The Psychopathic Criminal Enterprise Called America

The Government uses the Law to Harm People and Shield the Establishment
By Prof. John Kozy
District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals

District of Criminals, for criminals and by criminals.

Most Americans know that politicians make promises they never fulfill; few know that politicians make promises they lack the means to fulfill, as President Obama’s political posturing on the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico makes perfectly clear.

Obama has made the following statements:

He told his “independent commission” investigating the Gulf oil spill to “thoroughly examine the disaster and its causes to ensure that the nation never faces such a catastrophe again.” Aside from the fact that presidential commissions have a history of providing dubious reports and ineffective recommendations, does anyone really believe that a way can be found to prevent industrial accidents from happening ever again? Even if the commissions findings and recommendations succeed in reducing the likelihood of such accidents, doesn’t this disaster prove that it only takes one? And unlikely events happen every day.

The president has said, “if laws are insufficient, they’ll be changed.” But no president has this ability, only Congress has, and the president must surely know how difficult getting the Congress to effectively change anything is. He also said that “if government oversight wasn’t tough enough, that will change, too.” Will it? Even if he replaces every person in an oversight position, he can’t guarantee it. The people who receive regulatory positions always have ties to the industries they oversee and can look forward to lucrative jobs in those industries when they leave governmental service. As long as corporate money is allowed to influence governmental action, neither the Congress nor regulators can be expected to change the laws or regulatory practices in ways that make them effective, and there is nothing any president can do about it. Even the Congress’ attempt to raise the corporate liability limit for oil spills from $75 million to $10 billion has already hit a snag.

The President has said that “if laws were broken, those responsible will be brought to justice” and that BP would be held accountable for the “horrific disaster.” He said BP will be paying the bill, and BP has said it takes responsibility for the clean-up and will pay compensation for “legitimate and objectively verifiable” claims for property damage, personal injury, and commercial losses. But “justice” is rendered in American courts, not by the executive branch. Any attempts to hold BP responsible will be adjudicated in the courts at the same snail’s pace that the responsibility for the Exxon-Mobile Alaska oil spill was adjudicated and likely will have the same results.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound on March 24, 1989. In Baker v. Exxon, an Anchorage jury awarded $287 million for actual damages and $5 billion for punitive damages, but after nineteen years of appellate jurisprudence, the Supreme Court on June 25, 2008 issued a ruling reducing the punitive damages to $507.5 million, roughly a tenth of the original jury’s award. Furthermore, even that amount was reduced further by nineteen years of inflation. By that time, many of the people who would have been compensated by these funds had died.

The establishment calls this justice. Do you? Do those of you who reside in the coastal states that will ultimately be affected by the Deepwater Horizon disaster really believe that the President can make good on this promise of holding BP responsible? By the time all the lawsuits filed in response to this disaster wend their ways through the legal system, Mr. Obama will be grayed, wizened, and ensconced in a plush chair in an Obama Presidential Library, completely out of the picture and devoid of all responsibility.

Politicians who engage in this duplicitous posturing know that they can’t fulfill their promises. They know they are lying; yet they do it pathologically. Aesop writes, “A liar will not be believed, even when he speaks the truth.” Perhaps that’s why politicians never do.

Government in America consists of law. Legislators write it, executives apply it, and courts adjudicate it. But the law is a lie. We are told to respect the law and that it protects us. But it doesn’t. Think about it people! The law and law enforcement only come into play secundum vitium (after the crime). The police don’t show up before you’re assaulted, robbed, or murdered; they come after. So how does that protect you? Yes, if a relationship of trust is violated, you can sue if you can afford it, and even that’s not a sure thing. (Remember the victims of the Exxon-Valdez disaster!) Even if the person who violated the relationship gets sanctioned, will you be “made whole”? Most likely not! Relying on the law is a fool’s errand. It’s enacted, enforced, and adjudicated by liars.

The law is a great crime, far greater than the activities it outlaws, and there’s no way you can protect yourself from it. The establishment protects itself. The law does not protect people. It is merely an instrument of retribution. It can only be used, often ineffectively, to get back at the malefactor. It never un-dos the crime. Executing the murderer doesn’t bring back the dead. Putting Ponzi schemers in jail doesn’t get your money back. And holding BP responsible won’t restore the Louisiana marshes, won’t bring back the dead marine and other wildlife, and won’t compensate the victims for their losses. Carefully watch what happens over the next twenty years as the government uses the law to shield BP, Transocean, and Halliburton while the claims of those affected by the spill disappear into the quicksand of the American legal system.

Jim Kouri, citing FBI studies, writes that “some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena.;” they share the traits of psychopaths who are not sensitive to altruistic appeals, such as sympathy for their victims or remorse or guilt over their crimes. They possess the personality traits of lying, narcissism, selfishness, and vanity. These are the people to whom we have entrusted our fate. Is it any wonder that America is failing at home and world-wide?

Some may say that this is an extreme, audacious claim. I, too, was surprised when I read Kouri’s piece. But anecdotal evidence to support it is easily cited. John McCain said “bomb, bomb, bomb” during the last presidential campaign in response to a question about Iran. No one in government has expressed the slightest qualms about the killing of tens of thousands of people in both Iraq and Afghanistan who had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on nine/eleven or the deliberate targeting of women and children by unmanned drones in Pakistan. What if anything distinguishes serial killers from these governmental officials? Only that they don’t do the killing themselves but have others do it for them. But that’s exactly what most of the godfathers of the cosa nostra did.

So, there are questions that need to be posed: Has the government of the United States of America become a criminal enterprise? Is the nation ruled by psychopaths? Well, how can the impoverishment of the people, the promotion of the military-industrial complex and endless wars and their genocidal killing, the degradation of the environment, the neglect of the collapsing infrastructure, and the support of corrupt and authoritarian governments (often called democracies) abroad be explained? Worse, why are corporations allowed to profiteer during wars while the people are called upon to sacrifice? Why hasn’t the government ever tried to prohibit such profiteering? It’s not that it can’t be done.

In the vernacular, harming people is considered a crime. It is just as much a crime when done by governments, legal systems, or corporations. The government uses the law to harm people or shield the establishment from the consequences of harming people all the time. Watch as no one from the Massey Energy Co. is ever prosecuted for the disaster at the Upper Big Branch coal mine. When corporations are accused of wrongdoing, they often reply that what they did was legal, but legal is not a synonym for right. When criminals gain control, they legalize criminality.

Unless the government of the United States changes its behavior, this nation is doomed. No one in government seems to realize that dissimulation breeds distrust, distrust breeds suspicion, and suspicion eventually arouses censure. Isn’t that failure of recognition by the establishment a sign of criminal psychopathology?
John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site’s homepage.

Paedophilia in Scotland: A look back at the Hollie Greig case

Why Are Accused Child Abusers and Abettors Hiding Behind the Skirts of Lawyers and Apparently Receiving Protection and Immunity from Prosecution from the Scottish Government and Legal System?…..

By Mark Goode
A highly disturbing case of child abuse is being slowly dragged into the daylight in Scotland concerning the horrific abuse suffered by Down syndrome girl Hollie Greig. hollie greig

From the age of six, Hollie was serially raped and abused by a ring of paedophile swingers in Aberdeen, Scotland over a period of several years. Her abusers were identified by her as including her father Denis Charles Mackie, a senior Scottish Sheriff, a policeman, social workers, a nurse, a solicitor, an accountant, a fire officer, and married couples among others. A number of the rapes were allegedly carried out at the homes of the said individuals. Other children were drawn into the situation, including those of the abusers.

In 2000, and after 14 years of silence, Hollie finally informed her mother Anne about the events which had taken place. Although formal statements were made to Grampian Police, with the exception of her father, none of the 15-strong ring of those implicated as participants in connection with the serial abuse of the children involved were arrested or subsequently questioned in any manner. A curtain of silence appeared to fall over the case at the behest of the Scottish legal system.

The office of The Lord Advocate of Scotland, Elish Angiolini, which regulates and controls all criminal prosecutions in Scotland, decided not to pursue this case, due to “insufficient evidence”. Corroborating evidence by independent researchers and investigators indicates that other than Hollie and her father, none of the 25 perpetrators and victims has ever been interviewed. This would appear to shadow initial events in 2000, when only her father was spoken to by the authorities.

It also came to light that Hollie’s uncle, Robert David Greig, had disturbed Hollie and her father whilst they were engaged in sexual intercourse in 1997, after which a confrontation had taken place and threats were made against him. Within weeks, the remains of Robert Greig were discovered in a burning vehicle. No official inquest was convened to determine the factors surrounding his death. Although the cause of death was initially attributed to smoke inhalation, this finding was brought into severe doubt when the official post mortem report finally came to light several years later, and listed a variety of previously undisclosed physical injuries to Mr.Greig’s person, including skull fractures, 2 broken ribs and a broken sternum. A large quantity of alcohol had also been apparently forced down his throat. It is therefore not beyond the realm of possibility that Mr.Greig had been intercepted by persons unknown, beaten, murdered, and his remains placed in the burning vehicle in an attempt to destroy evidence of his unlawful death.

The UK Column has reported that Hollie received £13,500 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in April of 2009, even though no formal charges had been brought or complaints upheld by the authorities. The UK Column has also been in receipt of legal threats on behalf of Levy & McCrae, a Scottish legal firm, who have insisted that the organisation remove all references to Scottish Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini and her connection to the Hollie Greig case from its website. Why has the leading legal official of Scotland felt it necessary to resort to taking legal action, and in what capacity is she being represented, as a private individual or Lord Advocate? Additionally, no information seems to be forthcoming as to whether Angiolini or Scotland’s taxpayers are footing the bill for the legal costs that have been incurred. Why has the Lord Advocate not made a personal statement in order to clarify irregularities or wrong-doings in this case, in order to clear the air? Surely, if there is nothing to hide then there should be no conceivable obstacle in this regard. Meanwhile, only silence.

In September of 2009, Hollie was re-interviewed by two officers from Grampian Police in a special facility near Shrewsbury, in the UK country of Shropshire. The details conveyed to the officers were entirely consistent with other information that Hollie had supplied on previous occasions. It is also understood that a representative of Grampian police, a detective inspector, described Hollie as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.

An advocate of Hollie’s case, Robert Green was arrested in Kafkaesque circumstances by Grampian Police on February 12, 2010 on an alleged charge of “breaching the peace”. Mr.Green had previously spoken openly and at length about the circumstances surrounding her situation, and had travelled to Aberdeen from his home in Warrington, Cheshire in order to distribute information to the public pertaining to the case. He was arrested by two plain clothes CID officers just off of Union Street in the city centre of Aberdeen, and was subsequently held virtually incommunicado until the following Monday morning, when he was transported by police to a court in Stonehaven, Scotland where he was almost unbelievably charged in a secret hearing behind closed doors.

Grampian Police were deluged over the said weekend by e-mail enquiries and telephone calls pertaining to Mr Green’s plight, most of which were generally rebuffed by a terse and brief two sentence statement, and with the phone calls in question being rapidly terminated. Robert’s bail apparently and again includes a highly unusual condition for a charge such as a breach of the peace; additionally, he must also report to a local police station in Warrington several times a week.

This case begs an answer to a very simple question. Why has a man who as acted in good faith on behalf of one of the most vulnerable members of society been treated in such a callous and despicable manner by the Scottish police and legal system?

It is apparent that great steps are being taken in an attempt to erase this case from public attention and scrutiny, and also to intimidate others from taking independent action in order to bring a greater focus on Hollie’s case and the corrupted culture which has permitted such abuses to apparently occur in broad daylight, and under the protective wing to the Scottish establishment. Scottish newspapers have been threatened with legal action if they publish details of this case, and allude to any individuals who have apparently sought to cover-up and cloud the situation.

Mark Daly, Cathy Long and Liam MacDougall from the BBC Panorama program met with Hollie and her mother for several hours, along with Robert Green, in connection to a program that they were intending to produce in connection to her story; the journalists were all entirely satisfied with the veracity of Hollie’s story. It subsequently transpired that the said journalists were informed by senior BBC figures that they were to drop their investigation, and although they fought their corner, the three were told that serious repercussions might result if they did not relent. What positive motive would the BBC possess to silence a story and issue of such great public interest? Indeed, the media silence, even within England has been thoroughly deafening. The potential for political scandal, abuse of office and damage to the Scottish government is immense, yet details which could open the floodgates of public derision and scorn for those charged to protect society from the vile activities indicated in this article, and that could potentially bring down the Scottish government remain untouched by the mainstream media. All Scottish members of parliament and local Aberdeen politicians have been made aware of details pertaining to this case, and again, a conspiracy of silence is apparently seeing to it that nothing is said or done.

When the machinery that is supposedly designed to protect us from the predatory inclinations of perverts and abusers is directed against those that are attempting to bring some manner of justice to bear in this and other cases, fundamental questions arise as to quite who is or will be protected; the young and vulnerable, or a tightly protected and apparently prosecution-immune group who appear able to feed on the former at their leisure?. The truth will out.