Tag Archives: slavery

DON'T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL by Louise Annarino

DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL

Louise Annarino

June 25, 2012

Democratic republics in the West did not emerge in full blossom overnight; nor will they in the East. The seeds of power within people must be planted in good soil and be kept moist despite periods of drought. Those who feed the country’s growth are ever in danger of being choked by weeds. Egypt’s journey, and that of other nations seeking some form of democratic republic, is our own.

As we watch the Egyptian military generals write and rewrite laws to secure their power base in the face of shared power with a president and parliament not of their choosing, let us recall the first parliaments in England which were made up exclusively of the privileged few, heirs to the original land barons granted fiefs by their king for military service to protect and defend his crown, and more importantly, his crown jewels. The king was loath to part with his landholdings which generated his wealth. The barons agreed to supply a percentage of crops, minerals, forest, game and resources to the king in exchange for permission to act as lord over the serfs who were attached to the land, and to  supply troops whenever called upon to do so by the king. In this way, both the king and his barons grew excessively wealthy. Sound familiar?

In 1215 King John agreed to the Magna Carta, the great charter, which gave legal rights to the Barons and Earls and mandated that the king listen to them and follow their advice. Before the Magna Carta the king called a parliament at his whim with no legal obligation to follow the barons’ advice. The Magna Carta granted no rights to the serfs; but, merely became a tool of the landed gentry (who had personal armies supporting them) to control the king in order to protect their own interests. Sound familiar?

In 1265, following a war between Henry III and Simon De Montfort, De Montfort briefly established a parliament which also included  burgesses, representatives from each county,city and town until Edward I, who killed De Montfort in battle, called is first parliament in 1275 which included churchmen,two knights from each county, and two commoners from each town ( the house of burgesses). Since 1327 parliament set the pattern we know today: House of Lords, House of Commons, Monarch.

It took another hundred years to establish that Parliament’s House of Commons controlled granting money raised through taxation to the king (usually to wage war); and wrote statutes creating the law of the land, replacing the writ to the king for favor system of an earlier day.

Overthrowing the leaders of countries does not necessarily mean more power to the people. It took great Britain several hundred years and a civil war to do so. The United States, copied Great Britain’s lead, replacing the monarch with a president. The House of Lords became our Senate; the House of Commons our House of Representatives. There are those who pressured newly-elected President George Washington to accept the appellation Your Majesty. He insisted on Mister, in a new nation where all men are considered equal. And so we say, Mr. President when addressing him.

The U.S. shortened Great Britain’s time-line: 1776 – Declaration of Independence, 1789 – Constitution and first 10 Amendments ratified, 1789 – Judiciaries Act passed, 1803 – Marbury v. Madison. Hopefully, emerging democracies can shorten the time it takes to become nations of law and not men, and avoid civil war. Building a strong middle class will help.

The industrial revolution which began in the 1500’s with the guild movement solidified in 1760-1850. It is no coincidence that the movement to end serfdom occurred on the same time frame. Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. “The landed aristocracy held enormous powers [through] the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution.”1

In the United States, the Industrial Revolution made the North economically stronger than the South, which barely maintained a landed gentry system on the backs of slave labor and that of poor white sharecroppers. The bloody rise of labor unions prevented this quasi feudal-serf system from taking root in the North. Despite fighting a Civil War to end slavery, and the efforts of labor unions, we still see vestiges of the old feudal system within our economic institutions, policies and practices both north and south. Since the election of our first African-American president those differences in how we choose to govern ourselves have become more overt. Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as every other state,thanks to ALEC, are fighting to protect unions, not just to protect the unions but to protect all workers from being reduced, once again, to serfdom. 2

In China, Thailand, Guam, Africa and all over the globe multi-national corporations are locking in workers for excessively-long shifts, with little or no pay. Human trafficking in workers, slave or forced labor, is on the rise world-wide in every imaginable  industry including my favorite – chocolate. 3

What is the connection here? It is that human beings seek power over their own lives. Money is power, so they seek money. The reason taxes are a big deal to both Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Progressives, The US Chamber of Commerce and the churches, Wall Street banks and non-profit organizations, Democratic and Republican parties, the upper class-middle class- and poor is because money buys power. Money bought the King. Money bought the Corporations. Money bought the politicians. We all want money because we all value power. Why? Power brings freedom: the freedom from want, the freedom of choice over need, the freedom of association, the freedom to say no just because we want to do so. If we truly believe we are all entitled to be free, then we must also believe we are all entitled to enough money to feel power over our own lives.

When we are without money for too long we feel powerless as a result. It is this feeling of being powerless which brings out our racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those who feel powerless resent others who seem to be acquiring power. Hidden in our psyche is the racist belief that an African-American has no business being so powerful when white men now feel so powerless. That is the crux of this election. Even Roman Catholic bishops, losing esteem and power over their flocks due to their misogynist attitude toward women and their cover-up of pedophilia within their ranks are fighting for power by attacking President Obama. Even Christian church leaders accustomed to financial power and preaching its attainment as a Gospel truth, which fell apart in the recession, are attacking President Obama. They have no qualms viciously attacking him, trying to knock him off his game. Unfortunately, his game is governing this country we all love.

What can we do? We can stop attacking people who want power, who want money, who want to feel safe; who cannot feel truly free without these things. We all want these things. We all want freedom.

We can stop attacking each other lest we all end up “Humpty Dumpty”. 4  Despite British and American love of freedom, and each country’s Civil Wars to establish equality among all its citizens and clearly unified governance, neither would suggest civil war as a positive step. We can learn from these past divisive periods. History does not have to repeat itself around the globe, nor within our own borders. We can stop being so afraid that we needlessly try to knock one another off the wall. We can recognize that there is enough wealth to share so that all feel powerful and free.

We celebrate freedom in this country without understanding its roots. No banker, no corporate executive, no shareholder, no priest nor bishop, no Tea Bagger, no liberal, no politician, no judge, no citizen will feel free until they feel financially secure. This was the beauty of a strong middle class; it made everyone feel free. It was an imaginable state of being for the poorest citizen aspiring to move higher through education and hard work; and for the richest executive who fell from grace, a safe place to land. Without a middle class, no American feels free.Not the wealthiest, not the poorest, and not the middle class.

To America and to the world a message of freedom: Build and protect the common man’s wealth, the middle class. The BRITISH COMMONWEALTH is a not a fluke. American economic success since the Civil War is not a fluke. Stop seeking to be excessively wealthy; instead, seek to build wealth within the middle class, a commonwealth within and among nations. With commonwealth comes common power. With such a sense of power comes a sense of freedom and peace. The Eurozone is struggling with this concept as I write.

Look at what Britain accomplished. Look at what the U.S. accomplished. Those lessons will serve us well. this is what President Obama has been trying to remind us.  Destroying the middle class destroys our commonwealth, pushes Humpty Dumpty off the wall; and, neither all the king’s horses nor all the king’s men can put us back together again. Life is too fragile for such nonsense.

 

 

1. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html

2.http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed 

3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm “Presently, about 700,000 children and women are trafficked around the world annually. The UN says that profits for this trafficking amount to approximately $7 billion a year (Anti-Slavery International).”

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty  “In 1648 Colchester was a walled town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall. The story given was that a large cannon, which the website claimed was colloquially called Humpty Dumpty, was strategically placed on the wall. A shot from a Parliamentary cannon succeeded in damaging the wall beneath Humpty Dumpty which caused the cannon to tumble to the ground. The Royalists, or Cavaliers, ‘all the King’s men’ attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall, but because the cannon was so heavy ‘All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again’. In his 2008 book Pop Goes the Weasel: The Secret Meanings of Nursery Rhymes author Albert Jack claimed that there were two other verses supporting this claim. Elsewhere he claimed to have found them in an “old dusty library, [in] an even older book”,but did not state what the book was or where it was found. It has been pointed out that the two additional verses are not in the style of the seventeenth century, or the existing rhyme, and that they do not fit with the earliest printed version of the rhyme, which do not mention horses and men.”

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

CHANTING FOR FREEDOM

CHANTING FOR FREEDOM

Louise Annarino

May 28, 2012

 

Perhaps it comes from attending Mass every day between the ages of 6 and 18, singing Gregorian Chant as part of the liturgy, which brought me such peace each morning and created my world view. Perhaps it was the chant itself.Chant flows seamlessly, each voice modulated to mingle with those of other chanters rather than lifting one voice above others. If every chanter took a breath at the same time, the fabric of the chant would tear, leaving tiny holes through which the notes would fall away. So, chanters learn to listen closely to nearby chanters, stretching the time to take a breath before or after that of those on left or right, to keep the fabric of communal song strong and vibrant. Chant is complex, rising and falling across chords layered in groups and overlapping phrases. When a soloist  lifts high a clear voice soaring above the whole, that single voice remains supported by the underlying chant of the group.

 

Chant is organic, flowing, ceaselessly seeking release as its power grows then crests and subsides, finally coming to rest in an eternal ohm. Chant leaves one attuned to others, supportive of one another, more alive within the whole than a single voice alone can do. Chant builds strength in cooperation and sharing. Chanters let go of ego, sacrifice personal control and individuality for the greater good.They know the song, the chant, the melody will enrich all who sing and all who listen. It will lift the entire universe in prayerful energy toward light and away from darkness into joy, toward strength and away from fear into freedom. It is ironic that such communal effort should result in joyful, fearless freedom.

 

When I hear presidential candidates talk about being free I listen carefully. Being free is the hallmark of our nation. Not one of us wants anything less than freedom. And, we describe it in many different ways. We talk about freedom from something: from taxes- from want, from dictators-from anarchy, from crime-from oppression.We talk of freedom of something: religion, speech, assembly. We talk of freedom to do something: marry, bear arms, pursue happiness. But, what is the underlying basis of freedom? What is the common thread which allows us to be free rather than puts us in chains?

 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s dramatic opening statement in his treatise “The Social Contract” explains “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are.” the very fact that Rousseau titles his work “The Social Contract” implies an answer.

 

With the first part of his opening sentence, Roussseau distinguishes the common good interests of “the sovereign”, the collective group of all citizens, from the private interests of each individual citizen. Are these competing or complimentary interests? It depends upon which song the nation sings. I prefer chant, in which each individual understands and appreciates his unique contribution to the group; and adjusts tone, cadence, rhythm, and vocal power for the common good. If man has chained himself to others for the common good, he remains free. It is only when others chain a man against his right to be free that he becomes enslaved. So long as man creates and attaches his own  thread to the common good, he can remain free. He is free to participate as an equal, empowered in a way he could not be on his own, and the result is greater freedom and power for the group.

 

The American system of slavery, and its current remnants is illustrative of Rousseau’s second statement. Those who think they are masters over others are more enslaved than those they seek to control. America’s premise that all men are created equal and have equal rights, is enshrined in her constitution and its amendments. Yet, for too long we chained our nation’s wealth and productivity to the system of slavery. Although America abolished slavery, we continue to chain our wealth and productivity to a system recognizing the rights of masters over workers,investors over laborers,the privileged over the 98%. It is not by chance that political operative Grover Norquist insists every Republican candidate take “the Pledge” to not raise any tax; nor close any tax loophole for those who believe themselves rightful masters over laborers. Such a pledge hardly allows a legislator or presidential candidate the freedom to work for the common good. Whom is enslaved by such a pledge?  Those who claim themselves our masters. Why do we allow this?  We allow it because we have yet to address the underlying justification that masters must remain in control: race, sex, and class.

 

E Pluribus Unum, Out of many One, is the fabric of America and the fabric of chant. We are all Americans, and all Americans are equal. But, having a bi-racial president has proven too much for some Americans. Those who seek to make President Obama the other, seek to deny his status as their equal because they do believe all Americans are free and equal. In order to justify denying some Americans freedom and equality, these persons must deny those Americans are as American as themselves. People of color, women, LGBT, new immigrants cannot be allowed to believe themselves equals, nor masters over themselves, nor over anyone else. A Black president cannot be allowed to disprove the construct by which some believe themselves masters over others.

 

To justify the determined ruination of the Obama presidency, he must become something (not someone) people can hate. He is described as a Muslim terrorist, a N*****, or Black liberation theologist ala Rev. Wright. He is a socialist, communist, fascist; some misguided souls say all three at the same time! They see no inconsistency in describing him simultaneously as a  strong and overpowering despot, and a weak and overwhelmed failure. The message is simple, “He is not like us”. Therefore, he is not entitled to equality, nor freedom. We use this ploy to train soldiers to kill the other: Japs,rag heads,gooks. 

 

In dehumanizing others so we can find a way to justify killing them, we dehumanize ourselves. We chain ourselves to lies. We give up our freedom to be fully, painfully human. No apologies needed.Our apologies are lies themselves, “IF (but of course only the other would say so) my words (not my SELF) or my actions (which I cannot remember) hurt anyone, I apologize. Man is born free, and is everywhere chained to self-deception.

 

Obama haters want to take back their, not his, country. They cut holes in the fabric we weaves to make America strong, productive, and a beautiful “one out of many” nation. It is easy to lie about the other, when we are lying to ourselves about ourselves. Once we start lying, it is difficult to stop. Until we honestly face what we are recovering racists, we feel more comfortable with lies than with truth. We remain enslaved, while attempting to enslave others. If only President Obama had stayed in his place, this country would be fine. We would all be wealthy. We would all be free to serve our own interest at the expense of the environment, mortgage security, the middle class, public education, equal pay, immigration reform,finding Bin Laden and hobbling Al Qaeda,commodities oversight,Wall Street regulation,closing Guatanamo,speeding up economic recovery through government investment in our communities etc. The boy needs to be taught a lesson. You think this is hyperbole?

 

Think back to the George W. Bush re-election to his second term. He had created the largest deficit and waged  two wars without raising taxes to pay them for the first time in our history; instead,funding them from loans from China. He lied and used others to unwittingly lie to justify invading Iraq; then joked about not finding weapons of mass destruction when he spoke at the Washington Correspondents’ Dinner, pretending to look for them under the table. He declared “mission accomplished” in Iraq as his unwarranted war escalated out of control at the cost of thousands of American and Iraqi lives. He announced he was not interested in finding Bin Laden, it was really not that important, and he took his eye off Afghanistan to invade Iraq making it more difficult for President Obama to wind up operations and end the Afghan war.

 

Under George W. Bush, Wall Street’s investment bankers and commodities traders were unregulated and out of control, creating unsafe investment packages with little to no real value other than to hedge fund investors’ huge profits,and a housing bubble based on unregulated and predatory mortgage lending practices. Banks were primed for failure, failing at such a rate that the FDIC was underfunded to handle the losses it guaranteed. President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, even though it was less stringent than he had hoped for.1 Republicans still block his efforts to implement rules to enforce Dodd-Frank, and have refused to approve “anyone” Director of the newly created Consumer Protection Agency, forcing President obama to make a recess appointment. 2

 

President Bush spent 35% of his presidency vacationing at his Crawford Ranch, his parents home in Kennebunkport, Maine and Camp David.3 All presidents need time away from the White House, their vacation homes and Air Force One are equipped for business as usual. But the sheer percentage of time away must have left an impression on second-term voters. When president Obama used a much smaller jet to take his wife out for an anniversary dinner in Chicago one evening, it was considered an assault on U.S. taxpayers.

 

Energy prices skyrocketed under George W. Bush. He is on record stating that cheap energy was bad for America. U.S. oil production was low, refinery capacity at an all-time low. 4 Under President Obama, U.S. Oil production is at an all-time high, storage is at full capacity. Yet, he is attacked for being anti-oil production, while V.P. Cheney made secret deals to increase profits for energy companies behind closed doors of the Bush White House.  Oil is traded on the global market. No president is able to control oil prices. But regulatory oversight of commodities futures’ trades, increased production and legislative plans to make use of U.S. production at home, as proposed by Democrats, can influence the costs at home. President Obama’s plan does just that, despite unwarranted and distorted attacks by candidate Mitt Romney.5

 

When George W. Bush was re-elected despite what all agreed was a somewhat less than stellar performance during his first term, common knowledge affirmed that he carried the benefit accrued by any incumbent. Why does this reasoning not apply to President Obama? Gas prices were higher during George W. Bush, yet current gas prices are offered as a reason to vote out this incumbent.

 

The Iraq War has ended and Afghanistan War continues, scheduled to end by 2014. In the past, common knowledge held we not change presidents in the midst of war. This was one reason given for the re-election of incumbent Bush,despite his misguided Iraqi invasion. Why does this reasoning not apply to President Obama, who is responsibly ending these wars, while continuing to attack global terrorist networks?

 

Incumbent Obama meets every criteria used in the past to support re-election of an incumbent. Yet, he is not treated as an incumbent. The one way to avoid this discussion is to simply lie about his accomplishments and his challenges. The media, the public, supporters and non-supporters are too readily willing to overlook his record of accomplishment, to degrade, demean and distort it. Why, when they were willing and able to do so for former incumbents such as George W. Bush?

 

Racism. He is not one of us, not entitled to the same consideration. This is our dirty little secret. Racism plays the discordant notes of American history. It grates on our ears. It disturbs our souls. It holds back our future. We prefer to avoid it, like avoiding the scrape of chalk across a blackboard. We cringe when we hear it. We become angry with the kid holding the chalk. But it continues.How do we stop it? How do we drown out the noise of racism?

 

How we can make music together without listening to one another, without breathing an unbroken melody of continuity and completion, without learning the complexity of the governance process as part of the chant, without supporting each soloist in his diverse skills and needs, without putting aside our own ego to become part of a larger whole? …Well, it stuns me. It does not surprise me, but it wounds me. Worse, it hurts our nation. Take up the chant for freedom, and against slavery. Make music with one another as equals, where none is master over another.

 

There is a chant I hope you will join. To do so you must commit to seek the common good, knowing the individual needs of each of us will be sought to support the whole. You must set aside ego and accept the imperfections of other chanters. The chant itself is easy enough to remember: “Obama-Obama-Obama-Obama-Obama…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act, Summary by Kimberly Amadeo, About.Com, Economy, http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticalssues/p/Dodd-Frank-Wall-Street-Reform-Act.htm

2.  “Putting Mr. Cordray in place grants the agency the standing to move ahead with new regulation of varied financial entities, authority it has lacked in the absence of a director since its creation in July 2010.With the three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, Mr. Obama moved to ensure that the board, which has five seats, would not become paralyzed. The board shrank to two members when the term of a previous Democratic recess appointee expired on Tuesday, and under a Supreme Court ruling, it is not allowed to make decisions with fewer than three members. Helen cooper and Jennifer Steinhauer, New York Times, January 4,2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/politics/richard-cordray-named-consumer-chief-in-recess-appointment.html?pagewanted=all

3. ”As it turns out, Bush easily eclipsed Ronald Reagan’s previous record for presidential sloth.  By March 2008, Bush had spent all or part of 879 days at his Crawford, Texas ranch or at Camp David, surpassing Reagan’s mark of 866.  By the time he left office, George W. Bush had made 149 trips to and spent 487 days at Camp David, with another 77 getaways to (and 490 days at) Crawford.  Toss in 11 visits and 43 days at his folks’ compound in Kennebunkport, Maine and President Bush spent 1020 days – 35% of his presidency – getting away from the White House.” Obama NYC Date Night Highlights Bush Vacation Record , Avenging Angel, May,31,2009, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/31/737229/-Obama-NYC-Date-Night-Highlights-Bush-Vacation-Record

4. “Why the price spike now?[under George W. Bush] We are talking about an oil price that is higher (again, in nominal terms) than at the height of the Nixon-Ford inflation, when we all found prices intolerably high. Prices fell all during the Reagan years, thanks to the effects of Carter’s deregulation, and during most of the Clinton years as well. In fact, prices reached good-old-days levels at the very end of the Clinton era: $11 per barrel. Gas hovered at $1 a gallon, an historic low in real terms. Pure heaven!” High Prices As Policy,Llewellyn H. Rockwell,Jr., http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/high-prices.html

5. ”In a television interview on Sunday and a Web video released on Monday, Mitt Romney said that President Obama has sought higher gasoline and energy prices and called on the president to dismiss three cabinet officers Mr. Romney claims have abetted him.But the assertion, which echoes charges from other Republicans, is largely unsubstantiated or misleading.”Romney Misleads on Obama and Energy Prices, JOHN M. BRODER,NYT blog, The Caucus,  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/romney-misleads-on-obama-and-energy-prices/

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

HISTORY LESSON; Small Government or No Government?

