Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Changing of the Guard

The Changing of the Guard

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It appears the Democrats have received control of the House. They only needed 15 seats to win and they appear to have won 25. There are more Democrat Governors now as well and while the Republicans appear to still control the Senate, they do not have a solid majority. This is that moment that comes around once in a blue moon for the Democrats.

The Democrats must remember one thing very clearly: they did not “take” the House and they did not beat the Republicans. The simple and clear fact is that the Republicans beat themselves. They became as corrupt in ten years as the Democrats did in their forty years.

How many Republican members of Congress have resigned in disgrace just this year? How many prominent right-leaning leaders have been caught in hypocrisy? The American people will forgive anything but a lie. Their “do as I say not as I do” approach to governance obviously did not work with the American people. Today’s results proved this truth, but this is the Republicans beating themselves.

What ideas did the Democrats run on exactly? I can tell you I voted for Bill Nelson to prevent Katherine Harris from getting to the Senate, but I really did not vote for Bill Nelson. If Tommy Franks or anyone other than Harris had gotten the nomination instead I might have voted the other way. I really cannot say. Bill Nelson had this won the minute Harris was his opponent and had no need to campaign really.

I honestly pray that Speaker Pelosi does not think this change in Congress is approval to impeach Bush. I hope she remembers that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I hope she thinks about the damage to the American psyche if our history proceeds as:

* President Bush
* War in Iraq
* President Clinton

* President Impeached
* President Bush
* War in Iraq
* President Impeached
* President Clinton

Just think of the poor children who will have to learn this and keep it straight. It already is going to be hard enough keeping track of which President Bush toppled Saddam and in what year. Forcing them to keep back to back impeachments straight on top of it is just sadistic.

Seriously though, the timing for an impeachment is just not right. By all means censure Bush and try to fix the problems, but an impeachment will take too much attention away from more important things. Remember that September 11th was planned during the last one.

Instead, Speaker Pelosi must do everything in her newly acquired power to get our troops home and end the occupation of Iraq. She must change the conversation from us losing in Iraq to simply of us leaving Iraq. We toppled Saddam and made sure Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. We set up a new government and provided security for two elections and a constitution. The only thing left to do is come home. All occupations end that way.

This is a big moment for the Democrats. They were handed power they probably do not deserve on a silver platter. This is their time to show those of us who have spent the last six years disappointed by their lethargy exactly what our hopes where tied to.

Powered by

About Brad Schader

  • Ty

    I’m waiting for the day when there is a Green Party President and a Libertarian Controlled House and Senate, with a just a scattering of House/Senate Democrats and Republicans.

    The two party “system” sucks

  • Jodin

    Time spent on accountability is never wasted. Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

    Take a moment, and help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach..

    The day the nation demands impeachment is upon us. Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi’s office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative’s own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

    There’s a little known and rarely used clause of the “Jefferson Manual” in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

    That’s where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

    You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

  • steve

    on what grounds can they impeach bush?

  • Richard J. Palmer

    You ask on what grounds? Let me count the ways.
    Starting with the lies regarding WMD, invasion of Iraq, bombing of Baghdad, bombing of Beirut, total backing of Israel against all other nations, stay the course, etc., etc., etc. I could go on for hours but chew on those for a while and come down off the Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly clould. The Democrats just swept it all. Back to reality now.

  • Jewels

    It is time to do away with the two party system. Where in the Hell is the ‘Theodore Roosevelt’ drive in the politics of today?

    I’m jaded by both of the rhetoric yapped by both of the current leading parties.

    Regarding impeaching Bush; that would be a completely tragic response from Pelosi – her time in power would become very short lived.

  • Nancy

    Oh, we could add more reasons to impeach: like gross mismanagement of Katrina, awarding positions of national security responsibility to persons totally inadequate for political payback reasons, criminal negligence regarding human life ref: Katrina, criminal negligence (to say the least) in ignoring intelligence before 9/11 of impending terrorist attacks, criminal fraud in awarding no-bid contracts to Halliburton, multiple & egregious instances of conflict of interest, influence peddling & sale of favors, refusing to cooperate in federal investigations, multiple instances of conspiracy to obstruct justice, illegal use of public tax funds, facilities, & personnel for private political gain & electioneering … I could go on, but I lack the space & time to do so. But all these are good staring points, together with the ones Mr. Palmer proposed.

    Don’t leave yourself open to look like a fool by asking unless you really are that clueless or stupid, because you’ll definitely get more answers than you want, if you’re just playing naive.

  • Nancy

    Which reminds me: I did remove my anti-GOP bumper stickers, since they accomplished their purpose. Now I’m putting up my NEW ones: Impeach Bush & Cheney, hang Karl Rove! & Hussein-Bush-Cheney: necktie party time!

  • Clavos

    And once he’s impeached, will you remove him from office? ‘Cause if you don’t, what’s the point?

    Start thinking about who you want to put in his place.

  • Nancy

    We impeach Cheney along with him, and of course we remove both these cancers from office – along with Rove, who should be prosecuted by the Attny General’s & hung for treason. I do believe then the next one up is the Speaker of the House, no? Any further questions?

  • Clavos

    Nancy,

    So, basically you want to circumvent the election process.

    Very democratic (small d) of you…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Nancy, do you even know the definition of ‘treason’?

    But I know I’m looking forward to your proposed coup and the reign of Speaker for Life Pelosi.

    I clean my guns while I think about it.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    To misquote a late USSC justice, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Or when someone persuasive tells you you should see it.

    Dave

  • ClubStyle_DJ

    You should beat yourself for most of this article.

  • Jodin
  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Jodin, the only grounds for impeachment specified in the Constitution – while we still have it – are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. A bunch of sillyassed loony opinions from extreme leftist/socialists don’t fit that definition.

    And I did look at that list. If that’s the best they can do for impeachment Bush has nothing to worry about.

    Dave

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com brad schader

    One ground for impeachment that is covered by the Constitution is misleading Congress. He promised a second U.N. vote that never happened.
    I agree though that the damage of an impeachment to the country overshadows the good that would come from impeaching a lame duck. Censure him and move on to fixing the problems at hand because the problems are not going to wait while we impeach.

  • Martin Lav

    “Start thinking about who you want to put in his place”

    How about my pet goat?

    “Now I’m putting up my NEW ones”

    Bush/Cheney in 2008 in Iraq!

    “I clean my guns while I think about it”

    Looks like your dream might come true Dave! Bunker up the pimped out duck blind!

  • Richard J. Palmer

    Dear Mr. Nalle,

    If you think the list is silly assed, you have no more idea of reality than the man you are trying to protect. Habeas corpus is somewhat important to thinking Americans. I am sure you were one of the ones who wanted to impeach Clinton and he was indeed impeached. What was his high crime, lying about having sex, probably the highest crime which the Christian right can imagine. George Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded a country which was not threatening us. He is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraquis and almost three thousand of our soldiers without mentioning the wounded. Can you not see the difference or are you blind? You think those are unimportant grounds for impeachment. What higher crimes do you want? And, incidentally, I am not a socialist, nor communist nor a silly assed leftist.

  • Bliffle

    “Jodin, the only grounds for impeachment specified in the Constitution – while we still have it – are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. A bunch of sillyassed loony opinions from extreme leftist/socialists don’t fit that definition.”

    They didn’t fit a few years ago, but the republicans going after Clinton lowered the standard. Now, it’s just political. We have a precedent.

    I warned people who were going after Clinton, but nothing could deter their bloodthirsty unreasoning hatred of bubba. I warned that they would reap the whirlwind.

    But I think Pelosi, who is a very savvy political operator, has NO intention of wasting time and effort on impeachment, and she has said so.

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    Grounds for impeachment? You left out the most serious charge, failing to protect and defend the constitution – by entering into a treaty (the Security and Prosperity Partnership) without Congressional ratification, the goals of which are:

    1. eliminating the borders and sovereignty of the United States;

    2. making the Constitution no longer the supreme law of the nation, but rather subordinate to directives, regulations, etc. of unelected and unaccountable elites in a North American Union;

    3. establishing a North American Parliament above Congress; and

    4. establishing a North American Tribunal above The Supreme Court.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    One ground for impeachment that is covered by the Constitution is misleading Congress. He promised a second U.N. vote that never happened.

    Not his fault. He has no control over the UN. And show me where ‘misleading congress’ is mentioned in the constitution as grounds for impeachment.

    The problem here is that most people who just hate Bush irrationally have no idea what impeachment is, what it’s for or how to go about doing it.

    Bliffle has a good point. All of these idiots think they should impeach Bush because Clinton was impeached on pretty questionable grounds. But at least in Clinton’s case there was a genuine, provable crime involved. A pretty minor crime, but at least one that’s on the books and not made up because someone just wanted to get him.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    But I think Pelosi, who is a very savvy political operator, has NO intention of wasting time and effort on impeachment, and she has said so.

    Bliffle, impeachment proceedings originate in the Judiciary Committee which is going to be chaired by John Conyers who has been actively trying to impeach Bush for several years, despite some recent protestations to the contrary.

    Dave

  • http://jetfireone.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    The thing that irks me about the Clinton Impeachment is that it was the result of a fishing expedition and was completely unrelated to the Whitewater investigation which was persued unfairly, unjustified and the Clintons were exonerated of all charges for.

    The American people saw the republican congress for what it was… determined to get the man by any means fair or unfair.

