Establishment Blackmail: The (Evil) Empire Strikes Back

Let us look at what keeps happening here. Talk about extortion, blackmail and hostage taking!!! Our political establishment invented the game, and they are "perfecting" it. That is why I regtard my enemies (political kind) as not only the leftist Democrats and mainstream media , who are out in th eopen, but the establishment Republicans pulling strings in the shadows. It is why I fully expect to WALK AWAY from the Repubican Party, and never look back. Just look at the events since 2008:


1. Bush an dPaulson say that Congress HAS to pass a a "blank check" bailout of Wall Street "toxic assets), or the country is doomed. Anyone who votes against it is supposed to be destroying the country. The Senate passes a "Christmas tree" bill, with not only 1 700 billion dollar blank check, but with a Democratic "wish list" of other provisions.


2. The House defeats the Senate "bailout bill". The Evil Empire puts the pressure on--talking hostages and extorting like mad. The Republicans in the House are accused of putting the wole country at risk--really more than at risk, as they are accused of trying to bring the country down at a point of extreme crisis. The economic fascists on Wall Street cooperate with a stock market drop. Everyone (the evil establishment) says that the stock market wil tank, and the financial system collapse, if the bill is not passed. It turns out that the stock market will collpase if the bill DOES pass, as wlll, as the bottom of the stock market is NOT the falll of 2008, but March of 2009. Still, the House reverses itself as House Repubicans give into extreme pressure fromt he media and the rest of the establishment. Democrats deny that the billprovides a "blank check", and says that the bill provides extreme "oversight".


3.. Paulson and the eatablishment know a blank check when they see it. The DEBATE on the bailout bill had beeen all about "txic assets". That wsa where the "oversight" was targeted. Paulson and the establishment, including Wall Street, neatly sidestep the "restrictioins", and show that the "debate" was all a LIE, by ignoring 'toxic assets" altogether. Instead, Paulson and the Fed (under Bernanke) provide money DIRECTLY to the banks and financial system, making the U.S. government the OWNER of a good part of our financial system No "oversight" at all. No restrictions. Just a naked intervention by the U.S government to bail out favvored companies. This had nNT been "debated" at all in Congress. It probably would nto have passed, as the GM bailout would NOT apass later. Yes, the ESTABLISHMENT subverted democracy, and bascially accomplished a bloodlesss coup, where the executive branch was given 700 billion dollars to spend any way it wanted. This tactic would be repeated with the Obama "stimulus".


3. Geneal Motors is failing--heading for bankruptcy. BUSH and Paulson (NOT Obama) want to bail out GM. Congress will not go along. Democrats, meanwhile, do not want even a modified bankruptcy that will abrogate union contracts. Paulson and Bush simply assert that the financial bailout bill authorizes the "bailout" of ANY compnay (blank check, anyone), whether it is a bank or not, and the Treasury bails out GM. This is completed under Obama, as unions are basically given control of GM,, along with the government. Obama has bragged that HE is telling GM what cars to make.


4. The Obama "stimulus" (porkulus) bill is passed, based on Obama's representation that if the bill does NOT pass, we will have unemployment of 10%, while if the bill does pass people will immediately be ut back to work and unemployment will not rise above 8% or so. The bill passes, although with only Democrat votes. Note however, that these are SAFE votes for theRepubican establishment, because they know the bll is going to pass. It does no good, and only vastly increases our dbt problem And it turns out to be another blank check/slush fund for the Administration to spend money on anything it wants, in addition to the may pork projects inserted by the Democrats in Congresss. Unemployment rises above 10% anyway, and still is 9.1% (after DROPPING to 9.4% in the summer of 2009, before the "stimulus" even could go into effect). So much for the "stimulus"--which the establishment again supported, includng most of the economic fascists on Wall Street.


5. We will skip over the well known saga of ObamaCaer. In the period of 2009-2010, leftist Democrats cold do pretty much what they wanted. They contorlled Congress and the White House. Therefore, blackmainl and extortion were not really necessary, EXCET on ObamaCare. Thus, you had the otorious stories of the BRIBES, EXTOTRTION and BLACKMAIL used to finally pass ObamaCare--including dead of night deals. This would not have been possible wthout the mcooeperation of the mmedia part of the establishment, but I will not rehash the disgrace which was the "debate" over ObamaCare.--the manipulation of CBO numbers and all of the rest. I will note that Princeton researchers hae shown that the CBO was given questionable ASSUMPTINS, and told to "score" ObamaCarre using those ASSUMPTIONS. This reslted in at least a $50 billion dollars per year underestimate (one of many problems with this new ENTITLEMENT).


6. Skip forward to the end of 2010, because this is when the establishment is back in real trouble--needing to start putting the usual gun to the heads of the American PUBLIC in order to make the American public believe that things HAVE to be done this way. Democrats refused to pass a budget, or spending bills for the next year, during 2010. Their PLAN was always to do tis in the "lame" duck session after the election. That was not all they planned. Their was also the GAY ACTIVIST agenda, which Democrats (and the media) regarded as more important than the fate of the whole country. But look at what Democrats, and the establishment, wanted done AFTER the Tea Party victories in the election: spending bill (omnibus) to keep the government going; extending tee Bush tax cuts (which Dmmocrats had not taken up when they controlled all of Congress and the White House)), "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (who cares if the government keeps running), Ilegal immigration (the "Dream Act"), and--oh yes--that major arms control treaty with Russia. There were other incidentals, but the establishment had a lot on its plate, given what had happened in the electin and the difficulty of handling the Tea Party peple who would be in the NEXT Congress. It all could not get done without dooming the GOP forever (as the GOP estabishment finally recognized).


7. Leftist Democrats overreached on the "omnibus" spending bill for the rest of the fiscal year. They had fooled around with bay activist legisslation (the truly IMPORTANT stuff), and when they tried to push through a massive spending bill at the last moment, they just could not do it without dooming the Repubican establishment (worried abut its own skin). Thus, Congress PUNTED on this. With the government about to shut down., Congress simply passed one of those SHROT TERM exentions into the next Congress--setting up the NEXT establishment "gun to the head" moment to EXTORT the American people. The problem was the Bush tax cuts. They were going to expire, and that would mean a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS. Republicans were committed to NOT RAISING TAXES ON ANYONE. Obama, the mainstream media, and really and substantial parts of the establishment were committed to the idea of "taxing the wealthy" (class warfare, which the establishment wrongly thinks it can manage and control). It was time for the GUN to be pointed at the heads of the public. IF there were no "deal", not only would ALL of the Bush tax custs expire (to the political detriment of the establishment), but the government was set to shut down. Drumbeat to Repubican holdouts and the public: A deal HAS to be made. Otherwise, we are all again going down the tubes. Thus, we got another one of theose "last minute" deals that INCREASED the debt and deficit. Nope. NO "cuts" to the spending bill. That battle was deferred to the following year. A TEMPORARY extentions of the Bush tqax cuts, guaranteeing that business would continue to be uncetrtan about tax policy. The final elements of the "deal"? An extension of the extended unemployment benefits, AND a NEW welfare/"stimulus" payment disguised as a "payroll tax cut" (where, obviusly, we did not need the money to fund Social Security--lol). This ESTABLISHMENT (including Republican) deal RAISED THE DEFICIT some147 BILLION dollars (not including the Bush tax cuts, where letttng them expire woud have really been a tax increase). The additon to the deficit was MORE than the TOTAL "cuts" that the new Congress has made in spending ("made" in the only real snense of cuts that have actually OCCURRED).


8. Read the previous paragraph carefully, and realize ow deliberately OBAMA and the extablishment SET UP the "crisis" in 2011 about the "continunig resolution" to fund the government for the rest of the year. Firt, the Democrats and Obama FAILED to fund the entire year, before the electioin in 2010, solely for political reasons. Democrats contgrolled Congress, and could have passed some sort of budget/spending bill to cover the entire year. They deliberately chose not to do that . Then Democras--faced with a massive repudiation from the American people and Republicans scared of primary fights from people no longer willing to buy their establishment games, overreached in the lame duc session of 2020--meaning that Democrats and the estblishment deliberately put off the battle over spending authorization for the rest of the yar until the new Congress was in sesson What were they counting on? They were couuntingon what they always count on: THE LGUN AT YOUR HEAD that they had put there. Yep. Obama and the Democrats said that Repubilcans HAD to go along with no real spending cuts, or the government would SHUT DOWN. Now, under our Constitution, no funds are suposed to be spent unless approved by the House of Representatives. That means that Republicans in the House have the POWER (and maybe the duty) to vote to spend only the amounts they feel represent good policy---meaning that the only way to "fund" the government is to pass a fudning bill that spends only amounts MUTUALL AGREED UPON. No problem, right? The House passes a bill, and with MINOR changes and "compromises", the Senate and the President have to go along. Otherwise the government does not get funded. That is how the Constitution is set up Politically, however, that is not how it wortks Everyone remembers Bill Clinton, and how Bill Clinton shut down the government rather than accept the Newt Gingrich spending limitations. It is not only Democrats, but the establishment who believe that the Clinton result--when Clinton is perceived to have won--shows that BRINKMANSHIP (as a deliberate establishment tactic) works. All you have to do is tel the American people that extremists are making you shut down the government, and you (Democrats and the establishment) get your way. Thus, the Republican establishment told the Tea Party, and people concerned about the debt, not to worry abut the bad deal at the end of 2010. We were told that was the "old Congress", and that Repubicans had "learned" (lol). The "new" Congress would be different. No, it would not, buecause the estalbishment doubled down on its brinkmanship--on holding a gun to the American people's heads as a way of heading off those "extremists".


