MONEY - POLITICS & POWER
Chapter XVI
Rise or Fall of American Empire?
By
Doug Krieger
Part 1
“There
ain’t nothin’ that money can’t buy . . . the love of money is the root of all
evil . . . but money answereth all things” . . . and worse yet:
“Her heads judge for a bribe, her priests teach for pay, and her prophets divine for money. Yet they lean on the LORD, and say, ‘Is not the LORD among us? No harm can come upon us’ (Micah 3:11).
“Her heads judge for a bribe” bespeaks of ancient Israel’s compromise of political power. “Her priests teach for pay” decries the religious establishment who has made an occupation out of the sacerdotal rites and the keeping of the moral fiber of the nation, leaving the spiritual realities thereof in shambles. “And her prophets divine for money” rails upon those with insight who dissipate their prophetic calling by keeping silent in the midst of all this political sellout and religious intorsion of the truth, or, worse yet, act in a “false spirit and speak a lie, saying, ‘I will prophesy to you of wine and drink,’ even he would be the prattler of this people” (Micah 2:11).
In sum, the kingship, the priesthood and the “prophethood” are, through filthy lucre, bought and sold – their higher calling and noble offices squandered for a mess of pottage – sold out to the highest bidder at the expense of the nation, the masses and the most vulnerable among them. Indeed: prophet – priest – and king – all are embroiled in the pursuit of the monetary; using their position, prestige and patrimony for gain.
Ah, but far worse – they do so under the outrageous notion that “God is still on our side . . . IN GOD WE TRUST” (written all over their money) . . . and most definitely, not only is the Almighty FOR us, He is AMONG us – domiciled in the very midst of our cunning, compromise and conceit; therefore, “no harm can come upon us!” Are we not the Lord’s chosen – the world’s beacon of liberty? Freedom’s fulcrum? Democracy’s delight? Surely, God is for and among us of a truth!
By the time Israel awoke from this prostitute’s bed of fiduciary fornication – the fool’s role was Jacob’s reward. The “deceitfulness of riches and THE DESIRE FOR OTHER THINGS . . . choke the word” (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19) act as the interlopers which subvert the well-intentioned in society – the interior good is spoiled, smothered by the corruption of all things. How quickly, quietly and completely are man’s most heightened estimations for all things helpful and righteous brought low by the weight of pecuniosity.
Yea, politics is the art of compromise – therefore, the truth that is out there is ravaged by definition; hence, to him exposed by the power money secures, to him goes the prize and the sacrifice of conscience concomitant with the purchased oversight! Money can’t buy happiness but it sure can buy temporal power, big time.
The
Masonic, mercantile traders, free thinkers and
economic opportunists who dominated the concoction of the American
experiment, were, in the main, entrepreneurial in their most immediate
sympathies; at worst narcissistic monetarists who wholeheartedly would have
embraced the dictum of
John Stewart Mill who once said: NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY
-- hardly the hardy spiritual tribe mythologized by
history’s revisionists; be they from the holy or profane. Yet, in this
monetized brew of fiscal infatuation the clever connivance of spiritual
justification prevailed – a perfect metaphorical fulfillment of the Woman who
rides the Beast, bringing that apostate spirituality so necessary in the
Beast’s dominance of the kingdoms of this world:
“I will tell you the mystery of the woman . . . the woman whom you saw is that great city, which reigns over the kings of the earth . . . for all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and THE MERCHANTS OF THE EARTH have become rich through the abundance of her luxury . . . and the merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her, for no one buys their merchandise anymore . . . Alas, alas, that great city, in which all who had ships on the sea became rich by her wealth! For in one hour she is made desolate” (Revelations 17:7, 18; 18:3, 11, 19).
She had become so identified with the Beast’s pursuits, that she herself is identified as BABYLON THE GREAT. Together, the apostate whore who prostitutes herself before the Merchants of the Earth – selling her wares to the money-grubbing bidders of Babylon – has herself become part and parcel of that Great City! Yes, together, they make a most wretched couple – a wedding made in hell and celebrated by the guests of honor: THE MERCHANTS OF THE EARTH – all invited to the party of perversion and all drinking from the same cup of her putridity:
“. . . having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and the unclean things of her fornication” (Rev. 17:4 – Darby).
And now, let us meander from the ethereal world (but it really isn’t – for the spiritual dimensions lurk behind the physical expressions of the same) of biblical belief to the mendacities of political, religious and prophetic culpability . . . .
UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION . . .
Yep, one disappointment after another – and just when you thought it’d be real different and change would rule the day. Instead, it’s more of the same but justified by the convoluted thinking of intoxicated minds inebriated by more money ever given to a political contestant in the history of fallen man!
This is how people get elected – so I lied, who cares – money is the mother of political invention, the change that changes, and the dollars which destroy politicos and corrupt their nobler side. Strange, when once we threaten to deceive – especially, when “that which I feared the most has come upon me.” In other words – you’ve become your worst nightmare and scarcely a whimper of grief is wasted upon your bad dream! The he-said-she-said went something like this:
“‘If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton said last March. Obama affirmed the position in a questionnaire last November.
“Similarly,
then McCain campaign manager Terry Nelson said at the time: ‘Should John
McCain win the Republican nomination, we will agree to accept public financing
in the general election if the Democratic nominee agrees to do the same.’
“Those conditional commitments came after Obama asked the Federal Election Commission whether he could raise general election money during 2007 but return it if he chose to accept the public funds.
“The issue resurfaced this month when McCain emerged as the likely Republican nominee and as Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton jostled for the lead in the Democratic contest.
“McCain advisers have said in recent days that he would abide by his proposal.
“But on Thursday, Burton said any speculation about what Obama will do is premature.
“‘This is a question we will focus on directly if he is the nominee,’ he said. ‘It was something that we pursued with the FEC and it was an option that we wanted on the table and is on the table.’
“Asked if the campaign's earlier position amounted to a pledge, Burton said: ‘No, there is no pledge.’
McCain said he thought he and Obama had agreed on the issue.
“‘We had an agreement, as I recall, months ago that if he were the candidate and I were the candidate we would both accept public funding for the general election. That still holds,’ McCain told reporters on his campaign plane. ‘I didn't know of any resistance.’” (Obama Won’t Pledge to Take Public Funds, John Kuhnhenn, The Huffington Post, Feb. 14, 2008)
Good grief, that was way back in February, 2008. Now it’s come to the surface that accepting public funding by Obama would crimp his financial style, which is raking in the political funds from a hundred thousand folks who knew he was for campaign reform. Getting oneself around this fund raising stuff (mentally) is no small thing – so what’s the big deal if Obama refuses public funds? I mean, why should the taxpayer have to pay for this election?
THE $84 MILLION DOLLAR LIE
Restricting
oneself to the $3 contribution per taxpayer for the Presidential election
would be equaled to about $84 million dollars per major candidate – with the
candidates returning any “surplus” monies from their party’s primary process
(which in Obama’s case is a formidable amount of cash-on-hand – so he would
have had to return some $46 million or so (see below).
“‘The thing that is most important in terms of an office holder or a politician’s relationship with his constituents or the people is trust. And frankly when a politician says one thing and does another it erodes that trust,’ Cornyn (Republican from Texas) said. ‘It’s just another chink in the armor but a lot (of) these things will add up over time.’
“The public financing system is paid for with $3 contributions that taxpayers can make in their returns — but in accepting the money candidates are bound to an $84 million spending limit.
“In Iowa, McCain criticized his rival for backtracking, reminding reporters that Obama ‘said he would stick to his word. He didn’t.’ The Republican candidate added, ‘This election is about a lot of things. It’s also about trust. It’s about keeping your word.’
“A statement issued by the McCain campaign said Obama ‘has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama … Barack Obama is now the first presidential candidate since Watergate to run a campaign entirely on private funds.’
“Even Democratic Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who worked with Obama on an ethics and lobbying reform bill last year, called Obama’s financing decision ‘a mistake’ in a statement Thursday.
“‘This is not a good decision. While the current public financing system for the presidential primaries is broken, the system for the general election is not,’ he said.
“Obama said in a November 2007 questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network that he would agree to forgo private funding for the November election if nominated. He elaborated by saying his plan would be to return excess donations and hold both major party candidates to a public ‘fundraising truce.’
“‘Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge,’ Obama wrote. ‘If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.’” (Republicans Hammer Obama for Sidestepping Public Funds, FoxNews.com, June 19, 2008)
There’s hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, but this time around, there’s preponderance of such from Obama’s bastions:
“Democracy 21, a non-profit group that focuses on the influence of money in politics, said in a statement it did not agree with Obama’s ‘rationale’ for bypassing the system. The group said it was ‘very disappointed’ by the decision.
“Republicans said Obama was just making excuses Thursday.
“‘Does the Obama campaign watch TV?’ RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. ‘The independent ads currently airing are being sponsored by Obama’s special interest allies at MoveOn.org attacking Senator McCain. Yet the Obama campaign has the audacity to falsely claim it has shutdown anti-McCain groups in order to justify abandoning its public financing pledge.’”
(Ibid.)
Obama retorts that the “system is broken” in any event and that the general public should be allowed to participate in the presidential election (freely) and, besides, the Republicans have a treasure trove far in excess of the Democrats nestled in their national committee war chests (Oh, really?):
“Mr. McCain can draw on the deep pockets of the Republican National Committee, which has far more money than the Democratic National Committee, correspondents say. (Obama Shuns Public Campaign Funds, BBC News, June 19, 2008)
So how much cash-on-hand does the RNC have over the DNC? These blundering British broadcasters should do better research before they declare, out of hand, such a mixed declaration when compared to Obama’s brilliant collections:
“According to the latest Federal
Election Commission reports filed through the end of March, the RNC had $31
million in cash on hand, while the DNC had only $5.3 million. The RNC has
raised $36.5 million this year, while the DNC has raised $17.7 million.
“The story was equally grim in 2007, when the RNC raised a total of $83
million to the DNC’s $50 million.
“‘The general election has started; we should be raising $15 million a month,’
said one senior DNC official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The
committee is raising less than $6 million each month.” (DNC
Coffers Dry Amid Flood of Dem Cash, David Paul Kuhn, POLITICO.com, May 2,
2008)
Republican pundit David Brooks in an op-ed piece for the New York Times, among his other Obama excoriations, blasted Barack’s public turnaround on funding matters:
“And
then on Thursday, Fast Eddie Obama had his finest hour. Barack Obama has
worked on political reform more than any other issue. He aspires to be to
political reform what Bono is to fighting disease in Africa. He’s spent much
of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In
January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In
February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to
do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he
would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy
Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime
advocate of the public-financing system.
“But Thursday (June 19, 2008), at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
“And Fast Eddie Obama didn’t just sell out the primary cause of his life. He did it with style. He did it with a video so risibly insincere that somewhere down in the shadow world, Lee Atwater is gaping and applauding. Obama blamed the (so far marginal) Republican 527s. He claimed that private donations are really public financing. He made a cut-throat political calculation seem like Mother Teresa’s final steps to sainthood.
“The media and the activists won’t care (they were only interested in campaign-finance reform only when the Republicans had more money). Meanwhile, Obama’s money is forever. He’s got an army of small donors and a phalanx of big money bundlers, including, according to The Washington Post, Kenneth Griffin of the Citadel Investment Group; Kirk Wager, a Florida trial lawyer; James Crown, a director of General Dynamics; and Neil Bluhm, a hotel, office and casino developer.” (The Two Obamas, David Brooks, The New York Times, June 20, 2008).
Unless the RNC can outflank Obama – which seems highly unlikely, given the fact that $267+$17.7=$284.7 (Dems) vs. $97+$36.5=$133.5 (Reps.) or a difference of $154.2 million in favor of the Dems., then this election is headed for the highest bidder – and this time around it will be the Obama minions (avg. contribution is around $109 per contributor to Obama’s campaign) that do the trick. This is one election that money can and will buy. The Republican 527s had better get with the program because their 527 Democratic counterparts are up and at ‘um!
But who really knows who has what money? Financial facts play fast and furious when it comes to politics; and, this piece declares a completely different scenario:
“But with the Democratic congressional and senatorial campaign committees dwarfing their Republican counterparts in fundraising – the National Republican Congressional Committee has $5 million on hand and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has $38 million, while the National Republican Senatorial Committee has $12 million and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has $29 million - conservative third party groups will be trying to make up the difference.” (Porter Race Highlights 527’s Fundraising Power, Alex Isenstadt, PolitickerNV.com, March 31, 2008).