Why do government agencies do the opposite of what they say? EPA pollutes, DEA runs drugs, ATF smuggles guns, FBI plots terrorism
by: J. D. Heyes
The Affordable Care Act that isn't affordable and has raised health insurance rates and the cost of healthcare.
The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, designed to improve food labeling but which actually bans states from enacting their own GMO labeling requirements, thus keeping food labels inaccurate.
The USA Patriot Act, a major post-9/11 bill that redefined "patriotism" as massive unconstitutional government surveillance and intrusion.
And so on.
Throughout our recent history, there are a number of examples where Congress and the Executive Branch have proposed or passed legislation that, in practice, does exactly the opposite of what elected officials said it would do, in direct contradiction of their titles.
The same is true of the federal bureaucracy: There are innumerable examples of federal agencies performing tasks and undertaking missions that are diametrically opposite of their founding purpose.
Consider these examples:
-- EPA polluting rivers: The EPA recently caused over 3 millions gallons of toxic waste to spill into Colorado's Animas River while "cleaning up" the Gold King Mine near Silverton, CO. A local retired geologist predicted that the EPA would actually cause a massive toxic spill in order to secure federal funding for a "Superfund" site. And that is exactly what happened, and is happening. Since the incident, the EPA has declared that the affected river water is perfectly clean and safe, although toxic lead and arsenic now line the river banks on historic Navajo land. After spreading their poison on Navajo land and putting countless lives at risk, appointed EPA officials are now defying Congress members elected to represent Americans and refusing to release documents related to the mine spill.
-- Operation Fast and Furious: Begun at the outset of the Obama Administration, Fast and Furious was a gun-running operation headed by the Justice Department and, specifically, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms – the federal agency charged with investigating, among other crimes, gun-running. In particular, the ATF sold thousands of guns to "straw" purchasers who were buying them to transfer to Mexican drug lords south of the border. The plan, according to some, was to have the ATF track those weapons and, upon locating them in the hands of the drug lords, make arrests.
None of that seems plausible from the outset, when you consider that the U.S. government has no authority to arrest anyone in Mexico, and for that to have ever happened would have required the cooperation of the Mexican authorities.
Secondly, there were no tracking devices placed on any of the trafficked weapons, which consisted primarily of "assault weapons" – that is, semi-automatic rifles that resemble military counterparts which are truly assault weapons – so there was no way to actually track them.
Why the operation in the first place? Because, as investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson for CBS News pointed out, it was an administration attempt to push for stricter gun control laws.
-- Drug Enforcement Agency making drug deals: As reported by Business Insider (BI) in January 2014, the DEA – an agency formed to enforce federal drug laws and battle drug trafficking – was actually involving in drug trafficking.
Citing El Universal, BI reported that, "between the years 2000 and 2012, the U.S. government had an arrangement with Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed the organization to smuggle billions of dollars of drugs while Sinaloa provided information on rival cartels."
From "drug enforcement" to "drug smuggling."
-- The FBI's staged anti-terror campaign: Since 9/11, the FBI – no doubt in an effort to remain relevant, powerful and well-funded, has expended no small amount of resources to manufacture "terrorism" cases.
As reported by The New York Times in 2012, the FBI has essentially created a cottage industry of terrorism, using undercover operatives who pretend to be planning attacks on the United States, only to ensnare "suspects" it has created out of whole cloth.
The paper noted:
THE United States has been narrowly saved from lethal terrorist plots in recent years — or so it has seemed. A would-be suicide bomber was intercepted on his way to the Capitol; a scheme to bomb synagogues and shoot Stinger missiles at military aircraft was developed by men in Newburgh, N.Y.; and a fanciful idea to fly explosive-laden model planes into the Pentagon and the Capitol was hatched in Massachusetts.
But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naively played their parts until they were arrested.
Such operations are legal, the paper noted, but just how ethical are they? And in a time when real terrorism is a real threat, should the FBI be in the business of creating terrorist incidents when the agency is supposed to be rooting out and foiling legitimate plots?
-- The Department of State: The diplomatic wing of the U.S. government, the role of the State Department "is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world." But in practice, the State Department has often been used as an organ of espionage for the U.S. intelligence community.
As laid out in Executive Order 12333, titled, "United States Intelligence Activities" and signed by President Ronald Reagan in December 1981, under Section 1.9, the department is required to conduct intelligence operations, which is different from, say, spreading democracy.
As the editor of Natural News, Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported recently, the federal bureaucracy's myriad of alphabet agencies has a long history of doing exactly the opposite of what you'd expect them to be doing.
"Almost EVERY federal government agency is now functioning as a rogue entity. Nearly all of them routinely carry out false flag events in order to justify their own existence (and increase their budgets)," he wrote. "In a very real way, U.S. government agencies have become mafia-style cartels carrying out domestic terrorism across America in order to justify their own existence."
The Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense after World War II, by the way. While the Pentagon certainly defends the country, it also conducts offensive operations – makes war, in other words – when ordered to do so by the Congress and president.
Just another dichotomy.
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/050986_government_agencies_bureaucracy_hypocrisy.html#ixzz3kJlRzEFc