Is Congress being threatened on TWO fronts?

2010 June 12
by ruleoflawrestoration

If you’re like me, you might wonder from time to time just why some politicians might dare to thumb their noses at an increasingly-agitated public and continue to enact policies that they know are bad for millions and millions of Americans.  Not many months ago, for example, we were hearing about multiple threats of death and bodily injury that were allegedly made to members of Congress who had voted in support of the unconstitutional health care reform act.

What on Earth would inspire a member of Congress to risk his or her life to enact such a tyrannical measure?   Are they simply stupid, as many believe?  Surely, some of them are, as any of a number of YouTube videos quickly show.  Perhaps others are simply unaware of the consequences of their actions, acting as “true believers” in whatever cause, while having no clue as to consequences in the real world.  Others, some speculate, are being paid off to vote as they do, and that they are simply willing to risk the public anger now in return for a payoff later.  Sure, they’d likely be sacrificing any hope of re-election, but perhaps the pay-off is great enough to be worth it.

All that aside, however, it’s only a matter of time before some certain percentage of the society decides that “enough is enough” and that it’s time to “storm the castle”.  No one can say what tyrannical act in Washington will finally trigger that decision, of course, but we can readily observe the growing divergence between public opinion and the loyalties of those sitting in government.  Reason dictates, therefore, that it’s only a matter of time before Washington has backed the populace far enough into a corner that armed revolution will actually seem like a good idea to more and more Americans, who will have exhausted any other reasonable hopes of governmental reform.

It is fairly obvious that there is no imminent threat of armed revolution, however, so it’s not that hard to imagine how Congress could be complacent with regard to this particular possibility at this particular time.  But that’s not the greatest threat they face.  Indeed, it is much more likely that we’ll see violent attacks against individual members of Congress before we’d ever see a coordinated revolutionary uprising because the former requires a consensus of only one, where the latter requires a widespread consensus.

With the aforementioned threats of bodily injury having been issued so very recently, therefore, isn’t it surprising the Congress continues full steam ahead in doing violence to the US Constitution and the public good as well?  In pondering this puzzle, it occurred to me that the threat of violence is not necessarily coming from only one front.  Though I have no evidence of such (and am in no position to have evidence of such), I realize that it is entirely possible that certain members of Congress could be acting under duress—even under threat of violence—as they continue to violate the public trust in deference to the special interests that control Washington.

Our question, therefore, is whether the evil wizards “behind the curtain”—those who seek to influence and control the government while hiding from public view—are evil enough to coerce members of Congress with threats of violence.  In investigating this question, we must first note that no one questions whether these people are evil enough to bribe and to blackmail members of Congress, for such stories are always popping up from time to time.  Therefore, we can be certain that we are dealing with people who are evil enough to:

  • break the law
  • coerce lawmakers against their will, at least by bribery and/or blackmail
  • deliberately promote congressional acts that are known to be against the public good

So far, this sounds like an old Al Capone movie, doesn’t it?  And this brings us to the question of whether the following tactics would naturally belong on the list above:

  • threats of murder
  • threats of physical violence
  • threats against the lawmakers’ families

If the classic Chicago Mafia hoodlums didn’t have any problem including the last three on the list with the first three, shall we opine that those currently influencing Washington from behind the scenes are a more honorable breed of criminal?  Are they criminals of exceptional self control, who can say “this far, and no farther” in their tactics?  Are they masters of the “slippery slope”, who have discovered how to plant an anchor along the way downhill, so as to be certain they will never descend beyond a given point?

I find this unlikely, for it is the nature of crime to protect one’s scheme and artifice at  a great costs, and to avoid prosecution and imprisonment at all costs.  If a politician that you previously bribed is no longer willing to play along, you blackmail him, threatening to expose the bribery.  But what do you do if he says he doesn’t care about your blackmail threat?  Do you say to yourself: “Gee, it’s too bad that he won’t cave in to the blackmail, because that’s as far as our self-imposed standards allow us to go in modifying this politician’s behavior.  I guess we’ll just have to let him expose our entire operation!

No, just like so many of today’s mega-corporations, I believe it is the self-view of most criminal syndicates that they are “too big to fail”.  Thus are they willing to stoop to whatever depths are necessary to continue their enterprises with minimal disruption.  In my view, therefore, it is quite to be expected that when bribery and blackmail fail, threats of violence and murder against certain members of Congress would be an obvious next step in the game of controlling them—and especially when time is of the essence.  It is quite easy for me to imagine a frustrated handler saying to an uncooperative member of Congress, “You’ll vote in favor of this bill on Friday, or you won’t wake up on Saturday.”

But alas, this is mere speculation on my part—and surely I will be criticized for such.  Ironically, however, no one is criticized for speculating toward the opposite conclusion!  Indeed, when would anyone ever be taken to task for uttering something like, “I know those folks will bribe and blackmail, but I just can’t imagine that they’d stoop to threats of violence and murder.“?  Isn’t such an expression equally as speculative?  Actually, I find it more unlikely than my own speculation, for it would require a case in which these despicable criminals have the exquisite virtue of self control…as if human life is precious to them.

If I am right, and if some appreciable number among the members of Congress is under this sort of coercion, what could constitute a better argument for replacing Congress as often as possible with fresh members?  Indeed, it wouldn’t make continued corruption impossible, but it would dramatically increase the amount of work necessary for the current establishment to control the acts of Congress.  Like any other business enterprise, political corruption requires time and money.  The more time and money required to promote and maintain the corruption, therefore, the more the corruption can be either slowed or reversed.

Even though the nation does not yet understand the wisdom of rule of law, and even though there are not yet enough ROLR-pledge-signing candidates to make an appreciable difference, it would suit me just fine to see practically the entire House of Representatives replaced in November, along with the entire 1/3 of the Senate that is up for election.  This would be a helpful development, even if the new members are corrupt people, too, for it would constitute a massive drain on Congress’ handlers, forcing them into darker and riskier measures as they attempt to maintain control over their puppet government.

Let me state, by the way, that it is not necessary to “own” all 535 legislators in order to have effective control over Congress.  One would have a great level of influence simply by owning the Speaker of the House or the President of the Senate and/or President Pro Tempore of the Senate.  Beyond that, the majority leaders and minority leaders would be strategic acquisitions, as would be the chairmen of various committees in each house.    I would venture to say that a great deal of influence could be wielded with the help of as few as 5 or 10 members of each house.  To put this in perspective, however, even if one desired to bribe all 535 members with one million dollars each, it would only require $535,000,000, which can be printed for free by the Federal Reserve at any time.  And if not from the Fed, such an amount is practically petty cash for today’s mega-corporations.

So before we rashly opine that it would be “too hard” for some outside entity to control Congress, we had best think again.  And if we think that those who control Congress proudly hold themselves to some predetermined level of degradation below which they refuse to stoop, we are foolish.

The public must be informed of all this, else there is no hope of reform through the ballot box.

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.