Civil Liberties

Herman Cain: "there are some Americans, including members of Congress—who want the terrorists to win"

|

Chances of me ever voting for someone whose book got a foreward from Zell Miller? Slim, none, and fat.

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf goes spelunking through Herman Cain's published archive, and what he finds there is a poignant reminder that Republicans of all stripes were just godawful talking about foreign policy back when their guy was in charge of it. Sample:

In June 2006, he took aim at civil libertarians and those who sought to end the Iraq war. "Have no doubt about it—there are some Americans, including members of Congress—who want the terrorists to win," he wrote. "Every time we receive significant intelligence about the enemy, our enemies from within say we obtained is [sic] unconstitutionally, as if terrorists should receive the benefits of our constitutional protections. Every time we achieve a military victory they call for us to 'redeploy' the troops. Setting a date certain for troop withdrawal is like placing a sign in your yard telling the local burglar the times you plan to be away from your home with the front door unlocked. Our enemies from within see our national security as just another political issue."

That same summer, he said this: "Three groups are waging a spectacularly unified propaganda war against the Israeli military, the U.S. military and the Bush administration. They are the liberal media outlets, liberals in the U.S. Congress and the United Nations. In a world with a 24/7 microscopic news cycle, one statement that is twisted, misunderstood or misrepresented can sway public opinion and political reaction more than 1,000 tanks and 10,000 bombs." Lest his point be misunderstood, he concluded the column by noting that "the liberals' propaganda machine has become the press operation of the Islamic terrorists who plot to destroy America, her military and western civilization. American liberals are fighting the war against our great nation with words instead of bullets. Left unchallenged, their words can be just as lethal."

Soon afterward, Cain took the next logical step, calling the Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination "Hezbocrats." And in a separate column he impugned the patriotism of Democrats, writing that their "attempt to send the terrorists a media-gram of when we will withdraw from Iraq makes no sense, except to claim a political victory at the expense of national security." It's a theme to which he'd return. Here, for example: "All the Democrats have proposed is surrender to the terrorists in the form of an internationally televised withdrawal date and a ridiculous piece-meal war funding bill to constrain the war fighters on the battlefield and hijack the president's authority."

See Reason's "GOP Presidential Primary Online Dating Game," including a bang-up profile of Herman Cain himself.

NEXT: Nonexistent DOJ Studies and Hasty Meetings Win Police Pensions in Knoxville

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Have no doubt about it — there are some Americans, including members of Congress — who want the terrorists to win,

    That is called red meat for the base. Do these people actually think this stuff is going to hurt him in the primaries? We can’t nominate this guy, he is too mean to Democrats.

    1. Considering how many Reason writers voted for Obama, none of their recent Cain-bashing surprises me.

      They appear more scared of Cain than Obama.

      1. Dude, are you fucking serious? Even those who voted for Obama undoubtedly regret it at this point, and they’ve all written story after story about how awful he is. Yeah, they’re trying to torpedo Cain to save Obama.

        Spare us your TEAM RED bitterness and paranoia.

        1. They are not trying to torpedo Cain. But why do they care that he said some mean things about Democrats five years ago? I mean really. The stuff about whacking people on the border is fair game. But this?

          1. Why do you oppose this being reported on, John? Isn’t it best to know everything you can about a candidate?

            1. I don’t oppose it. As I said above, they are kidding themselves if they think this will hurt him. I just can’t see the point of reporting it. I don’t see why they are wasting their time. This is the kind of thing I would expect to see in Slate not Reason.

            2. If Reason doesn’t at least slant Team Red, he’ll throw a hissyfit. Sorry John, we’re libertarians, and this is further proof libertarians should recognize Herman Cain, like most of his fellow Team Red members and most of his rival Team Blue members, is a total douche.

              1. No proprieterist you are not a libertarian. You are a douchebag. I didn’t throw a hissyfit anywhere outside of your imagination. Read the posts and pay some attention.

                1. LOL! Maybe I’m confusing you with a different John that throws multiple Team Red hissyfits every day in response to or provocation of MNG’s Team Blue hissyfits? Also what in particular makes me “not a libertarian”?

                  1. Read the posts here dumb ass.

                    John |10.17.11 @ 3:10PM|#

                    I don’t oppose it. As I said above, they are kidding themselves if they think this will hurt him. I just can’t see the point of reporting it. I don’t see why they are wasting their time.

                    I know your reading comprehension skills are poor. But try hard and read that again.

                    Look son, screaming team red is not a substitute for thinking.

                    1. Sure, “hissyfit” might have been a slight bit of hyperbole on my part, but getting overly defensive on every piece of perfectly valid criticism of your preferred party’s candidates and their stances is not really critical thinking, so my criticism of your overreaction is perfectly valid.

                      If I’m going to be subjected to a candidate’s potential presidency, I’d like to know every detail about how they will effect my life. Nothing should be off the table. The fact that he seems to believe there is no legitimate criticism of the Iraq war beyond pure hatred of America or Team Blue partisanship tells me that he’s not the kind of person I want as president. I’m sick of this disingenous president, I don’t want another one.

                    2. Proprietist is proper and right John you’re being touchy. Stop it.

            3. “Why do you oppose this being reported on, John? Isn’t it best to know everything you can about a candidate?” Dude, Episiarch, this is John we are talking about. The man would gladly bend over for anybody with a (R) after their name, no question asked.

        2. Re: Episiarch,

          Dude, are you fucking serious? Even those who voted for Obama undoubtedly regret it at this point[.]

          I certainly regret today not being able to vote for him so I could regret voting for him today.

          1. “If you’ve enjoyed watching this half as much as we’ve enjoyed making it, then we’ve enjoyed it twice as much as you.”

        3. It’s not TEAM RED bitterness. And I don’t think Cain is infallible, nor will be excited to do much more than hold my nose and vote for him.

          But I don’t think the shots that they are firing at Cain are serious as opposed to freaking out over a joke he made (Shikya, he was joking about the electric fence). They seem more petty than anything.

      2. Ohh, your GOP cock is so thick and juicy. Mmmm…

    2. this nonsense would hurt cain in the general.

      1. No it wouldn’t. Why would anyone care. And the fact is that it is true. Most of the anti-war left wanted the US to lose. Micheal Moore flat out said it and got cheers for doing so.

        1. What does “lose” mean?

          For that matter, what does “win” mean?

          Seriously.

          1. For them, lose mean leave the country with a humiliating defeat that would get them in power. Winning, I think means what we have, we over threw Saddam, put in a Democratic government and are or should be leaving very soon. That is what winning looks like. What could it not look like?

            The problem in Afghanistan and to some extent Iraq, is that Bush totally fucked up in framing the war. Both wars were punitive expeditions. We went into Afghanistan because they were harboring the people who attacked us. We went into Iraq because they broke the 1991 cease fire and defied the UN. We didn’t go in or shouldn’t have gone in to build new societies. We went in to replace the governments. Once we did that, we should have declared victory and gone home. If we define winning as making a new society, we will never win.

            1. If we define winning as making a new society, we will never win.

              Agreed. Which is why it’s time to send the troops home.

              1. To cross the Potomac after the 2012 election?

        2. Utter bullshit.

          Of course seeing as how such a claim is obvious mean-spirited bullshit, it’s all the more difficult to point out that Republicans have now said openly and plainly that their goal is to make the country fail for their partisan gain.

          1. Micheal Moore said he wanted to see “a thousand Mogadishus” in Iraq and for the Iraqi people rise up and expel the Americans. And he was cheered and given a prized seat at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

            Fuck you. It is your past. Live with it.

            1. One, it was a million, not a thousand. Two it was Nicholas de Genova, not Moore.

              Who the fuck is Nicholas de Genova and who cares what some random asshat says?

        3. I’m not going to speak in defense of a mentally castrated blowhard like Michael Moore, but speaking for myself and just about every anti-war person I ever met during the course of the Iraq War, our position had nothing to do with wanting America to lose or to make Bush look bad, including most of the liberals. Most all of us just thought it was a sad waste of good American (and Iraqi) lives for no compelling purpose. Whenever we do finally leave, I still won’t be surprised at all when Iran invades and further destabilizes the region. It might be 15 years down the road, but it will doubtless be a result of our lack of foresight.

          1. Bullshit. I had tons people tell me that wanted the US to lose. I had people call me a chicken hawk even though I actually served in the war. I remember the wonderful glee people had when things were really bad in 2006 and the absolutely disappointment when the surge worked.

            And what do you mean Iran invade? Every time we talk about Iran’s nuclear program we are told Iran is no threat. Every time we talk about Iraq, the anti-war people say that Iran is some menacing super power that only Saddam could stop. Which is it?

            If you are so concerned about Iran, do you plan to do something about it? Or was the plan to leave Saddam in power and let him continue to whack 10,000 Iraqis a month in order to contain them.

            1. Thank you for your service, but having lived in a radical left-wing academic mecca at the time, the only “glee” I heard in 2006 on Iraq was based in the notion that “maybe it’s bad enough they’ll see that this is futile and get us out as quickly as possible. We told them this would happen.” That’s not hatred of America or the soldiers – everyone likes being right, especially when a majority of people started agreeing with them. There are obviously a lot of anti-American losers (see OWS), but most of us just the war was tragically misguided, blood for nothing.

              Then, the surge was an escalation, which we opposed. It worked and reduced the violence (temporarily), and while we were wrong about the results of the surge (which hurt the anti-war case, thus the disappointment), it doesn’t change the long-term argument that we’re going to either have to stay there forever or expect that insurgents/Iran/etc. will still try to take over whenever we leave, be it 2008 or 2030. In the interim, more lives lost for little strategic gain.

              1. Proprietist is proper but wrong. Sorry, but I am still disturbed whenever Reason or Cato posts a rejoinder denying the fact that the surge worked and we won in Iraq. Everytime it’s some snotty article along the lines of “no we didn;t you stupid stinky neocons!”

                Actually makes me wonder.

          2. or to make Bush look bad, including most of the liberals.

            That must explain the hundreds of massive anti-war protests that have taken place after 01/20/09.

            1. Actually there weren’t that many protests the last few years of Bush’s presidency either. The mass movement mostly petered out after combat operations ended.

              I don’t deny that a large majority were Team Blue partisans unwilling to hold Obama to the same standard, however. As utterly misguided as they are, Libya and Uganda aren’t remotely in the same ballpark as Iraq as far as scale of operations, which is why he’s getting away with it.

              1. “As utterly misguided as they are, Libya and Uganda aren’t remotely in the same ballpark as Iraq[.]” I’m pretty sure they’re worse, on account of I don’t even think Obama got congressional approval.

                1. Well, I didn’t put the period there, you added that. I agree in principle it’s worse there was no Congressional approval (at least for Libya), but I clearly specified that I was talking about the scale. Neither Libya nor Uganda are full-scale combat engagements (yet).

      2. Not much. He can simply point out how even Obama, despite his rhetoric, essentially switched to Bush policies as soon as he was in office. This is evidence that Cain’s general opinion was correct.

        He’d be running against Obama, here, not some imaginary President who is perfect in every way.

        1. That is true. Obama took all of the worst things Bush did and made them bi-Partisan policy. Reason is pissing in the wind if they think Cain will be hurt by being too extreme on the war on terror.

