PACs, CNN & THE MONEY.

The other day, this blog mentioned of money, and lots of it, being used to pull the political rug from under poor people, with the PACs (Political Action Committees) reining in tons of cash in support of their candidates.

The Republican Party could be guilty of the art of getting billionaires, the well-to-do, and of course, the moguls on Wall Street to shell out huge amounts for expenses needed to keep up with the cost of advertisements in the media; yet, it was all "legal", and so nothing could stop them.

One such PAC group could not stop to catch its breath for the loot that was rolling in from every corner of the country, and even from abroad. Those were the contributors to the large pools of revenue for political campaigns; and if so, they knew that they were not throwing their donations away, for by that they would be influential in "controlling, conducting and managing" the affairs of the country. Their front men would be the elected representatives, the politicians.

Their contributions naturally went to protect their personal interests, and that was precisely why they were doing so.

However, as money was no object for those persons making such contributions to political parties; the investors that were feeding on the common people by investing in corporations and big companies and thus building bulging portfolios to enable them to afford those types of giveaways, they would always gain the upper hand, where it mattered most, the political arena; and as such, there was not a chance in hell that politics would ever be clean in any way, here in America or elsewhere.

In other words, the whole world was caught in a vicious cycle of just a few individuals having the means to effectively control society any way they chose, and they could buck anything, be they ideas or benefits, that would help the majority of people anywhere. Dishonest, wasn't it?

Yet, out of all the confusion going on with the fundraising business by political organizations, CNN, of what the focal point of its main news should be was the Obama camp wanting to participate in the money gathering process, as the PACs have made it into some kind of a monetary game.

CNN programs were pinpointing the fact that President Barack Obama condemned the practice, when he campaigned in 2008; and therefore, wanting to indulge in it now was a flip-flop on his part. His excuse was that "everyone was doing it, so why not us," the news outlet has alleged the Obama campaign to be saying.

Instead of it (CNN) being critical of what the media was doing in what would eventually "destroy our Democracy," as CNN said the president had repudiated before, its commentators were using the occasion to play the tactics of being just by-standers looking in, when they fully knew that their industry was a principal player in the money collection "game".

Of course, they (media) got their "cut" legitimately through advertising revenues, and so they could fool the rest of us that they were not part of the racket; they just reported the news. WHAT?

If people like Anderson Cooper could turn around and blame Obama for the activities of the so called PACs, who were using their power to undermine the political system, then he was being impartial as his profession as a journalist demanded.

Nevertheless, people like him could not be impartial, because they got paid huge salaries or even have lucrative contracts with their respective news organizations that would never be made public; they (contracts) could not see the light of day, for the mere fact that those television personalities would be found out for the charlatans they were, and not as being mere news reporters.

In other words, they all had vested interests in the conundrum that was going on; and we the common people were made to turn on each other from what their editorial board masters have dictated to them to release to us and the public, as "the news".

Obama did not have a change of mind, as the media was purporting; he was being realistic, that the enormous war chests possessed by the Republicans alone could even lead to influence peddling and voter fraud, among others; and that situations of that nature could sabotage his reelection bid.

The only thing to use to stop that from happening was not to solely rely on the little donations that came in from ordinary folks, but to get the equivalent amounts of money his opponents had, to be able "to fight fire with fire."

Political campaign expenditure was skyrocketing; and showing a pair of flip-flop sandals on the television screen would not stop it. Such a "prop" was designed to infuriate public sentiment by CNN; as it surely did.