[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Liberals and Faux Conservatives: Two Sides of the Same Authoritarian Coin Liberals and Faux Conservatives: Two Sides of the Same Authoritarian Coin Wednesday November 02nd 2005, 9:57 pm As it turns out, Michael Moore owns Halliburton stock. Joseph Farah's website expects us to be surprised and angered by such hypocrisy. However, this "revelation," one of many featured in a book by Peter Schweizer, is not surprising, nor are other insights into the disingenuous behavior of Nancy Pelosi, Noam Chomsky, Barbra Streisand, Ralph Nader, and other so-called liberals and Democrats. Anybody with two brain cells to rub together who is capable of reading a newspaper realizes Mikey is a hypocrite—or more accurately, a conflicted liberal. For instance: Moore's popular documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, blames the Saudis for nine eleven, the same way Islamophobic neocons blame the Saudis for not only nine eleven but most of the Islamic terrorism in the world. Of course, it is true the Saudi royals are to blame for creating the Islamic Terror Network, commonly called "al-Qaeda" in the corporate press, but only partially to blame—most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the CIA, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Jimmy Carter. In order to understand how Carter, Brzezinski, and the CIA created and nourished what is now called "al-Qaeda," read Afghanistan: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1973-1990 on the Digital National Security Archive site. "Saudi Arabia managed to stimulate some rebel unity [in Afghanistan] by withholding aid from the various mujahidin parties until they agreed to coalesce and form a united opposition front [or a terrorist organization]…. The Saudi government, which deposited many of its contributions into a CIA Swiss bank account, also gave direct support to several fundamentalist groups." In short, the Saudis (along with Pakistani intelligence) were partners (and bankrollers) with the CIA. Instead of providing his viewers with this salient history lesson, Mikey blames the Saudis and perpetuates the fairy tale Osama bin Laden, the Saudi eccentric suffering from kidney disease and living in a cave in Afghanistan, was solely responsible for nine eleven. Liberals, just like so-called conservatives, buy the absurd and nonsensical official nine eleven story without question. Mikey supported the mad bomber of Serbia, Wesley Clark, for president in the lead-up to the 2004 election—or rather non-election, thanks to dirty tricks and Diebold voting machines. Many liberals have no problem bombing kids and grandmothers with cluster bombs and shooting up their hospitals and schools with depleted uranium bullets if it is for a "humanitarian" cause (or excuse). It is downright disgusting to realize many liberals and Democrats supported Clinton's criminal attack of the former Yugoslavia. Now most oppose Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq—because Bush is a Republican. It's not the killing and violation of national sovereignty that bugs Democrats. It's simply the fact a Republican is in the White House and everything he does must be opposed. Of course, there are more than a few antiwar Democrats, and most of them voted for the warmonger John Forbes Kerry, who said he would out-Bush Bush in killing Iraqis. In other words, ending the "war" was less important than making sure a Democrat won, even if he would have continued and even escalated the criminal "war" in Iraq. Democrats and liberals seem incapable of understanding it does not matter if a Democrat or Republican is in office—there will be invasions, mass murder, corporate thievery, neolib foreign and economic policy, encroachments on the Constitution and liberty, and an ever-growing police state and police state outrages (the Democrat Clinton, after all, oversaw the incineration of babies at Waco). Moreover, as history demonstrates, more Democrats have started wars than Republicans. Of course, since many Republicans are now neocons (and many founding neocons are former Trotskyites), this has become a moot point. Finally, Mikey is a gun-grabber who hates the Bill of Rights. Many liberals want to pick and choose their amendments to the Constitution (they love the First Amendment, but not the part about freedom of religion). Moore's documentary on Columbine did more to confuse people about the Second Amendment than any other bit of propaganda in recent history. But fact of the matter is the founders realized the Bill of Rights would be useless if citizens didn't have the right to bear arms. I can do without Peter Schweizer's book. Both liberals and so-called conservatives (or the reactionary Rush Limbaugh conservatives, for lack of a better term) are two sides of one coin—they both believe in the necessity of centralized government and support authoritarian exercise of government coercion and violence against citizens. If not for a number of social issues, Democrats and Republicans would be identical—both believe they have the right to employ state violence to make other people dance to their tune as they steal their money and property.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Kamala (#0)
Not a dime's worth of difference, even considering inflation.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||