methods.  Darren Wilson's refusal to make an official statement at the beginning of the event allows him to shift his story according the evidence that becomes available to the public.  The entire situation and handling by Ferguson police only feeds already existing distrust of LEOs, who, with their federal funding and supplied military hardware, have become the front line mascots of government abuse.

The Ferguson shooting itself almost becomes irrelevant in comparison to the government response to public protest.  State officials cite the explosion of looting and violence as a reason for the insertion of heavily armed and armored SWAT units, as well as the National Guard.  However, riot police and militarized units IGNORED looters and rioters, and instead aimed the brunt of their attacks at peaceful protesters.  This reveals a government disdain for 1st Amendment activities that goes far beyond the controversy of Michael Brown or even the inevitable "race-war" propaganda.

What is the solution? To stop the rise of anti-government violence, we must remove government intrusion into people’s lives, and the public must take community security into its own hands.  Why did police use riot control measures against peaceful protesters in Ferguson, while such tactics were abandoned during the Bundy Ranch incident?  Why does Eric Holder express "alarm" over the use of the National Guard in Ferguson, yet, he and the White House discussed plans for military intervention at Bundy Ranch?  Why have leftists expressed shock over militarized police in Ferguson, when many of them were calling for drone strikes and blood in Bunkerville?  Why have some "conservatives" set aside their 1st Amendment concerns when it comes to Ferguson when they were livid over the initial 1st Amendment trampling of Bundy Ranch?

The bottom line is this - outsiders will always have their opinions, and in most cases their opinions don't count for much, but that does not stop people from trying to force their ignorant views upon you.  Whatever the community and whatever the circumstances, the only way to solve the problem of the state & statists vs. the people is for the people to take responsibility for their own surroundings.

If the citizens of Ferguson (and the rest of America) really want to erase this conundrum from their lives permanently, they are going to have to establish neighborhood watches and even community “militias” (there’s the dreaded “M” word again) to bring peace to their town.

By refusing to take responsibility for their own security, Ferguson residents have invited city and state LEOs to do the job for them, and this has resulted in the possibility of unwarranted death-by-cop. Ferguson residents can and should remove LEO presence by establishing their own security. But this means they would have to stop the looting by petty thugs using protests as cover, and it also means they would have to prevent or intervene in criminal activities of less honorable residents.

The Founding Fathers answered the question of “who watches the watchmen” by creating a system by which the people ARE the watchmen. This was the militia system, a system that the federal government now labels “domestic extremism” and violent escalation.

I have been saying it for years, and I’ll keep saying right up until the shooting starts: Americans must take responsibility for their own futures and their own defense. Whether or not the people of Ferguson accept this, I have no idea, but the crisis will never stop until they do. And this problem applies to all other communities across the nation as well.  Corruption of a community and the application of tyranny is rather difficult when every able bodied person within that community has the ability to defend themselves.  Therefore, it remains up to each individual, and each sovereign neighborhood, town, county, and state, to man-up and become combat capable so that less honest institutions do not fill the void.

Dupes and statists will argue that the only way to change the system is to play by the rules, build a majority, elect the politicians you want and fight unconstitutional laws in the courts. But what should the people do when our political structure is rigged by special interests representing only a handful of elites? What should the people do when independent parties are muscled out of the mainstream and the leaders of the major parties sabotage any internal movements to change the status quo? What do the people do when their protests and redress of grievances are bashed by the media, violently attacked by the authorities or outright denied by government-enforced curfew? What do the people do when the courts stall justice and drown dissent with legal red tape? What do people do when playing by the rules only makes the situation worse for us all?

Americans must realize an important fact: There is no power over us but that which we give away.

The original intent of our republic is that the people ARE the government — not a select few elitists handpicked by corporate bankers. Politicians are supposed to be our employees, not a ruling class that sits above the populace. The current growing conflict between the citizenry and the government is igniting exactly because our government does not represent the common man anymore. The government is not “by the people, for the people.” It is a separate entity, representing corrupt and hostile parties. It cannot be changed from within. The federal government is now foreign to us, a guarded enemy with malicious motives.

Americans can take back the power they have neglected by taking responsibility for themselves and their communities. The government can only do two things in reaction: accept that we are in charge of our own lives and walk away, or try to stop us with force and assert its dominance. If it chooses the latter, then all violence that follows after will be on its hands, not ours. Anti-government activities arise only because of destructive government attitudes. If the establishment really fears a wave of violence against it, then it should do exactly as it did in Bunkerville, Nevada — walk away and leave people in peace.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
kchrisc's picture

Something beautiful and fateful to ponder:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


An American, not US subject.



sixsigma cygnusatratus's picture

The esteemed gentlemen who wrote those words were considered traitors and terrorists of their day, by the government of their day.  The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

Harbanger's picture

Here's the difference.  They were of the enlightenment Age.  Men who followed Reason, Individualism and Tradition.  Capitalists in every sense of the word.  Today we're in the Clueless age.  Metrosexuals who believe in Entitlement, Fairness and Unicorns.

Harbanger's picture

That's right, eat it up bitchez.

Pool Shark's picture



That's why the founders didn't form a 'democracy.' Democracy only works for an enlightened people.

Otherwise democracy simply becomes 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Don't blame the government for becoming repressive; that's what governments do.

Instead, blame the people (sheep?) for yielding their freedoms to the repressive government in exchange for temporary 'personal peace and affluence.'

ZerOhead's picture

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people (that's us) to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another (that's TPTB )  ,..."

They are not going to let you go easily or peacefully. The system has to be fixed from the inside.

kchrisc's picture

"The system has to be fixed from the inside."

Unfortunately, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Bundy Ranch, Sandy Hoax, prove you wrong.

I personally hope that my arsenal slowly becomes a collection and my children can inherit them from me. But, history, and DHS, says that that is not going to happen.

See you on the battlefield, as I'm not going "camping."

An American, not US subject.

Harbanger's picture

The battlefield is in the hearts and souls of men.  They knew this, the hell we know about it.


Go camping and enjoy your holiday, when men go camping it's because they're on a mission.

ZerOhead's picture

It has to be fixed from the inside because when the economic collapse occurs and their control over power is threatened they will inevitably seek to maintain order at all costs.

Either they succeed or millions of psychopaths smelling blood at a  pull back will suddenly go apeshit on everyone else in a new dog eat dog world of survival.

Harbanger's picture

Since we're talking about Great Men of the past.  Here's a little tidbit which I'm certain the Founders knew.

-they would not accept my counsel, they rejected all my reproof.  So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.  For the waywardness of the naive shall kill them and the complacency of the fools shall destroy them.

ZerOhead's picture

God's not going to help us... he's on the outside...

Harbanger's picture

Of course God is not there to help you, he want's you to come to him, not the other way around.  If you need help, then you should Dial 911.  If you don't have deep faith (the power to manifest your wishes) then you're at the mercy of the world.

TheMeatTrapper's picture

@Harbanger @kchrisc - Good to see there are still some right thinking American men out there. 


ImGumbydmmt's picture

Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves.

Winston Churchill

Burticus's picture

Secession is the only political solution remaining, same as in 1776.

Leave the elephant/jackass sock puppets in the District of Corruption with only their debt, angry creditors and worthless paper to pay their storm troopers.



rubiconsolutions's picture

@kchrisc - Here's the problem with the declaration of independence: there is no practical way to withdraw your consent. With all its rhetorical flourishes, those that wrote the words failed to give us an out. They provided no method of withdrawing consent. It would be nice if someone could give me a concrete way of withdrawing my consent because in 30 years nobody has been able to tell me how. And I don't mean that straw man put forth by some folks - "Hey, if you don't love it, leave it." or "You vote so you consent."Well, no, I haven't voted since 1992 because I saw that as one way of consenting to a government that I didn't agree with. So, I'll ask you....how does one withdraw their consent?  

An unwilling American subject.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



The government doesn't understand how people can be so angry when interest rates are so low. Why can't we just be happy debt slaves?

Lending with interest has been a sin and a capital offense in times past. Now, it is our nation's central principal.

The Gooch's picture

Our "nation" no longer has ANY (central) principal.

Just a central bank and a shit-ton of dependent .gov drones.

And us.

Harbanger's picture

Us who? I think you meant principles.  We already have too many principals, especially the central kind.

joego1's picture

I'll be happy when I get my 0% at the discount window.

TheMeatTrapper's picture

I'm on the Board of Directors of my HOA. Our insurance premium went up - again. I called the agent and asked why. He point blank told me that the income they derived off of investing premiums in "safe assets" was down because of low interest rates, so they had no choice but to raise premiums. 

I sent a letter to every home owner in the association explaining that their dues were increasing and explained that it was because the current administration and their artificially low interest rate policy.

We have 28 homes in our association. Three are black families. Looks like they got what they begged for.


kchrisc's picture

"Tragedies like Waco and Ruby Ridge do not have a shelf life."

My children are nearly experts on the treason that transpired at Ruby Ridge and Waco. They don't yet really understand why it is important, but one day, whether I'm around or not, they will.

An American, not US subject.

Urban Redneck's picture

The shelf life certainly exceeds 150 years.

The civilian population in the mortheast and mid-Atlantic probably doesn't grasp the possible ramifications of that if mere fighting words escalate beyond that.

The Gooch's picture

This will be the straw.

Holy shit.

Or not.

El Vaquero's picture

Not that you could see it in the video, but he supposedly had a knife. 

Urban Redneck's picture

That story is so "NEW" that it is now on PAGE 7 of ZH, or as the rest of us call it - old news...


Cangaroo.TNT's picture

Rebels are not born; they are made.

Number 156's picture

I remember some politician back in 2007 making the comment that there would be "tanks in the street" if they didn't bail out the markets.

I always wish I could've asked that guy:
" Who's interests are you protecting by using military force?"

The Gooch's picture

"Tragedies like Waco and Ruby Ridge do not have a shelf life"

Damn straight, they don't.

-"Mother is the word for God in the hearts and minds of children".

Remember those people too.


FeralSerf's picture

Nor Oklahoma City and 9/11 when the Empire struck back.

umdesch4's picture

I always remember that quote from the Crow, and have often wondered where it originated. Now we have the internet! William Makepeace Thackeray. Thanks for reminding me to finally look that up.

Fidel Castrol's picture

the man with the dreads and the cabela cap IS the tank man for america's tiananmen moment.

sysin3's picture

While I might agree with some of the ideas of the author, any resemblance between the article and (logical thought or English) is purely coincidental.

Really ?? Y'all gonna have to write a whole lot better than that, unless you only want to attract Bubbas to your cause. Bubbas are sho 'nuf useful .. they got them deer rifles. They can pick off a carpetbagger at 300 yards.

But they ain't really the sharpest tools in the shed.

mvsjcl's picture

This coming from a paradigm of communication.

SgtShaftoe's picture


That was one of the most concise, well-thought articles all week about the madness going on.  Well done. 

The only area that I'm concerned about is the defensibility of urban locales.  It's very difficult.  Suburbs are even harder.  People who are contemplating civil defense should consider whether their neighborhood can be effectively defended.  If not, move while you can! 

From a defensive standpoint, rural rough terrain is best, followed by densely urban.

Cangaroo.TNT's picture

Regardless of the environment (urban, suburban, rural, remote), the most important aspect of an effective defensive (or offensive) action is to KNOW your environment.


PS And be properly geared/outfitted for said environment.

SgtShaftoe's picture

Exactly!  Walk it at night, walk it in the day. 

Physical Terrain: Find every nook and cranny, rat line, and any other sneaky-pete avenues that could be useful to you and yours. 

Social terrain: Know your damn neighbors.  You don't have to be bestys, but create a community. 

El Vaquero's picture

Then look up the Vietnamese manual on resisting invaders.  It caused the Mongols problems.  The US too. 


There are some woods behind my house.  They're kind of creepy at night if you're alone.  It's funny though, if I am walking through them, I'm more alert, but that's about it.  If I start jogging or running, all of a sudden, it's like I'm running from something.  I'm guessing it's something primordial; something from when we were cavemen.  Back in the day, if you were running through the woods at night, it probably meant that you were chasing something, or being chased by something, most likely the latter.  I can slow back down to a walk, and the feeling goes away, then kick it back up to a run, and the feeling comes back.  It is easy to get jumpy.


I should probably do it more often so that I'm used to the feeling.  I do run armed, for anybody who might want to play a prank;)

Urban Redneck's picture

So funny I had to share... (but I wouldn't bother unless it was more than just humorous)

Insurgency, Swiss Made
Can Switzerland be broken up?

As Libya’s Gaddafi is getting ready to speak before the UN General Assembly, we thought it is time to consider that question more seriously. His foreign minister, after all, will preside the body for the next year. And Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, probably fed-up with all the diplomatic tact and boring dark suits, proposed to break up Switzerland, in case you missed it. The place is “a world mafia, not a state,” he said. A couple of months ago the German finance minister, Peer Steinbrück, had already proposed to send the cavalry to do away with the money-launderers in the Alps.

We Europeans, you will understand, take all things UN very seriously. Sure, Switzerland entered the UN in 2002. But that bunch of cantons never applied for EU membership. As a result it looks like a bird dropping on Europe’s neat map. Now Gaddafi proposed to “wipe it off.” Right. To break it up and give the French part to the French, the German part to the Germans, and that one Italian canton to the Italians. Sounds good, you might think (if you’re not Swiss or Italian).

So, can it be done? Our analysis: forget it.

The drag starts with the casus belli already. You need a reason for going to war, or at least it helps. At first glance, the “safe haven” trick might work: the Swiss live on inaccessible, landlocked mountains; many have long bushy beards; they hate foreigners; they don’t let their womenfolk vote (at least not until recently); every other village seems to have its own funny language; they quarrel amongst each other; everybody has a gun at home; and there’s a big supply of religious nuts. Problem is, there’re no terrorists.

OK, you could say they are a financial safe haven. After all they bunker loads of secret money. Germany tried to go down that road and had Switzerland put on an OECD black list for rogue states. Problem is, that won’t get you Article 5 and NATO support. So no invasion there.

Well, you’ll think, screw terrorism and NATO and do the WMD thing. Bern, Baghdad? Clearly they are messing with nuclear power plants. They have dodgy high-tech factories all over the place, surely some of them mobile. It should be easy to find tons of aluminum tubes. And they can ship all sorts of things to London in 45 minutes. Problem is — World War I, World War II — they never attacked anybody.

Good. So ignore the casus belli. Who needs that anyway? Think operational. But here the real headache only begins. You think insurgency is new? Recent field manuals? Swiss Wanderhackbauern harassed European powers well before Americans could start their own insurgency against the British. Back then. Erasmus of Rotterdam already called them “butchers” in the early 1500s (veluti carnifex quispiam ad lanienam precio emptus). Swiss officers have been publishing insurgency manuals since the 1950s. With a 450-years delay, you might think. Well, they might be slow, but they mean business (Der totale Widerstand).

Yeah, doctrine, you’ll say, history, pah — what counts is action. But here it gets even worse. Ever heard of the Réduit? Switzerland is probably the only country that has a national security strategy of insurgency. In the case of war, ruthless mountain warriors would harass the enemy in what they call Middle Earth, probably a deterrent hint to Mordor, and maintain their sovereignty in the Zentralraum, as the generals called it in 1940. The Swiss have the means to resist, such as fighter jets hidden in steep mountains walls, ready to swoop out, and they have the will to resist — after all tiny Switzerland deterred the Wehrmacht. Korengal will be a cakewalk against Appenzell.

So go ahead, Gaddafi, send Hannibal to the Alps. We’ll sit and watch the fun.

And a copy of Dach's Der totale Widerstand (in English)


Stormtrooper's picture

Our group trains for the rural, rough environment but I focus more on long range sniper training.  It will be guerilla warfare by the dedicated 3 percent who make the difference.  Hit and run, do as much damage in each engagement and preserve manpower for the future. That 3 percent kicked the ass of hundreds of thousands of well equipped American forces in Vietnam, Irag and Afghanistan.  If it comes to it, this time will not be different.

With that said, I have turned toward Article V Convention of States as the only viable political method to change Washington from the outside (kicking and screaming and maybe trying martial law to preserve their hold on power).  If that doesn't work, it will be time to fall back on doing it the hard way.

PacOps's picture
Machines don't fight wars. People do, and they use their minds.
— Col John R. Boyd, USAF
People, ideas, and hardware -- In that order!
- Col John R. Boyd, USAF
Complexity (technical, organizational, operational, etc.) causes commanders and subordinates alike to be captured by their own internal dynamics or interaction – hence they cannot adapt to rapidly changing external (or even internal) circumstances.
- Col John R. Boyd, USAF
Harmony in operations is created by the bonds of implicit communications and trust that evolve as a consequence of the similar mental images or impressions each individual creates and commits to memory by repeatedly sharing the same variety of experience in the same ways.
- Col John R. Boyd, USAF
Leadership is the art of inspiring people to enthusiastically take action toward the achievement of uncommon goals.
- Col John R. Boyd, USAF
Understand what an OODA loop is and then get inside of your adversaries OODA Loop. - Game over! 
Maneuver warfare and the Marines[edit]

In January 1980 Boyd gave his briefing Patterns of Conflict at the U.S. Marines AWS (Amphibious Warfare School). This led to the instructor at the time, Michael Wyly, and Boyd changing the curriculum, with the blessing of General Trainor. Trainor later asked Wyly to write a new tactics manual for the Marines.[17] John Schmitt, guided by General Alfred M. Gray, Jr. wrote Warfighting, during the writing, he collaborated with John Boyd. Wyly, Lind, and a few other junior officers are credited with developing concepts for what would become the Marine model of maneuver warfare.

Seasmoke's picture

No shit, Schumer. 

holdbuysell's picture

Indeed. Accountability and Responsibility are anachronisms as far the US sheople are concerned.

Reaper's picture

The courts, police and DA's do not serve the people, they serve themselves. The police/prosecutor/court system fills its own trough. DA's have 98% conviction rates, because the police testi-lie and the judges assist. The media refuses to report most all court/police/judge corruption and the system covers itself. What's failed is the media in reporting the corruption. The founding fathers believed that a free and diverse press would act as a fourth control on government. They were mistaken. Power corrupts them all.

The fault lies with the police/prosecutor/judge/media/government industrial complex. The parasites will never stop till they destroy the host or the host destroys them.

El Vaquero's picture

That depends on your district.  Here, if the cops and the DA don't have enough evidence to convict you of a misdemeanor, yet you've been arrested, the DA will often throw several felonies at you and try to get you to plea.  Then they'll be unholy cocksuckers about the whole thing.  Most people will likely plea when faced with 30 years vs 3 months for pleaing to a misdemeanor.  I'm betting that your conviction rate counts people who plead out, which is going to be a lot of the cases.  It would be interesting to see the rate at which they win at trial.  They'll fold when facing the few who won't crumple, though they'll often wait until the day of trial.  A lot of this shit never comes before the judges, who are actually fairly decent here when it comes to ensuring a fair trial. 

PacOps's picture

And then, with their stellar record, they run for re-election or higher office and are successful most of the time.

22winmag's picture

I've been saying it for years... the proseccutors office is where most future politicans get their experience in lying and legal coverups.