THE
DIRTY BUSINESS CALLED POLITICS
PART 2 of 2
By
Jon Christian Ryter
February 22, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
When you see presidential candidates amassing campaign war chests in the hundreds of millions of dollars, you need to ask yourself what the donor gets for his money. Barack Obama amassed a war chest in 2007-08 that reportedly reached an unheard of billion dollars. You can see from how money from Obama's "stimulus plans" benefited only those who campaigned for, and supported, his election that the quid pro quo is always at play when donors financally support candidates, or when unions "lend" the candidate thousands of union members to "get-out-the-vote."
That's why the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business donate to political candidates. It's a simple business investment. They expect to receive far more than the gave from that candidate if he prevails in November. Take California-based solar panel manufacturer Solyndra, LLC for wxample. According to media reports, Solyndra, a green company that was failing worse than Hillary Clinton's 2008 run for the White House. Solyndra was a major Obama donor. And George Kaiser, whose family owned a majority interest in Solyndra, was a major Obama-bundler who reported raised over a half million dollars for Obama. Solyndra's post-campaign payoff? A $535 million stimulus loan to make solar panels. Even aafter getting the money, the company was in such dire financial straits that it still went belly-up, declaring bankruptcy.
And, while Solynda officials made no less than 20 visits to the Obama White House between March 12, 2009 and April 14, 2011, Kaiser insists that Solyndra did not participate in any discussions with the US government about a loan. The week before the $535 million loan was granted, four separate visits to the West Wing were logged. Political corruption is a byproduct of government. The more government, the more corruption. Political corruption and cronyism began during the reign of the Jacobin Republicans between 1854 and 1896 when the Jacobins jumped ship and left the GOP, taking over the Democratic Party (which they still control to this day).
Because of the political history of the United States, voters have the impression that the Democratic Party is the party of the working class and the Republicans are the party of the political bosses. That illusion lives today, but that's all it is—an illusion. The princes of industry and the barons of banking, at least since 1912, have leaned towards social progressivism even though they still insist they support the free enterprise system.
The "Grand Ol' Party" lost its grip on power in 1896 when the Republicans fell into disfavor with the voters. In the 19th century the Rockefeller clan—the founder of Standard Oil, and the major stakeholder of the seven oil companies created by US District Court Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis on Aug. 13, 1907 when he broke up Standard Oil. Landis also fined Standard Oil $29.24 million. Because of the fine, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. who was 68 at the time, appealed the case to the US Supreme Court. The fine was thrown out at the appellate level, but the US Supreme Court upheld Landis' breakup of Standard Oil—allowing the shareholders of Standard Oil to own the shares of the breakup companies. Which, of course, negated the value of breaking up the company. Nothing changed except that there were now seven giant oil companies owned by the Rockefeller family instead of one. Overnight on May 15, 1911, the Rockefeller family's wealth increased sevenfold.
America lives with the illusions that are painted by the left-owned media and social progressive historians from the far left academic centers who, strangely, have become the "trusted" caretakers of America's past. The first illusion the left maintains is that the GOP is the party of the rich "fat cats."
The second illusion is that the Democrat Party is the party of the working class. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In the 19th century, the Rockefellers were Republicans. So were the money managers at JP Morgan & Company, like the family of J.P. Morgan power broker Thomas Lamont. Today, the Rockefellers are Democrats.
So is the scion of the Lamont wealth: Ned Lamont. Lamont, if you recall, challenged US Senator Joe Lieberman [D-CT] for his seat in the Senate in 2006, easily sweeping the primaries and becoming the Democratic candidate for Lieberman's seat. Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent, and handily won reelection.
Most of what we believe about politics in this country is myth and urban legend. The princes of industry and the barons of banking who controlled the GOP with an iron fist in the 19th century jumped ship at the turn of the 20th century, and now control the Democratic Party. Granted, money has no party affiliation, so the money of the princes of industry and the barons of banking and business wears no party labels. It's just money. It spends as well in the pocket of a Repubican as it does in the pocket of a Democrat. And the division of the dollars from K Street are based almost entirely on who controls the Committee chairs in Congress.
The Party in power gets the lion's share of the campaign loot. If the Party in power does not give the princes of industry what they wanted, the money barons simply pull the campaign funding and dole it out to the other side in the next election cycle.
Politics in America is a stealth game that plays out far away from the view of the public. It is a world in which no one has clean hands because politics is a dirty business that takes place in the pigsty known as Congress or along the pubic feeding trough on K Street where the lobbyists fill the trough daily—not to feed the poor, but for those in Congress to enrich themselves. The only players with clean hands are those who come to Washington with enough personal wealth that they are not tempted to sell out the American people for a stipend from the rich. In the Election of 2012, in the GOP field, there is only one such candidate. His name is Mitt Romney.
Most Americans believe what the media tells them is true, or what they have pieced together like pieves of a jigsaw puzzle, splicing together half-truths from innuendoes leaked by vague sources—but never confirmed over the Internet. And, they believe what the candidates say about themselves in the form of mea culpas. For example, Romney unabashedly admits that when he ran for the US Senate in 1994 and for governor in 2002, he was pro-choice. That, the blogsphere believes. However, that he could repent and become ardently prolife, is unfathomable to many because they know, in their whole stubborn life, they've never reversed their own views on anything. And, they know if f they couldn't change; Romney couldn't, either.
However, during his one term in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney had what can only be described as a "pro-life epiphany" early in 2004 when he met with a Harvard embryonic stem cell researcher who inadvertently radically altered Romney's views on abortion—even though his wife, Ann, suffers from multiple sclerosis and would have benefited greatly from stem cell research from aborted fetuses.
The left and the 40-watt light bulbs on the right who choose to ignore that fact when they debate whether Romney's 'conversion" was real or not, instead point out that Ann Romney attended a Planned Parenthood fundraiser on June 12, 1994 and donated $150 thousand. Anyone who takes the time to check Romney's pro-life bonafides with the pro-life groups across the country will find all of them rate him highly, and all of them support him. Romney's pro-life views are the real deal. But his political distracters—Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum—still insist he's lying because they have reams of leftwing or far right propaganda that says he is. And, of course, the reams of leftwing garbage that is plastered like cheap wallpaper about them—well, they will assure you, is all lies.
What are these lies? Santorum claims to be the true conservative who will fight to limit government spending. Yet, Santorum, who spent two terms in the House and two in the Senate, voted to fund the National Endowment of the Arts at a time when the NEA was being slammed for subsidizing what the right terms "pornographic art" dealing with Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary. That information was released by David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union felt there was a major controversy ontwo scores. First, Keene said the use of taxpayer dollars to fund the arts does not seem to be one of the core missions of the federal government. And, second, he added, "I'm a little surprised that, being a big social conservative, Santorum didn't vote against those things at that time."
Santorum defended his votes by saying "...the arts foster a strong sense of community and bring new ideas and cultures to many individuals and families all over the nation...Elimination of such programs would create a vaccum that could not easily be filled."
After promising his constituents that he would fight for a balanced budget amendment, Santorum voted to raise both the Clinton and Bush-43 debt ceiling five times.
Remember Sarah Palin's "bridge to nowhere?" (H.R. 3, July 29.2005) Santorum voted for it. What was it? It was a bridge that was supposed to link the town of Ketchikan, Alaska [pop. 7,000] with an airport on sparsely populated Gravina Island [pop. 50] which, strangely is the only airport in the area. Wonder which Congressman, Senator or State legislator lived on Gravina Island? Pork barrel spending at its worst.
According to Club for Growth, in one session of Congress Santorum—the self-professed true conservative who favors limited government and limited spending—sponsored 51 spending bills. How did he offset the spending? He didn't. In fact, at that time in 2002, he voted to increase his own pay. He did not vote for a single bill to cut spending—anywhere. Claiming to be a constitutionalist, Santorum, who usually looks like a deer in headlights, just isn't quite ready for prime time.
He talks like he is when he speaks to Christian conservatives who he's convinced that the office of President is a theological position. During his first term, Santorum signed on to a Sen. Hillary Clinton measure to allow convicted felons to vote. If he was in the Senate today, would he be championing the left's fight to prevent voters from being forced to prove who they are before being handed a ballot and access to vote?
Just as Newt Gingrich became a "non-lobbyist" corporate lobbyist when he left the House, Santorum did the same thing when he left the Senate. In 2006, shortly after Santorum lost his seat, on Oct. 22, 2006, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that "...Santorum exemplifies the worst of Washington." His votes added trillions to the debt. When questioned in 2003 about the leftwing voting habits of a self-professed "deficit hawk," Santorum told The Hill (Feb. 5, 2003) "...I am no longer a deficit hawk...I had to spend the surpluses." When the Right To Work Act was being debated in Congress, Santorum promised to stand with the workers against the labor unions. In the end, he stood with the union bosses and voted against the people. Santorum campaigned on a pledge to fight the special groups on K Street. Instead, he was among those who grabbed handfuls of lobbyist money according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an article they wrote about him after he lost his Senate seat to Pennsylvania State Treasurer Robert Casey in 2006. The important question is, why did Santorum lose that race? Because that's the frosting on the cake that should convince every conservative in America that they cannot afford to cast their vote for Santorum.
When the Tea Party wanted political turncoat Sen. Arlen Specter gone in 2004, they backed Congressman Pat Toomey in the Republican primary. Santorum campaigned for Specter over Toomey because he was asked to do so by then President George W. Bush. Toomey lost the primary battle by 1.7% of the vote. Had Santorum endorsed the conservative, Toomey would have won that contest. And Toomey would likely have taken Specter's seat in 2004, holding it for the GOP when the social progressives grabbed control of both the House and Senate in 2006—at a time when one more Senate vote may have meant the difference between getting or killing Obamacare. Thanks Rick, we may owe the euthanizing of our mom and dad, or our grandparents under the regulations implemented by the Obama Dept. of Health and Human Services, to you.
Santorum would not have been there to vote against Obamacare in 2009 because the Tea Party dumped him in 2006. Nor would Toomey who lost to Specter who cast his Democratic vote for Obamacare. The question is: why is the Tea Party backing Santorum now? What makes "true conservatives" think a man they couldn't trust in 2004 is suddenly more trustworthy in 2012 when the stakes are even greater?
Or, is the Tea Party content with candidates who talks the talk but, once elected, fails to walk the walk? Anyone who votes for Rick Santorum, like those who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, deserve what they get. The problem with that is, the rest of the nation gets the same thing. That's why the Post-Gazette said Santorum "...has a black belt in hypocrisy." On Jan. 4, 2012, ABC News said that the "...Santorum surge brings up ethics questions," adding that he "...was one of the most corrupt members of Congress." In other words, as long as Santorum was dragging his heels in the root cellar, he wasn't worth the printer's ink or air time to expose. Now he's a threat because even the left realizes that a man who will lie to gain power is a man who can't be trusted with power.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Newt Gingrich came to Washington preaching a "higher standard for politicians." Newt, who brought down former House Speaker Jim Wright for ethics violations, was himself found guilty of 84 ethics violations by his peers in Congress. They fined him $300 thousand. Many on both sides of the aisle raised questions at that time about Gingrich's future effectiveness in the United States government. At that time, the Republicans mutinied against him in an attempt to oust him from any position of leadership in the GOP after Gingrich staged a midnight attempt to impose a Nazi-style Internal Passport on the American people. (Here is a hyperlink that will lead you to the PLAIN TALK article detailing that attempt.) Gingrich became the poster child for Republican excess in Washington. When he was censored, one member of Congress said, "We don't need people in the Speaker's chair who lie to Congress." Remembe this if you forget everything else in this article: a man who will lie to gain power is a man who can't be trusted with power. For part one click below.
Share
This Article
