Rebane's Ruminations
August 2012
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

Mike McDaniel

Any quality strategy should include a performance matrix to analyze said strategy.  The progressive strategy, jump started in 1913 (16th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act- later amended in 1977), put on steroids under Franklin D Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and Lyndon B. Johnson “Great Society,” has failed Americans.  If the intention of the progressive movement was birthed by virtuous or evil hearts is a completely different debate.  Performance metrics used to grade the impact on either the individual or society as a collective shows that the progressive movement has failed (continues to fail).

This analysis will in large part ignore the desecration of individual liberty and focus on the deterioration of the quality of life of the collective due to progressive policies.


The following tenets are at the heart of the progressive strategy:
•    Politicians, government planners and bureaucrats (Federal Reserve, “Department of XYZ”, etc) are required in order to provide equality to society through the sacrifice of individual liberty.
•    Politicians, government planners and bureaucrats are capable of managing, manipulating and forcing the economy in a manner that serves society; through law (controlling interest rates, regulations, tax code, fees, etc).
•    Politicians, government planners and bureaucrats are required to protect citizens from themselves, bad luck and the acts of others (via regulation, educations, etc).
•    Politicians, government planners and bureaucrats can be trusted with power.
•    Assets (private property) are first and foremost the property of the government.
•    Policies designed to provide ‘safety nets’ for ‘unlucky’ citizens (lost jobs, limbs, health, etc) are a fundamental right and providing for such will benefit society.

Providing equality, through force, is an immoral and futile exercise.  Despite onerous employment laws, irrational powers granted to employee unions (public and private), a progressive tax system, countless regulations bought by special interests equality has not improved.  Wealth equality (“Wealth Gap”) is unchanged from 1913 to 2008 (the top 1% of society still hold approx 18% of the total wealth).  Progressives don’t dispute the wealth gap (or the highly comparative “Income Gap”), they simple choose to ignore the fact that the same gap existed before their ideology took root.
 
The mandate of the Federal Reserve is ‘price stability’ and ‘employment.’ The objective of every decision by the Federal Reserve is focused on either/both decreasing inflation or combating unemployment. How is the Fed doing?  A dollar in 1912 would be worth fewer than 5 cents today. Fail.  Today’s unemployment rate of 8.3% is over double what it was in 1912.  The recent ‘great recession’ marked the highest unemployment rate since 1977 (when the ‘unemployment mandate’ was signed into law).  The Federal Reserve has obviously failed its mandate.
  
The impact of regulations seems to be working against society.   Habit derived ailments rise (pick your data point, one example, obesity has increased from 45% of population in 1965 to over 70% in 2005).

Despite more regulations the number of disabled Americans is at an all-time high (and rising). Shouldn’t increased regulations equate to decreased disabilities?
 
Despite all the safety nets (including but not limited to unemployment insurance, workers compensation, public education, government sponsored career enrichment programs, etc) and regulations dependence on government is at an all time high. Keeping inflation neutral in the calculations, more than 15 times the resources were committed to paying for people who depend on government in 2010 than in 1962. 70.5% of federal spending now goes to dependence-creating programs, up dramatically from 28.3% in 1962, and 48.5% in 1990. Today US government spending on dependency programs (entitlements, education, farm subsidies, housing, food stamps, disability) is more than the total discretionary income of all Americans combined.   Soon the resources of the independent will not be enough to provide for the dependent.  This reality is smacking much of Europe in the face.   [Here we must ignore the notion that some progressives may see government dependence by society as an achievement]

The political process (and thus the rule of law) has been denigrated by the influences of corporatism (whereby corporations, labor unions, foreign nations, etc buy political influence). Limit the power of government and you will limit the ability of special interests to buy special treatment.  Witness the collapse of sustainable/healthy farming (growth of agribusiness to an oligopoly with a nations food source in the hands of few), the media monopoly, skyrocketing healthcare expenses, rising education expenses, war on drugs and the never ending cycle of American led wars via the military industrial complex as some of the byproducts of corporatism. Corporatism is the result of government wielding too much power and not having the integrity (or checks and balances) to revere such power.  Corporatism is made possible by the progressive’s belief that governments are worthy of near-absolute power.
   
Public education is another great example of progressive government bureaucracy gone wrong.  The quality of education in the US continues to decline despite various reform programs and increased spending on education.  Average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores fell 41 points between 1972 and 1991 and the number of kids scoring over 600 on the verbal part of the SAT has fallen by 37 percent since 1972. Pick your study; US rankings among other nations in math/science are abysmal.

Progressive policies require (growing) government spending.  Unchecked spending has left the US (and Europe) drowning in debt.  The interest expense that taxpayers pay on US debt is up over 212% since 1980; in 1912 there was no national debt (thus no interest expense).  Today US debt is larger than the total 2012 US Gross Domestic Product. Today, the US Government debt is equal to over $139,000 per taxpayer.   Progressive policies have required an unsustainable/unserviceable amount of debt. The slightest increase in interest rates (currently being manipulated lower via the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing Programs/monetization of debt) will have a dramatic impact on interest expense.  It should go without saying that increased interest expense decreases the funds available for government services and forces higher taxation that hurts the economy.  The growth in debt cannot continue.
 
In summary, the progressive strategy requiring the empowering of politicians, government planners and bureaucrats has failed both the American individual and American society as a collective.  The progressive strategy has brought about higher unemployment, inflation and (unhealthy) dependence on government. The power bestowed upon central planners has been pimped to special interests to the detriment of society.  Most importantly the progressive ‘holy grail’ of a more equitable sharing of wealth/income has not come to pass as progressive policies have had no material impact on equality as measured by the “Wealth Gap” or “Income Gap.” 

[Mr McDaniel is a wealth management professional in Nevada County, California.]

Posted in ,

193 responses to “American Progressivism – Epic Failure”

  1. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Very nicely written Mr. McDaniel. When I read your analysis about corporatism, I could not help but think that Ben Emery may be in fundamental agreement with you. You did not mention it in the article, but I inferred that safety nets for corporations are equally wrong.
    Let’s be clear…I have not yet met a conservative that believes that all of the safety nets should be removed. The public safety nets must be paired down to a reasonable level. 70% of federal spending is far too much and invites rampant fraud. I look forward to this discussion that will likely follow.

    Like

  2. George Rebane Avatar

    This morning’s batch of emails included one from a reader who sent me the complete post of what the former Union editor had written about this article. Besides the usual vituperation about my “politically extreme views … which occupy inordinate air time on KVMR and in The Union”, the ace journalist and crack reporter failed to notice that the above article was authored by Mike McDaniel.
    His attempt to provide “balance” for McDaniel’s piece included extracts from the blog of a “Justin” who presents one of the most intellectually disabled and poorly argued critiques of conservatism I have read. Nevertheless, Justin’s approach is typical in its construction of appropriate straw men which then succumb to his meager abilities of analysis and assault. The full treatment may be found here
    http://secularist10.hubpages.com/hub/Why-Conservatism-Fails

    Like

  3. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Let’s be very clear George. Jeff Pelline is not trying to provide balance. He is bullying The Union and KVMR and you through intimidation. It is his way.
    http://barrypruett.blogspot.com/2010/08/intimidation-and-retaliation-tactics.html

    Like

  4. THEMIKEYMCD Avatar

    I feel compelled to note that the above piece is but a microcosm of a larger body of work that I may or may not ever publish.
    In this summary, I highlighted the “Wealth/Income Gap” as it is the most used (read accepted) data by the extreme progressives (i.e. the 99%ers).

    Like

  5. Barry Pruett Avatar

    I thought that it was great and logically outlined. As I said, I look forward to hearing Ben’s comments on corporatism.

    Like

  6. Russ Steele Avatar

    I am betting that we will hear more crickets than critiques from our local left.

    Like

  7. Stoos Avatar

    George,
    The failure of the left is a great topic and of course you friend Jeff has posted the failure of the right. Since he won’t let me post on his site any more I will respond to his points here.
    As usual his author throws up three straw men that are easily debunked. Here are three real tenets of conservatism that have stood the test of time:
    1) The principles of the Declaration of Independence where we know that our rights to life, liberty and happiness or property are God-given and should be protected by the state.
    2) The principles of free-market capitalism where government is limited to its proper role of enforcing contracts and prosecuting fraud.
    3) The principles of national defense where we follow the wise advice of our two greatest General/Presidents by avoiding international entanglements and control the military/industrial complex!
    Those would not be so easy to debunk, but sadly we have very little of them since the 19th century.
    John

    Like

  8. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I went over the extreme lefty blog and read the post and some of the comments. How a person governed by mostly R’s can keep claiming the place is purple has got to be a bit goofy. It is obvious the attacks on conservatives the purple fellow uses are personal and explains a lot to the reader about his purple ethics and veracity. I get many more attendees on my little blog than he seems to get. And I get the facts right. Good article Mikey, keep it up.

    Like

  9. Ben Emery Avatar

    I will make one comment on this post.
    We are supposed to be the government. That is what was fought and died for by those in the American Revolution. The revolution wasn’t fought to establish no government but a representative government by the consent of the governed. Good government can exist but cannot when it doesn’t represent the will of the people. Having two corrupt political party’s isn’t a choice that will bring about the changes we need to establish good representative government.
    The fact that having unlimited nontransparent funding of political party’s and candidates doesn’t scare you to death tells me that is exactly what you want- a government of, by, and for the wealthy.
    I posted this to facebook today and will share it with RR as well. This show was pre Citizens United in 2008. The 2012 spending is set to double the numbers of 2008 election cycle.
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01252008/watch3.html
    Intro
    “BILL MOYERS: Despite all the economic woes, you have surely noticed by now that we are in the middle of the most expensive political campaign in American history. And we still have nine months to go. At the outset last year the former chair of the Federal Election Commission called it a high-stakes poker game. To get in, he said, a really promising presidential candidate needed an ante of at least one hundred million dollars. More than half of that – more than 50 cents on the dollar — goes to buy ad time on television.”

    Like

  10. THEMIKEYMCD Avatar

    Ben, did you read the post above or just the title? I think we are in agreement, though your tone makes it hard to tell.
    Cliff notes from above: “The political process (and thus the rule of law) has been denigrated by the influences of corporatism (whereby corporations, labor unions, foreign nations, etc buy political influence).”
    WHO wins an election is not as important as HOW MUCH POWER he/she is granted upon winning. Decrease the size of the prize (amount of power) and you will decrease the demand for the prize.

    Like

  11. George Rebane Avatar

    Stoos 1102am – Welcome John, good points. And there’s more to be said about it all; hope your voice will be heard.

    Like

  12. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey,
    I think we probably agree on much more than you think. I fully agree with your cliff notes and I did read much of your post. As with Barry P we have a chicken or the egg debate going on. I feel it is the influence of money in our political process that has completely corrupted the system. Where I think you believe the system having so much power is what attracts the money/ corruption. There is one common thread, big money. If we would simply outlaw the money coming in from corporations, labor unions, foreign nations, non profit advertising, ect… what we would have left is functional democratic republic. Also if we eliminated the big money would see the size and scope of the federal government decrease tremendously.
    I don’t believe regulatory agencies are a bad thing but do believe they have been captured by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. This is where the traditional conservative idea that people then rely on the government to protect them comes into play. I understand and sympathize with this idea. Those who believe that our government is representative of the people ignore what is going on with the assumption government is making sure our needs and interests are protected. On many levels it has done a pretty good job of doing it. I don’t know a single ordinary person who could tell me what these ingredients are and what the possible negative side affects they could have with prolonged use. It is a daily household product- Sodium, Monofluoro Phosphate, Calcium Carbonate, Silica, Triclosan, mint extract for flavour and base.
    From what I can gather from speaking with my elder relatives over the last 40 plus years it was Vietnam and Watergate that began this distrust of government. I for one have never trusted the government by defacto of my distrust of the two political party’s. I do not trust any large institution (private or public) to do the bidding of the people. It becomes about the institution instead of the people it is supposed to serve. This is why I do not belong or trust the largest institutions in America, the Republican and Democratic Party’s. This is why I promote for more political choices and for publicly funded campaigns. We are dealing with 150 years (R’s) and 200 years (D’s) of infrastructure, funding, back room deals with big business (another large institution), ceremonies, tradition, and screwing the people over. On a positive note along the way they also gave into the pressures of the people such as ending slavery, recognizing suffrage to all, labor rights, and civil rights. It is called movement politics.
    On social programs we are probably going to disagree but who knows. If we have a government doing the bidding of the people than the need for social programs is dramatically reduced.

    Like

  13. TomKenworth Avatar

    From a dietary standpoint, fast foods, and starchy foods, will contribute to obesity and ill health. Jobs (with lower effective pay, among other things, and more stress) and commutes that encourage the consumption of the same, and foster less time for exercise, and less time for good family relations for good mental health, will up the ante on the sick index.
    I could be wrong, but are we not an aging population, which brings with it all kinds of wobbles of the physical bodies involved? Increasing percentages of the population as aging, depreciating, need to be factored into any review of the national health. Having a substantial western county indoor swimming pool would be an excellent public investment in reduced health care. Bicycle friendly mass transit would likewise be wise. I still have no response to my question as to what the quality of life in the Bay Area would be without BART.

    Like

  14. George Rebane Avatar

    TomK 435pm – Pray, what is the relevance of your question? Perhaps a lack of that has generated an appropriate response.

    Like

  15. TomKenworth Avatar

    George, one of the other readers made fun of my economic prowess, apparently in part in regards some comments I made in praise of mass transit. That is the relevance of that final question. I don’t think the other writers wanted to consider seriously just what havoc such a disappearance would create in the San Francisco Bay Area, and how adverse it would be for the pocketbooks of the inhabitants, not to mention the inconveniences it would create.

    Like

  16. TomKenworth Avatar

    The one benefit of having the Flublican Party delay any serious action on global warming and alternative energy sources, is that now we get to see the results of actually doing the experiment. I do hope there’s a spare planet somewhere if the Flubby experiment goes totally out of control.

    Like

  17. Paul Emery Avatar

    Stoos
    Can you elaborate on this
    ” The principles of national defense where we follow the wise advice of our two greatest General/Presidents by avoiding international entanglements and control the military/industrial complex!”
    It was Bush and the Neocons who engineered our involvement in Iraq. Was Iraq a foreign entanglement we should have avoided?

    Like

  18. Ben Emery Avatar

    Progressive Presidential Candidate Arrested Protesting Fannie Mae
    http://www.jillstein.org/stein_and_honkala_arrested?utm_campaign=fannie_mae_1&recruiter_id=146941&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jillstein
    “Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her vice presidential running mate Cheri Honkala were arrested today during a protest at the offices of mortgage company Fannie Mae on Banker’s Row in Philadelphia.”

    Like

  19. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    They were arrested for eating at a Chick-fil-a.

    Like

  20. George Rebane Avatar

    TomK 623pm – the relevance of such a loss to this discussion is still missing. You could just as well have brought up the obvious inconveniences to the public had any other major part of the city’s transportation, communication, or power infrastructure gone missing. Since you have drawn no connection to any of the topics at hand, what is your point other than another illustration of the working of a liberal mind?

    Like

  21. TomKenworth Avatar

    George, if you cannot contemplate bth this thread and the Ruminations thread right next to it at the same time, I can’t help you.

    Like

  22. Stoos Avatar

    Paul,
    I would certainly agree that President Bush failed to follow the advice that was given by our General/Presidents.
    The military/industrial complex is certainly a major problem along the lines that Ben is concerned with: Money buying the power of government so that power can raise taxes and spend it with the companies that put up the money. Ben’s solution is to limit the money they can spend, but as I have tried in vain to get him to see, the money will always find a way IF the government is allowed to have that sort of power. The answer is for the people to rise up and elect representatives that are willing and able to reign in the power of government.
    As it stands today the two major parties CANNOT do so because the Democrats will not reduce the domestic budgets and the Republicans will not reduce the military budgets. In fact BOTH grow larger as the two parties make more and more “deals” to help the one they like grow. They are leading us to an economic collapse which may be the only way left to right the sinking ship of state.
    John

    Like

  23. Paul Emery Avatar

    Thanks John
    You’re pretty much in line with my impulse to vote third party this time around. There are only subtle differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. That’s why Romney was nominated, to insure the Tea Party would be put in it’s place. The parties need each other as manageable adversaries but in reality they are supported by the same interests.

    Like

  24. George Rebane Avatar

    Re Stoos 906am – It appears more and more that another defining difference between liberal and conservative worldviews is that liberals want to (one more time) increase regulations and reduce liberties on American citizens in order to reduce government corruption, and conservatives want to reduce government power through reduction of its size and scope so that there is little benefit to bribing politicians.
    The latter achieves three objectives – lower taxes, smaller government, retain liberties – the former has never worked and has no chance of working in the future. Money will find a way to influence power regardless of the efforts of either good-hearted naifs or black-hearted autocrats.

    Like

  25. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    As much as you favor smaller government you also support larger military spending as part of our responsibility as the worlds most powerful country (hegemon). Does that not require a huge government bureaucracy and how do you isolate it from the interests of those who strive to profit from and promote war?

    Like

  26. TomKenworth Avatar

    When it comes to solving our economic problems for other than the 1%, we certainly seem to one heckova Pokemon as a Hegemon.

    Like

  27. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 1021am – Excellent point worth revisiting. As argued here abundantly, I believe America’s world hegemony has contributed enormously to the world’s quality of life since 1945. We can’t and shouldn’t try to pay for lavish entitlements (especially fashioned as commons) and the maintenance of that hegemony. Government’s fundamental task is to secure its sovereignty – without that all else is lost. No one has a solution yet for dealing with the potential for corruption in the ‘military-industrial complex’.
    But going broke and being able to afford nothing but the trappings of a cheap police state to keep our citizens in line is the last solution I want to explore. Remember, we cannot play like we are Denmark or Estonia.

    Like

  28. TomKenworth Avatar

    There is a way to isolate money from power. If you wish to be a government decider, you simply apply for and get an anonymized official “I’m running for ________.” You have to satisfy the requirements for that office at the time of application, no more birther or residence location idiocies.
    You may write anything you like on the blog, but you may not write anything that identifies who you are. You have to write ideas that attract a response from non anonymized to the government, but anonymized to the public, voters, who are also registered and have log in codes. Such folks can read and comment on what you write, and you can respond.
    To get on the ballot, you have to have enough pre pre pre online votes (one vote per anonymized voter) to move to the next level, which is yet another runoff, repeat several times, until finally you have a manageable number of candidates for the election. Then, four weeks before the actual election, the anonymity goes away, and the usual processes take over.
    By doing it this way, candidates would be chosen by their abilities to express ideas clearly in ways that voters could understand, and all the other variables would go out the window. Promises that they will do “better” but have to get into office first would fall dead. Pacs would be unable to influence the pre-elections, because would they be going up against ideas, not people who can be smeared, and they would be effectively barred from the blog preliminaries. Incumbents would almost always be able to get another shot, but again they’d be totally exposed to reasoned arguments against their past moves.
    Please dearest old friendly Repubbys: Tell me where you saw this before and which Democratic Liberal talking point it is. Ooops, I guess the liberals do not all think alike and have no new ideas. Give that man a non polluting cigar.

    Like

  29. Paul Emery Avatar

    Currently the US accounts for over 40? of the worlds spending on military . That doesn’t include the billions spend in military aid to countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Are you proposing that we increase that and how can we pay for it?

    Like

  30. TomKenworth Avatar

    Ok old smarty pants from the 1940’s education systems, answer me this:
    If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct?
    a) 25%
    b) 50%
    c) 60%
    d) 25%

    Like

  31. TomKenworth Avatar

    PS, in the blogging election system above, putting in code numbers or phrases or other such constructions to make your real identity known would result in your being yanked from the election or the office, if later proven. Also, making sure that an electee either has his job reserved for him/her when they come back, or at least the income from that job for 5 years guaranteed, would make it possible for the poor man to run. In the last four weeks, all candidates get an identical amount of cash to spend on conventional ads from the government, and that’s it. Prior to lifting the veil anonymity, others outside the government can increase the PR pot for an office, but not once they know who is running.

    Like

  32. TomKenworth Avatar

    http://youtu.be/t5FNDRgPOLs
    Is that really Youtube, or is it something else?

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    TomK 1055am – good addition to the discussion. Ideas are only a part (half?) of the reason for voting for someone. The other important part is the individual’s qualification is his background/bio/experience/… , otherwise you’re pre-voting for ideas that may have no chance when the “usual processes” take over.
    And going on an ‘ideas first’ process to admit and then cull down a large field is something I have also proposed, but without the anonymity aspect which may turn out to be a good twist to this approach. Thanks TomK; let’s hear some other voices on this.
    PaulE 1113am – I don’t propose increasing our military budgets, only maintaining them. But I do support the reduction of the entitlements – especially the destructive ones. Like everyone else over the course of history, we still have to go on carefully buying our friends.

    Like

  34. TomKenworth Avatar

    You have the last four weeks in which to find out the backgrounds of the real people presenting the ideas, that should be enough. If worst comes to worst, you pick the best of the worst. Or start over, if “None of the Above” wins.
    By the way, on my side this goes back to: http://farstars.blogspot.com/search?q=vote+anonymous and beyond, all the way back to FSM days.

    Like

  35. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey,
    My citations will have to be a general statement and proof through negative legislation. I have read so many books I cannot remember the book where the social programs were actually listed. Online they are only referred. Social programs did exist and unless it was major policy it is very difficult to sift through the net to find actual early legislation.
    http://www.welfareinfo.org/history/
    ?The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses”

    Like

  36. billy T Avatar

    Mr. McDaniel wrote a nice piece. Cear and concise. Oh, don’t you love that entitlement feeling? http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1767152318001/former-calif-union-leader-faces-200-years-in-prison-for-fraud

    Like

  37. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    “Here BenE, the latest story about your Muslim pals full of tolerance.”
    http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/19169024/somali-comedian-who-poked-fun-at-islamists-shot-dead
    What did your link have to do with the policies of the US rounding up 1000 Muslims based on their religion holding them for years with out representation, tortured, and let go without charge? What does it have to do with Peter King (R) holding multiple official congressional hearings on radicalization of Islamic extremism? An FBI investigation has shown that 6% of domestic terrorism is founded in Islamic extremists. The thing I can see how it is associated with your link is American anti-Muslim policies are sparking up more division and violence around the world.
    What I am getting from you is to correct violent behavior is with more violent behavior. This is a policy from a weak scared position. It has been the policy for nations and religions for thousands of years and it has only produced a divided world population and oppression.

    Like

  38. George Rebane Avatar

    Re TomK 1123am – Well hell, I guess everyone has taken a pass on this problem; maybe because its statement is incomplete. The correct problem statement would read, “If you choose an answer to this question at random, what is the chance you will be correct given that each type of answer has an equal probability of being correct?”
    In the four multiple choices we find that one (type of) answer appears twice, thereby giving a total of three types of answers. The probability of choosing any of the four answers is 1/4, and the probability of the chosen answer being correct is 1/3. Therefore the expected probability of randomly choosing the correct answer is (1/4)(1/3) + (1/4)(1/3) + (1/4)(1/3) + (1/4)(1/3) = 1/3.
    A more interesting version of this problem is to consider the case when there are, say, a total of K types of answers appearing in M > K multiple choice positions, where each answer type is repeated nk times, and Pk is the probability that answer type k is correct. The most facile way of solving this is to appeal to the celebrated theorem of the Reverend Bayes.
    In the above problem statement we would have K = 3, M = 4, n1 = 2, n2 = 1, n3 = 1, and Pk = 1/3 for all k = 1,2,3.

    Like

  39. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    BenE, you think to much. The link was simply to show you Muslim lovers how they treat people in juxtaposition with them here in America. We treat everyone fairly under the law. Your 1000 terrorists are alive and well fed by you and me. The comedian is DEAD!

    Like

  40. TomKenworth Avatar

    Thanks George, it’s driving a lot of people on Facebook nuts.

    Like

  41. billy T Avatar

    Mr. Juvinall, I agree. We are not beheading the 1000 terrorists nor forbidding them from practicing their religious beliefs at Gitmo. Probably about 340 enemy combatants there, but 1000 is a nice round number. Neither do our soldiers strap on suicide vests and walk into Jewish senior center hangouts or school buses and go pow! Without the Christian influence and character of our country, slavery would be practiced here today. The Civil Rights Movement got its momentum from the pulpits across America and the influence of Gandhi. For me, I cannot follow any so called deity that lied, cheated on his wife, encouraged followers to deceive non believers, forced conversions, savage treatment of women and savage treatment of non converts. Sounds like a flawed human, same as anybody, rather than something divine. Guess that is an example of so called moral relativity. Image what would have happened to the womens rights movement if our Nation followed those views! Well, to each his own. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/015-slavery.htm

    Like

  42. Stoos Avatar

    Ben,
    You are certainly right that the government temptation to get involved in welfare goes WAY back.
    Consider this link: http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/
    John

    Like

  43. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    Why am I not surprised that you didn’t understand? A thousand Muslims were rounded up without any official charges being brought to a court of law. Habeas Corpus and Due Process were ignored and still are being ignored for some at Guantanamo Bay and in other prisons around the world. So all of your hot air about your love for liberty and freedom go out the window. What you really love is your liberty/ freedom and to hell with others rights whom you disagree. Remember a vast majority of the Muslims rounded up were never tried or found guilty of a crime. Dozens in the Bush administration which includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Libby, and Wolfowitz should be indicted and brought to the Hague for war crimes.
    I do not condone terrorist acts and those who perform them but think the crimes against humanity should be done with due process and the rule of law. I also do not ignore or condone fellow human beings natural rights and due process being trampled upon either. Your minimal understanding of natural law and human rights is very disappointing for a former public official who took a vow to uphold the US Constitution.

    Like

  44. Ben Emery Avatar

    John S.
    Thanks for the link. As we have discussed many times before about this subject, I can sympathize with the sentiment of the message on the link but just disagree. That is what we have decided as a nation to support. If the will of the people such as social programs become to great the people will elect representatives to reverse the policies. I have no problem with the will of the people but do have a problem with the will of big money special interests controlling “Our” government. Here is a quote from an open letter to the US CA 4th constituents.
    “Nothing in our Constitution addresses political parties or partisanship. However, over the past 30 years, political parties have presented partisanship as the only operating paradigm. Our government has become less representative because that’s what BOTH parties want. They fight for campaign dollars instead of votes, then use those dollars to manipulate opinion in an effort to frighten voters to take their side. This was not what the founders envisioned for our grand republic.”
    Ben Emery

    Like

  45. Gregory Avatar

    Ben, there were hundreds of thousands of Germans held indefinitely within the USA in the early to mid 1940’s. No charges were ever contemplated or sought. No trials held.

    Like

  46. Ben Emery Avatar

    Greg,
    Same goes for the Japanese. Here is the difference, We were at war (actually declared war) with those two nations. I don’t truly know how I would have felt at the time because I wasn’t alive but my guess is I would have been horrified. I few years back I sat down and talked with many of those who were forced into camps during WWII. They lost their homes, businesses, and lives when they went into the camps. I am ashamed that we treated human beings that way.
    The other difference is torture wasn’t part of American policy in the 1940’s.
    People weren’t arbitrarily rounded up because of their religion.
    Here is a famous case that was on the light side.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar

    Like

  47. George Rebane Avatar

    re BenE’s 1204am and 630am – To start “… torture wasn’t part of American policy in the 1940s.” This statement is naive beyond comprehension of anyone read in history. Torture was so common in both civilian law enforcement and the military that it literally went without saying. It was simply the expected norm. Today’s methods pale in comparison.
    In old fashioned wars involving culturally cohesive nation vs nation it was common for combatants to incarcerate people whose backgrounds derived from the enemy – their loyalties were unreliable. For example, before WW2 America was full of ‘bunden’ or associations of ethnic Germans who supported Hitler’s rise to power.
    Today, the most common denominator of America’s enemies share Islam as their faith. And these Islamist enemies come from all countries including the US. They are also fundamentalist end-timers with whom negotiation is futile (cf.taqiyya)- in these pages I have given them the pejorative short label of ‘raghead’ in order not to have to repeat the lengthy definition of that class of people. To argue the dated and dysfunctional protocols of yesterdays’ wars is ludicrous. I have treated the technical basis for discriminating against Muslims.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar

    George
    You wrote on 02 August 2012 at 10:36 AM that “America’s world hegemony has contributed enormously to the world’s quality of life since 1945. We can’t and shouldn’t try to pay for lavish entitlements (especially fashioned as commons) and the maintenance of that hegemony.”
    That seems to mean to me that you are asking for American taxpayers to fund the quality of live for the rest of the workld and neglect our own. We spend billions supporting the infrastructure pr foreign nations while our own highways, bridges, schools and parks are falling apart. Please explain.
    “At least 719 military personnel, civilian contractors, Iraqis and third-country nationals died in Iraq over seven years performing U.S. reconstruction and stability operations, according to the first audit of its kind.
    The dead include 264 of the 4,409 U.S. troops who died in Iraq from May 1, 2003, through August 30, 2010, according to the audit released today by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.
    The audit represents the first time a U.S. agency has attempted to tally the deaths associated with spending about $60 billion in congressionally appropriated reconstruction and stabilization funds. ”
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-27/iraq-reconstruction-effort-cost-719-lives-audit-finds

    Like

Leave a comment