NVDAILY.COM | Opinion

Posted October 20, 2012 | comments 14 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Vote out the corruption

Editor:

Once again, it's presidential and Congressional election time with the Oval Office and 468 Congressional seats up for "sale" to the biggest spenders and the most convincing liars.

I'm disappointed with President Barack Obama, but I wouldn't vote for Mitt Romney for dog catcher. Both the Democratic and the Republican parties disgust me; both are the reason I became an Independent many years ago.

Why isn't Jesse Ventura on the ballot? Neither Obama nor Romney would face Ventura in a debate, nor does either want Ventura on the ballot. I wonder why?

Ventura, myself and all you readers know that both the Democratic and the Republican parties are riddled with corruption and both are equally responsible for destroying America.

Let's look at some percentages, folks; the only way to change Congress for the better is to change "who" will occupy Congressional seats. Two years ago a 13 percent change occurred with 61 new members elected, thus, 13 percent of corruption was ousted.

Every two years, 468 Congressional seats are open for election; that's 87.5 percent of all seats, thus, every two years "we, the people" can and must oust 87.5 percent of Congressional corruption. After six yeas there would be all new faces with new and better ideas and this would be a plus for "we the people."

The term "re-elect" should be omitted from the English language. Every elected office should be "one-term" and you're gone. That's the only way to purge the corrupt political system of corruption. I'd rather have no government than have a corrupt government because a corrupt government is the same as having no government anyway.

Presidential and Congressional campaigns and debates don't impress me because the same issues are debated over and over, but never resolved.

With all this being said, I may do a "write-in" vote for Jesse Ventura for president and vote third party for U.S. Senate and House seats.

Let's face the facts, folks, Congress has already bankrupt America, but "we, the people" can stop this nonsense by voting for third party candidates or write-ins.

Al Asbury, Mt. Jackson


14 Comments | Leave a comment

    Corruption needs to be exposed: "Voting it out" merely allows it time to think of new ways to reappear. While it is indeed noble to write letters and speak out, it is not enough to end corruption.

    The answer is not easy, and it requires relentless vigilance: something the people no longer have. Therefore, corruption will continue. "Voting it" one way or the other is simply passifying desires for change, and showing corruption where it needs to adapt. Paul Wellstone was likely murdered, speaking out against corruption. Each time a Wayshower is killed, it instills more fear into the masses, making them less likely to expose the true problems.

    Total overhaul of the judicial and voting system is required. Most are unwilling to give up their personal comforts to acheive this.

    But every little bit helps: keep writing those letters...while you still have a voice.

    It all comes down to the "bottom line" of the people themselves. Our "owners" take advantage of the FACT that we are impressionable biological robots. From an early age we are indoctrinated to "turn, stand, pass" - and obey. The technique for that indoctrination is a constant repetition of nonsense non-information. It is essentially an ongoing hypnosis that continues for life, with constant repitition and reinforcement. Very few people "come to their senses" and break out of that mental slavery mode of living. Those tiny few don't stand a chance at moving the masses of blind robots toward anything approaching freedom.

    The hypnotic process is described in detail here:

    http://www.realityisfree.com/memes.html

      Although it was tiresome wading through your reference, in general I agree with the gist of your post. I don't fully agree with the term "robot," but it will do for discussion. The beliefs of the parents are usually accepted by their children. Thus the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Romneys, etc. Seldom does a child break from the mold. But when it happens, it happens as a result of the abdication of parental responsibiilty for their children's total education to the influence of our increasingly liberal education system. Even liberals estimate 72% to 87% of college professors are self-professed liberals.

        VP- Most teachers, college or otherwise are going to be self claimed liberals. Education is about learning. Its about new ideas and exploring the unknown. Its about seeking more information and not just accepting the standard. In its essence education itself is more liberal than conservative as it is a constant progression in understanding. Those that choose to teach most often make that choice for the love of learning and the want to share and help others.

        I realize that concept is something you just cant wrap around, and I truly don't mean that rudely. By your own writing you shut yourself off from information you don't agree with or want to see/hear. You make up your mind based on what you "want" to believe over the evidence presented.

          @ katybug re October 21, 2012 3:01 PM post.

          Yes, katybug, education is about learning. But It's not all about new ideas and exploring the unknown. You're talking about the areas of physical and social sciences.

          The three "Rs" pretty much remain constant. So do History and Civics except for changes that occur as time passes. It's in these two areas that I think having a majority of liberals in academia has created two problems. One is the continuous attempt to revise history texts. The second is the continuous presentation of material to students with a liberal bias. It's not bad intentions; it's human nature. If conservatives were the majority, I'm sure things would be the same. I don't suggest ridding campuses of liberals; I suggest creating a better balance. To do that, we must stop the bias against conservatives in academia that was discussed in my previous reference.

          The last paragraph...(shaking my head sympathetically). You don't know me; don't know what life experiences have brought me to my current beliefs; and your statements are extremely presumptive. Don't try to psych me; it's real dark in there.

          Your last two sentences fit nicely a theory I heard recently about the difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are relatively happy with America and, therefore, are deliberately slow to change it. They see the world as it is and can work within the systems. Liberals, on the other hand, are not happy with America and constantly want to change it. They see the world as they wish it were and want to change the systems. I call it the "Rose Colored Glasses Syndrome." (no offense to John Conlee)

            I wasn't attempting to "psych you". But perhaps maybe you just need more light.

            In other discussions when you have offered a half truth or misrepresentation, and subsequently myself or another have given information to show your statement as not quite true or missing information....you shut down or sometimes re-emerge with a total new direction as means of distraction. Thus my delving into the darkness is merely my own observations.

            Otherwise, I only note that conservatives have interjected their own beliefs into school books as well, even passing an amendment to remove Jefferson's writings as he dared to separate our government and religion.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?_r=0

              @ katybug re October 21, 2012 7:08 PM post:

              You said "...you have offered a half truth or misrepresentation, and subsequently myself or another have given information to show your statement as not quite true or missing information..." A couple examples, please. If I have done so, it was unknowingly. I am not so interested in gaining converts or proving others wrong that I would violate my personal ethics to do so.

              Thanks for the Texas reference. They are famous (infamous?) for their battles over textbooks. We probably disagree on most of the article. But, on your specific point about Jefferson, if it is true I agree with you completely (it just sounds too ridiculous to be true). I'm also not pleased with refusing to include more Latinos in the books.

              The topic of separation of church and state will have to wait for another day.

                VP- The Potus bow, The iPod full of speeches, right off the top of my head, I would have to go back through letter by letter for additional examples.

                "I" am interested in proving others wrong, but not for the sake of any personal gratification. It is not my goal to convert others either. What I want is to not have someone tell me they wont vote for the President because he wasn't sworn in on the bible. (This example literally happened yesterday)

                "I" want more informed voters no matter which way their vote swings. If one happens to believe for instance that we have no choice but to go to war with Iran, I want them to explain why the pros outweigh the cons, and do so without the outlandish claims from extreme hate media.

                "I" really want someone to explain how a further cut in taxes will benefit the economy more than the Bush cut we have been under and less than the higher taxes that were paid during more prosperous times without falling back on lies, distortions, and straight up fear tactics. *I gave up asking for this, but I'd still like to have it.

                "I" would like details other than "trust me". Although intended only to prove a point, the President was correct, no successful businessman would accept the proposition Willard is offering the American people.

                My only goal here with NVD commentary, has been and will be (politically) is making sure when a falsehood or slight misrepresentation is told, that more factual information is offered. A different view point presented. Not for you or I but for that possibly silent reader following along, so that even if they do vote for Willard, they know why, and its not some lie like the bible swear in from a extreme hate commentator.

                Separation I believe we covered previously and I doubt you or I will change positions tbh.

                  @ katybug October 22, 2012 12:41 PM post: Needless to say, in my opinion your "examples" are poor at best and that which you accuse me of at worst. Let's agree that there are usually different versions of most political events.

                    VP- What Joe said. Saying something happened that absolutely did not, is not a different version, its a lie. Using a tidbit of truth to suggest one thing while leaving out the whole picture because it proves you wrong is a lie. But you know what, it really doesnt matter, because this election is about the economy and 2+2 does not equal -5. You can not add debt, add debt, add debt with zero plan to pay for it and expect it to magically happen.

                    Willard has proven one thing this election cycle, there is no lie too great, to mountain of bullshite to high for him to build. He will say anything, no matter what he said literally hours before and that is not leadership. It shows no character what. so. ever.

    I would write in Stone Cold Steve Austin before Jesse Ventura. But hey, opinions are like....

    The very first step in ridding our government of corruption is recognizing it exists and where it is coming from. This past week NJ became the 9th state to back a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. More Americans need to put the partisan politics aside for a moment and realize how important this is. Do you really believe any politician cares more about your vote than the 10 million dollar donors? Or even your vote over the local factory that wants less pollution regulations and just donated 100k? We as voters, cant say well its okay if BOA or Goldman Sachs donates almost a million dollars as long as it "my" candidate. We have to recognize that the candidate is going to try to sell to the voters what is in the best interests of that million dollar company and not average voting Joe, or even the mutlti-millionaire donor over Jim the mechanic who can only give 10 dollars. There has to be strict limitations on campaign donations .

    Working hand in hand is term limits when you have been a congressman for 15..20..years, your only goal is to maintain that cushion. You will do anything and say anything, bow down to whomever can help keep you there. Career politicians are in a bubble completely lost to the realities of the average citizen not having guaranteed pay and benefits for life and most often at the mercy of their(the politicians) policies.

    Otherwise we are just going to continue down the path of destruction.

      @ Katybug re October 21, 2012 2:43 PM post. Amen on everything except the Constitutional amendment. I agree completely that this is one the basic problems in our system. But I think our existing campaign donation laws violate the 1st Amendment, therefore don't want any more.

      I like the public funding concept for national and state-wide elections whereby set voluntary donations are made through the tax code. Whatever is collected is divided on a pro-rata basis (don't ask) to the candidates. During primaries when the fights are intra-party, let them have all the donations they want. But they can't spend surplus on the national or state-wide campaigns. I've probably simplified this to the point that I left something out or made an error in logic, but you get the idea. Take campaign financing out of the control of the big donors. Maybe some of the patronage programs will decrease as well.

    The constant name-calling battle between "liberals" and "conservatives" gets tiresome over time. Both sides have fixed positions on the "talk" circuit. But, in practice, they are both frauds, as demonstrated by:

    1. Any politician will "go along to get along" before election. The evidence is demonstrated by the observed FACT that those with political objectives will deliberately CHOOSE the dominant party in their area. That choice insures a core number of positive votes for election.

    2. After election, the politician will "join the crowd" in support of the dominant not-so "civil" servants. For example, in Washington "the band plays on" for continuous Dominionist Empire wars around the world.

    I can visualize this scenario:

    Shortly after the swearing in scenario, a new president is called into a secret meeting in a small alcove room with no windows. In that meeting he is told in no uncertain terms that as long as he "plays ball" with the insiders he will be allowed to live. His reward for cooperation will include a luxury life for himself and family, with lots of prestige and open season use of "Air Force One" for vacation trips.

    Where does that leave "We The People"? Well,
    George Carlin had marvelous insight:

    http://www.realityisfree.com/peons.html

    Sorry Bubba, when you try to pass lie after lie after lie as a mere difference of opinion, I draw the line, concluding you deserve to be insulted.


Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137