    People see Bush as an embodiment of that, and view him as an object in which to get revenge on for being “taken for a ride” by this congress.

    I resent the loss of the days when you voted FOR someone instead of against someone.
    I miss the days when I could vote by a candidates name, and not his party affiliation.
    I can’t even name a quarter of the people I just voted for! I just went down the list and if it said democrat, I selected it. Not only does that suck… it’s wrong, but what choice do Americans have these days. With negative ads, about the only thing you CAN believe anymore is their party affiliation.

    As for impeachment, apparently no one seems to know that a president can be impeached without having to or be removed from office.

    America usd to be a blend, a great blend.
    Now it’s the have’s and the have nots
    the born agains and everyone else
    the right and the left

    Now that we’re trying to drift back to the middle maybe we can all accept eachother without all this fuss.

    You have power only if you can judge people.
    I miss the “do your own thing-be free 60s”

  • Nancy

    Dave, I don’t need ANYBODY to tell me what to think or how to think – unlike some right wingers here who are incapable of spouting anything except the party line they’re fed by BushCo. I’m perfectly capable of thinking for myself, even if that means I don’t follow YOUR approved line of reasoning – or anybody else’s for that matter. Up yours.

  • Bliffle

    Quibble, quibble, quibble. The Rs used a pretext to impeach Clinton and the Ds are no less capable of contriving a pretext against Bush. What matters is that the public accepted it, and that lowered the standard.

    Conyers will never be able to stand against Pelosi. Even a political dumbkopf and bumbler like me could figure out how to get Conyers to surrender his personal vendetta while maintaining face.

    Anyone who underestimates Pelosis political skills oughta get their head examined.

  • Clavos

    Jet writes in #24:

    As for impeachment, apparently no one seems to know that a president can be impeached without having to or be removed from office.

    Some of us do, Jet. here’s what I wrote in #8:

    And once he’s impeached, will you remove him from office? ‘Cause if you don’t, what’s the point?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Bliffle, Pelosi is also a member of the Progressive Caucus and I have no faith at all that she’ll make any effort to restrain Conyers. The Judiciary Committee is packed with socialists who are among the most virulent Bush-haters. An impeachment committee will be formed within 2 weeks of the new session.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave–what’s your problem with socialists today? did some socialist take your lunch money (for the people, of course)?

  • ClubStyle_DJ

    the most operative sentence of all: “UP YOURS” perfect noun & verb congigation…conveys a point and recognizably discriptive.
    10 points Nan!

  • ClubStyle_DJ

    correction “Conjugation”

  • Martin Lav

    ZZ,
    They want to know how many guns he has and they want to tax him for driving his big ass truck on public highways…..

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    An impeachment committee will be formed within 2 weeks of the new session.

    When power switches parties, so does alarmism.

  • Clavos

    When power switches parties, so does alarmism.

    Everything does, including corruption, cronyism, arrogance, etc. Just sit back and watch for the next several weeks.

    Dem or Rep, they’re all politicians; and worse, most of ‘em are lawyers.

  • Arch Conservative

    Since when is considering Israel an ally an impeachable offense Richard?

  • http://www.125.com/ Richard Brodie

    Don’t you find it the least bit suspicious that Rumsfeld’s departure was timed AFTER the election rather than before, when it could have helped Rupbulican candidates? And why was so little campaign funding provided to Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona, strong border security candidates?

    There has been no changing of th guard. The guard never changes. The Council on Foreign Relations pulls the strings in this country. Bush is just their current puppet, and they don’t like the way a GOP Congress has been opposing his (their) amnesty program, which stands in the way of their completely open borders agenda – the free movement of goods AND PEOPLE throughout the new country of Mexamerican (Robert Pastor’s brainchild, otherwise know as the North American Union.)

  • http://www.jewels-richardson.blogspot.com Jewels

    Richard Brodie, your commentary – the part, The Council on Foreign Relations pulls the strings in this country. Bush is just their current puppet…. Interesting.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Yeah, Jewels…nice to know he’s broadened his palette from just KKK talking points to now include John Birch Society talking points, too.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Jewels, if you’re open to learning more about George Bush’s high treason in violating his sworn oath of office, I recommend googling for

    north american union robert pastor

    and

    trans texas superhighway

    Read the handful of positive government spin sites, and then read some of the tens of thousands of patriotic sites condemning these illicit shadow government sell-outs of the American people.

    And Michael, you are closed to this kind of learning, so just forget about it and keep right on with your pathetic, mindless name-calling.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    dave–what’s your problem with socialists today? did some socialist take your lunch money (for the people, of course)?

    Zing, I spent 3 years in Soviet Russia for a start. That glimpse of the end-result of socialism would be enough to discourage anyone.

    But I’ve also travelled all over the world and watched world events for 3 decades and the one constant that I can see everywhere is that where socialism rises freedom falls.

    I like freedom.

    Dave

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    They want to know how many guns he has and they want to tax him for driving his big ass truck on public highways…..

    Martin, I haven’t used an ounce of petroleum in 7 months. What are you doing to fight the terrorist oil barons?

    But yes, I value the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Do you?

    Dave

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, please stop being either stupid or dishonest. It was Communism that they had in Russia not Socialism. Furthermore, it was a bad form of communism, just as there can be bad forms of capitalism.

    Your broad brush strokes of bile make you sound like someone who doesn’t completely understand the concept of nuance, particularly in such a finessed field as politics. That might be seen as regrettable in a politics editor…

  • Les Slater

    Socialism and communism have more than one meaning.

    Both terms predate Marx. Even in the Marxist context they have different meanings, not just the differences between socialism and communism, but each has different meanings.

    One can call themselves a capitalist, socialist, communist, or whatever. What they call themselves does not define the economic mode or conditions in which they live.

    Members of second international organized by Marxists were known as social democrats. All lived under capitalism or pre-capitalist forms. Their socialism and communism were goals. They all knew that the first task was to expropriate the capitalist class. Most thought this was a revolutionary task some thought it could be done through successive reforms. But it was only after the expropriation could the task of building socialism BEGIN.

    The Marxist variety of socialists, or communists, never thought that the expropriation of the capitalist class produced socialism, in and by itself.

    Marx defined a pre-socialist period where the material and cultural level had not reached that of the most advanced capitalist state. It was only then, and with the rest of capitalists in all parts of the world overthrown, could the task of working toward communism could BEGIN.

    It was Stalin that declared that Soviet Russia had reached the stage of ‘Communism’ while they were still materially and culturally backward.

    This did not help the working class in Russia or elswhere. It just allowed the ignorant to say that communism doesn’t work.

  • SHARK

    EVIDENCE OF NALLE’S IMPENDING NERVOIUS BREAKDOWN

    After an election whereupon the GOP got a “thumpin’ —

    1) it only took about 1 hour for Nalle to start calling his fellow Blogcritics writers “socialists”

    2) it only took 48 hours for Nalle to mention “cleaning my guns”

    3) it only took 48 hours for Nalle to mention a “coup”

    ========

    Jeesus, after six years of watchin’ this neo-con, hypocritical, lumbering GOP elephant trample the fucking world, it’s SUDDENLY GOTTEN TO BE SO MUCH FUN.

    PS: Nalle tastes better with ketchup.

    xxoo
    Shark

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Fun to read this as the “democrats” celebrate victory while the libertarian republican cleans his guns.

    It’s better to read about this than about the abominations infecting Jerusalem today…

    A few thoughts.

    Nalle is smart to clean his guns. He will likely need them.

    IMHO, there will be no impeachment proceedings against your president. Events will conspire against them. The Democratic congress has not yet been inaugurated, and it is unwise to assume that it will be. If it is, the votes are not there for conviction after impeachment, assuming that this is the route attempted by the house of representatives.

    There are no socialists in congress.

    Whatever I may think of his other ties or ideas, Richard Brodie is right on the mark about the CFR dominating the American government. The CFR is the oldest and most pwerful think tank in the world, entrusted with making sure that huge fortunes are not lost.

    I stopped eating pig and seafood a decade ago, and never ate long pig. So, I do not know how Nalle or Shark would taste with ketchup. But if I were ever given the chance to sample such, I’d use Heinz rather than Hunt’s. The flavor of the pickles in the ketchup is so much better than sugar…

  • Les Slater

    So Ruvy thinks a coup is possible. Anything is possible, but what for? You act as if something fundamental has happened. What?

    One group of petty theves has replaced another, nothing of serious consequence.

  • Clavos

    One group of petty theves has replaced another

    Must be we’re both cynics, but despite being poles apart philosophically, you keep coming up with thoughts I agree with, Les.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Nothing “fundamental” has happened. A man who prefers to be dictator has set in motion that possibility. An opposition congress would make that possibility extremely difficult.

    At this point, with all his ducks in a row, Bush (really the men behind Bush) may well come to the conclusion, “why bother with democracy?”

    Nobody has been talking about all those ships off the Persian Gulf, or the war games the Iranians have been conducting, or how the Americans are looking for an excuse to attack Syria and Iran…

    That is where the fuse is. Light the fuse, create a war, and declare martial law. It is not an accident that so many American soldiers are overseas. They would never support this idea. Someone else will have to…

    And now I bid you all a good sabbath.

  • Clavos

    Ruvy, You do have a Machiavellian turn of mind…

    Mind you, that’s all I’ll say about your #48.

  • Les Slater

    Ruvy,

    Domocracy is safe, impotent, as long as no meaningful choices are presented. The recent elections demonstrated that.

    Les

  • troll

    how’s your retirement stock portfolio doing Les – ?

    …just wondering what being a communist means to you

  • Les Slater

    What retirement stock portfolio?

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    Nobody has been talking about all those ships off the Persian Gulf, or the war games the Iranians have been conducting, or how the Americans are looking for an excuse to attack Syria and Iran…

    Nor has anybody been talking about Charlie Rangle’s perennial Bill, the most recent incarnation of which has upped the ante from 15 month’s mandatory military sevice for all “young people” 18 thru 26, to two years for everyone (male and female) 18 to 42.

    Iran will require considerably more cannon fodder than Iraq. And with the nation’s prison system already swamped with illegal Mexican criminals we are afraid to deport, look for an expansion of the Leavenworth facilities to accommodate draft resisters, on the order of the 2.5 million acre Pinon Canyon Army Maneuver site – a land grab that will gobble up enormous amounts of productive agricultural land – the whole southwest corner of Colorado.

  • Clavos

    As an ex draftee and combat veteran myself, I see nothing wrong with a true universal (no exceptions, except for stringent physical unfitness) draft.

    If defense is accepted as an important value, the draft only becomes onerous when the privileged are allowed to escape it.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    The draft “becomes onerous” when it is used to make American youth die fighting Israel’s wars, thereby pissing off the entire Muslim world, which in turn foments the terrorism that makes our homeland vulnerable to attacks, putting at risk even the parents of those youths thus sacrificed.

  • Clavos

    AAhh, so like the lefties, you believe that it’s America’s own behavior that has brought the wrath of the jihadists down on us, rather than the qu’ran’s admonishments to, among other things, eliminate (by conversion or death) all infidels.

    Iraq isn’t really Israel’s war; it’s ours.

    If the draft were universal, as described above, and also full time; i.e., even in peacetime, the country would probably be a lot more reluctant to enter in to questionable wars…

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie

    I don’t deny that Islam is a dangerous politico-“religion”. But in addition to “America’s own behavior” inflaming Muslim hatred against us by always siding with Israel, the other suicidal aspects of our behavior that have empowered jihadists to inflict harm on us are:

    1. allowing ANY MUSLIMS AT ALL to immigrate, or even visit the United States; and

    2. failing to maintain COMPLETE CONTROL over every person who comes into our country across our borders or through our entry ports.

    We’re just sitting here stupidly asking for it.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Shavua Tov,

    Looking at all this as an American for just a moment (I used to be one after all), I tend to agree with Clavos that a universal draft with no exceptions but for physical or mental unfitnesss is the way to go. But IMHO, that is a dead issue, so the bill that Charlie Rangel has been pushing is also a dead issue.

    By the turn of the Christian year, or perhaps a bit afterwards, you should all see why.

    Richard, you really do need to make up your mind as to whether you Americans are fighting the wars of the filthy ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) which will do anything to pollute you pure denizens of the “white race”, or if it that you are all stuck fighting the wars of the corporations that the CFR serves, thus bringing upon you the “righteous” wrath of the Moslems.

    If it is the former, then there is no discussing rationally with you. I’m just another yid in the service of the evil “Elders of Zion” and eventually either I do you in, or you do me in.

    If it the latter, than we have something intelligent to say to each other. This is copied from my comment to Muaneem at his latest analysis of events occurring in Gaza. I recommend it to you even though I do not agree with all of it. Muaneem honestly wants what will be best for Moslems, and understands my observations about the Wahhabi cancer in Islam.

    The cancer that has created this is the ideology of the Wahhabi that has infected and stolen much of Islam away from its original ideas, and turned it into a nightmare of what it had been.

    From the Wahhabi cancer infection you get the following pathologies:

    –Saudi Arabia (stealing Arabia and Mecca and Medina)
    —–sub-pathology: Saudi funded madrassas throughout Dar al Islam spreading the poison of Wahhabi idea.
    –Moslem Brotherhood (perverting Islam in Egypt and pushing Jew-hatred and persecution of Christians)
    –Hamas (local branch office of the MNoslem Brotherhood)
    –Al Fatah and successors (Moslem Brotherhood with a secular cloak to “legitmize” the concept for non-religious Moslems)
    –Al Taliban (north Indian and Afghani branch of Wahhabi ideas).

    This cancer has led to the desire of local Arabs to oust us from our own land when the Qur’an grants us rule over it. This cancer led a Gaza imam to oppose Jews living in this country, and led to this imam evdentually morphing himself into the “grand mufti of Palestine” and fleeing to Germany, where he lobbied Hitler tro set up death camps to kill Jews.

    This cancer has lead to the impoverishment of much of the Arab world because the Wahhabi got their financial kick-start from the West and have had been sucking at the nipple of oil money for the last eight decades or so. None of the rulers who have ties to this nipple care abvout the natives in their land.

    This cancer in the Arab world must be eradicated for there to be a possibility of peace here.

    On the other side, the cancer of secular Hellenism that is the curse of the Jewish people must be eradicated so that Jews can stop acting like bent backed kikes who think they need to conform to Christian standards and who kiss Christian ass, and start viewing themselves as the leading tribe of the Children of Israel – seeking reconciliation with the Children of Kedar, the Arabs.

    You do know who financed ibn Sa’ud so that he could steal Arabia from Feisal, don’t you? The good ol’ boys at the Union Bank where Prescott Bush worked as chief whatever. These are the very same people instrumental in creating the CFR. So while the Wahhabi extend back at least two centuries, they have only succeded in the last eighty years due to a huge infusion of American corporate money.

    If you really believe that your soldiers are fighting the wars of the Jews, you are indeed a fool. A hefty part of your leadership is devoted hand and foot to the filthy scum in Riyadh, particularly your president and his lovely father.

    If I read my Bible right, Richard, one, the other, or both will wind up as enriched bird food to feed the vultures when they die on the mountains of this country, but I digress.

  • Bliffle

    Well now I’ve read several articles cautioning the Ds to be wise and temperate employing their new power. Will someone please write an article cautioning Bush to do the same? Since the election he’s renewed threats against Iran and not moved an inch toward even talking with Iran and Syria. Or is it only allowed to chastise Ds for (presumed) intemperance?

  • MCH

    “As an ex draftee and combat veteran myself, I see nothing wrong with a true universal (no exceptions, except for stringent physical unfitness) draft.
    If defense is accepted as an important value, the draft only becomes onerous when the privileged are allowed to escape it.”
    – Clavos

    I agree 110%. The draft produces a better overall military, since it includes everybody. And even those with physical unfitness could serve in some form or another (computer work, etc).

  • MCH

    “Nor has anybody been talking about Charlie Rangle’s perennial Bill, the most recent incarnation of which has upped the ante from 15 month’s mandatory military sevice for all “young people” 18 thru 26, to two years for everyone (male and female) 18 to 42.”
    – Richard Brodie

    Again, in total agreement here. We’ve got grandfathers and grandmothers in their late 40s and 50s (some on their 2nd and 3rd tours) being killed in Iraq. There’s no reason the draft can’t go up to 45 or 50 years of age.

  • Krapotkin

    Except of course for the obvious unconstitutionality and basic violation of civil rights inherent in any form of universal conscription. But that wouldn’t concern the democrats much, I guess.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ Richard Brodie

    Forget conscription, you guys. The First Amendment is about to be eliminated.

    Ruvy, as a Jew you are undoubtedly aware that the ADL/Zionist Lobby has been on the verge of getting a hate speech/thought crimes law enacted (S. 1145 Kennedy/Reid). This has only been blocked by a Republican Congress. Now it will undoubtedly pass, making it ILLEGAL to EXPRESS, among other things, the following:

    1. criticizm of Israel
    2. a negative opinion of Islam
    3. a belief that homosexuality is a sin

    So the forces of Zionism are able influence/intimidate the Congress of the United States into overturning the Bill of Rights and eliminating Freedom of Speech. If that isn’t an “Occupation Government” then I don’t know what the fuck is.

    And Christopher, I’m sure you must be overjoyed to know that Americans will very soon be just as muzzled as all you spineless Europeans have allowed yourselves to become. How is BlahCritics going to be modifying its censorship policies? First of all you will have to go back through every past thread and delete about a million comments (like this one), since this crackdown on freedom of expression will apply to the internet. And since any criticism of the new Thought Crimes Act, will itself be interpreted as “hate speech” (since that would be advocating allowing “hate speech”) you might just as well forbid any mention of that topic, because you would only be able to allow one opinion to be expressed.

    Also, have you thought about this? The overwhelming majority of derisive religious comments on this site have not been against alien religions, but rather against Christianity. Unless this bill only addresses “talk that offends Jew or Muslim sensibilities” and leaves atheists still free to bash Christianity (which wouldn’t surprise me), then you might just as well shut down Politics, because nobody is going to want participate in a “discussion” forum where they are forbidden from expressing their position on the issues.

  • Nancy

    Politics aside, IMO a stint of universal military service for ALL young people would be a good thing. It teaches them responsibility, discipline, & gives them an outlook that transcends themselves & their own selfish wants & instills a sense of commonality as well as good citizenship. Almost invariably I can tell when I meet people whether or not they’ve ever had any military or quasi-military (i.e. police or fire/rescue) service; even their thinking is different. Ex-military tend to be less sloppy, less disorganized, less self-centered & selfish, less immature, both in mental outlook as well as OTJ performance.

    Additionally, a couple of years of service gives kids a breathing space after high school to see a bit of the world, including aspects of it they don’t get to encounter if they remain in the (usually) comfortable cocoons they stem from. Most people right out of HS are not prepared for careers or college. Few have any idea what they want to do with the rest of their lives, or what they really like or believe. I certainly didn’t.

    Finally, compulsive service gives the public a valuable resource of manpower to draw on in times of national emergencies as well as a source of help for those less fortunate. Many, many times the military step in to help with charitable projects outside their normal domains – think of the Marines’ Toys For Tots program. On an individual basis, our local community welfare corps – people who go around helping the elderly & poor to repair houses, shovel walks, etc. – are almost entirely ex-military, and an awful lot of them end up also in the local volunteer fire & rescue corporations.

    Being in the military pulls you out of yourself; it teaches you to think clearly, set priorities, conquer your fears (or at least get them in hand for the moment until the task at hand is done), and think in the larger scheme of things first.

    On the other hand, I don’t see any point in extending the age of compulsive service to over 30, UNLESS we are in an actual, verifiably justified war (like WWII, not this Iraqi farce). Unless we are requiring huge numbers of troops & support personnel, older persons participation should be limited to voluntary duty only.

    My only caveat is having a compulsive military service at times like this, when the country is currently ruled by a heedless, ego-ridden macho-wannabe idiot who is the puppet of big corporations & special interests, who doesn’t hesitate to abuse & send troops to mutilation or death in a sham war concocted of lies, for private & personal gain. I also think there should be none of this business with second, third, or fourth tours of duty, beyond what was originally called for. That’s just a shameful device for getting a draft without having to call it that, and amounts to involuntary servitude, or press-ganging, and it should be illegal & forbidden – not that any consideration of violation of the law or soldier’s rights would faze BushCo, which already feels entitled to discard the Bill of Rights & US Constitution at will these days.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com Christopher Rose

    Richard: Firstly let me say that you’re entirely mistaken in your assertion that Europeans are muzzled. The fact that certain states have made the expression of some basically deranged ideas such as those of the holocaust deniers or people who promote racial or religious hostility doesn’t equate to being muzzled.

    Regarding Blogcritics, this site is pretty darn tolerant as sites go, as you may have noticed. People aren’t banned, deleted or edited simply because their remarks are stupid or offensive, as is evidenced by the fact that you are still being tolerated by the owners despite qualifying on both counts.

    Nor are people banned from the site for having differing views to those of the owners, unlike many other diverse sites of all kinds.

    The Blogcritics comments policy which serves as our guidelines is fairly clear and I’ve learned to take a lighter touch than my own instincts sometimes suggest!

    As to your main point, the proposition hasn’t passed yet, so it seems a little early to be making any kind of doomy scenarios such as you depict.

    I doubt very much that it will be illegal to criticise Israel, I’m all in favour of criticising religions personally as I don’t believe the god theory and feel they damage our common human spirituality, something we all share, and naturally it follows that any suggestion that homosexuality is a sin is ludicrous to my way of thinking.

  • SFC SKI

    Nancy, I agree with your list of the benefits of military service for the country and the individual, but I prefer to keep military service voluntary. I don’t want to be babysitting a bunch of draftess who are whining about how they “didn’t choose to be here”.

  • MCH

    “I don’t want to be babysitting a bunch of draftess who are whining about how they “didn’t choose to be here”.”

    You’ll get that regardless, Ski. For example, GW Bush was never drafted, and yet found his cushy Guard duty too much of an inconvenience. First ol’ Dub deliberately grounded himself by missing a mandatory physical, and then he skipped out on his last two years of meetings altogether.

  • Martin Lav

    The constant mis-use of the military by our leaders makes the draft inhumane and illegitimate. Why in the fuck would I want my kids to be drafted into the military to serve some maniac that believes in a higher cause that humans have told him is his.
    As far as what the military does in terms of transitioning boys to men from an initiation standpoint, I believe in that ability, but men have to take charge of that and until women get out of the way of trying to make boys into men then it won’t serve the purpose it’s supposed to anyway.

  • Clavos

    Martin writes:

    The constant mis-use of the military by our leaders makes the draft inhumane and illegitimate. Why in the fuck would I want my kids to be drafted into the military to serve some maniac that believes in a higher cause that humans have told him is his.

    A valid point. Which is why what I advocate is a truly universal draft; no exceptions, including the children of Congress and the Executive and Judicial branches.

    Such a draft would likely reduce the likelihood of our entering into situations like Iraq.

  • Martin Lav

    You may have a point there Clavos, however, the priviledged still would find a way to get the cushy assignments like the air national guard where you don’t even have to show up.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ Richard Brodie

    Christopher contends: The fact that certain [European] states have made the expression of some basically deranged ideas such as those of the holocaust deniers or people who promote racial or religious hostility doesn’t equate to being muzzled.

