How Sausage is Made

Posted on July 28, 2012


“One would risk being disgusted if one saw politics, justice, and one’s dinner in the making.” – Nicolas de Chamfort

A later paraphrase popularly attributed to Prince Otto Von Bismarck, but according to researchers, actually coined by John Godfrey Saxe, states:

“Laws are like sausages, it’s better not to see them being made”.

Ronald Reagan, as I recall, was very fond of this one as well.  More recently, Nancy Pelosi was quoted as saying, “We have to pass the sausage, so you can find out what’s in it”. That was a rather disturbing turn of a phrase, to my way of thinking.  I can’t help thinking that some other bodily process is analogous to that.

Congress has a habit and an affinity for tinkering with sausage recipes and for attempting to slip in various unpalatable ingredients into the ‘sausages’, in the hopes that we won’t discover the contents of the meat until we’ve at least swallowed it. Often times toxic and carcinogenic ingredients are added to the sausage, but typically in small quantities so that the consumer slowly and steadily gets sick.

In this sense, American citizens and taxpayers are thought of by Congress as rats in need of extermination and  that it is preferable that they not be seen dropping off suddenly in mass.  Gradual attrition is the way to go.  One of the many artful techniques employed by these practitioners of treason and tyranny is to wrap some rather innocuous and sometimes palatable outer layers around the tainted meat.

One could almost argue that such legislation is created by Congress solely for the purpose of creating Trojan Horses that erode our freedom.

Case in point.  The Senate has passed a piece of legislation called the ‘Cybersecurity Act’.  The essence of the bill is to require the creation of industry best practice standards for protecting critical infrastructure, pushing the owners of critical infrastructure to adopt new “voluntary” standards.  Those incentives include liability protection, priority assistance for cyber threats, and access to classified information about threats.

Aside from the fact that IT security professionals already aggressively pursue these values, despite the challenges of staying one step ahead of constant threats – most agree that such a bill, superfluous as it is, poses no foreseeable harm to the IT industry.  That’s the outer shell. This past week, the Senate began the undertaking of creating the filling of this sausage, or what has been less politely compared to an ‘excrement’ sandwich.

As reported in ‘the Hill’, an amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). –  S.A. 2575, which would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Anticipating the reaction of the gun lobby and conservatives, Senator Schumer went on the offensive to defend the putrid ingredient they hope to stuff inside the Cybersecurity bill:

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns. I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all. We can debate where to draw the line of reasonableness, but we might be able to come to an agreement in the middle. Maybe, maybe, maybe we can pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary casualties … maybe there’s a way we can some together and try to break through the log jam and make sure the country is a better place.”   

In the video I’ve inserted below, Dr Suzanna Gratia-Hupp, most eloquently explains to  Mr. Schumer why eroding the 2nd Amendment is not in our nation’s best interest.   But he and his cohorts are unrelenting.

But here’s the classic premise that has appeared countless times in the history of the authoritarian and anti-liberty march of treason in Congress:

“Maybe we could come together on guns if each side gave some,”  This is a tried and true strategy of the Left and one that appeals to compromisers, because their instincts that originally alerted them of manipulation, have been dulled to extinction by Potomac Fever.

It is at once, both audacious and insidiously clever.  To propose something ordinarily objectionable on its face, but immediately characterize the negotiating process as one with enough wiggle room to incrementally move the line of betrayal forward.  That’s obviously what Senator Schumer is doing here.  In fact, in one of his less guarded and more exuberant and exalted Fascist moments, Mr. Schumer blurted the following:

“We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We’re going to beat guns into submission!” 

But now, Schumer has shifted his dialectic back again from the stick to the carrot and is engaging in soothing serpent speak.  I suppose such proposals could be even more crass. “Hey, I’m going to steal (er, take possession of) your car, but I promise not to take it to the drag races or drive it over a cliff – that’s reasonable, isn’t it?”

Boy, that Chuckie Schumer – what a thoughtful guy he is.  Maybe when he retires from Congress, he could open up a meat market.