          1. Speaking for the only vote I actually control, he will be hurt by the fact that he has no chance to win my pro-limited government vote. So yes, this is Team Red red meat, but he isn’t going to win by repelling independents like me who would never vote for Obama either.

            1. he has no chance to win my pro-limited government vote

              What the 1% that votes libertarian? What are they going to do vote for Obama.

              You are just concern trolling. I don’t think you are a Libertarian.

              1. I’m not a concern troll.

                I criticize state incorporation (as a socialization of risk that burdens victims and taxpayers before owners) but support total laissez-faire with basic rights enforcement.

                As a miniarchist who would have to raise revenue for a limited government, I would support a single land tax over any other form of taxation.

                I think in a free market, voluntary collectivist solutions like charity health care co-ops can replace many government functions.

                I think poverty and inequality are important issues for libertarians to address because poverty is the most convenient excuse for statism. Thus I support some radically reformed version of public education as the limit on the welfare state, to break the cycles of poverty and thus reduce statism.

                I support aid for the physically and mentally handicapped truly unable to support themselves.

                Other than that, I’m pretty much a standard issue libertarian.

                I’d gladly debate any issue with anyone, and am always willing to admit whenever I’m wrong if I can be convinced otherwise. Criticism of your constant partisan bias does not make me a troll. I’m willing to vote for almost anyone who will move the country in a consistently libertarian direction, even if it is incremental. I don’t write off Republicans or Democrats because of their party affiliation. I write them off because their policies tend to be rearranging the deck chairs at gunpoint while the Titanic is sinking.

                1. Re: Proprietarist,

                  I think poverty and inequality are important issues for libertarians to address because poverty is the most convenient excuse for statism.

                  Statists have all sorts of convenient excuses for their apologizing for tyranny. “Poverty” is mostly in the eye of the beholder: The US Gov has been maliciously raising the bar in order to continuate their vote-getting rackets, despite the fact that the average “poor” person in the US would be considered “rich” in places like Mexico or South America.

                  As for inequality, how would YOU address such a thing? People ain’t ants.

                  1. It’s important for libertarians to care about poverty not only because of the political manipulability of the welfare-dependent, because also because most of the root causes of poverty are based in government-created moral hazards, the failures of public education, the War on Drugs, restrictive occupational licensing and historically racist policies. I think we have some utilitarian basis to posit libertarianism as a superior solution to poverty, which is important when challenging or attempting to convince utilitarian statists to abandon their failed policies. Poverty and inequality would not be inherently unjustified if government wasn’t consistently standing in the way of meritocracy.

                    I’d argue some form of extremely different, competitive public education system is justified as both a corrective for cycles of poverty caused by the government, and as a preventative measure to reduce future poverty, and thus reduce the case for a welfare state, affirmative action, etc. On education, I’m probably more in line with Adam Smith or Thomas Paine than, say, Murray Rothbard.

                    1. Poverty caused by government malfeasance I can get being concerned about. Poverty in general is just poverty, and should not be the concern of politicians.

                    2. That’s exactly my point – if poverty results from an individual making terrible life decisions, that’s their own problem. Of course, ideally there should be nothing impeding them from getting back on their feet (for instance a drug conviction that keeps them from getting jobs long after they dealt with their addiction).

                      CYCLES of poverty are largely the result of bad government policies and economic moral hazards. Of course, individuals have will and can sometimes break these cycles with a lot of determination, luck, education and good parenting, but the cycle overall won’t change until the arbitrary complexity and injustice of laws are torched to the ground and based around simple rights enforcement. And without breaking the cycle of poverty, statism will thrive.

                  2. “Statists have all sorts of convenient excuses for their apologizing for tyranny. “Poverty” is mostly in the eye of the beholder: The US Gov has been maliciously raising the bar in order to continuate their vote-getting rackets, despite the fact that the average “poor” person in the US would be considered “rich” in places like Mexico or South America.

                    As for inequality, how would YOU address such a thing? People ain’t ants.”
                    As often as I disagree with Old Mexican, I think he has a point here, Proprietarist.

                    1. Radically reforming and improving public education towards results and free choice is the best start. Although public education is not a very libertarian solution, the alternative will be more poverty, fewer skilled workers and thus more welfarism and societal dependency. A strong educational system should ideally eliminate the need for any welfare state.

    3. Do these people actually think this stuff is going to hurt him in the primaries?

      If Republicans don’t want to guarantee a second term for Obama, it will.

      Cain makes Palin look like a well-spoken smooth operator. He’s not even close to being a viable candidate.

    4. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”

      Cain: Well lets apply the Founding Concept of our country and define our enemies and stop sending them money.

      The Concept even an atheist like Jefferson could agree on – Our Creator allows freewill. It’s actually scientific. Test it. Deny the creator. Try it. Accept it and don’t try to deny others theirs.

      The problem throughout history from church rule through communism and can in be seen with the climate science community. Those who deny the Concept do not like to be challenged. Gods themselves as bizarre as it sounds.

      It’s no coincidence Hillary believes we have to sacrifice the rights of the individual to do what’s best for society. And its no coincidence the warmist violate the right’s of the skeptic.

      To deny Creator allows freewill is to deny freewill itself. Apply it thorough history. It’s true!

      We need to get back to the Concept in science, politics and religion. The clearest path to get there is Cain -shiny things and all. We need a Cain before a Paul or Johnson can ever be elected.

      1. Karl Marx: My object in life is too dethrone God and destroy capitalism.

        Whether you are an atheist or a Christian – the second you deny the concept you become a potential tyrant.

      2. Also, actions really do speak LOUDER than words as far as the concept goes.

        Hillary Clinton can say she’s a Christian and even go to church every week but we all know she believes the rights of the individual should be sacrificed she’s a potential tyrant and the only thing that separates these type people is the actual power they wield. Its true.

  2. If I were into voting for the least/lesser of all/two evils and only for candidates that have a chance of winning, I might go for Cain. Yeah, he’s a douche hawk (or at least sounds like one), but he at least talks a good game on fiscal austerity and comes across as an average person rather than a career politician. And it also doesn’t sound like he has a social conservative axe to grind. Certainly, if the choice came down to Cain vs. Romney or Cain vs. Obama, I would have to go for Cain.

    If I were into that. Which I’m not. Can’t the earth open up and swallow all of these douches?

    1. The thing is all of them are hawks. Obama jerked off every Reason peacenik’s dick in the run up to the 2008 election. Then he got in office and has been worse than Bush was. Bush never went to war without Congressional authorization. And Bush never assassinated an American citizen.

      So I can’t quite figure out why I should care that Cain said some mean things about Democrats in 2006.

      1. “…has been worse than Bush was.”
        _
        u mean like 4,000 KIA & 30,000 wounded invading the wrong country?…when iran was next door w an actual nuke program?

        1. You mean that war that all those Democrats voted to authorize and then continued to fund after they took over Congress. You mean that war?

          And Obama just killed an American citizen. That is a worse precedent than any President has ever set. He killed an American citizen in a country with whom we had an MLAT with that was not a combat zone. See if you can wrap your tiny IQ around that.

        2. You mean that war that all those Democrats voted to authorize and then continued to fund after they took over Congress. You mean that war?

          And Obama just killed an American citizen. That is a worse precedent than any President has ever set. He killed an American citizen in a country with whom we had an MLAT with that was not a combat zone. See if you can wrap your tiny IQ around that.

          1. Settle down John.

            1. Damn squirrels. I had a long conversation with a good friend of mine. An Obama voter no less. Who really got me to thinking about the Al Awaki thing. It is really bad. A horrible precedent.

              1. Who really got me to thinking about the Al Awaki thing. It is really bad. A horrible precedent.

                Executive execution orders worked great during the principate.

              2. “”A horrible precedent.””

                Is it a precedent? It was reported so it might be a precedent there, but how do we know it’s the first time the CIA wacked a US citizen in a foreign country? That stuff would be classified.

            2. Who would cross the Bridge of Death must answer me these questions three, ere the other side he see.

              1. African or European?

                1. Laden or unladen?

                  1. Blue or yellow?

                2. Huh? I… I don’t know that.
                  Auuuuuuuugh.

          2. yes john, there were no iraqi nukes despite team boosch’s fear mongering (mushroom clouds over NYC) & cooked intel presented to congress.

            1. Oh poor Congress. They were so stupid they were taken in by the evil Bush. If that is true, the Democrats are retarded and not fit for power. What is it? Was there a legit case for war or were the Democrats retarded?

              1. Bush being a retarded simian who started a pointless war is not Democrats’ fault John.

                It was a regrettable time of patriotic hysteria, but I somehow doubt you were cheering on the anti-war Democrats at the time. Was Obama your guy in 2004?

                1. The Dems supported the war in Iraq and have continued it once they were in power. If you don’t like that, don’t vote democrat you fucking sock puppet.

                2. Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

                  Bush being a retarded simian who started a pointless war is not Democrats’ fault John.

                  Interesting notion. So how do you feel about those Dems following the madness of a retarded simian to ignominy? Who was the bigger fool, and who is being the even bigger fool for apologizing for them?

                  In other words: Shouldn’t the Dems back then know better?

                  It was a regrettable time of patriotic hysteria[…]

                  Maybe, but you quickly forget that some Dems (and some Repubs, including Ron Paul) stayed within their principles and voted against the war in Iraq. So how can you still justify the actions of the rest of the Dems? How can you justify their cowardice?

                  1. In the words of Obi-wan Kenobi: “Who is more the fool? The fool, or the fool who follows?”

              2. Oh poor Congress. They were so stupid they were taken in by the evil Bush. If that is true, the Democrats are retarded and not fit for power. What is it? Was there a legit case for war or were the Democrats retarded?

                Where’s the choice for the Democrats were too retarded for power, along with the Republicans who voted for the war as well?

          3. “You mean that war that all those Democrats voted to authorize and then continued to fund after they took over Congress. You mean that war?”

            Tu quoque?

            John |10.17.11 @ 3:49PM|#
            “I didn’t throw a hissyfit anywhere outside of your imagination. Read the posts and pay some attention.”

            Agree with you 100% about al-Awlaki, though.

            1. Sorry I pointed out he uncomfortable fact that a large number of Dems voted for the war.

              Truth hurts especially when you are a concern troll.

              And spare me your agreement on Al Awaki.

              1. Trust me, I’m no concern troll. I’ve always been completely honest about all my political stances. You make the accusation, you have to prove it.

                I think very few people here will debate your overwhelming partisan bias, however. Team Blue’s awful actions and policies don’t justify Team Red’s. Most of the time they’re in the same boat anyway, Iraq being a perfect example. So did Team Blue oppose the war out of hatred for America and it’s soldiers, or did Team Blue support the war, and therefore are equally to blame as the Republicans? Make up your mind.

        3. You mean that war that all those Democrats voted to authorize and then continued to fund after they took over Congress. You mean that war?

          And Obama just killed an American citizen. That is a worse precedent than any President has ever set. He killed an American citizen in a country with whom we had an MLAT with that was not a combat zone. See if you can wrap your tiny IQ around that.

      2. Yeah, at this point I have no reason to believe the Democrats are any better on the various wars (on civil liberties, drugs, brown people, etc.) than the GOP, which is to say they’re all fucking terrible. So if I were into the lesser-of-two-evils thing, there’s almost no way I could vote for Obama, and I would strongly prefer Cain to Romney.