    No. That’s exactly what it equates to. Scholars who are not even categorically denying, but simply questioning the orthodox holocaust story, are being given long prison sentences – just as were Rennaisance dissidents who challenged the Catholic church’s orthodoxies of their day. And if a negative opinion of Islam “promotes” Muslims to become hostile, then that’s THEIR problem, and it is THEY who need to be punished for any hostile actions they decide to commit. Injuring someone’s “sensibilities” is not a crime. Cutting someone’s head off because your feelings have been hurt IS.

    It is your opinion, Christopher, that some of my opinions are “stupid and offensive”. It is likewise my opinion that some of your opinions are stupid and offensive. The difference between me and you is that I do not advocate the government putting you in prison for expressing opinions I don’t like.

    In the spirit of the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights I advocate that all people should be free to express their opinions, whatever they may be, about any subject, be it race, religion, science, politics, or whatever.

    Revealingly, you say I’ve learned to take a lighter touch than my own instincts sometimes suggest!, which just confirms my suspicion that your “heavier” instincts would make you, as I said, “overjoyed” at the prospect of seeing Americans’ freedom of speech abrogated in the same way Europeans’ is – well, maybe “overjoyed” is overstating it a bit, and it would be more correct to say that you would be simply “delighted.”

  • Nancy

    Martin – please explain what you’re trying to say in #68, pp 2. Thanks.

  • zingzing

    brodie: “if a negative opinion of Islam “promotes” Muslims to become hostile, then that’s THEIR problem, and it is THEY who need to be punished for any hostile actions they decide to commit.”

    ahh, the world you live in doesn’t exist richard. it’s just a figment of your imagination. unfortunately, islamic hostility is a problem that WE have to contend with, and it is US that will be punished by any hostile actions.

    and while i agree that you should be able to say what you like, i wish that if someone spouts off racist bullshit, it was everyone else’s right to kick that racist in the nards. just saying. wishful thinking again. i wouldn’t kick you in the nards. i’d just make a funny face. kind of like i am doing right now. it’s really funny.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.org/ Richard Brodie

    islamic hostility is a problem that WE have to contend with

    Zing, do you have any idea how many Muslims just got their tender sensibilities offended by that remark? How many Islamists you just provoked to be religiously hostile?

    Implying that Islam, or any sect thereof, is inherently prone to exhibit hostile behavior at the slightest provocation, is itself a provocation for them to act in such a way as to VERIFY THE TRUTH of your accusation.

    I don’t think you even see the logical short circuit here. On the one hand you seem to be implying that since provoking Muslims to violence by saying shit about their religion comes back around to bite us, therefore maybe we need Kennedy’s law to make sure nothing ever gets said that would provoke them. Then on the other hand you turn right around and say something provocative! Do you really think you should have to serve major jail time for posting such a remark on the internet?

  • zingzing

    richard: “Zing, do you have any idea how many Muslims just got their tender sensibilities offended by that remark? How many Islamists you just provoked to be religiously hostile?”

    yes, i do. a big round zero.

    the logical short circuit is on your end. insulting people is a good way to get your ass beat. and people get insulted at the silliest shit. but just because they do doesn’t mean you should go out of your way to insult them, and if you do, you had better be ready. i didn’t say either side was right or wrong, i just relayed a certain truth: if radical islam gets insulted by something we do, they aren’t going to attack themselves, they are going to attack us. just the way it is. okay, sometimes they attack themselves, and i really don’t understand that. but whatever.

    you are using circular logic. so, stop. i wouldn’t walk up to a bunch of big black men and say something hateful just to see if they would get angry about it. and i certainly wouldn’t blame them if they did get angry. that’s just stupid.

    we don’t necessarily need to enact any laws or completely clam up about islam. we just don’t need to TRY to insult them, or sit there and say that all islamic folk are all alike. some, of course, are violent. just like some white people are racist pigs.

  • zingzing

    and yeah, i believe in the first amendment as much as you do. and this holocaust-denying jail time thing is stupid.

    i mean, if you deny it, you should stant up in public and do so, so then everyone will know just where you stand on it, and probably just avoid you.

  • Martin Lav

    “Martin – please explain what you’re trying to say in #68, pp 2. Thanks.” Nancy

    It means there’s role confusion in this country IMO. Read the book IRON JOHN by Robert Bly 1990

    I agree wholeheartedly with this statement of yours:

    “Being in the military pulls you out of yourself; it teaches you to think clearly, set priorities, conquer your fears (or at least get them in hand for the moment until the task at hand is done), and think in the larger scheme of things first.”

    Male initiation should come from men.
    Female initiation should come from women.

%d bloggers like this: