Comments Posted By cedarhill
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 41 Comments
ON BEING NOBLE AND OTHER NONSENSICAL IDEAS IN THE AGE OF OBAMA
What's with this 8 year time line. Liberals have been uncompromising since at least the 1960's. They've just managed to take over the media, the universities, most secondary schools, and most of the permanent government bureaucracies. They started on Nixon, experimented with Ford, tried various strategies with Reagan (they called him "teflon" since mud didn't seem to stick), ridiculed Bush 1, shielded and support Clinton, almost destroyed Bush 2, and savaged Palin. Have you forgot Judge Bork? How about Clarence Thomas? Maybe Kenneth Star?
You remind me of an event I observed in my neighborhood some years ago. A neighbor on one side had a two+ year old little girl and our neighbor on the other side had twin two+ year old little boys. They frequently met in our yard to play so both sets of parents could watch them. The girl, Megan, was quite a bit bigger than the boys and tended to physically dominate them. One weekend I heard a huge commotion and looked out our kitchen window. It seems Megan had both boys in a head lock, one under each arm, and was alternately punching each one in the head. The boys, of course, were screaming and crying. From her porch Megan's mother called out, "Now Megan, you make nice!" Megan stopped (but still held each boy's head under her arms), smiled the sweetest smile a two year old girl ever smiled and called back, "Yes Mommy". Then she turned back to the boys and continued punching them.
I hope your head gets better after you get out of the hospital.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 9.11.2008 @ 18:34
I will likewise echo nicely put. I've compiled a list of some 76 items on Obama and Democrat's agenda. It would have been longer but thought 76 was a good number as in 1776. I just reviewed them and did not find any I would or could support. I suspect if you did the same Rick, you would be close to my number.
But all that is beside the point, they will do what they wish restrained by who? The blue dog Democrats?. A stretch. All those folks want to do is to be reelected. If there is a way that will favor their reelection, there will be no restraint and no compromise.
These are the people that are capable of causing a bank run and it's resultant collapse (Schumer's infamous letter) and killing millions of fetuses including babies with only a foot still in the womb and you somehow expect some sort of morality and fair play? The only issue I believe is whether they think they can attain perpetual reelection. And there is a rather simple method.
Dump the Senate filibuster and pass a comprehensive immigration bill adding perhaps 10 to 20 million new voters. About 120 million voted this week. That works out to adding about 10% to the voting pool and if only half of them vote, the Democrats are golden for 2010, 2012, 2014, and as far as you can count. The advantages are enormous, they likely won't ever have a better opportunity, and the great thing is it's all legal.
There is only one party today that believes the end justifies the means. If they play this card, fight all you want. I suspect Zell Miller has a goodly supply of spit balls left over from a few years ago.
They love power and this would be the ultimate power play. What's disconcerting is they are all very capable of taking those steps to one party rule.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 5.11.2008 @ 20:33
I just read an AP dispatch this morning where Obama asked McCain to help lead the country.
Tell us if you think McCain will likely say yes and what that will do to viz this article.
Some have even mentioned giving McCain a cabinet position in order to replace McCain with a Democrat.
I'm thinking if McCain puts on his beanie, gives it a twirl, and reaches across the aisle the Republican Party is simply toast. this is, again, a clever maneuver by the Left to blur the differences and then be able to deflect blame. I don't see how one can start rebuilding when so many may as well join the Blue Dog caucus.
Explain, also, how Obama and the Democrats can screw things up so badly that they'll suffer loses at the next mid-terms? They've ran against Bush for eight years, have won in large part thanks to Bush, and will get away with blaming cleaning up Bushes mistakes for at least two years. Along the way, they will enact whatever they wish to advance their special interests groups and hordes of dependents (how about 40 million new Democrat voters).
All in all, the Republican Party stands today as the Edsel of the political arena. By the time the leaders and pundits and holy people hash out a new design one hopes won't be a another Edsel with just a different style. I think it's virtual suicide to undertake a redesign without also initiating a vigorous attack. The sooner the better. If you don't discredit the environmentalists, the Democrat special interest groups, and the Democrat brand on key issues you've lost the next election cycles as far as the eye can see.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 5.11.2008 @ 07:18
OBAMA: THE NEW LEFT TRIUMPHANT
Why do we need to use new words for old things. Why call it "New Left" and then claim it's not socialism. This definition of socialism from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society."
"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."
Reading the entire article, it seems inescapable that Obama, the New Left, or even the Newer Left is just a matter of best to implement socialism. Reality is the West practices a form of Social Democracy as defined in the cited article.
The US, in fact, practices socialism through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, taxation and other forms of "targeted" redistribution programs (such as Pell grants). There are few non-socialist US politicians: Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are all socialists. Libertarians, for example, may fit into but they are a splinter off a splinter off a twig as far as impact.
Thus, the real issue should be towhat extent McCain or Obama will drag the nation toward communism?
It should be obvious each candidate would implement a dramatic move toward communism. After all is said and done about who will tax the least/most and expand welfare the least/most, each favor some form of AGW laws. McCain favors cap-and-trade from his sponsorship of bills in the Senate. Like all other things about Obama, no one really knows but whatever it is one must presume he would favor something no less heinous than McCain.
The fact that few seem to understand or even care how socialized just shows how far the mythical "center" has moved.
I strongly disagree about trying to distinguish Obama as a socialist since both parties practice socialism. One should just skip to the end and decide which form of socialism works for you - McCain's version or Obama's version. Clearly, Obama's version would grease the skids more than McCain, but both are carrying buckets of grease.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 28.10.2008 @ 05:57
RELUCTANTLY - COMMENTS OPEN AGAIN
I started reading this site for the clever and witty reviews of episodes of 24 and Jack Bauer. I hope you continue those posts - most were far better than the show, especially the last few seasons.
I disagree with those who think Obama will be a "moderate". I'm sure most have read reports of his inner circle of advisers reading books about FDR's first 100 days. For those who have forgotten, FDR passed a huge number of laws in those first 100 days. It might be instructive to review that period to have a feel for what Obama likely intends.
His lead up to the inauguration speech will be portrayed as a "time of crisis" along the order of "like no other" and demands "swift, decisive action". What little we know of "Obama in action", his childhood mentors, his benefactors during college, and his Chicago ACORN days does not point to moderation. If someone has any factual basis contra, now would be a good time to publish it. All we have is a large pile of "what he'll do" because "he's a nice, thoughtful guy", ala Joe Biden.
For one to think an Obama Presidency and complete control of Congress to behave somehow "moderately" is simply borderline insanity.
Honestly, one must live in a cave to not know the social engineering folks in Congress are hurriedly drafting 25% cuts in the Defense budget, tossing out 401K programs to be replaced with social security on steroids, and developing national health care at the bedside of the "lion of the Senate" just to name ones this last week.
This will not be a "lurch" to the left but a hop, skip, and jump. I've complied a checklist from Dem planning statements of what they will do in their first term. It's a very, very long list. I fully expect all the items to be done in the first term. Those not thinking he will take these actions has only provided wishful supposition.
Further, I don't anticipate any significant changes in the composition of the Congress after the 2010 election cycle. First, there will be so many changes that voters won't realize the full impact. The Dems will reward their voting blocks and expand it with new transfers. The media will be worse than they are today. Finally, non-MSM media outlets will become even more controlled. Think Fairness Doctrine, limiting ownership, controlling content on the internet as part of the "public trust", expanded hate crimes and add hate speech.
By the time any of these things get to the Supreme Court Obama could well be writing his memoirs in 2013 or running for his third term after making a minor change to the Constitution.
If Obama is sworn in as the next president, a rough calculation shows the American experiment in democracy will have lasted approximately 232 years, 6 months, and 16 days. That is the approximate length from July 4, 1776 to January 21, 2008.
I admit that's an arbitrary duration. The implementation of the Constitution would hardly be recognized by the authors.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 26.10.2008 @ 20:43
THE MORAL COWARDICE OF SARAH PALIN
Until 911 and the subsequent enactment of the Patriot Act's definition at 18 USC 2331 - see text at Cornell online http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html
I don't recall ever encountering terrorist defined in any criminal codes I'm familiar with. There has been "terroristic threatening" in the Model Criminal Code many states use but no specific crime of "terrorism". I haven't checked Alaska law.
Having said that, since Palin is running for a Federal office, it seems clear to me an abortion bomber and a jihadist are both defined under the Patriot Act as "terrorist" either as an "international terrorist" or a "domestic terrorist". Rick is correct in that Palin should have known some details of the Patriot Act or as would be more probable, have been briefed by McCain's campaign staff since McCain raised the Ayres issue.
But, I would argue, Ayres is not necessarily a "domestic terrorist" since that would be a lesser included offense for violations of 18 USC 2381, 2382, 2383, and 2384 text with links at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_115.html
Note the death penalty under the Patriot Act only applies if death results. Under 18 USC 2381 ffwd, the death penalty is available regardless of whether a homicide resulted.
Still, I'd be a tad more generous and mark it as ignorance instead of willful deception. It's not very likely a governor have read the Patriot Act nor would a state, Alaska statutes included, do not define terrorism as a crime (murder, manslaughter, etc., seem sufficient for them).
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 25.10.2008 @ 18:10
The right wing blogs would certainly go after a Joe the Plumber if McCain had been the one tripped.
However, it would only be to make sure the Joe was not an operative for a Left organization or a Left activist. I've seen this happen before (go check the pedigree of the person). Usually, the person is just an ordinary person and the right turns on themselves and would attack McCain.
Only the Left gleefully goes after folks. Tomorrow they'll likely report that Larry Flint has offered $1million dollars to anyone, especially a male, that can say they had sex or thought they might have had sex with Joe the Plumber.
Having said all this, Joe the Plumber could have shut the press off. I've seen photos of him answering questions in his yard circled by at least a dozen news people. And his appearances on TV shows? Since he chose celebrity, then that's what they do to celebrities. I would suspect he's heard of Paris Hilton? He may have even watched things like Extra!, etc. Thus, I think he chose to be chased and could have avoided most of it. Having stepped into the limelight many times, he's now just another celebrity.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 17.10.2008 @ 15:40
TIME TO FORGET MCCAIN AND FIGHT FOR THE FILIBUSTER IN THE SENATE
While voting for the Senate, if you have time, also look for the McCain-Palin lever and pull that as well. Many of the close Senate races are in states that can decide the Presidential race. Who knows, it just might be if a Republican wins the Senate race in your state, McCain just might win the Presidential race.
A horse racing analogy. Winning the triple crown is so hard because in the longest race, the Belmont, the Derby and Preakness winner has almost always faded. If Obama is a thoroughbred, he just starting to enter the turn for the home stretch run. And don't forget, Obama really does have at least as much of a handicap as McCain.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 16.10.2008 @ 16:30
BLACK NIGHT RIDERS TERRORIZING OUR POLITICS
This will continue until one side wins a decisive victory. However, in all likelihood, neither side will.
One small lesson from history. At the start of WWII, England warplanes only targeted military targets. By wars end, after each side escalating attacks and responses in kind, we had the fire bombing of German cities, V-2 missiles raining down on England mostly at random since missle targeting was extremely poor, fire bombing of German and Japanese cities and wholesale slaughter with the A bomb.
Another small lesson from history. By most scholars estimations, Moses led the Jews out of Egypt about 4,000 years ago. After all the time that has past, the Jews still celebrate their freedom from slavery.
These two examples are intertwined. Since Africans identify themselves as a group and are identified as such by non-Africans, slavery and racism will just go away. Slavery in the consciousness of the Africans and any affront Africans feel (real, implied, or imagined) will be suspected to be "racism" or "racist". Since politics is a type of warfare (credit to CArl Von Clausewitz, On War), somewhere around 1954 (Brown v Bd of Education), race was publicly thrust into the political arena as a weapon. This weapon not only has been used but has escalated. This weapon has been reserved for use only by the Democrat Party and Africans. I use the term "Africans" so that people not born from a slave ancestor is included in the group. Otherwise Obama and Powell would be excluded from using the weapon. As time progressed, racism has been expanded (i.e., escalated) to include "invidious", "thought", and ending in adding additional criminal punishment if proven to be a crime motivated by "hate".
We now have entire generations of non-Africans that have been found guilty of racism, from birth, by a moral bill of attainder applied to every non-African at birth.
Obama and the Democrats will continue to use this weapon since there has not been a counter weapon. The only risk is overusing racism to the point of ridicule. While the Democrats may not win using the race card, what they will accomplish is running time down on the campaign clock.
I disagree not using Obama's middle name. His Muslim parentage and how he's viewed in Islamic countries is very important to foreign policy. The only way it would not be is if one has a very tiny understanding of Islamic teachings and the Quran. I'll concede it may be a minor issue, but it's an issue nonetheless, especially if he would be viewed as an apostate (which I believe he would be).
Also, although you don't consider Obama a "socialist" I really think you have not the foggiest idea what he really should be classified. Without any in depth questioning by the media, one is left placing him into some form of Marxism. Black theology, liberation theology, Rev. Wright, his CPUSA mentor, Bill Ayers, et al, all point to Marxism. The only question is which form.
And, in passing, one should read Nikki Giovanni poem "The True Import Of Present Dialogue, Black vs. Negro" to feel the anger some Africans carry around:
http://www.aavw.org/special_features/pofidr_poetry_giovanni.htmlAfter over 50 years of being a legally-defined racist, I'm just tired of the entire dialogue. I'm tired of pretending I'm guilty of something some ancestor of yours may have done to some slave they may have owned, I'm tired of some being guilty of some word someone of my race or even me may have used sometime, and I'm tired of being guilty of just being non-African. But mostly, I'm tired of anyone claiming racism and even more so of all this discussion about it.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 14.10.2008 @ 19:47
REZKO SINGING: OBAMA SWEATING?
I recall one Chicago election where election eve coverage started out with an analysis of how there was less election fraud this year than in years past.
Chicago press used to be well known for chasing politicians into stalls in restrooms to ask questions. All that aggressiveness had just about zero effect other than an interesting news show.
Fitzgerald will be replaced - one way or another. A nice way would be to simply promote him. Firing like Clinton did in 1993 is a viable option. Regardless, if the "O" is on the line, Fitz is history. That's page 82 of the Chicago Political Practice Manual.
Comment Posted By cedarhill On 11.10.2008 @ 15:16