9. Thus, we came to February-March of this year. John Boehner--representing the estabishment--played a GAME of "brinkmanship". He insisted that Repubicans would never accept extending the same spending for the rest of this year. He insisted that spending cuts had to be sustantial, and real. He lied. Boehner was playing politics as usual. While the mainstream media told the people that those datardly Tea Party people wre tryng to shut down the government, having not learned the lesson of Bill Clinton, Boehner just calmly worked the game down to the end, with a goveernment "shut down" looming (the gun to the American people's head that had worked so well in the past). The gun (hostage taking) worked again. Booehner virtually said that he would NOT "sht the governmment down", and he MEANT that (about the only honest thing he said). He had to get some sort of face-saving "deal", and he did. He got another SHAM deal that the CBO said cut NOTHING from this year's spending. Not 100 billon Not one thin dime (well, MAYBE a dime or two, as in the neighborhood of a few hnndred MILLIONI , in comparison with TRILLIONIS in spending. The stablishment thought they had done it again--convinced people to go along with the sHAM on the grounds that they HAD to (with guns at al of our heads). Problem: The same old "justification" was trotted out that was trotted out at the end of 2010. "Don't worry. We have just started. This year is almost over, and we at least got something. We still have the debt ceiling battle ahead, and the spending bills for the entire next fiscal year." Boehner even promised that appropriations bills would be done on time, and that we would have mulitiple bills so that we would not be facing this "shut the government down" gun to our heads. Boehner lied again. Boehner is the guy who lieves and dies by the establishment sham deals. Note, however, what this SET UP. Right. the establishment--especiallly Obama and the Democrats, but joined by the Republican establishment--had doubled down on "brinkmanship" again. They were relying on the same arguments workng again, and that the debt ceiling would get raised based on even more serious "threats" (gun to the head threats) of what would happen to us oterwise. For this deliberate "strategy, OR for being duped by it, you should vote against EVERY Democrat and Repubican who voted for the sham deal on the continuing resolution--including avowed members of the Tea Party (probably not many, but it is said by the establishment that more than half of the new Republican members of Congress voted for the NEXT big sham, for which vote they should GO DOWN. Yep. the "debt ceiling" debacle, as Obama calls it, was now set up by OBAMA and the establishment.


10. Look at the siuation. Republicans had "cut' NOTHING. In fact, they had ADDED to tthe deficit (especially with that "deal" at the end of 2010). And they had promised critics: "Just wait, we have not yet bgun to fight--just like John Paul Jones." Right. If John Paul Jones had been a secret British agent. Now the debt ceiling was looming. I am morally certain that the Republican "leadership" wanted the fight THERE, rather than on the appropriations bills for the next fiscal year, for two reasons; (1) The debt ceiling is a big deal for Tea Party people, as the symbol for what they are really upset about, and (2) The establishment thought that everyone could make a big SHOW about the debt ceiling, as Senator Obama had done, and we would have 'politics as usual"--an extension of the debt ceiling, as always, but with the BONUS of some sort of sham deal that gets us past another "government shut down' fight where Boehner and establishment Repubicans would look like the traitorous cowards they are. Instead, Boehner and the establishment Repubicans PROVED what traitorous cowards they are by the debt ceiling deal, AND were joined by many supposedly in the "Tea Party">


