"The Powers That Be." How can you tell this will only end in violence? Let me point out some mileposts from just this week.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- President John F. Kennedy, address to the diplomatic corps of the Latin American republics on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, March 13, 1962. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1962, p. 223.

I put up the full citation because Kennedy is often mis-quoted as having said, "change" instead of "revolution." This is not so great a stretch, since Kennedy was horribly imprecise with words, and "revolution" in America has become, and was even in 1962, a word stretched beyond its original meaning. The invention of "The Pill" was beginning a "sexual revolution" and Americans were buying cars and other products which were of "revolutionary design."

On this occasion, in fact, he misjudged his audience. None of these Latin American diplomats, many of whom had experienced violent revolution first hand, had any idea what a "peaceful revolution" looked like. State Department old-hands were said to have cringed at his characterization, and in fact, Kennedy -- an anti-communist -- was incessantly quoted in later years by many a bloody-handed Marxist guerrilla to justify all manner of things he certainly had not intended to countenance.

But for all that, Kennedy was right on the big thing, which is probably why someone took the trouble to misquote and "correct" him. Those who make peaceful change impossible, DO make violent change inevitable.

The tricky thing is to know how far down the road to violent social upheaval you are in your own society at any given time. Let me provide some recent mileposts, largely unknown and unnoted.

Milepost #1: "A repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system."

"Helicopter Ben" Bernanke prays as he awaits extraction from his final mission. "Please don't let them find out what we're doing to them before I'm outta here."

First we have this, posted by "tmartin" on Ron Paul.com:

Ben Bernanke: Federal Reserve audit would constitute “takeover” by Congress, threaten the “financial system, dollar and economy”

When asked by Rep. John Duncan on Thursday about the fact that a majority of Congress is co-sponsoring Ron Paul’s HR 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke responded:

Ben Bernanke: “My concern about the legislation is that if the GAO is auditing not only the operational aspects of the programs and the details of the programs but making judgments about our policy decisions would effectively be a takeover of policy by the Congress and a repudiation of the Federal Reserve would be highly destructive to the stability of the financial system, the dollar and our national economic situation.”

"tmartin" commented:

While many viewers interpreted Bernanke’s statements as a “threat”, we would not rule out the possibility that he was merely stating an opinion that is indeed shared by many economists who grew up under the notion that the autonomy of the Federal Reserve and its mission to centrally manage the economy is sacrosanct and not open to debate.

Threat? Blindness? Does it matter? The Fed stands there, unchallenged, unrestrained, and absolutely opaque to even inquiry let alone oversight. And when they are swept away, finally, by events, no one will be more astonished than the central bankers themselves.

John Conyers.

Milepost #2: "The Powers That Be."

You have no doubt heard of the Obamnanoid purge of Gerald Walpin, AmeriCorp's inspector general, who was dismissed over his handling of an investigation of the mayor of Sacramento, Calif., Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter during the presidential campaign.

This is dangerous principally because it sends the message to the regulatory agencies, especially the three-letter boys, that the executive branch will protect its own. Milepost #2 is even worse than the Walpin case.

Washington Times

June 25, 2009

Conyers abandons plan to probe ACORN

'Powers that be decided against it,' he says
By S.A. Miller

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. has backed off his plan to investigate wrongdoing by the liberal activist group ACORN, saying "powers that be" put the kibosh on the idea.

Mr. Conyers, Michigan Democrat, earlier bucked his party leaders by calling for hearings on accusations the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) has committed crimes ranging from voter fraud to a mob-style "protection" racket.

"The powers that be decided against it," Mr. Conyers told The Washington Times.

The chairman declined to elaborate, shrugging off questions about who told him how to run his committee and give the Democrat-allied group a pass.

Pittsburgh lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, whose testimony about ACORN at a March 19 hearing on voting issues prompted Mr. Conyers to call for a probe, said she was perplexed by Mr. Conyers' explanation for his change of heart.

"If the chair of the Judiciary Committee cannot hold a hearing if he want to [then] who are the powers that he is beholden to?" she said. "Is it the leadership, is it the White House, is it contributors? Who is 'the power?'"

Capitol Hill Democrats had bristled at proposed hearings because it threatened to rekindle criticism of the financial ties and close cooperation between President Obama's campaign and ACORN and its sister organizations Citizens Services Inc. and Project Vote.

The groups came under fire during the campaign after probes into possible voter fraud in a series of presidential battleground states, including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada.

ACORN and its affiliates are currently the target of at least 14 lawsuits related to voter fraud in the 2008 election and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act complaint filed by former ACORN members.

The group's leaders have consistently denied any wrongdoing and previously said they welcomed a congressional probe. The group did not immediately respond Thursday to questions about Mr. Conyers being convinced to drop those plans.

The "Powers That Be." And who might that be? Here's a hint:

The booking photo of Mrs. John Conyers.

SYNAGRO BRIBERY PROBE

Conyers pleads guilty to conspiracy

She faces up to 5 years in prison

Detroit Free Press, June 26, 2009

Detroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, "The defendant now stands convicted."

The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.

No sentencing date has been set.

In court, Conyers’ combative demeanor was gone, replaced by soft-spoken resignation as the judge and his staff several times asked her to speak up.

Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.

She has long been under suspicion in the Synagro Technologies bribery probe, not least because she had been a vocal opponent of the contract before suddenly switching her sentiments. She became the deciding voice in the city council’s 5-4 vote to approve the sludge-hauling deal in November 2007.

“This is not the beginning and it is certainly not the end, folks,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Andy Arena said at a news conference this morning.

Arena said the message to corrupt public officials is, “We’re coming after you.”

U.S. Attorney Terrence Berg, a Detroit resident, said the city corruption probe continues, but this is the end of his office’s investigation “of Synagro-related conduct.”

It remains unclear if federal investigators are still considering Synagro charges against Sam Riddle, the ex-Conyers aide, who court documents suggest was with Conyers when she received at least one of the bribes.

Go to the link if you want more. This is why this is worse:

It is plain that if the Obamanoids want no Congressional oversight, they will get no Congtessional oversight. THEY are "The Powers That Be."

This is not only bad for the prospects of reining in Acorn and thereby preventing them from executing their part of the obvious Rahm Emanuel plan to steal the 2010 federal elections, but now the three-letters don't have to worry if a Waco happens. Oversight will be swept under the rug. This is dangerous stuff, people. And they don't understand that if the rule of law no longer protects us, it no longer protects them either. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.

Nancy "The Finger" Pelosi

Milepost #3: Nancy Pelosi fingers America -- Biggest tax increase in the history of the country passed in the middle of the night without anybody reading it.

Drudge reports 300 of the 1200 pages of Cap and Tax were dumped into the bill at 3:00AM that morning. The truth is nobody knows exactly what's in this bill. Once again our wallets will foot the bill for their ignorance.

The story below is here.

House passes climate-change bill

By LISA LERER & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 6/25/09

Democrats narrowly passed historic climate and energy legislation Friday evening that would transform the country’s economy and industrial landscape.

But the all-hands-on-deck effort to protect politically vulnerable Democrats by corralling the minimum number of votes to pass the bill, 219-212, proves that there are limits to President Barack Obama's ability to use his popularity to push through his legislative agenda. Forty-four Democrats voted against the bill, while just eight Republicans crossed the aisle to back it.

The Finger again.

Despite the tough path to passage, the legislation is a significant win for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) and the bill’s two main sponsors – House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Massachusetts Rep. Edward Markey (D) – who modified the bill again and again to get skeptical members from the Rust Belt, the oil-producing southeast and rural Midwest to back the legislation.

“We passed transformational legislation which takes us into the future,” Pelosi said at a press conference following the vote, after she and other leaders took congratulatory phone calls from Obama, former Vice President Al Gore and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“It has been an incredible six months, to go from a point where no one believed we could pass this legislation to a point now where we can begin to say that we are going to send president Obama to Copenhagen in December as the leader of the of the world on climate change,” said Markey, referring to world climate talks scheduled this winter.

After months of negotiations, 211 Democrats and eight Republicans voted for the bill of more than 1,200 pages, setting the legislation on a path towards the Senate. There, it faces a far more uncertain future given the opposition of key moderates and the already-heated battle over health care.

Newt Gingrich said this:

“The reality is that the bill before the House today imposes what could be the largest tax increase in history on the American people. And every single one of us who heats a home, drives a car, and manufactures or consumes products made in America will pay the price. Estimates are that the Waxman-Markey bill will raise electricity prices by an astounding 90 percent. It will raise gasoline prices by 74 percent. It will raise the average American family's energy bill by $1,500 each year. And, far from creating jobs, experts predict that the global warming bill will destroy 1,105,000 jobs on average each year, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs. All in all, the bill is expected to reduce our gross domestic production (GDP) by $9.6 trillion. And for what?"

The Finger is more powerful than Newt.

Of course if Newt had been able to keep his johnson in his pants in the 90s, and not given the Clintons an issue to blackmail him over and put himself on the political defensive, he might have been in a position (Speaker of the House) to guide policy in the 2000-2008 time frame and could have acted as a restraint on Bush, thereby short-circuiting Obama's presidential aspirations.

The dangerous thing here is not that they are sacrificing any chance of prosperity in the middle of a recession with a bill that attempts to suspend the laws of economics. The dangerous thing IS THAT THEY THINK THEY CAN DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT. Why? See Milepost #4.

They're laughing because the amnesty joke is on you.

Milepost #4: They're starting the engine on the amnesty bus again.

Here's why:

As Obama sets course for immigration reform, roadblock appears

The president tells lawmakers at a White House meeting he wants to overhaul the system by early next year. But how to regulate the future influx of foreign workers emerges as a sticking point.

By Peter Wallsten
June 26, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama told congressional lawmakers Thursday that he would push for a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration system by early next year. But during the White House meeting, a new political obstacle came into view: how to regulate the future influx of foreign workers.

The issue was raised by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a principal architect of past attempts to rewrite immigration laws. McCain challenged Obama and other Democrats to stand up to labor unions that are pushing a plan business groups fear could be overly restrictive in admitting future immigrant workers.

"I would expect the president of the United States to put his influence on the unions in order to change their position," McCain said after the hourlong session, which included Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, senior White House officials and about 30 lawmakers from both parties.

The White House had been taking pains to foster the impression that the senator would be a partner in striking a deal. Obama sat directly beside McCain, his former campaign rival, during the meeting. And the president praised the senator in his public remarks, saying McCain had "already paid a significant political cost for doing the right thing."

Still, Obama offered no commitments on how to handle future immigrant workers, and White House officials said the meeting was not meant to be a forum for policy details.

Obama did offer his firmest pledge yet as president to push aggressively for legislation by the end of this year or early 2010, according to meeting participants. The president had been reluctant to offer a timeline. As his administration in recent weeks focused its attention on healthcare and energy, some Latino leaders and immigrant advocates cautioned that delaying on immigration could anger Latino voters who turned out strongly for Obama in last year's election.

"What I'm encouraged by," Obama said, "is that after all the overheated rhetoric and the occasional demagoguery on all sides around this issue, we've got a responsible set of leaders sitting around the table who want to actively get something done and not put it off until a year, two years, three years, five years from now, but to start working on this thing right now."

Obama said that his administration was "fully behind" an immigration overhaul, and that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano would spearhead the effort.

One major sticking point is whether the House would pass one of the key provisions demanded by advocates for immigrants -- a pathway to citizenship for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the country. About 40 House Democrats represent conservative swing districts where there is little support for the idea.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told reporters Thursday that "the votes aren't there" to pass such a plan.

But it was clear Thursday that regulating the future flow of foreign workers was emerging as a partisan point of contention.

Past plans included a temporary guest worker program that was supported both by business groups and immigrant advocates. But many labor unions were wary of that plan. Some union members have argued that guest workers drive down wages and displace American workers.

This year, immigrant advocates and unions pulled together to propose that an independent commission study labor market needs and decide how many immigrant workers should be allowed into the country.

The commission plan has drawn opposition from business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and McCain on Thursday left no room for compromise in opposing it.

Ana Avendano, the AFL-CIO's point person on the issue, said the unions did not intend to give up.

"Just because McCain said no [on Thursday] doesn't mean we're not going to continue pushing policies that are good for working people in the United States," she said.

Democrats indicated that they are open to compromise in order to bring McCain and other Republicans aboard. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of a Senate committee on immigration, said that "both parties, left and right, are going to have to give in some to get immigration reform." If it is not passed by next year, he added, "we might not be able to do it for a generation."

Now note, the dispute here is not over amnesty and citizenship, it's over whether the AFL-CIO is made happy or not. Horse crap. The AFL-CIO will get screwed in the end and here's why. Here's the deal, the real politik, of this.

The Dems need miliions of new loyal voters to sustain them in the 2010 election. Amnesty is the only place they can get them. And I can hear all you open borders liberatarians tuning up your tiny violins now. When are you going to get this through your thick heads?

This isn't about economics, or free markets, or whatever.

It is exclusively about power.

Invite 10 to 15 million new voters into the American welfare state and you've got a permanent majority. What chance do you think you have of getting libertarian ideas across to THAT crowd? By the time they wise up, it will be too late.

Face it. With these milestones we have passed just this week alone, the chances we have of getting out of this with our liberty and property intact without violence is somewhere between slim and none.

So, that's what they've done to you this week. What are you doing to stop them?

There's a fight coming.

Let's win.

Mike Vanderboegh
III