U.S. Government's Culture of Concealment

The conspiracy theories will end when the government stops hiding things.

On April 27, 1961, President John F. Kennedy’s addressed the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City. The President’s subject was the critical importance of maintaining a free press for the maintenance of a free Republic. As he put it:

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society, and we as a people are inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

I thought of this speech yesterday while reviewing the reader comments to my post Thomas Crooks Online Activity Revealed, FBI Lying .

Many readers objected that I was being too speculative. I disagree, and I am confident that my speculations are entirely warranted.

The U.S. government could easily end speculation about momentous events such as Thomas Matthew Crooks’s assassination attempt that killed bystander Corey Comperatore and severely injured James Copenhaver and David Dutch.

The U.S. government could instantly achieve this objective by doing the following:

1). Stop lying to the American people

2). Stop concealing things

The FBI, CIA, and other government agencies have long maintained a rich culture of concealment. We are often told that We the People must remain in the dark about innumerable matters of vital public interest because these agencies (we are told) cannot do their job unless they can operate in a clandestine way, with minimal information about their proceedings released to the public.

We are told that our valiant federal agents cannot outwit the bad guys unless they always have the advantages of secrecy and surprise. Moreover, we are told that it takes many months (even many years or decades) to complete their investigations—a process that requires strict confidentiality to avoid impairing the investigative and judicial process.

Still from bystander video of Crooks as he opened fire.

Sniper shot Crooks AFTER he ceased firing and was crawling back down roof.

I estimate that at least 75% of the time, proclaiming the need for strict secrecy is NOT to maintain the effectiveness of federal agencies, but to maintain their privileges and their freedom from scrutiny, from embarrassment, and from accountability.

Ask yourself who or what is being served by the following acts of government concealment?

1). Withholding the full release of the JFK files

2). Withholding the full release of the 9/11 files

3). Withholding the full release of the Epstein files

4). Withholding the full release of the Thomas Matthew Crooks files and lying about his online footprint.

I always examine my reader comments and think carefully about what they tell me. Because my readers honor me by reading my work, I would never tell any of them that their assertions are foolish.

However, as anyone who has seriously studied human nature and the state knows, powerful men and women who attain a privileged status that enables them to operate in secrecy—beyond the critical scrutiny of the people they rule—will certainly yield to the temptations of corruption.

They will inevitably bend the rules for themselves and their friends, make unlawful deals for their benefit, and abuse the trust of the people they are supposed to serve. No one in history understood this better than James Madison, author of the U.S. Constitution. His speeches and letters are chock-full of warnings about the dangers of state power veiled in secrecy.

Anyone who seriously studies U.S. presidential history since President John Kennedy was assassinated two years after his Waldorf speech must contend with vast circumstantial and documentary evidence that no president since Kennedy has possessed the full executive power granted to him by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead of governing in accordance with the law and his individual conscience, each president is, upon entering the Oval Office, apparently hemmed in by actors who demand that he make decisions in accordance with their imperatives and interests.

The greatest evidence of this is that the U.S. government has, since President Eisenhower, spent trillions on endless war-making and meddling in the affairs of the rest of mankind—none of which benefits the American people outside of narrow military-industrial, state, and financial interests.

To give just one example: In recent months I’ve experienced firsthand the results of our outmoded Air Traffic Control (ATC) infrastructure. Within the transportation industry, it’s a well-known fact that ATC infrastructure is outdated due to aging equipment, insufficient funding for modernization, and slow procurement processes.

Many ATC towers are equipped with systems installed decades ago. This outmoded technology impairs efficiency and elevates the risk of disasters, as highlighted by recent system failures and near-miss incidents.

The funding estimate for updating our ATC infrastructure is $31.5 billion, with an initial $12.5 billion secured for the project.

While Congress can’t seem to find $31.5 billion to upgrade critical infrastructure for the U.S. homeland, it has appropriated approximately $174 billion for Ukraine, a country that has long been widely regarded as one of the most corrupt in the world, with a sophisticated money laundering apparatus.

If you, dear reader, find yourself irritated when I ask questions about who is running this smoke and mirror show—and especially when I indulge in speculation about it—I suggest that you to watch CNN or FOX instead of reading my humble columns. Depending on your partisan political sensibilities, one of those two networks will tell you exactly what you want to hear.