How We Got To Here

Guest Post by Eric Peters

America is in trouble because Americans got lazy. Not so much physically but morally. They began to care more about some passing thing than about the things that truly matter; the things that made America unlike other places.

Better than other places.

Things like principles; the plain meaning of words. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments, especially. Which were (past tense deliberate) laws written to articulate and protect principles that matter.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

It gradually became more important to – as Thomas More’s character in the play, A Man For All Seasons put it – cut down all the “trees” (laws) that sheltered the individual for the sake of making things easier for the government.

For example, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches – defined in sane terms and plain English as any non-specific search of people at random, who’ve not done anything to suggest they may have committed a crime. Fishing expeditions, in other words.

The idea was that the government should have to – in the first place – substantiate suspicion. It wasn’t enough for a cop to say – I don’t like your looks. He had to be able to articulate some definite thing (evidence) that gave him reason to believe you had committed or were about to commit a crime.

Today, cops stop people at random, without any specific cause at all. Without even having to say they don’t like their looks. It is enough thatthey are cops. And that you are not.

It was once the case that prior to a physical search of your property, it was legally necessary to obtain a search warrant – a piece of paper issued by a judge, who was supposed to issue the thing only if the investigator asking for it could present some definite thing (evidence) that supported his asserted suspicion of criminal activity. And the warrant had to be specific, stating clearly who was to be searched and what and where. This was to prevent something that used to be routine in the colonies under the British – the general writ, which empowered King George’s minions to search anyone, anywhere for anything.

Today’s redcoats wear blue (and lately, black). They search whomever, whatever, whenever.

We are even coerced into witnessing against ourselves via threats that failure to do will bring down separate charges and punishments.

Is this America?

I do not recognize it as such.

How did we get to this point?

The change occurred gradually but has become a juggernaut for the simple reason that precedent becomes routine. Once accepted, an affront is forgotten. It not only becomes accepted – it becomes acceptable to do it again. (Which, as an aside, is why this Obamacare business is so important. If it stands, if Trump does not repeal – not replace  – it, it is certain we will shortly be forced to also buy other forms of government-mandated insurance; for example gun insurance, if you want to own a gun.)

But when did it begin to become acceptable?

Probably when the Supreme Court gutted the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to placate “moms” who were “mad” about drunk driving. This was back in the ’80s, when it was still legally necessary for a cop to have specific probable cause – weaving across the double yellow, for instance – before he could turn on his lights and pull you over.

This of course made it inconvenient to arrest and cage people who may have had some drinks but were not “drunk.” Back then, you could drink and drive and – provided your driving gave no cause to suggest impairment – you were free to continue driving.

Apparently, competent driving aggravates people who are in fact much more opposed to drinking.

And so, checkpoints – dragnet style. At which every single driver would be (and is) forced to stop and – in blatant Fourth and Fifth Amendment rape – submit to a random (and thus, unreasonable) search and prove they are not drunk, according to an arbitrary standard (BAC level) without the cops having to even assert that their actual driving was somehow “impaired.”

It also became the legal obligation of the people forced to stop at these checkpoints to provide evidence to be used against themselves in a criminal prosecution. The court ruled that you must submit to various tests supposedly designed to establish drunkenness and that failure to provide evidence was (and is) a crime in itself. The burden of obtaining evidence was lifted off the shoulders of the accuser – who could now claim that failure to provide it amounted to proof of guilt.

Even if it is later determined – as a result of the various tests, which you may be forced to submit to (including forced blood draws) that you were not, in fact, “drunk” (and perhaps had not been drinking at all) you will still be prosecuted for your failure to assist in your own prosecution.

The court came up with a truly Orwellian concept they called implied consent – which is like sort-of rape.

You either consented – or you didn’t.

The courts saying you have given implied consent to be stopped and searched at random by dint of driving, or because you got a driver’s license (which you had to get) is an outrage upon words as much as it is upon rights. How is it any different than asserting a woman who has gone out on a date with a man has consented to have sex with him? If anything, it’s even more outrageous in the case of driving and implied consent, because in the case of the couple, they both agreed to the date part of the thing.

No court would enforce a contract upon you whose terms you had not freely consented to. A contract agreed to under duress – that is, under coercion – or which contains codicils you, the signer, are not made aware of prior to signing, is by definition not binding.

Except when the court decrees otherwise – because “moms” were “mad.” And also because it opened the door to more and worse, which I am certain was the true purpose. Have you been to an airport recently? I assume you know that literally every keystroke you make, every site you surf, every search, your emails and Skypes and phone calls and texts are all of them recorded, the “data” used to profile and keep track of quite literally everything you do, even though you’ve done nothing illegal to warrant it.

It had to begin somewhere.

Arguably, it began some thirty years ago, when it became ok to stop motorists at random in the name of apprehending drunk drivers. Henceforth, all drivers would be presumed drunk until they proved otherwise.

Is it really surprising that we are now also presumed to be terrorists until proved otherwise? At the airport, online.

Everywhere.

Voila, we find ourselves living in an authoritarian state in which making it easier for the government to arrest and successfully prosecute people for something, for anything is considered desirable. As opposed to the old American idea that people ought to be free to be left alone unless they have given damn good reason to suspect they’ve committed a crime of some kind. That the burden of proof ought to be on the government rather than proving one’s innocence the obligation of the citizenry.

But these are ideas that seems as quaint today as free association or using cash to pay for things and being allowed to actually own things without having to pay taxes in perpetuity to maintain the fiction that we own those things.

Maybe one day our children will recover the sense we appear to have lost.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
RT Rider
RT Rider

The ruling class’s disdain for, and arbitrary interpretation of, the constitution brought this to mind:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Rojam
Rojam

Actually it began with the Alien and Sedition Act of John Adams. That’s right. It only took the completion of One President before the surveillance state reared its ugly head. One poor guy was even thrown in jail for calling Adams fat. Some historians (and even more whiskey drinkers) would argue that the whiskey rebellion during Washington’s presidency was where it all began. Maybe a bit of a stretch, you say? Ok. Fair enough. How about the administration of Abraham Lincoln? Anyone talking about or writing anything contrary to the official government stance about the Civil War was locked up. Without a trial. For many months. Then there’s Wilsonian policy during WWI. FDR confiscating gold and a ten year prison term for not complying. Can anyone say “McCarthyism”? How about Nixon and his hate list? As well as all his other crazy stuff. However, with possibly the exception of the gold confiscation, none of these things were ever accepted.

So while it’s safe to say that civil liberties began to erode long before MADD, the article makes a great point. Once the SCOTUS put its final signature to it, with a blessing from no less a lovable group as “Mad Moms,” then the eroding of civil liberties began to be accepted. Boy Bush and Obama have since taken the surveillance state and the eroding of civil liberties to an all new level. And many are still not only accepting it, but embracing it and calling for more!

Anonymous
Anonymous

Drivers licenses almost always have an “implied consent” provision that allows police and other traffic authorities to demand you take a BAC test. (I know of no State where this isn’t the case)

When, where and how that test can be demanded justifiably is a different matter and can be contested in court but you usually loose your license and have to go through an expensive legal fight to get it back if you refuse one for any reason no matter if you ever face charges for DUI or not.

Essentially, you have volunteered in advance to be searched when you accepted the drivers license.

Wip
Wip

The General Welfare clause is all that was needed.

Edwitness
Edwitness

Another tell was when the police changed their designation as peace officer to law enforcement. And it shows in their willingness to violate the Constitution in order to enforce laws like those in the article that are themselves a violation of the same.
Maranatha!
Blessings:-}

James
James

I do agree govt.after revolution/birth of the country became the monster they had fought with the whiskey tax and rebellion,from there has gotten worse.,much worse.We do as a country need to stand up for ourselves more/need to take part in local govt.,and,be ready perhaps to fight and even die for our country/what’s left of the republic.

Whether trump turns out well for country or sells us out to the reptilians,the election has proved a good portion of the country wants freedom from over bearing govt/a constitutional republic ect.The war for this country and it’s future is just beginning.

Barney
Barney

This is a global problem that will only get worse, I do not have to like it or be silent. Fuck the witches and warlocks of the thought police engaged in predictive sorcery, I will wear the attention proudly like the badge of honor that it is.

Boat Guy
Boat Guy

We The People in order to protect ourselves from the daily hazards of human existance do surrender any and all responsiblity to the state and accept all accountability and financial responsibility to be taxed at an ever increasing rate to support those who will police us fine and jail us to justify their existance protecting us from ourselves so help us GOD !?
The relinquishment of personal responsibility and the desire to and ability to profit from victimhood has placed us where we are today ! DEA ATF HSA all three are nothing but federal jobs programs and I am questioning nearly all federal state and local government employees after a thumbnail review of cost benefit analysis . Oh let’s not forget the FBI and for profit prisons WTF !
When you make human behavour crimanal , everybody is guilty ! Drugs oh my , you want to be a heroine addict go for it ! All that DRUG PROBLEM is only a problem due to government , make it all legal tax it at a normal sales tax rate and we are done with it ! You want to save drug addicted people , write a check , form a group and pass the hat hell I may throw a buck in the hat but my tax dollars are for needed government services spelled out in the constitution and the rest to the independent states !

James
James

Boat,am with you on ending the drug/police/court/prison cartels,my only disagreement is the part where you say tax the sales of drugs,fuck that,too many taxes already for the idiots in supposed charge!

Boat Guy
Boat Guy

Point taken on tax just a way to fund the distribution , sort of a non-profit public service

Beeherder
Beeherder

As if the Volstead Act wasn’t enough to teach that prohibition does not work.

Humans are gonna do what humans are gonna do and authoritarian prohibitions will never prevent but often promote the specific behavior.

None of these things are happening by accident. I question the definition of WE that the founders had in mind when they said “We the People”. Folk of my class were probably not included in that WE.

How far does it go back? Whiskey rebellion seems about right to me. Sinners taxes agreed to by the self righteous as the King uses religion to manipulate the masses, These self styled royals think they are justified by their arrogance and presumed economic and cultural superiority. And after all the end (a United States Central Government) justifies the means if you are the King.

I am now watching this:

When are we gonna realize the King never gave up any power. They just changed the puppeteers. What was really said in those Masonic Lodges by the Paul Revere’s and Ben Franklin’s? These were NOT nice people, do your own research. When are we going to be willing to look behind the curtain and find the real magicians? They play our culture like a Kalliope.

Some earlier works by the same producer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq3Zz4Wo6_A

My personal view of the world has become much darker in the past few years. I no longer believe its easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys. The bad guys seem not only to be good at blending in but also are taking over and making me feel like knowing the difference between right and wrong is MY problem because the King just changes the rules to meet his needs. I look forward to putting the king to the blade I do not look forward to dealing with Robespierre after. That’s because the Robespierre’s seem to always be working for the new King or in his individual case The Red Shield. Is that still the power behind the curtain?

I hope DJT is even a little bit real. Unless he goes after the real demons behind the curtains of secrecy and succeeds in dethroning the real rulers I believe the police state envisioned by Orwell will be a better place than the one we live in.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading