Don Robertson to RTB at Congress.org

Ryan-

Well, -I'm glad to meet you, Ryan. I thought perhaps you had a name.

Let me begin by saying there is nothing more to discuss concerning the Congress.org user agreement, which can only indicate you people have grown too big to be anything more than part of a growing problem.

So then, let us -you and I- discuss beginning to address that problem, and we shall see about that.

Congresss.org fills a need as a easing-conduit through which individuals can reach out to and correspond with political leaders. The problem that arises out of the growing trend-popularity of such a conduit as Congress.org represents, is that political leaders then take the service for granted, and begin to increasingly ignore the letters sent to them.

Computers make it so easy for a Congressman-or-woman to delete however many letters that arrive with content concerning not enacting some heinous bit of legislation like TARP. That's one of the prime examples today. I can only estimate that the service Congress.org provides helped smooth over the enactment of TARP against the wishes of 90% of the electorate, an electorate which has since been proved 100% right in their assessment of this financial swindle.

The first thing Congress.org needs to do to address this sort of problem -is to audit recipients of citizen-letters sent through the Congress.org conduit, to determine what is done with those letters and emails. I suspect, the effectiveness (in just reaching a staffer) is dwindling in this age of arrogance, widespread and growing government malfeasance, negligence and outright corruption.

Indeed, an economic depression is a marvelous time to be rich, regardless how you ge there, -if you are ever going to be rich. The stolen dollars simply -go that much further in the ubiquitous depressed marketplaces that remain in this economy, -post TARP.

Once Congress.org has a handle on what political leaders are doing with the correspondence sent to them through Congress.org, publishing this information would seem a likely first step. Or simply publish the fact that so-and-so, refused to answer the questions put to them by Congress.org when they were asked.

Secondly, Congress.org should do more to pull out of letters sent through their easy-access conduit, the information contained in them, including how many writers favored such legislation as was TARP, etc. Again, this information should be published, and used as a bit of leverage on the legislators for whom that correspondence is intended.

This is necessary because our legislative leaders are totally out of control, in no small part because of the vile obfuscation so common to our society, and which is easily traced to organizations like Congress.org that perform a service, but whose effect as a service is to simply obscure the truth of the massive legislative and governmental malfeasance occurring.

There are host of things Congress.org could be doing better, and which clearly should be miles of columns and rows ahead of instituting such a clearly wrong-sided and wrong-headed user agreement as has been posted on the Congress.org site.

This user agreement says one thing to me, Congress.org has fallen in with being part of the immoral problem.

Has Congress.org enforced a user agree against recipients of the letters sent through Congress.org? Doubtless, the answer is, No.



Don Robertson
Limestone, Maine