Previous 11 - 20 Next
An excellent post. I would add the following observation: The motivating force behind the radical left is Progressivism/liberalism. It is an ideology that coalesced over 100 years ago when the world was infatuated by Marx and other socialist thinkers and was refined over time by Herbert Croley, John Dewey and others. It is "revolutionary" in its character. Unlike the Communist revolutionaries the Progressives are "democratic revolutionaries" -- they intend to implement their revolution incrementally through democratic processes. Their objective is collective control of industry and financial institutions, and elimination of constitutional limitations on central government. They did not believe a successful military revolution was possible in the US. The vast majority of Dem. voters are blissfully unaware of this. They are persuaded by high-sounding campaign promises and demonization of Repub. candidates. Over the years there have been many Progressive victories. Constitutional amendments that weakened the "republican" nature of government structure making it more populist, the adoption of federal agencies as largely autonomous regulators of all sorts of things, the creation of a vast welfare apparatus, the infiltration of education at all levels, the infiltration of the media, most recently the adoption of Obamacare. There is no corresponding ideologically motivated core in the Repub. party, no unifying long term objective. That leads to a large degree of blindness with regard to what the real opposition objectives are. Most elected Repubs. are politicians who are eager to help find solutions to national problems, problems that are almost entirely identified by the Progressives. Their political blindness leads them to regard the elected opposition as being similarly motivated to find solutions but with different ideas of how to go about it. This attitude leads to compromises that gradually further the Progressive objective. I believe that big money forces on the radical left believed in 2008 that the time was ripe to put the final nails in the coffin, and that Obama was the person to do it. Clearly Obama is entirely ideologically driven. Bill Clinton may have wanted to do the same things, but he was too much of a politician to buck the headwinds of popular dissent. Obama has overreached politically, but he still has two years to unilaterally pursue constitutional destruction. Do the Repubs. have a plan?
In response to:

What Happened?

CedarStrip Wrote: Nov 11, 2014 5:56 PM
The motivating force behind the radical left is Progressivism/liberalism. It is an ideology that coalesced over 100 years ago when the world was infatuated by Marx and other socialist thinkers and was refined over time by Herbert Croley, John Dewey and others. It is "revolutionary" in its character. Unlike the Communist revolutionaries the Progressives are "democratic revolutionaries" -- they intend to implement their revolution incrementally through democratic processes. Their objective is collective control of industry and financial institutions, and elimination of constitutional limitations on central government. They did not believe a successful military revolution was possible in the US. The vast majority of Dem. voters are blissfully unaware of this. They are persuaded by high-sounding campaign promises and demonization of Repub. candidates. Over the years there have been many Progressive victories. Constitutional amendments that weakened the "republican" nature of government structure making it more populist, the adoption of federal agencies as largely autonomous regulators of all sorts of things, the creation of a vast welfare apparatus, the infiltration of education at all levels, the infiltration of the media, most recently the adoption of Obamacare. There is no corresponding ideologically motivated core in the Repub. party, no unifying long term objective. That leads to a large degree of blindness with regard to what the real opposition objectives are. Most elected Repubs. are politicians who are eager to help find solutions to national problems, problems that are almost entirely identified by the Progressives. Their political blindness leads them to regard the elected opposition as being similarly motivated to find solutions but with different ideas of how to go about it. This attitude leads to compromises that gradually further the Progressive objective. I believe that big money forces on the radical left believed in 2008 that the time was ripe to put the final nails in the coffin, and that Obama was the person to do it. Clearly Obama is entirely ideologically driven. Bill Clinton may have wanted to do the same things, but he was too much of a politician to buck the headwinds of popular dissent. Obama has overreached politically, but he still has two years to unilaterally pursue constitutional destruction. Do the Repubs. have a plan?
I have to agree with the posts that say the Repubs were elected to stop Obama. It is very clear that Obama will veto any Republican good governance legislation. He will also use Executive Action to bypass Congress unless the Republicans find a way to stop his overreach. He has already said that. If the electorate wanted more action on Obama's policies they would have elected Dems. It couldn't be any clearer. Jackie has been listening to Wolf Blitzer too much.
In response to:

Who's Afraid of 'Rocky Mountain Heist'?

CedarStrip Wrote: Oct 17, 2014 10:33 AM
Great effort Michelle. The Democratic party is driven by ideological commitment to a philosophy that was developed in the 1800s by Marx and others and refined to an American form in the early 1900s by John Dewey and others. Call it liberalism or progressivism, but it is basically modified Marxism. This ideology unites them in purpose and action in much the same way religious fundamentalism can unite a group. Our founders were driven by philosophical ideology too, developed during the Enlightenment in the 1700s by John Locke and others. The Republican party long ago lost its sense of ideology. There is no uniting sense of purpose, just meandering political maneuvering election-to-election. The conservatives understand the Enlightenment ideology, but they are considered enemies by the Republican establishment. The liberals have taken control of education, news media, and entertainment media. They are close to firm control of the judiciary. Political correctness dominates everything. Conservatives need to reverse all of this if they (we) are going to prevail. Michelle is a fighter. We need many more. More on the history of this at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/
In response to:

Max De Pree has the answer to Ferguson

CedarStrip Wrote: Sep 15, 2014 11:34 AM
Dahni: I don't understand your "sorry Star" introduction. If you read the article carefully You'd see that she is on the same page as you. The connection to Ferguson is rather nebulous though.
Perhaps Rev. Jerimiah Wright could explain it to you.
In response to:

Success or Failure?

CedarStrip Wrote: Sep 11, 2014 5:38 PM
It is an excellent book, but a difficult read if you aren't into philosophy. I was influenced by it to write a paper (Understanding America's Political Divide) that is posted at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/ You can't understand the left by analyzing their campaign rhetoric. That is all smokescreen and pandering.
In response to:

Success or Failure?

CedarStrip Wrote: Sep 11, 2014 5:25 PM
Trublu, you left "Global Warming" off your list.
The only strategy he's ever been able to articulate is an exit strategy.
In response to:

Racial Irrationality on the Right

CedarStrip Wrote: Aug 20, 2014 6:59 PM
True that blacks are more frequently "harassed" by police, followed by store detectives, etc. Often these events affect entirely innocent individuals. Clearly if one experiences such inappropriate suspicion frequently it would be a major annoyance. However, there is a higher probability of criminal intent in the black population making it reasonable for more police attention to be spent there. So, is this "harassment" race based or profile based? Can a person that is behaving suspiciously be questioned politely or is it necessary to be authoritative and intimidating? Just asking.
You have no idea how much the Constitution is despised in high places. It is regarded as an obstacle to "true liberty". And that is not a new thing. It goes well back into the late 1800s. Unless conservatives unite and take action its days are numbered. See my post at http://cedarstrip.wordpress.com/
Previous 11 - 20 Next