Yup. It's the 1/1000th of 1 percent conducting war against the 99.999 percent. We've heard that, written and spoken it plenty of times. We should believe the truth. So, why don't we believe?
Could it be that we've already been taken in by the lies for so many decades that we can't recognize truth when it's in our faces or coming out of our own mouths? The corporations that rule us, run the government, profit from the laws that are written and from the continual wars of aggression, seek to divide us so that they can accelerate the war against us and destroy Democracy.
Divide and conquer:
The black from the white. White from brown. Middle class from the poor. City people from the rural. Democrats from Republicans. Retired from the working poor. Young from the old.
The corporations, through FOX "News" and the rest of the no-longer-liberal press, invent "reasons" to divide us. They cite imaginary voter fraud and pass "Jim Crow" laws which discriminate against the Afro-Americans, Hispanics, old, poor and handicapped". "Communists" all. Then corporate Diebold "counts" the votes for extra huge profits.
The corporate-run government tells us that Social Security is bankrupt. They don't tell us that they have "borrowed" from Social Security time and time again and that without the incessant raiding of Social Security funds for continual war, there would be enough money ($2.6 trillion) to fund Social Security for 37 years with no additional taxes. (Federal Accounting Office). Does Romney or Obama tell us this? No? Why not?
It's the corporate plan.
The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble. The corporation dominated U.S. government tells us so. What they don't tell us is that the reason that the Postal Service is in financial trouble is the corporate-purchased Republicans and Democrats joined forces to require the Service to pre-fund 75 years' worth of retirement benefits for employees who haven't even been born yet! Why?
It's the corporate plan to totally privatize postal services for corporate profit.
Then there's the U.S. Constitution which is continually under attack. "It's outdated." Does anybody need a Constitution to guarantee our right to Free Speech? Don't we need a right to peaceably protest against our government without being imprisoned forever, tortured or executed without trial?
Don't we need a Constitution to protect our right to defend ourselves with force, if necessary, in our homes or if our lives are in danger in physical attacks away from home? The Constitution tells us that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Both Democrats who believe in all of our constitutional rights and Republicans who believe in the NRA, forget or never knew that it was, in large part, the NRA which promoted the corporate agenda in "Citizens United," which allows the corporations to spend any amount of money to elect their chosen corporation-purchased candidates. This effectively overwhelmed and muffled the freedom of speech of poor and middle class Americans.
There is little doubt that Wayne LaPierre was led astray by the thought that the NRA would gain power by overturning the Bipartisanship Campaign Reform Act enacted in 2002 which was preventing huge amounts of money from corporations and organizations from being used for broadcast campaign advertising 30 days before primaries and 60 days before the general elections. La Pierre stated, "For like-minded individuals lacking great wealth, pooling their donations to fund a political message is, in a real sense, the only way for them to find meaningful voice in the marketplace of ideas. There is nothing pernicious, problematic or distorting about individuals banding together in this fashion to express shared political values and make "themselves' heard. ("Expressing Shared Political Values"--Wayne La Pierre, America's First Freedom, NRA Publication, p 8-9, Sept.2009)
But, the corporation-dominated Supreme Court had other ideas. La Pierre's opening paragraph tells us much about his surprise that the Supreme Court would take the action taken:
"In an astonishing and rare procedural shift, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to produce an expected narrow decision on a critical First Amendment case before its last term ended. Instead, the court deferred its ruling and ordered a new hearing--calling for the case to be re-argued under a vastly broadened scope--scheduled for September, even before its new term begins."
Of course, we must also recognize that the NRA's sensible "Castle Doctrine" with its "Stand Your Ground" provision is a logical law to protect the lives of law-abiding gun owners and the lives of those whom they may protect.
1 | 2