Blog of Doom Personal thoughts of a total stranger.

Putting His Money Where His Mouth Is

Putting His Money Where His Mouth Is:

<...>
Let this show just how serious progressives are about national security – even while believing, as many left-of-center Americans and a growing number of responsible conservatives do, that the Bush administration has thoroughly bungled it. Whatever your political stripe, the willingness to sacrifice – far more than blowhard attempts to claim national security as the province of radicals in a political party – stands as the truest sign of commitment to protecting the American people.
<...>

(Via Blog for America.)

Are you serious? How many other American soldiers didn't agree with Bush but went when they were called. Are we to praise someone for keeping their word? Is it such a remarkable event when a liberal does what he says he'll do, i.e. go to war when he's called?

Let's be clear on this, I have no beef with Phil Carter. He's keeping his word. But what the hell do these people expect us to do, give him a damned medal for showing up when he said he would? This is an example of what's wrong with Democrats. They think it's remarkable when you keep your word to go and serve in the military, even though you disagree with the reasons. What kind of mentality is this?

Impeach Bush?

Time for some more political commentary. One more from Amy Ridenour. I really love reading her. Also, for the record, I don't often comment on so called progressive or liberal or democratic weblog posts because they are just so far gone I can't even begin to say how they're wrong. I'll try, though. Look for some anti-progressive posts in the near future.

Impeach Bush?:

Rep. Zoe Lofgren explains that "lying about sex" (code term for President Clinton's perjury) "certainly" isn't an impeachable offense, but "lying to Congress" (which, she claims, President Bush has done) "might well be" impeachable.

Nonpartisan translation:

Lying to the judicial branch = not impeachable.
Lying to the legislative branch = impeachable.

But don't we have three co-equal branches of government?

(Via Amy Ridenour's National Center Blog.)

I thought they did impeach Clinton, though. Doesn't this mean that lying to the judicial branch is, in fact impeachable, since that is what they did? Doesn't this also mean that for consistency's sake, lying to the legislative branch is also impeachable? Is lying to the executive branch also impeachable? Could a senator be impeached for lying to the President, or a Judge?

Just asking. I don't really care either way, since whether Bush or some Democrat is in power doesn't really matter. Both parties are socialists in disguise, and I haven't met a national level politician who hasn't betrayed his or her oath of office (the part about support and defend the Constitution comes to mind).

Not convinced about the socialist remark? See the following list of goals from the Communist Manifesto and figure out which ones each party has embraced:

Source:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

We're not there yet, but we're getting there slowly but surely. I know, this makes me a kook, since how can I compare the all American Republican and/or Democratic parties to communists. All I can say is this is what I believe based on what I've seen. I'm not some wild eyed anarchist, just a level-headed, thoughtful anarchist.

Values Must Define The Day

Star Parker has an interesting insight based on personal experience.

COMMENTARY -- Values Must Define The Day:

I have lived in Southern California for many years and am a veteran of the 1992 riots in South Central Los Angeles, provoked by the Rodney King affair. My own business was destroyed in those riots and, as a result, I pulled up roots and moved my family south into Orange County.

She notes that it's sad that inner cities are tinderboxes of frustration. Perhaps that is because everyone feels insecure about their property. Perhaps knowing that your neighbors can just vote to take away what is yours causes you to despise your neighbor. I know it is simplistic, but I think it's part of the problem. The other part is that inner city residents, usually poor, usually black or hispanic, are in the thrall of HUD. Bound like serfs to their housing projects, unable to escape, and forced to pay more in taxes than any medieval lord would dare to extract, is it any wonder they are frustrated and on the verge of riots all the time?

The United States Border Guard

Jon Dougherty of GOPUSA makes an interesting suggestion.

COMMENTARY -- New Military Branch: The United States Border Guard:

He'd like to see a new military branch created called the US Border Guard.

My opinion: Don't create a new branch, just put our current military to work at what is supposed to be their job in the first place. Bring our troops home from the outposts of the American Empire and let them do something more honorable and worthwhile than project power to satisfy the bloody ambitions of our national politician on both the left and right.

First off, a standing army is anathema to a free republic. Someone always wants to use it to push around another country. A standing army is an unbearable temptation for any politician to use it for evil purposes. I can see keeping a cadre of the toughest and best soldiers whose job is to travel the country training local militias. Other than that, we shouldn't even have an army.

I'm a military brat and I love the military. It is full of honest, decent, honorable people. Unfortunately, they are controlled by people who don't care about whether soldiers live and die, as long as their deaths can get someone re-elected. And no, I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about all of them, Democrats and Republicans alike.

Republicans take a shot at Big Bird?

Here we go again. If you stop sending someone money, you're attacking them?

Jun 10, 2005: Republicans take a shot at Big Bird:

Republicans on the House subcommittee that controls public broadcasting have voted to reduce and eventually eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting. The effects would be disastrous.

Children, parents, and teachers deserve a network that provides safe, high-quality programming; and it should come without the threat of destructive political influence.

The effects would be disastrous if you're on the public dole (oops, I meant if you get government money for your programs). Children, parents and teachers deserve exactly what they're willing to pay for themselves. If they want this so bad, let them fork out the cash from their own pockets instead of picking the pockets of their neighbors who don't want, don't care about or actively oppose the socialist messages put out by PBS. If you don't want disastrous political influence in your shows, then don't take money from politicians! Hello!

If their shows are so great, they should be able to fund them from people who are willing to pay for them. If no one wants them then they should fade away.

Republicans and Democrats should oppose Janice Rogers Brown, the rest of us should elect her President

Here's an interesting post from DNC: Kicking Ass:

Jun 7, 2005: Why moderates and conservatives should oppose Janice Rogers Brown

The funny part is that everything they cited gave me another reason to like her. Even the link to the Think Progress post showed me how great she would be as a judge. I'd love to see her on the Supreme Court.

However, if you're a committed Republican or Democrat, you should beware, since it appears that she will stymie your socialist ambitions for this country. If you're a regular American national who just wants the government off your back, then she's the judge for you.

I just laughed at the accusations of her extremism. Apparently people accusing her have forgotten the positions and writings of our Founding Fathers. They would have been filibustered by the Democrats and Republicans as well if anyone dared to advance them for a judgeship on a Federal Court.

Property Rights?

In a piece otherwise largely sympathetic to the owners and patrons of the clubs, the Washington Post never managed to use the phrase "property rights" even once. Yet, all things being equal, isn't it wrong for the government to take private property belonging to one private business and turn it over to the benefit of another?

The Riots of the Faithful by Orson Scott Card

I was just turned on to an Orson Scott Card article that, as usual, makes you think.
World Watch - May 15, 2005 - The Riots of the Faithful - The Ornery American

Thank you for telling it like it is, Mr. Card. Everyone should read this and think on it. Maybe you don't agree, but it's worth thinking about first.