And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

>>Question (challenge?) answered by BB

Posted on: January 24, 2010

Questions for America:

Where do you stand Dr. Guarino, Mr. Brown, Wilkins, Smith, Ware, Baron, Cone, Spag, Brod, Hoggard, Hieb, Bubba, Burgess, Holder, Shell, Mrs. Polinski, Bowers etc…, or have you chosen to ignore the unpalatable?

George Hartzman Tags: ,

…there are now no checks on the ability of corporations or unions or other giant aggregations of power… to decide our elections.

None.

They can spend all the money they want.

And if they can spend all the money they want — sooner, rather than later — they will implant the legislators of their choice in every office…

And if Senators and Congressmen and Governors and Mayors and Councilmen and everyone in between are entirely beholden to the corporations for election and re-election to office, soon they will erase whatever checks there might still exist to just slow down the ability of corporations to decide… the laws.

It is almost literally true that any political science fiction nightmare you can now dream up — no matter whether you are conservative or liberal — it is now legal.

Because the people who can make it legal, can now be entirely bought and sold — no actual citizens required in the process.

And the entirely bought and sold politicians, can change any laws.

And any legal defense you can structure now, can be undone by the politicians who will be bought and sold into office this November, or two years from now.

And any legal defense which honest politicians can somehow wedge up against them this November, or two years from now, can be undone by the next even larger set of politicians who will be bought and sold into office in 2014, or 2016, or 2018.

…Right now, you can prostitute all of the politicians some of the time, and prostitute some of the politicians all the time, but you cannot prostitute all the politicians all the time.

…this will change.

*********************

BB:  Fact: Politicians have always been bought. Limiting the amount that could be contributed by any one person did nothing but cover up just where the actual funds were coming from. It forced voters to trace the background of each contributor (usually back to their employer).  Allowing the employer to donate eliminates this need to search, and knowing the employers goals gives a very good indication of the candidates goals if he/she accepts the funds.

Fact: Votes have likewise always been bought.  Story: George Washington lost his first run for office because he refused to offer a keg of spirits for the voters at the polls.  He learned his lesson and never lost another election.  In our times we have the untouchables of the entitlement programs that act as the proverbial keg of spirits.  Any candidate who tells the truth about the need to overhaul Medicare and Social Security is dead from the start.  This also applies to the corporate welfare programs which have also become entitlements.  Welfare that is actually called welfare as in handouts to the poor put altogether  are not even a fraction of one percent of these  actual, but unnamed, welfare programs, but mention welfare and all voters are all for cutting them.  So we cut welfare spending and the voters are happy and continue to give their votes to the liars who defend the real destroyers of our economy and way of life.

Transparency is the key!  Allow any and all contributions from any and all,  but force transparency so the voters know who is buying the politician.  This will tell voters far more than any rhetoric from the politician running for office. Words lie, deeds tell the truth. The action of taking funds from organizations with apparent goals  then tells the public the goals of the politician.

I believe this past election of Obama to office has been a lesson to voters.  They bought into the photogenic TV image and well read words from the teleprompter and refused to look at the past and present deeds and associations of the candidate. Those of us who tried to point out these past associations as being significant in telling us the beliefs and goals of the candidate Obama were called unsavory names and told these things did not matter that we were only to listen to his words.   The Association with ACORN was ignored; the association  with communist and haters of America were ignored; the acceptance of funds from anti-American groups and individuals was ignored and said to be unimportant.  The Tea Party members will not make this mistake again.  In New York District 23 a man was almost elected who was so inarticulate he couldn’t make himself understood beyond saying he was against big government and big spending and had a history of being a conservative voter himself.  People turned against a self proclaimed conservative whose voting record did not indicate conservatism.

This ruling by the Supreme Court will merely open the field of contributions to transparency and not to ALL as you seem to think because All have already been in the picture only without the transparency.

You asked for my thoughts.  You now have them.  It wasn’t a topic I chose to blog on  as I saw it as a topic many would blog on and my bitty two cents worth wasn’t needed.  And face it,  regardless of what is said or not said it is now the law of the land.  BB

2 Responses to ">>Question (challenge?) answered by BB"

Thanks Brenda,

You make some very valid points.

Transparancy seems to be the underlying end goal.

If the electorate knows why funds are allocated, better decisions could be made.

I just can’t think of when that has ever happened becouse the news and media entertainment industries are among those that recieve the money, and then they get to espouse thier endorsements with no disclosure of who they took money from.

g

Well there is FOXNEWS. But even better there is the Internet and all the Tea Party and other government watch groups that have been organized over the country. These groups with the use of the Internet will keep the people informed. Obama and the radical Dems made the creation of these organizations necessary and I don’t see them disappearing for a long time. In fact. probably what will happen is like all organizations they will stick around long after their reason for being is over and then they will start to make up reasons to be. The ACLU was once a very necessary organization that was concerned with valid issues. Now the ACLU is a pain the buttocks of true liberty in their effort to keep themselves going. BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: