Putting Some Lipstick on the Bailout Rip Off Pig
I’m not sure what is worse: having your life savings and future stolen by armed criminals or having to endure the charade of a Congressional debate that attempts to portray the theft as something that is in the best interest of the victims. In case you have become distracted by all of the theater, allow me to state clearly what is happening right now. The federal government has taken the “liberty” of confiscating trillions of dollars from the citizens whose property they have sworn to protect. This has been done for no other reason than to prop up their failed monetary system so that they can continue to siphon off the wealth of the productive members of society – rich, poor, and middle class alike – and direct it to the privileged few who would not prosper in a truly free market. Regardless of the endless minutiae that is thrown at the American public over the next several days, weeks, or months, this is the REALITY of the government’s response to the predictable meltdown of their socialist monetary and financial system.
If a little diversion is necessary to distract people when an ordinary crime is being perpetrated, then obviously an extraordinary diversion is needed when you are perpetrating the greatest heist of all time. In this respect, for once, our federal government did not let us down. It began routinely enough, with Chairman “Mao” Bernanke attending a hearing in Congress to answer questions on the details of the heist, including how the loot would be split up, etc. Of course, it was immediately assumed by all in attendance that the bailout was going forward. So, in an attempt to appear to be “fighting for their constituents,” many of the Congressmen began arguing for a clause in the bill that would limit the compensation of CEO’s of companies that made use of the stolen money. The extent to which this was debated was practically insufferable, as the underlying assumption was that the American people are so stupid as to believe that saving tens or hundreds of millions of dollars would make some significant difference when they were being divested of trillions. Still, for decorum’s sake, somebody had to put some lipstick on this bailout, rip-off pig.
There was also some discussion about the clause in the proposed bill that would give the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve unchecked power to spend the money any way they want, without oversight by Congress. Under the pretense of them representing “the people,” many of the Congressmen blustered that unelected officials could not be entrusted with this much money without oversight by the people's representatives. Of course, anyone that has seen The Godfather movies, Goodfellas, or Casino knows that infighting is common inside criminal organizations. What this really represented was a power struggle over how the loot would be split up, or at least who would decide how it will be done. The most laughable part of this is that even if Congress gets oversight into the bill, they have already demonstrated while squandering the other $3 trillion dollars that they stole from us this year that they are going to roll over and agree to whatever the executive branch wants to do anyway, no matter how unconstitutional or even criminal (is there a difference?) the policy may be.
Finally, there was also some discussion about not appropriating the entire $700 billion all at once. Honestly, some of the Congressman seemed genuinely concerned about the calls that they were getting from their constituents. Apparently, significant segments of the population in some districts had not slept through this one, and were letting them know that they weren’t happy about this latest scam. False Prophet of Freedom Charles Schumer suggested that perhaps Treasury could pilfer $150 billion now, and return at a later date to collect the rest. There are always those who lose their nerve in every crew.
At this point, it is probably clear that never was there going to be a debate about WHETHER OR NOT THE MONEY SHOULD BE STOLEN FROM THE PEOPLE AT ALL. By the end of the news coverage of the congressional hearings, the debate had been framed to focus on whether or not to let CEO’s share some of the loot, who would decide how it was divided, and whether or not it would be stolen all at once. Of course, the media outlets for both major parties (Fox for the Republicans and MSNBC for the Democrats) immediately took their cues and tried the best they could to characterize these trivialities as “weighty issues.” However, there was still a feeling of uncertainty in the air about whether or not the syndicate could actually get away with this. Never fear, because the best theater was saved for last.
I have to give some credit to the political professionals that are running John McCain’s campaign. I wouldn’t have given him a chance to win this election six months ago, when it became apparent that he would be the Republican nominee. Somehow, his campaign has managed to convince a significant amount of people that this man, who barely graduated from college, whose mental stability has legitimately been questioned on many occasions, and who literally cannot be trusted to give an unscripted statement within range of a microphone, should be the next president of the United States. His selection of Sarah Palin as running mate seemed to swing momentum to his side at a time when Obama was poised to distance himself in the polls. After more McCain blundering at the podium had revived Obama once again, giving him a six point lead in the latest national polls, the McCain campaign pulled off its greatest coup to date. John McCain was suspending his presidential campaign, and calling on Barack Obama to do the same. There was a danger that the heist wouldn’t come off without their help, and McCain was heading immediately to Washington.
Finally, this was the diversion that the plot needed. The media was energized. Fox’s Carl Cameron appeared onscreen literally out of breath (I hope he was acting) with the scoop on McCain’s startling decision. Now, the debate had really been framed. Should Obama follow McCain’s lead, or was this just a political move? Should the debates go forward? Who actually called who first? McCain or Obama? There was simply no longer time to argue dry, philosophical issues, such as property rights for instance. No, there was now high drama in the presidential campaign charade and a prime time television event that was in jeopardy of being cancelled. The heist was on, and all that was left was to make sure that Stacks didn’t fall asleep in the getaway truck.
While without question a political stunt, and what will probably prove to be a very successful one, there was a little sincerity amidst all of the theater. McCain called for a presidential commission including Republicans and Democrats. It was time to put politics aside. Obama said that this was “no longer a Republican or Democratic problem, but an American problem.” I would only add one word. It is not a Republican or Democratic problem, but an American Oligarchy problem. The oligarchy is in some jeopardy here, with its phony monetary and financial system in danger of collapse, and it is time to put the pretense of being ideologically different aside and work together to save it. I was reminded of Mel Brooks in the classic “Blazing Saddles,” when he said, “We’ve got to protect our phony baloney jobs!” If there was ever a question of whether we are ruled by “Republicrats,” that question has been answered now that the chips are down.
There is some hope, though. For once, Ron Paul was not the only one calling the system into question. Jim DeMint actually said that he was disturbed that free market capitalism was being blamed for the crisis when in actuality it was entirely caused by government. Richard Shelby said that he was opposed to the bailout, as did Jim Bunning, who has been vocally critical of the Federal Reserve. Most importantly, even though the media jumped right in line with the Republicrat spin to frame this debate away from the real question – can the government actually steal this money from the American people – they were nevertheless forced to report that large sections of the American public are ANGRY about this. Unfortunately, they don’t know exactly what to be angry at, and are probably going to be quite easily manipulated to focus that anger in the wrong direction. But they’re pissed, and they are not being quiet about it anymore. One thing is true: the American people have been poorly educated, misinformed, lied to, manipulated, and conditioned to a certain extent, but they are not stupid. They know something smells about this and they are starting to figure out what direction the odor is coming from. Once they rediscover their individual rights – the rights that cannot be bought with fiat money nor voted away in an election – the criminal gang is going to be in grave danger. This may be their last score.
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 465 reads





****
Your excellent post made me think of a phrase often seen on Ron Paul related forums.
First they lie to you.
Then they plunder & steal from you.
Then they lie to you again.
Then you die.
Its not exactly Gandhi's version - but then again, I'm not exactly a monk. Thanks for putting things into perspectives I can readily understand.
that they put lipstick on a pig
is revolting to begin with
I don't think the American people are stupid. I just think they need more information. I hope that more high profile people speak up in the mainstream media, to focus the people's anger in the right direction.
against the banking gangsters
i'm of the same opinion. right on.
. . . Tom is right on the money (pun intended). Yet I would add this: look to the bigger picture. Bailout or not, the bankster system is finished, and our global criminals are on the run. Of course they're trying to steal whatever they can on the way out the door-- no surprise there-- but the opportunity for freedom has never been greater. There's a rocky road ahead for awhile, but this bankster collapse (and its short term aftermath) will open the door. Our freedom moment is coming-- and soon. R
because I can see a very real chance of some major upheaval (if for example food was scarce or money suffered from wild hyperinflation) and then a corresponding major crackdown a la "martial law" descending upon all of us before the government goons relinquish control. Isn't it (if only at some subconscious level) control which government thrives upon? Isn't it control that the government, once it gets something within its jurisdiction, never voluntarily relinquishes? Hasn't the tip-toeing towards a police state been surreptitiously implemented by allowing the government control over more and more areas of society and everything within it?
In the criminal law, especially with 4th amendment issues, the defense bar marshals all its best resources when a new U.S. Supreme Court case that could carve out a new exception to the 4th amendment warrant requirement is accepted for review. This is because once the exception gets a foot in the door, there is no shutting the door ever again and the 4th amendment takes another permanent hit.
History teaches me that most governments, once they achieve the level of control which we seem to be at now, never voluntarily let it go. These clowns we have in D.C. won't even let go of or even remotely acknowledge how miserably corrupted and failing their fiscal policies are when all outward signs of the planned economy are blinking red "ABORT!" So i really don't have much hope of state and federal governments honoring any gain in liberty we may seek.
Per the usual, i will try to prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
I can see martial law working in the suburb of Buffalo I lived in before moving down here to semi-rural Florida. I'm not sure martial law would work in this neighborhood. These people are all ex-military and they are armed to the teeth. I wouldn't want to be around when they tried martial law out here. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
a large city self-segregated largely by income/race that is a 2nd amendment dead zone. Sure, all the thugs have weapons (gang bangers and cops) but us little folk are left to our own devices and the protection of the nanny state. Ya right. Things go down, I will be one of the first outta this giant tinderbox.
Haven't you kept some of those guys out of jail? Oh, I forgot, a trial jury will convict a ham sandwhich in American courts faster than a grand jury will indict one.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
make some friends in the ghetto just in case :)
> Bailout or not, the bankster system is finished [...] but the opportunity for freedom has never been greater. [...] Our freedom moment is coming-- and soon.
< i wouldn't be so optimistic. a bad/failing system can survive for a long time. we haven't even begun to suffer i'm sure.