Monday, April 12, 2010

Liberals and Conservatives are Uniting

Every so often, someone sends me materials to the effect that the United States will be better off if we get the “liberals” out of Washington. They’re presenting that as the big issue in the upcoming congressional elections on November 2.
That’s a suckers’ bet. We’re being asked to boot the “Big government liberals” out of Washington and replace them with Big Government conservatives. Chew on that one for a moment.
Did a liberal President launch an unprovoked attack against Iraq, based on lies about “weapons of mass destruction” that they knew weren’t there? Did a liberal President preside over the largest mass murder of civilians of the twenty-first century? That’s one million civilians. Did a liberal President sign the USA PATRIOT Act, approve waterboarding, end habeas corpus guarantees against indefinite detentions without charges or trial? Did a liberal President sign the bill ending posse comitatus, thereby militarizing America’s police departments? Did a liberal President shred almost every provision in the Bill of Rights, and commit countless other depredations against American lives, liberties, and property? Did a liberal President sign the first trillion-dollar bail-out bill? No. It was a "neoconservative."
In case you’re wondering, the term neoconservative is supposed to mean, compassionate conservative. How compassionate and how conservative were all those war crimes and atrocities against the American and Iraqi people?
Next question: How different from Dubya Bush is Barack Obama? Not very. His policies are an almost seamless continuation of the evils of Dubya Bush. The puppets and the names of the political parties have changed, but the same old puppet masters—the robber barons of Wall Street and the war profiteers—are still pulling the strings.
In spite of what should be obvious to everyone, we’re being told that the cure for the evils that have flowed from Washington since January 2009 is to return to those halcyon days of the Dubya Bush administration.
Has anyone noticed that liberals opposed these threats to American liberties while self-styled "conservatives" were cheering them on?
Recently, one self-styled conservative even recommended an open season on Muslims. There are more than a billion of them. Now there's compassionate conservatism for you. By comparison, Dubya Bush and Pol Pot were pikers. They killed only a million and two million civilians, respectively. If the murder of more than a billion Muslims could be brought about, Dick Cheney would be green with envy.
Excuse me, but is Dick Cheney one of those compassionate conservatives we should return to Washington?
Right now, liberals and conservatives have bigger fish to fry: the robber barons and the war profiteers. Corruption should be the big issue in this campaign—not whether someone can be labeled a liberal or a conservative. The key issue is not liberal versus conservative or Democrat versus Republican, but responsible Americans versus bloodsucking gangsters in high places. Each voter should ask himself if his congressman has been faithful to his oath of office and whether he has represented the people of his district—as opposed to the aforementioned bloodsucking gangsters.
If we play the game of liberals versus conservatives, or Democrats versus Republicans, you know who will pick up the pieces: the gang of bloodsuckers who stage managed Bush and are now stage managing Obama. Anyone who would fall for that one would be a world-class chump. The enemies of real Americans—honest, caring Americans, be they liberal, conservative or non-aligned—are laughing all the way to the bank. Many of America’s enemies are already at the bank.

No comments:

Post a Comment