It depends upon who "us," is

Bubblehead: Thank you. Everyone should indeed read the Confessions of Jesse Macbeth.

Boy, am I slow. It takes me a while but eventually I get it. Take Bush's statement, "whoever is not with us is against us." I, like I am sure a majority of Americans took that to mean that if you were against "us" you were against the U.S.A. That is, it was the United States that constituted the "us," and the terrorists that were the "other." Foolish me. I now understand that by "us" he did not mean the United States. He meant the "us" that has all the money and power. Think of it, there are apparently somewhere approximating four billion people on earth, but there are only a few of "us." "Us" could also be interpreted as the elite. Or even as the "haves," as opposed to the "have-nots." Similarly, it could mean management as opposed to workers. The "us" also means those who have enough money and power to help maintain the system and exploit those who do not. But you get the picture.

This explains why there is no opposition to Bush/Cheney from either the House or the Senate. It is very simple. All of the members of the House and the Senate are virtually by definition part of the "us," as are all truly wealthy pcople like CEO's and multi-millionaires. Terrorists to the "us" are relatively harmless, something like mosquitoes that occasionally have to be brushed off, whereas the non-"us" are a constant threat, always wanting higher wages, health care, job security, a forty hour work week, and stupid threatening stuff like that. They are truly against the "us." It appears to me that once you get enough money you sort of automatically become a member of the "us." Take the Clintons, for example. After they received their lucrative book deals and became millionaires (instead of relatively poor people from Arkansas) they moved right into the "us" category and they now publically embrace, and are embraced by, the very people who tried to do them in with evey underhanded vile and illegal trick in the book.

It is true there are a few people, like Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and a few others who profess disagreement occasionally. But they are clearly members of the "us" and apparently do this to go on pretending there are really two parties. Once you finally understand who they mean by "us" the whole things comes into focus and you can make sense of it.

If this is not true, how do you explain the continuation of the Bush/Cheney Administration? The continuing tenure of Donald Rumsfeld? The adulation of Condi Rice? The tolerance for war crimes? The neglect of the Constitution? Blatantly ignoring the laws of the land? Crony capitalism? The national debt? The disgraceful medical and drug companies. Tax breaks for the filthy rich? Obscene subsidies for the energy industry? All of this can only be made possible by the connivance of the "us."

Of course they want you to believe you can someday be one of the "us." It's supposed to be the "American Way." But of course having a lot of money (as in winning the lottery, for example) does not automatically make you one of the "us." You have to also acknowledge your membership by giving large donations to the Republican party, voting whatever way they instruct you to vote, lying constantly about what is really going on in the world, sanctioning war crimes and murders, abhorring homosexuality and abortion, to say nothing of flag burning, and whatever other party line you are fed. You can pretend otherwise, like Hillary, but do you really believe Hillary is not one of the "us?"