HISTORY LESSON: SMALL GOVERNMENT, NO GOVERNMENT ?

Louise Annarino

2-17-2012

 

Republican and Libertarian 2012 presidential candidates have followed two themes: small government, or no government. In support of these complimentary positions they rewrite American history, even Mr. History Gingrich who should know better does so.

 

Colonial Americans did not dump tea in Boston Harbor because they opposed taxes; but, because they were unrepresented in the British Parliament. Initially, they did not want  to end government but to participate in it. The corruption and despotism of British monarch George III, the arrogance and disdain of the British Parliament toward colonial interests, and the overriding desire to refill a depleted British treasury following the Seven Years War on the backs of colonists stirred the minds and hearts of the American colonists who began to see themselves as simply “Americans”. They declared their independence from Britain and immediately started designing a government very like the one they overthrew, with some interesting twists learned from native American political structures.

 

For example, the British Parliament has two chambers: the House of Lords (aristocracy), and House of Commons (everyone else). One of the hottest arguments after the revolution was between those who wanted to call George Washington “King-Your Majesty-Your Highness” and those who wanted to avoid all things aristocratic and call him “Mr. President”. Mr. Washington insisted on the latter, and shunned all signs of royalty. Americans chose a bi-furcated legislative body, the Senate and The House of Representatives. Their response to despotism and the threat of autocratic rule was a “separation of powers” between the Executive,Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. “We the People, By the People, and For the People” was born.

 

Initially, they favored a “confederation” of quite independent states based on the Native American “confederation of tribes” model; but, soon recognized the need for a strong federal government, affirmed early on by The U.S. Supreme Court. The failure to directly address the slavery issue and women’s right to vote, despite Abigail Adams’ warning to her husband John to “mind the ladies”, remained a stain on self-government and equal rights for all citizens; and, eventually led to a civil war.

 

I have been watching Ken Burns’ THE CIVIL WAR. It is appalling that after such horrific suffering caused by secessionists and slave owners with the support of Southerners, including West Point graduates, among them Robert E. Lee, who abandoned their oaths to support the United States of America and called it “honorable”, that our current batch of presidential candidates would also suggest secession, states rights, and the honor of the American people as appropriate policy within the Republican Party. The Republican Party, The Grand Old Party (GOP) which gave us Abraham Lincoln as its first presidential candidate. It is shameful;how far the Republican Party has fallen.

 

We must not accept a discussion of secession to be considered a legitimate possibility. To attack President Obama as unpatriotic while behaving so unpatriotically themselves is the height of hypocrisy. They use the threat of secession as a means of attacking a strong federal government; just as it was used to instigate a civil war 200 years ago. Why would they risk such division among our citizens? The same reason they did then…money and power. Racist code talk, outright racist comments, and outright lies about President Obama’s policies and leadership should have been laid to rest 200 years ago.

 

Those, who argue a strong and active federal ( Paul,Perry,Gingrich,Romney et al) or state government (Governors Kasich R-OH and Walker R-WI) takes away our liberty are wrong. If by “government” one means government led by a despot this is true. But WE are the government. WE pass legislation, make rules, interpret laws through those WE elect to represent us in those endeavors while we go about earning a daily living. WE are not despots. WE are not deprivers of our own liberty. WE decide what government does;despite the fact George W. Bush “the Decider” alleged otherwise. The Government is not something apart from ourselves; it is US. When Republican candidates attack government, they attack US. WE are “we the people”. Why attack our governments? Because WE are all that stands in the way of those 1% “aristocrats” who want to make money at our expense. Have we forgotten the our history?

 

In the meantime, they distract us and delude us into thinking our governments, federal-state-local are attacking us. We are under attack, but not by government. Discover and support your own self-interest…your government.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS