Signs and Wonders 05.16: Deconstructing DOMA, Silence of the shepherds, Obama & the pastors, & more @WarrenColeSmith 
Click to Print
Include Comments
DeMint defends liberty against rising socialist threat
During a recent visit to The King’s College in New York, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., didn’t apologize for the firestorm he created in the national debate on healthcare. In fact, he came close to apologizing for the “gentle nudging” that had been his style in the past.
His comment—“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will become his Waterloo”—has become a battle cry for conservatives opposed to the president’s plan. And DeMint’s words match his growing fear that America “is on the edge of a cliff.” That’s why, DeMint said, he has resorted to high profile, inflammatory comments—even if they land him in the bull’s-eye of liberal media pundits.
Much of DeMint’s rhetorical firepower has been directed at Obama, who DeMint said continues to increase federal power. The senator added that we have witnessed a “bait and switch in the White House.” According to DeMint, Americans are now finding out how destructive the Obama administration will be if left unchecked. He predicted a difficult road ahead for his Republican colleagues, calling Obama’s healthcare plan “the fight of our lives.”
DeMint said, however, that Republicans share much of the blame for setting the nation’s current trajectory. In his early years as a senator, DeMint politely asked Republicans to remember that they were elected to rid Washington of corruption and wasteful excess. Enticed by power and popularity, however, Republicans who campaigned on ideals of limited government abandoned their principles for earmarks.
In his new book, Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism, DeMint sounds the alarm on the increasing influence of the federal government. Citing a long history of government encroachment, he warns that socialism is growing stronger as Americans trade freedom for security. Ultimately, DeMint said freedom would only survive if Americans turn from the path of cradle-to-grave statism and embrace the principles that made the country prosperous and free.
Matthias Clock is a student at The King’s College in New York City.
back to top37 Comments to “DeMint defends liberty against rising socialist threat”
Go Jim!
Report comment to moderator
Just tossing out some rhetorical red meat to the good folks back home. But it is after all sensible red meat.
Report comment to moderator
The R conservatives no longer have to bite their tongues, hold their noses and go along with George Bush-supported Fed govt expansions
Report comment to moderator
Good to see him recognize the Reps real issues in the past. I hope he stays true to his word and continues to push for not only the end of these lousy liberal healthcare proposals, but to fight for responsbility and true leadership amongst his own party, which has been severely lacking.
The Reps need guys like these, so I hope he is true to his word. Only time will tell. I’m cautious to believe simply because he’s been too quiet in the past, but sometimes it takes the right spark to ignite a good fire.
Report comment to moderator
Our nation was founded by people who trusted in God. Now it is run by people who trust in government, and want to replace God’s provision for us with cradle-to-grave welfare programs. It’s time our elected officials speak up about this: good for Jim DeMint!
Report comment to moderator
Our nation was founded by racists. Now it is being recalled to its original principles by WorldMagBlog, which hosts Sen. DeMint and posts racist talk by bloggers who call themselves names like ITSABOUTFREEDOM. Yeah, I object to DeMint and to racist use of the N-word. Don’t bother reporting this stuff to the WorldMag moderators. They love it.
“Like for instance if I know a black man that can’t put a sentence together without stumbling, can’t balance his check book, can’t hold a job because he is addicted to crack and is sitting at home just waiting for the government to give him his entitlement check, may I have your permission to call him a …?”
Of course you have permission, on WORLDMAG.
Report comment to moderator
http://online.worldmag.com/2009/09/15/joe-wilsons-house-colleagues-wont-let-controversy-die/
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#6):
This thread is about socialism and its proponents in America today as described by Sen DeMint in his new book. He was hosted by King’s College, NOT WorldMag, to discuss this issue.
Yet now you jump in, playing your race card, attacking another blogger who is not even on this thread, ranting about the N-word (which has not been mentioned here by anybody except yourself), yelling that the country was founded by racists, etc. What is going on in your mind Moth?
It seems to me that you are almost demented in your obsession over a personal issue that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed on this thread. Perhaps you need to see an analyst or go get some counseling somewhere. Your obsession seems to be approaching the level of a serious mental problem.
Report comment to moderator
That’s OK, Michael. You’re not the first man who has been obsessed with me, by any means. You will get over it.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, you really do have mental problems.
Report comment to moderator
DeMint owned a marketing research firm, makes over $174K per year, yet claims his net worth was between $16,002 and $65,000 in 2007 (according to DeMint’s mandated financial disclosure statements). Maybe we ought not believe a word this man says.
Report comment to moderator
“His comment—“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will become his Waterloo”—has become a battle cry for conservatives opposed to the president’s plan.”
Well, that’s a bit over the top. I support Obama as my president. I don’t want him to be a failure. I disagree with nearly everything he says, precisely because I don’t want to see him or America fail.
If Obama’s brain damaged policies succeed, America may never climb out of the pit. This is because government always grows. It never shrinks. And Obama has accelerated the government power grab to unprecedented levels. He has amassed more debt in 6 months than every American president combined. DeMint is right to blame Republicans too.
The good news for the debate though is that both the right and left are beginning to discuss socialism openly and what it means. Michael Moore came out of the closet in his latest movie and openly promotes Socialism. He is one of the few liberals in America to actually admit this. And DeMint deserves credit for using the term to describe what is happening to America.
Report comment to moderator
Techlover (#11):
Net worth is basically determined by subtracting liabilities from assets. A person could own several companies and be making $1,000,000 per year and still have a very small or even a negative net worth if he has a large amount of liabilities.
Your implication that DeMint is dishonest because of the figures you post, shows two things, 1) your lack understanding of basic accounting, 2) a low approach to discussion that fails to address the issues and just slings mud instead.
Here is a description of DeMint’s book and some of the issue’s he discusses:
So, Techlover, if you would you like to discuss the issues, here’s your opportunity. Go ahead.
Report comment to moderator
WARNING: Argue the topic, not the person. I am not going to tolerate personal attacks directed at other commenters, and that includes retaliating comments. The party in question has been warned.
Report comment to moderator
As a general observation, zealous liberals are only ever happy in one circumstance. That’s the one where they get to trash someone for being racist, homophobic, or any number of other faults that don’t actually mean anything. Everyone the liberal opposes tends to display these vaporous traits.
I find this difficult to credit. They must allow themselves a little happiness when no conservatives are looking.
Report comment to moderator
Well, evidently I’m the culprit: . . . you need to cool the rhetoric and not single out other commenters and make such accusations as you did in the comment [#6]. Remember: Argue the topic, not the person.
As for the topic: South Carolina has always been afraid that America is “on the edge of a cliff,” and famously willing to push it over. Whenever a South Carolina senator speaks in this fashion, the real topic is race. The fact that WorldMag characterizes DeMint’s ventilations as substantive discussion explains why it has allowed a poster to argue for the use the N word as a permissible descriptor of incompetents who happen to be Black. See the full quote at #6.
As for personal attack, not guilty, Mickey. I addressed language that has been allowed to stand on this blog, despite a report to the moderator. I’m the only one on this thread who was personally attacked.
Report comment to moderator
“This thread is about socialism and its proponents in America today”
No it’s not – it’s about Jim DeMint – who is a complete idiot – Support for this numbskill paves a clear path for the GOP to enhance its reputation as the loser party of the millenium.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#16) excuses himself:
” I’m the only one on this thread who was personally attacked.”
Moth, anyone can read #6 and see that what you say is not the truth. BTW, I did not complain to the moderator. Either someone else or the moderator saw the obvious, which you still refuse to acknowledge.
Report comment to moderator
#17: Another ranter and name-caller enters the fray.
Spinoza, take a look at #13 and address some of the issues described there. Prove to us that DeMint is a “complete idiot” and a “numbskill” as you pompously proclaim. Are we to take that as true just because you say so? You cannot even spell numbskull correctly, and we are supposed to give you credibility without coherent evidence or argument?
Not hardly. Come back when you can discuss the issues with some intelligent arguments.
Report comment to moderator
Socialism is OK with Jim DeMint if you’re a Republican.
DeMint voted yea on the very socialistic Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, and did not vote to stop the socialistic Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2003. DeMint didn’t raise a peep in 2005 when Republicans all across the South supported Trent Lott’s retroactive buy-in program designed to protect rich property owners who had not purchased government flood insurance.
Socialism is OK with Jim DeMint IF it’s a public option for wealthy property owners, but BAD if it saves the lives of poor people who suffer from lack of health care. The flood insurance program is not just subsidized government help, it’s a government designed and administered replacement of private insurance. The government pays 100’s of millions to insurance agents to market the policies, But the rich are totally dependent on government bureaucrats for flood insurance.
That’s DeMint the Republican. Not the same guy who wrote this in his Freedom & Socialism book: America is applying the same socialistic model to health care. Decision-making has been centralized into large government and insurance company bureaucracies. p. 79
DeMint and his party helped build a pretty neat model when they passed flood insurance.
He talks pretty, though. Listen to this nonsense:
Most Americans would be surprised to find that the Constitution does not prescribe any federal role for education, health care, retirement pensions, disability, unemployment insurance, flood insurance, labor relations, farm assistance, or welfare for the poor . . . or for most current activities of the federal government. Chapter 10: “Freedom and the Rule of Law”
Emphasis supplied.
DeMint’s principles are a vehicle for anti-Black politics.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#20):
You need to supply some sources for the information and claims you make in your post.
Report comment to moderator
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/d000595/votes/page4/
http://books.google.com/books?id=9E3z8VLeW8cC&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=jim+demint+flood+insurance&source=bl&ots=3OeWzHCmlM&sig=K3Sl1JV5J4NQI_4OdMJRq3sS5mg&hl=en&ei=C2jHSq3kDJbi8AbLtszhCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#22):
Thanks for the links, but they don’t support your points.
The first link is merely the Yeas and Nays of DeMints voting record, showing that he voted as you described. The second link shows some excerpts from his book in question.
However, your claim was that these particular pieces of legislation are “very socialistic,” thus supposedly showing DeMint’s hypocrisy when contrasted with the quotes from his book. Just what it is about these pieces of legislation that makes them “very socialistic”, you never explain; so, your claim falls flat.
Then, you make the totally unsupported claim that, “DeMint’s principles are a vehicle for anti-black politics.” Here we see you returning to your obsession with the race card while providing absolutely no support for that claim.
What actually prompted this thread was DeMint’s visit to King’s College where the topic of discussion was described as follows:
These issues, plus those I have already quoted in #13, would keep us on track.
Yet you persist in attempting to hijack the thread with your racism obsession and accusations (about DeMint and anyone else who opposes socialism) that you cannot support. Repetitive personal rants do not constitute proof of your accusations to anyone but yourself.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN Just what it is about these pieces of legislation that makes them “very socialistic”, you never explain; so, your claim falls flat.
At #20. I said that the flood insurance program is not just subsidized government help, it’s a government designed and administered replacement of private insurance. That’s replacement as in “government takeover.” If you want flood insurance, you buy what Washington tells you that you can have and what Washington administers. Further, your taxes subsidize the insurance agent that markets you the government product. The public option for flood insurance represents way more socialism than what has been proposed as a public option for health insurance.
I said that Trent Lott’s buy-in program was socialistic because it blatantly rewarded moral hazard with taxpayer money, undermining all theories of personal responsibility.
The book quotations — including the gem about the Constitution not allowing flood insurance — proves that DeMint has no principles in this matter. The most likely alternative explanation for his negativity about government is Southern racism.
I hope this helps.
Report comment to moderator
#2 has it right.
> he has resorted to high profile, inflammatory comments—even if they land him in the bull’s-eye of liberal media pundits.
This is poor analysis. Politicians right now want nothing more than to be given the spotlight by the “offended” opposition media. Rep. Joe Wilson raked in millions upon millions of campaign funds after his “You Lie!” outburst. Democrats are now offering their uncivil remarks (”Die quickly”) and upping the ante.
Civility is dying and very few politicians are working to restore the debate of actual ideas and policy. Please, WORLD, encourage your writers to understand the importance of honest public discourse – rather than inflammatory rhetoric. A website worth reading on this: http://www.civilityproject.org/
Report comment to moderator
Democrats are now offering their uncivil remarks (”Die quickly”) and upping the ante.
That’s just silly pox on both their houses talk, IMHO.
What’s the most “civil” way to say “Die quickly” when Harvard says 44k people die every year unnecessarily for lack of medical care?
You offer a very nice suggestion but it gives no guidance about how to distinguish between false and true accusations of “You lie!” or how to measure the permissible degree of sarcasm to describe the neglectful deaths of tens of thousands.
Conservatives could make a similar point, spun the other direction. But as a liberal I’ve spun it the right way.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#24):
I see your point, but let me ask you one more question before I reply. Since you brought this up, you should tell us. Do you support the National Flood Insurance Program—why or why not?
Report comment to moderator
My opinion of flood insurance is irrelevant. Stop making everything about me.
Report comment to moderator
Moth writes (#28):
“My opinion of flood insurance is irrelevant. Stop making everything about me.”
How can I stop what YOU have started and continue to maintain? YOU have attempted to hijack this thread with YOUR obsession on racism. YOU bring up the subject of flood insurance and make unsupported accusations and now refuse to explain yourself when questioned. YOUR views on flood insurance were central to your accusations of hypocrisy and racism on DeMint’s part. Yet, now you claim your views are irrelevant? You can’t have it both ways Moth.
This is very much about you and your views as contrasted with those of DeMint. That is the very essence of debate, especially when you make accusations about someone’s character. You want us to scrutinize DeMint’s views on your terms, yet you refuse to subject your views to an equal level of scrutiny.
YOU brought up the subject. YOU made the accusations. Now explain yourself or become the very hypocrite that you claim DeMint to be.
Report comment to moderator
MATTHIAS CLOCK: In his new book, Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism, DeMint sounds the alarm on the increasing influence of the federal government . . . socialism is growing stronger as Americans trade freedom for security.
Clock makes DeMint’s book the subject of this thread.
In pursuit of the topic, I quote several passages (#20), one of which characterizes flood insurance as not being “prescribed” by the Constitution. DeMint’s book makes flood insurance part of his critique of socialism, and thus invites examination of his claims.
Although I made the first mention of flood insurance on this thread, DeMint himself put the opic on the table. Flood insurance itself is not the issue, of course. The issue is DeMint’s criticism of flood insurance, his votes on flood insurance, and his description of health insurance as socialistic. The issue for me is DeMint’s ideological coherence.
I could not have used flood insurance as an argument against DeMint if he had opposed and voted against the flood insurance proposals and legislation, and not brought it up in his book.
You want us to scrutinize DeMint’s views on your terms, yet you refuse to subject your views to an equal level of scrutiny.
No, MICHAEL. I want you to scrutinize DeMint on his terms. This is called “internal criticism.” It’s one of the indispensable components for building an argument and one of the most common methods of destroying an argument. Furthermore, bringing internal criticism is honorable. The critic doesn’t himself have to oppose flood insurance in order to criticize DeMint’s failure to oppose flood insurance.
In summary, I don’t bring up flood insurance, DeMint does, and you have shown no reason why I “should” present my views about flood insurance before you address the validity of DeMint’s critique of socialism.
Your complaint about “unsupported accusations” is odd, since I provided links to DeMint’s book and voting record.
Here’s a hypothesis, which may or may not be supported by evidence: Opposition to healthcare reform is directly related to racial resentment. There appears to be strong evidence to support this hypothesis, which is an important subject of current academic writing:
http://www.amazon.com/Authoritarianism-Polarization-American-Politics-Hetherington/dp/052171124X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254761192&sr=1-1
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#30):
Your arguments are extremely weak and based on your own biased assumptions, hence my insistence that you reveal more of your own views before we can grant you any credibility.
The quote you offer from DeMint’s book comes from a book review on the internet of a few select pages. It is found on the bottom of page 189, while page 190, where he explains his view, is missing. It is impossible for you to know the contextual explanation of DeMint’s view because you haven’t read anything beyond the portion of the one paragraph you offer.
What he said in the quote you offer is absolutely true. The Constitution does not specifically prescribe any role for the government in those areas he mentions. However, he goes on to say in the last sentence of page 189 that the “general welfare” clause[s] of our Constitution allows a wide variety of interpretations as to the extent of the government’s power to tax and spend. His particular interpretation of this clause will most likely be found on page 190. From that I am sure that we will get insight as to why he supports the National Flood insurance Program.
Oh, but you are quick to offer your own biased assumption of hypocrisy and racism as the context of his views. Well, no thank you, I will rely on his words (the book will be delivered here to my home next week) rather than your unsupported conclusion. You say that you are interested in the “ideological coherence” of his views, but that supposed interest is belied by your eagerness to ascribe to him your own assumptions rather than reading what he actually has to say.
Before we began this discussion, I knew nothing about the National Flood Insurance Program, but after a bit of investigation I can see why DeMint might support the program and I see nothing inconsistent with my newly formed view and my conservative (anti-socialist) principles. However, I will wait to get his book and read his full view, in comparison to my own, before I come to any conclusions about his supposed racism and “ideological [in]coherence” as you put it.
In the meantime you might cease stonewalling us about your own views. You hide them, I suspect, because of the difficulty you will have in supporting them and explaining to us your own “ideological [in]coherence.” Let us be honest here and lay all of our cards on the table. If we are interested in his [in]coherence we must also be interested in the [in]coherence of his critic. That comparison will give us some idea about credibility and who is most worthy of belief.
Report comment to moderator
#31 However, he goes on to say in the last sentence of page 189 that the “general welfare” clause[s] of our Constitution allows a wide variety of interpretations as to the extent of the government’s power to tax and spend. Emphasis supplied.
DeMint does not say the “general welfare” phrase in the Constitution allows the expanded role that presidents, congressmen, and the courts have assigned to the Federal government. He merely says that the branches of government have expanded government on the basis of their interpretations of the phrase. DeMint does not say he thinks that the Constitution gives us permission to so interpret the powers of Congress.
DeMint wrongly suggests that whatever is not “prescribed” in the Constitution must be proscribed. DeMint badly botches his account of what the Constitution “prescribes”, when he says, “The U.S. Constitution limits the role of the federal government to a few areas: national defense; economic facilitation . . . federal roads . . . and a justice system . . .” This formulation is flat out incorrect.
Article I section 8 grants Congress the power to “. . . provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States . . .” The Constitution does not limit the role of the Federal government to the items on DeMint’s list. The Constitution inserts general welfare in the same sentence with national defense.
Throughout the book, DeMint argues that Congress has given the federal government a role that is not permitted by the Constitution.
Regardless of whether DeMint considers health insurance reform to be Constitional, he can’t explain why protecting wealthy property owners with government insurance is not socialistic while protecting people’s health is socialistic.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#32):
Your interpretation of DeMint’s book and his views, based merely on the source you cited, is not credible.
“Throughout the book…”, you say. “He can’t explain….”, you say. Based on the source you cited, it is impossible for you to make such definitive statements. Frankly, YOU don’t know what he says.
When you have read the book yourself, such statements may be credible. Until then, you are merely restating your own biases and assumptions.
Plus, you are still stonewalling about expressing your own views on the one example that forms your basis of criticism. If your own views are not credible, then your criticism of his views are most likely not credible either. In a court of law, the credibility of a witness must be established before his views can be considered to have any merit. You are stonewalling, that is certain.
Report comment to moderator
What does my view of flood insurance have to do with whether DeMint’s votes on flood insurance contradict his characterization of health care reform as socialism? What is the Constitutional principle or general DeMint principle that makes government flood insurance OK and optional public health insurance not OK?
I’ve browsed many passages in the book by doing google searches for “Constiution”, “insurance,” and “socialistic.” The book is as conventional as a preacher’s Sunday morning prayer. I’ll be surprised if you find anything in the book incompatible with the conventional things I’ve said about it.
You keep declaring that my arguments are weak and lacking in credibility but have not refuted a single one. You’ve not proved a falsehood or invalidated my logic.
Report comment to moderator
Moth (#34):
My copy of DeMint’s book is scheduled to arrive today. His main point, and the point of this thread, is that America’s constitutional republic and system of regulated capitalism, based on Christian principles, has an unparalleled record of success. Our whole system is now being threatened and subverted by the peddlers of socialism—a seductive, but proven failure in terms of human freedom, justice, economic efficiency, and overall cultural welfare.
Yet, you enter this thread with an unprovoked attack on another blogger, not arguing any of the above points, but ranting according to your obsession with perceived racism. After a rebuke you have cooled your rhetoric somewhat, but continue in the same vein against Senator DeMint with similar unfounded accusations.
The centerpiece of your new attack is a supposed disparity between his support for flood insurance and his advocacy of our historic economic and constitutional system. You claim that beneath it all is not truth and logic, but merely hypocrisy, personal greed and racism.
You make that claim without even reading what he has to say. When pressed to explain yourself more fully on the supposed flood insurance “evidence,” you refuse. Why? Is their some hypocrisy of your own beneath your argument? I suspect that is the reason for your stonewalling on this point.
At any rate, I expect to get his book today and will soon see which has the most credibility, his arguments, or your biases, obsessions, and assumptions.
Report comment to moderator
Please explain again why I “should” take a position in support of or oppose to the National Flood Insurance Program. I don’t get it. You haven’t even responded to my description of flood insurance — that it’s socialistic. Are you claiming that internal criticism of an opponent is dishonest? Over and over again, you have claimed or suggested that my support for or opposition to flood insurance is “central” to the question of DeMint’s ideological consistency. I’m sorry, but that’s dumb. Whether I want the government to provide flood insurance has nothing to do with DeMint’s logic in voting for one form of insurance and condemning another as “socialistic.”
While you’re at it, please also explain why flood insurance is irrelevant to DeMint’s critique of creeping socialism, given the fact that he voted on flood insurance and mentioned it in his book as not being presribed by the Constitution.
When you write about the book, please try not to paraphrase inaccurately, as you did at #31. It’s too much trouble to correct, as you can see at #32. Then you don’t acknowledge correction, and that creates bad feelings.
I’m still waiting for you to tell me what I have said that is untrue or illogical.
Perhaps I should explain again why I believe that racism is implicated in DeMint’s theory of Constitutional limits on government. It’s a painful and inconvenient fact of sociology that many of the people who resent “big government” the most have a severe problem with racial resentment. Not all, of course. But many. Those who aren’t plagued by racist attitudes themselves still accept the support of those who are. When a Southern anti-government politician makes arguments against government programs in an intellectually in a false and incoherent matter, this necessarily raises legitimate questions about racial motivations. See the reference at #30.
Report comment to moderator
Moth,
Sen. DeMint’s new book, Saving Freedom, has a thesis that America is sliding into a socialism that is destroying our freedoms, but which we still have the capability to reverse IF we come to an understanding of what is happening and IF we work effectively to reverse the trend. In conclusion he offers some approaches and plans to do just that.
He builds a solid and well-researched case based on an examination of our own history (Part I–The Rise and Fall of Freedom in America).
Then he discusses the differences between traditional American capitalism and modern socialism (Part II–Principles and Institutions of Freedom). The former maximizes freedom and prosperity for all of society, while the latter inevitably deteriorates into economic stagnation and decline, economic and political corruption, and finally the tyranny of a few select power wielders and their supporters. He documents this line of argument with superbly qualified academic references, historical examples, and his own experience as a businessman, congressman, and Senator.
Finally, in Part III, he offers some action plans for reversing the trend and restoring American freedoms before they are lost completely.
How have you responded? In two words: disgracefully and ignorantly.
First, at #6, you launched a completely uncalled for and off-subject attack upon another blogger who wasn’t even on this thread. You are obsessed with what you perceive as racism and consequently view everything through that lens. You accuse the other blogger, our founding fathers, and finally Sen. DeMint of racism without offering a shred of credible proof for any of your belligerent accusations. This was disgraceful and for it you earned a well deserved rebuke from the blog editor.
Secondly, your next line of attack is based solely on your own biases and is almost complete ignorant of Sen. DeMint’s actual arguments. You have not read his book, only a few quotes taken out of context, and which you then misinterpret according to your own prejudices. Your claim of logic is false from the very beginning because it starts from your own ignorant, biased, and wrong assumptions. Frankly Moth, you do not know what you are talking about. In #32 you falsely and pompously pose as an authority on what he says “throughout the book” when you haven’t even read one page.
You have now chosen the flood insurance issue as your major instrument of attack against Sen. DeMint and his thesis. You claim that the National Flood Insurance Program is highly socialistic and that DeMint’s support of it is in conflict with his conservative thesis. Thus he is, you claim, a hypocritical racist—also presuming, of course, that the National Flood Insurance Program is not only socialistic but also racist. You offer not a shred of proof for either claim.
When I pressed you for your views, i.e., proof for your claims, you tell me that your views are irrelevant because they are independent of your supposed logical demonstration of DeMint’s inconsistency. That is nonsense because you have not shown, only assumed, that the program is “highly socialistic” and racist. When you start with a wrong or unproved assumption, your “logic” is flawed before it even begins.
For this centerpiece of your argument, you have demonstrated absolutely no personal knowledge of the program itself, how it works, any of its details, or of its actual intent. You just stonewall any requests for information on your part. You claim, without evidence, that it benefits only the wealthy. That is an odd claim to make when you also claim that it is “highly socialistic.”
Furthermore, you have no idea what DeMint means by socialism. The definitions and practices of socialism are many and varied, even among socialists themselves. What are DeMint’s views? You don’t know. So, when you are starting from an unproven assumption about a particular program, coupled with DeMint’s unknown (to you) view of socialism, there is no way you can credibly make a claim of hypocrisy against him, much less a claim of racism. Frankly, you are just blowing hot air and not addressing the substance of DeMint’s book at all.
DeMint’s concept of socialism entails more than just economic criteria. He sees socialism as a whole mindset of tyrannical control across a wide range of economic and cultural issues, the end result of which will be a drastic reduction in the freedoms Americans have enjoyed since our founding. According to DeMint, socialists view the role of government as a tool that they can use to shape society, by force, into their own image. (Pg 182) Our Constitution has been a barrier to them and they have diligently sought, mostly through activist courts, to reshape the Constitution more to their liking.
Another way they have done this is through the “general welfare” clause. On pg. 190, DeMint lists several areas of federal activity, not originally mandated in the Constitution, which are now “justified” by that clause. He is absolutely correct in this assessment—they are all justified, in whole or in part, by that clause. However, that does not mean that he disagrees with all these activities or that he completely disavows the “general welfare” clause—after all, it is a legitimate part of the Constitution. He is against its gross abuse, not its legitimate use. A gross abuse, that he spends much of Ch. 10 discussing, is the earmark system.
As far as flood insurance is concerned, I think I can say that it is neither socialistic, as DeMint views socialism, nor is it an abuse of the “general welfare” clause. The National Flood Insurance Program, is NOT an attempt to control the insurance industry, or to benefit wealthy landowners, or to enrich the insurance industry as you falsely allege.
Rather, the intent of Congress, (both Democrats and Republicans) when it established the program in 1968, was to provide for the general welfare across the entire nation in our many flood prone areas. Flood insurance was just not available in these areas because the risks were too great, and the costs too high for the industry to be able to reasonably supply the coverage. We could not abandon our coastal and river cities, or see them continually crippled by losses from which citizens could not recover in a reasonable amount of time. Our whole economy would be adversely affected. Therefore, it would be in the interests of all Americans for the government to aid both property owners and renters in these areas by making insurance available at a reasonable cost. It is actually a form of disaster relief and is now handled by FEMA. It is a proper use of the “general welfare” clause, not an abusive, socialistic power grab.
Furthermore, you are far off base in #20 when you make this absurd claim as part of your silly attempt to paint flood insurance as a Republican attempt to enrich the insurance industry:
”DeMint and his party helped build a pretty neat model when they passed flood insurance.”
This program has near unanimous bi-partisan support. For example, the “Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007,” which you criticize DeMint for supporting, passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 2. That is hardly the mark of a Republican bill designed to support a few wealthy people as you falsely allege.
In summary, your criticisms of Sen. DeMint and his views are based on false claims of racism, and your own lazy ignorance of his views. You have not proved any racism, only obsessively ranted against another blogger and DeMint with what amounts to your own brand of racism. You have not bothered to read DeMint’s book, only lazily relied on a few quotes taken out of context, which you have then ignorantly interpreted according to your own misinformed biases. Then, when challenged you stonewall and refuse to answer so as not to expose your arguments for the frauds they are. Taken all together, your approach to the debate on this thread is disgraceful and ignorant in the extreme.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!