They want to see who can develop the most unbelievable, nonsensical story and have it work to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. It’s like a game, a contest, an inside joke:
Jen Psaki, when responding to accusations regarding the recent attempted “changes” in Venezuela, suggested:
As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means.
She was questioned on this…claim?
What’s even more amazing than the fact the “authorities” remain so willing to publicly spout such easily disprovable propaganda, is her reaction once she realizes she’s been caught. She backpedals and squirms, but the most disturbing thing is you can see a subtle smirk come across her face.
So, Jan got caught and lost her bet.
I am here to give you the backstory. These types of stories are concocted over a few shots, among laughing jovial colleagues in the bowels of some government building. They make bets on seeing who can come up with the wildest, most ludicrous story and not get called on it. The winner is the one whose story results in the biggest increase to departmental budgets – and the bigger the whopper, the bigger the increase.
Jan lost her bet, but many others did not…for example:
“We will tell them that Building 7 collapsed because of a furniture fire.”
“The passport of one of the hijackers was found a few blocks from where the plane crashed into the tower.”
“We dumped his body into the ocean out of respect for Muslim tradition.”
Every story gets debated and discussed before it is taken public. There are bonus points given to any colleague who adds an approved embellishment, for example “let’s have some news reporter first report that Building 7 collapsed before it actually collapses,” or “9-1-1, it would be really funny to have the “incident” on that date.”
You get the idea. If I wanted to spend more time, I could write a dozen more.
The all time doozie was first uttered by Treasury Dept. officials at the beginning of WWII, who were frustrated with the tax revenue restricting provisions of the Constitution which basically limited Congress to indirect taxes because of the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. "We'll tell them that the 16th Amendment allowed Congress to impose a direct tax on incomes without apportionment, even though this claim was first made public by Professor E. R. A. Seligman during the ratification process of the 16th Amendment and was then rebuked by the Supreme Court in Brushaber in 1916, because the wording of the amendment makes it susceptible to such an interpretation, and nobody remembers or cares what really happened so long ago in this dire time of war." This one is hands down the winner. Think of all the revenue and power that this "wild and ludicrous fabrication" has aggregated to the federal government. Don't you think it's time this one is found out? Start here: http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htmReplyDelete