11. You know what happened. Boehner wanted to do a "grand deal", as the ultimate example of the "empire striking back" (the evil establishment striking back). This would have been the ultimate betrayal. It ws the expectation of that betrayal that caused Obama and the Democrats to feel they would WIN the debt ceilnig battle. Was not the Republican establishment on their side? Remember, there was an even BIGGER GUN at the head of each American this time. They had always counted on people being ready for ANY DEAL, with this kind of gun at the head of each of them It was because I clearly saw this tactic that I so dearly wanted us NOT to raise the debt ceiling until we had gone past the deadline, and then only with real concessions, even though the "debt ceiling" was not my preferred battle ground. Somehow, I was aware, the estabishment has to be taught that holding a GUN to our heads will no lnger work. However, the establish ment not only did not learn, but they DOUBLED DOWN on brinkmanship. Congrss--including Repubicans supposedly associated witth the Tea Party--se tup a still BIGGER GUN from their point of view). It goes without saying that you should vote against EVERY Republican who voted for this sham, "super committee" deal, along with every Democrat. This was Congress and the establisment at their worse. Congress has tried to SET UP the next brinkmanship to EXCUSE the vtoe on the next "brinkmanship" deal. "What did oyou expect me to do? I had to choose between destorying the defense of this country and 'compromising' . The mainstream media began its full court press for the TAX INCREASES the establishment wants, as the drumbeat began that "a deal" HAD to get done (the gun to the head strategy yet again, as deliberately set up by the estalbishment). Standard and Poors, although part of the establishment and part of the chorus for a sham "grand deal", apparently did not get the message. Instead of THREATENING a downgrade (gun at the heads of the public again, as the establishment intended), Standard and Poors actually DOWNGRADED the credit rating of tis country. If ever ANYONE deserved his, our "establishment" did (even if the cuntry does not deserve our establishment--our fault for letting them get away with this stuff).


12. Enter the super committee, which has NO functin other than to provide COVER for members of Congress (as yo can see, this has already FAILED with this blog). The idea is that a REALLY BIG GUN is supposedly (nope--not real) being held at the head of each American. If this super committee of 12 peole--not ELECTED for this kind of dictatorial job and smacking of the old Roman practice of "appointing a dictator, or maybe two, to andle emergencie--if this super committee does not reach some sort of SHAM deal (sham , except for any tax increases agreed upon), then both DEFENSE and MEDICARE (horrors!!!!) will face "draconian" cuts. Ah, but the Democrats CHEATED. The "cuts" in Medicare will be for PROVIDERS--not Medicare recipients. And they will never take place (as present scheduled "cuts" in provider reimbursement have never taken place. The truly STUPID people at the Wlall Street Journal--part of the establishment supporting this deal in the begining--finally figured out that the GUN aied at the heads of supposedly everyone, is really aimed only at REPUBLICANS who have challenged the establishment. Repubicans have beenjust as reluctant to cut reimbursement to Medicare providers as Democrats, and Republicans are MORE serious abut "defense".


Doubt me? Never do that. Look at this headline for a day or two ago featured on the Yahoo AT&T internet "welcome" page (BOYCOTT Yahoo and AT&T)--the story probably being from the despicable AP:


"Dooomsday defense cuts loom for select 12"


Q.E.D., Does propaganda get any more obvious than this? Can it be any more obvious what the TACTIC is here. Remember "The Guns of Navarone"? The movie and book about giant guns commanding the sea at a strategic point--guns that need to be silenced. Well, this headlie alone proves that this whole debt ceiling "deal" was designed to aim the "Guns of Navarone" at the heads of the American people--especially people who have been resisiting politics as usual. How do we disable thee guns? NO DEAL. Yes, I mean it. No sham 1.2 trillion or more in "cuts". No tax increasess. Pull the trigger--on a FRAUD. As I have stated, I fully expect the result of this process will be for me to WALK AWAY from the entire Repubican Party forever. This whole process (read the above again) has been DISHONEST from the Republcan Party as an insitution. The next dishonesty will be the last--for me, anyway. The very name of the "Republican Party" will never be used in this blog again--as is already ture for that "unfari and unbalanced" network which shall now always remain nameless. The estalbishment has SET UP yet another GUN aimed at the American people--albeit a gun without bullets. The ony way to call their bluff is to call their bluff Oh, you might get a SHOW of defense cuts sometime int he future. Yuo might get a SHOW of Medicare reimbursement "cuts' cometime in the FUTURE. They wil never take place (at least, not under this "trigger") For that matter, any spending "cuts" that are agreed as part of a "deal" to aovid the GUN at our heads WILL NEVER TAKE PLACE. This is all theater. It is theater with real consequences, but it is still theater. This blog has often correctly stated that we should be addressing SPENDING year by year, as we address thigs like Social Secruity and Medicare as SEPARATE funding problems which need to be addressed separately (not as part of some sham "grand deal"). Gneral tax revenue shoudl not matter to Social Security, because it needs to be self-sustaining (which is why there is a separate Social Security/payroll tax). Ditto with Medicare, where the program has to be treated as a separate problem from general spending, although the rogram alone can bankrupt us. These "grand", SHAM deals pushed through with a gun at our heasds are destorying us. I will no longer accept them, or give ANYONE a "pass" on them. That includes Michele Bachmann (who I don't worry about), Rick Perry (who I do worry about), Mitt Romney (who I do worry about), and all f the rest. No, I do NOT worry aoubt John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, or all f those Republicans who have voted for these sham "deals' already Those people have already PROVEN they are my (political) enemies, and I will support none of them for any office (including dogcatcher of Mt. Ida Arkansas).


Americans in gneral ARE at fault, by wanting "any deal" when the establishment points a gun at their heads. Unless we can get past such political theater, and force politicians to deal in the real world instead of the sham, fantasy world of their own making, then we are never going to save this country. You want SPENDING? Fine. Just don't delude yourself that sham spending "cuts" TEN YEARS from noow mean that we have done anything but make our debt/defict worse. You want Big Govenment? Fine. Just don't delude yourself that SAYING that you don't changes the fact that you participate in constantly increasing the size of the Federal Government--wanting Congress to come back and "save" you whenever the economy faces problems. And, if you are i thte establishment: you want to avoid the brinkmansthip that YOU are using to control policy? Then DEBATE the REAL, instead of constantly relying on shams to DECEIVE.


If you have learned nothing from this article besides this, you should have learned that the estalbishment is trying to USE "brinkmanship" for its own purposes, includint especailly the mainstream meida, because it does NOT WANT the people to know what is really going on. Be honest here. Do you hear any REPUBLICANS--or, for that matter, many Deocrats--actuallly out there saying that we need to INCREASE the deficit and debt now, because we can't afford to do anything abut it, and there is no way to be sure whether we will be able to cut the debt and deficit years in the future? Of course ou don't hear people saying that, unless you read between the lines, but that is how they are ALL acting. Why else would the "estalbishment" still be PUSHING this outragoues payroll tax "cut" AND extension of extended unempoyment benefits, which will ADD to the debt MORE than Repubicans have suppsedly "cut' (in years actually happening, as distinguished from the far future) . Why else would ou have Repubicans, with a straight face, saying that they will only agree to an unemployent benefit extension if it is 'apid for" with "cuts' somewhere else. How DISHONEST can you be. Republicans and Democrats are saig that they can't find "cuts' to reduce our current defict/debt problem, but they can find "cuts' to fund MORE SPENDING? My brain hurst. Any "cuts" NEED to go to cut our deficit--NOT to finance more spending. It is a LIE--an Orwellian Big Lie--to say that you ae "payng for" any additonal spending, when we are borrowing 40% of every dollar for what we are spending NOW. You know how big a LIE this is? I guarantee you that any "cuts" to "apy for' (lol) any further extra spending on extended unempllyment will come from the FUTURE, and not form the next fiscal year. This is apples and oranges--anothr Big Lie. FUTURE spending "cuts", even if real, do NOT "offset" current spending INCREASES. That way lies bankruptcy, which is where we are headed. It is as if I, in my personal budget, justified purchasing a 10 million dollar mansion NOW, because I will "pay for it" with the PROMISE to cut my spending over the next 20 years. As a matter of fact, something like that was government POLICY creating the housing bubble (as people were encouraged to buy houses they could not afford)


You can see why I regard the Republican Party as virtually a dead party walking, even at a suppoed high point of recent years. Republican politicians are still addicted to "politics as usual", and have not learned a thing about the public not being willng to put up with DECEPTION any longer. What the establishment has beenreduced to is this tactic of the GUN to the head. It will work until it doesn't, and then the country will collapse. The old shell game only works until the rubes are wise.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I realize this is bad on an article this long, where my attention tends to wander a little and I tend to get tired (affecting my already bad typing). Sorrry. Can't do anything about it (in a reasonable amount of time, wihout unreasonably imposing on other people, when no one is getting paid for this).