        1. For me the best thing about Cain as a nominee is how they’ll play the race card.

      3. Most of the “Reason peaceniks” didn’t vote for BO and criticized him all the way up to the election. Do recall he was very hawkish wrt both Afghanistan and Darfur (remember that?).

  3. Reason kicks off it’s big “Gang Bang Herman Cain” week.

    Not that I give a shit.

  4. Yes, you are a Left-Libertarian dove. What you consider “godawful talking about foreign policy” I consider excellent.

  5. Cain has always been a vocal anti-muslim bigot who, thanks to being in the shitty pizza biz, knows how to come up with catch phrases to get people to buy a crappy product (his pizza or himself).

  6. Cain has always been a vocal anti-muslim bigot who, thanks to being in the shitty pizza biz, knows how to come up with catch phrases to get people to buy a crappy product (his pizza or himself).

    1. Nein, nein, nein.

      1. Heh… every time I hear about Cain’s 999 plan I want to do my Inglorious Basterds “Nein! Nein! Nein!” impression.

    2. Our creator denys the concept your country was built on. Our creator does not allow freewill. We have a book that basically runs every aspect of our lives just like your socialist.

  7. Wait.

    You mean liberals didn’t spend 8 years trashing everything that Bush did foreign policywise? And then when their guy got elected and changed nothing and the libs suddenly shut up?

    Right. ‘Cause that never happened.

    Oh, and when you’re fighting a war and announce that on such and such date, you’re done. Yeah, that’s called surrender.

    Anyway, it must be election time. The Libertarians are turning liberal again.

    Lucky for the US, freedom and liberty don’t need to be defended. Why, it just prospers all on its own.

    1. Anyway, it must be election time. The Libertarians are turning liberal again.

      Yeah, not supporting the TEAM RED retard for president is being “liberal”.

      It must be election time. All the TEAM RED schmucks who call themselves “libertarians” are going full TEAM RED again.

    2. “Lucky for the US, freedom and liberty don’t need to be defended. Why, it just prospers all on its own.”

      You seriously believe that Iraq, the Taliban, and al Quaeda are a threat to our freedom? Utter conservative bullshit.

      The Patriot Act OTOH…

      1. “You seriously believe that Iraq, the Taliban, and al Quaeda are a threat to our freedom?”

        So the next time Al Quada blows something up that doesn’t affect our freedom? So people living in places like Israel, where they make you go through metal detectors in the mall, are not less free than we are?

        And where do you think the patriot act came from you fucking half wit? You think it was bad after 9-11, wait until you see people panic after a really big attack that kills tens of thousands. I think if you are interested in freedom, you have a real vested interest in people not being attacked.

        1. Not everyone buys into the “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” doctrine.

          If you were a terrorist would you prefer to fight the best trained and best equipped military the world has ever seen, or would you prefer to blow up a building stateside?

          Think about it.

          1. They seem to have chose the former. And lots of them have died trying.

            1. They seem to have chose the former.
              Have they? Or are they fighting what they view as an occupying force?

              And lots of them have died trying.

              How many of our guys have died?
              How many have had limbs blown off?
              How many have become drug addled street people like so many after Vietnam?

              For what? Is it worth it?

              Maybe there haven’t been buildings blowing up left and right because it isn’t that easy to come to this country from the opposite side of the globe and commence destruction.

              1. “”Maybe there haven’t been buildings blowing up left and right because it isn’t that easy to come to this country from the opposite side of the globe and commence destruction.””

                Probably.

                It took 8 years for them to take a second shot at the WTC without a war breathing on them, or the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

                I saw a good special on terrorist that pretty much told the deal. KSM is locked away. He was behind pretty much all the major shit, including both WTC attacks.

        2. John,

          “So the next time Al Quada blows something up that doesn’t affect our freedom?”

          Not really… Now people like HC who will use such an attack as a pretense to legislate away individual freedom OTOH…

          “And where do you think the patriot act came from you fucking half wit?”

          Perhaps you’re confusing me with MNG, hence the anger. Anyway, if the US ever really becomes a totalitarian state, it won’t be because Islamic terrorist overthrew the government. It will be because of people like HC who view the forfeiture of individual rights and endless war as justified in order to protect us from teh terrorists. Also, as HC makes clears above, it will come wrapped in flowery words like ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’.

          1. Like George Carlin said –

            “when fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley.”

          2. If it ever does it will probably be because someone managed to kill enough people to make the prospect of safety more appealing than the prospect of freedom.

            It is easy to be supportive of other people dying for your freedom. The other people don’t look at it that way.

            1. Don’t kid yourself into believing that US soldiers in Iraq are there defending our freedom here in the US.

              1. He believes it.

              2. We are not talking about Iraq. We are talking about Al Quada. The war in Iraq is over. We should go home. But absolute, the military did a lot for our freedom by killing the thousands of foreign militants that came to Iraq who would have been causing trouble elsewhere.

                1. “”The war in Iraq is over. We should go home. “”

                  And so it shall be.

                  http://www.military.com/news/a…..-iraq.html

                  Unless there’s a last minute agreement made, lol.

                2. “We are not talking about Iraq. We are talking about Al Quada.”

                  FWIW, we’re the same thing I said about Iraq could be applied to our war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other war fought under the guise of the WOT. For the sake of argument, however, lets assume we’re talking about Al Qaeda. AQ is absolutely NO threat to our freedom. Politicians and their statist allies who use AQ and the general ‘WOT’ as justifications for their policies ARE.

                  “But absolute, the military did a lot for our freedom by killing the thousands of foreign militants that came to Iraq who would have been causing trouble elsewhere.”

                  Not really. Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to have no shortage of a terrorist pool to draw from despite our efforts in Iraq. If anything, our involvement in Iraq has only served to create more terrorists.

        3. A threat to freedom can be identified by a simple scientific method tested concept.

          Do you believe a Creator allows freewill?

          That simple. Actions speak louder than words when applying it.

          To deny the simple concept that even Jefferson could agree with – to deny a Creator allows freewill is to deny freewill itself. Apply it to the DOI, church rule, communism. Its true!

          We need to get back to it and start applying it and stop sending money to the enemies of freedom.

      2. If we’d chosen to ignore the whole business, we’d still be here, trying to ruin what is still by far the strongest economy on Earth.

        I’m not saying that I think we shouldn’t have responded to 9/11, but it’s simply not true that some stupid terrorists (and it was stupid to provoke us) are a real threat to the United States. The Soviet Union was, just to give a rational comparison.

        1. but it’s simply not true that some stupid terrorists (and it was stupid to provoke us) are a real threat to the United States

          But terrorism can gin up an emotional reaction which can be manipulated for political purposes.

          1. The response from libertarian should always be to act as a counterbalance to hysteria. Not, as John seems to suggest, to support endless war.

            1. John would be better described as a conservative than a libertarian.

              1. “John would be better described as a conservative than a libertarian.”

                True, and I don’t think he would argue with that. In fact, if I remember correctly, he even says he’s not a libertarian.

                The funny thing is, I used to be a hardcore conservative so I know where John is coming from.

            2. I don’t support endless war. We get peace when our enemies give it to us. As long as there are people out there actively trying to attack the country, we are at war. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

              1. “‘I don’t support endless war. We get peace when our enemies give it to us. As long as there are people out there actively trying to attack the country, we are at war. “‘

                The concept of terrorism will never allow for peace. It’s the boogieman that will not die, and government will use to it’s advantage. The friggin P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act was nothing but a prosecutorial wish list that met opprotunity. And it’s moved into law enforcement. The “WOT” is meant to stay. If you support it, you are supporting endless war.

              2. “As long as there are people out there actively trying to attack the country, we are at war. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.”

                Hence ‘Endless War’… unless you foresee a future where there isn’t a single person ‘actively trying to attack’ the US.

                1. “”unless you foresee a future where there isn’t a single person ‘actively trying to attack’ the US.””

                  Ha! You don’t even need that. All you need is a proactive FBI, and someone with a desire. The FBI will turn it into the next big attack.

                  1. Next big foiled attack that is.

                  2. The state can always find an enemy to justify its own existence.

  8. …hijack the president’s authority.

    I’m sure he’s in favor of that now, but would be against it if he were to be elected.

  9. It is truly amazing but:

    The self-described Totalitarian pro-Islamic movement attacks the US. And according to the attackers, they did so as part of a long war in order to change the US (and the entire West really) into a totalitarian Islamic state.

    And yet so-called Libertarians are against any so-called pushed back against this.

    You embarrass me, Reason. This is why I never admit to being a libertarian– you guys are a bunch of know-nothings that have no clue as how to defend property, life and liberty.

    Defending freedom sometimes looks like AZ1070 law as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, it’s messy.

    But to hell with defending the good against the evil in the world. Fuck liberty and its defense.

    I mean, have you been to DC cocktail parties around Christmastime?

    1. “The self-described Totalitarian pro-Islamic movement attacks the US. And according to the attackers, they did so as part of a long war in order to change the US (and the entire West really) into a totalitarian Islamic state.”

      You think al Quaeda has a snow ball’s chance in hell of turning the US into an Islamic State?

      I’ll have whatever you’re smoking because it sound pretty damn potent.

      1. Where do people get these ideas? I don’t see anyone converting, nor do we have some insane influx of Muslims into the U.S. Unless Mexicans are secret Muslims, anyway.

        1. Mantequilla!

        2. Re: Pro Libertate,

          Unless Mexicans are secret Muslims, anyway.

          Will never happen. Mexicans can be everything except teetotalers.

          Unas Carta-Blancas para la raza?

          1. We’d invade to protect our precious tequila, anyway.

        3. Apparently you’ve never heard of the Nation of Islam.

      2. Cow, your rant will make me feel better about getting my nuts squeezed by TSA.

      3. “You think al Quaeda has a snow ball’s chance in hell of turning the US into an Islamic State?”

        Probably not this year, no. Just like the Soviet Union wouldn’t have taken over the world in a year if we never gave them any pushback.

        Is the US turning into an Islamic state anytime soon? No. Probably never. In Europe. Probably so. We’re going to see increasingly Islamic states in Europe. Islam is starting to remake Europe through demographics and violence.

        Totalitarian Islam has been on a roll at least since the Iranian Revolution.

        Arguably, Al Qaeda blew it by provoking the US to war. They could have continued to consolidate the Middle East, and be the likely alternative to all the dictators in the region.

        The Bolsheviks and Nazis showed that ideological minorities willing to use violence can win.

        Pushing back against such movements is in our long term interests, even if the rednecks in our country will likely be able to prevent a takeover here for the foreseeable future.

        1. Muslims, no. That is just silly. They are not a substantial threat. Communist on the other hand have always been and will continue to be the greatest threat this nation faces. The fall of the Soviets took everyone’s eyes off the ball while the commies dug in deep in America’s academia (try throwing a stone in the middle of a history department without hitting one), and the nation’s public employee infrastructure. I went to college with an avowed communist who is now my County’s registrar of deeds.

          1. Professor do you believe a Creator allows freewill?

            Professor: Sure, I’ll play along.

            Did you support Obamacare?

            Professor: Yes.

            Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

            Professor: You just flunked this course pal.

          2. Mr climate scientist, do you believe the Creator allows freewill?

            Climate scientist: I don’t believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

            Skeptic: Einstein was right.

            Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what’s best for society.

            1. I don’t exist! It was Marx and Engels who dethroned your Framer’s Creator Concept – in order to destroy your capitalism with a bunch of demi-God demagogues.

            2. People seem to blame me because of what man has done with an OBVIOUS self evident truth which even an atheist can adhere to the concept of by the scientific method and write a DOI steeply based in it. The irony!

              Test the concept throughout history. Did the tyrants deny freewill?

              Stop blaming me and at least trust the concept, its self evident.

            3. The way I treated my boy toys are nothing but rumors and lies.

    2. Defending freedom sometimes looks like AZ1070 law as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Right, defending freedom sometimes looks like stomping on it. But really, we’re defending freedom.

    3. Re: Holy Cowfarts, Batman!,

      The self-described Totalitarian pro-Islamic movement attacks the US.

      With no provocation

      1. Oh, the tag squirrels….

        Re: Holy Cowfarts, Batman!,

        The self-described Totalitarian pro-Islamic movement attacks the US.

        With no provocation – do not forget to add that lie as well.

        And yet so-called Libertarians are against any so-called pushed back [sic] against this.

        I am certainly against bad grammar.

        This is why I never admit to being a libertarian[…]

        So you will come out of the libertarian closet when the rest of us stop being principled and consistent libertarians? Odd.

        Or maybe you’re no libertarian at all, which means there’s nothing for you to admit.

        And I am still against bad grammar. And bad logic.

    4. “And yet so-called Libertarians are against any so-called pushed back against this.

      This is why I never admit to being a libertarian– you guys are a bunch of know-nothings that have no clue as how to defend property, life and liberty.”

      Not all of them. Not guys like Jefferson, who pushed back against the Barbary pirates.

      “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men…”

      Securing our rights in a world of dictators and totalitarians isn’t pretty. It doesn’t look like Libertopia.

      I was in favor of pushback against the Soviet Union. I’m in favor of pushback against totalitarian Islam.

      And I’m in favor of pushback against so called libertarians who don’t believe in self defense until the tanks are rolling across Omaha. You should try it. Why cede the title of libertarian to them?

      1. “And I’m in favor of pushback against so called libertarians who don’t believe in self defense until the tanks are rolling across Omaha.”

        Thank you, you just gave me the biggest belly laugh in a long time.

  10. Yeah, because Cain is just the same as Obama.

    Get your head out of your ass with your team red/team blue holier-than-thou bullshit.

    Yeah, let’s all support the LP retard. Hey, maybe all 14 of Bednarik’s supporters can rent out a party room at the local Ihop.

    One side is head and shoulders above the other, even with all their massive flaws.

    1. TEAM RED troll is TEAM RED. Big surprise.

    2. “One side is head and shoulders above the other, even with all their massive flaws.”

      Okay we get it you’re not a civil libertarian, and you’re a hawk. Frankly I don’t care, but when you make a statement like this it’s always nice to see evidence to back it up. So tell me excluding civil liberties issues, social issues, and foreign policy, how is the Republican Party, better than the Democratic Party? And please don’t boil this down to just Obamacare, or the bailouts, especially since one of the two frontrunners supported the same Healthcare plan in MA, (and possibly nationwide: http://www.unitedliberty.org/a…..l-mandate; http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..th-reform/), and both frontrunners supported TARP.

      So unless Jim DeMint(isn’t running), Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul is the nominee how is the GOP with it past support for: TARP, Medicare Part D, the Bush stimulus, No Child Left Behind, and other spending scemes better?

    3. We would rather stay with our bubble and remain a debate society. Why vote for an impure candidate like Herman Cain because it might actually help turn the whole country into a liberty based debate society.

  11. Sometimes I wonder if the Reason staff (or maybe just Matt) is a bunch of bitchy little sissies who would vote for a big government liberal if it meant redefining marriage to include pee-pee puffers.

  12. Sounds like y’all will be voting for Barry again

    1. Re: rather,

      I certainly regret not being able to vote for Barry so I can regret voting for him.

      1. you probably think this song comment is about you
        You’re so vain, I’ll bet you think this song comment is about you
        Don’t you? Don’t You?

        https://reason.com/search?cx=00…..earch#1025

        but this comment is about you 😉

        1. Re: rather,

          you probably think this song comment is about you

          Oh, you so sensitive, girlfriend! I was just makin’ conversation, girl! Are your cramps flaring up today, or what?

    2. Personally I’m holding out for another seventy something GOP Senator.

    3. As the person who wrote this post, I can testify that I would sooner crush my privates in a vice than consider voting a first time for Barack Obama. But don’t let that spoil your good time.

      1. Matt. Cavenaugh and his “I always wanted to vote for a black man” bit wound up tarring you all. People forget which one of you did it.

        1. I don’t concern myself with other people’s reading incomprehension, willing or otherwise, but I do occasionally respond to direct questions or assertions.

          1. I don’t concern myself with other people’s reading incomprehension, willing or otherwise…

            Did I ever write you voted for Obama?

            Perhaps the reading incomprehension is not my issue but yours?

            1. “Sounds like y’all will be voting for Barry again,” and “[Cavanaugh] wound up tarring you all.”

              I am part of “all,” and I also wrote the post that triggered this latest round in scintillating wither-Reason’s-vote commentary.

              1. Y’all mean no one specific:

                2.An associative plural, including individuals associated but not present with the singular addressee.
                Example: “Y’all can come over at around 10:30,” Stephanie says.
                Stephanie explains to John that John and John’s friends, who are not present at the time, can come over at around 10:30. Stephanie is speaking to John, but treats John as a representative for others.
                3.An institutional plural addressed to one person representing a group.
                Example: “Y’all sell the best candies, Mrs. Johnson.”
                Y’all is received by Mrs. Johnson who is the representative of a small candy business.
                4.A form used in direct address in certain contexts (e.g., partings, greetings, invitations, and vocatives)
                Example: “Hey, y’all!”
                A greeting that addresses a multitude of people without referencing a singular identity comprising that multitude

                1. Re: I’d rather obfuscate and backpedal and huff n’ puff than concede I was wrong,

                  “Y’all” mean[t] no one specific

                  And so…

          2. Partisans like to paint with broad brushes.

            1. What part of I have never voted in the US, and I hate all politicians do you not get?

              1. Acutally that was a reply to Welch. But I can see how the threaded comments got ya. I hate it when that happens to me.

        2. While that is true, it is just laziness on the commentariat when who voted for whom around here is a Matter of Public Record

          1. It’s foolish to demand that rather expend even the tiniest bit of effort in her griefing of this blog on something as insignificant as facts.

      2. My advice is that you not speak to rather like she’s a normal human, Matt. Nothing good comes of it.

  13. “Setting a date certain for troop withdrawal is like placing a sign in your yard telling the local burglar the times you plan to be away from your home with the front door unlocked.”

    True

    “attempt to send the terrorists a media-gram of when we will withdraw from Iraq makes no sense, except to claim a political victory at the expense of national security.”

    True

    Certainly Cain is engaging in quite a bit of hyperbole here (unlike all of those other “principled” politicians who never do that) but half of what he’s criticized above for is either true or has some kernal of truth in it. You guys are gonna half to do alot better than this and the straw man misdemeaner execution BS. Pretty weak really. I want to see some real dirt next time. Maybe you can dig up some racist newsletters with his name on them or something.

  14. Herman Cain supported the TARP bailouts and the bill to audit the Fed.
    Herman Cain wants to tinker with the tax code but promises it will be revenue neutral.

    Ron Paul opposed the TARP bailouts and wrote the bill to audit the Fed.
    Ron Paul proposed addressing the real problem, by cutting spending one trillion dollars right away.

    Easy choice.

    1. Correction: Cain doesn’t want to “tinker with” the tax code; he wants to vaporize it.

      Carry on.

      1. Yeah, but he wants a Income tax AND a Sales tax….and there is nothing to stop them from just raising these taxes to 99-99-99….

        Not like there is anything to really stop them from raising the current tax rates to 99%

        /Facepalm

        1. …or my favorite criticism I heard of the 9-9-9 tax plan last week:

          By removing the payroll taxes (Medicare and SS) those programs become direct welfare payments

          OMG!

          Like they weren’t already direct welfare payments.

          /facepalm
          /facepalm

  15. Everything Cain said made perfect sense to me. The only unfortunate comment was “they want us to lose”, which was true in a shorthanded way, but not the clearest expression.

    A lot of people thought our attack against the Stalinist mafia ruling the Iraqi people was a crime against humanity. They wanted that project to end without success.

    Reagan said “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” A lot of the same people opposed to Reagan’s strategy are the same people who were opposed to the War against the Hussein Regime, and the same people opposed to the war against Islamic totalitarianism. They think we’re the criminals every time we oppose totalitarianism.

  16. Soon afterward, Cain took the next logical step, calling the Democratic candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination “Hezbocrats.” And in a separate column he impugned the patriotism of Democrats[…]

    Just so you guys know that black conservatives are as prone to demonizing and indulge in manichaeism as black democrats.

  17. The self-described Totalitarian pro-Islamic movement attacks the US. And according to the attackers, they did so as part of a long war in order to change the US (and the entire West really) into a totalitarian Islamic state.

    You know what “pushback” this actually requires?

    Nothing.

    The entire reason those “totalitarian Islamists” launched a terror attack is because there’s no other attack they could conceivably launch.

    The US completely outguns the entire Islamic world in combination in every conceivable measure of power. Every last one. It’s not even close. (And that’s assuming they managed to unite the Islamic world, which has virtually no chance of happening for more reasons than we really have to go into.)

    You know what’s necessary to defeat totalitarian Islam?

    Waiting them out. While the US continues to outstrip them in every measure of power geometrically decade by decade.

    That’s it.

    It’s precisely their frustration with their powerlessness and irrelevance that leads them to lash out.

    And the WORST thing we could do is to make ourselves like them in even the tiniest way, because that reduces our qualitative advantage. The only way – literally the only way – they have any chance in the long-term competition between modernity and Islam is if we surrender our political, social, economic, and cultural advantages in order to build a national security state to make you less scared. In every other scenario the endgame is Playboy Clubs in Mecca at some point down the line.

    1. “In every other scenario the endgame is Playboy Clubs in Mecca at some point down the line.” Playboy Clubs, how quaint.

  18. The really annoying thing about Cain’s complaints about the anti-Iraq-war movement is that I don’t see any complaints there from him about the way the Bush administration got a handle on the conflict by buying off Sunni insurgents and incorporating them into the regional power structures of Iraq.

    A great many terrorists did, in fact, “win” in Iraq if you consider getting helicopters full of cash in exchange for laying down your arms a kind of victory.

    I’m sure if Cain saw me call for negotiations in Afghanistan he’d call me a terrorist sellout, but if that motherfucker wins and brings back the Bush national security team that’s exactly what he’ll end up doing anyway. He just won’t call it negotiations and won’t do it openly, and that will mean that when he showers Taliban figures with cash and government jobs it won’t be “appeasing terrorists” but will be something much more manly. Right?

  19. Lucky for the US, freedom and liberty don’t need to be defended. Why, it just prospers all on its own.

    There is no power on Earth – and no combination of powers on Earth – that can conquer the United States and take away its liberty. None. Inside the Islamic world or outside of it. Heck, the entire rest of the globe united in anti-US hatred couldn’t do it.

    All they could do is utterly destroy the biosphere and die of starvation on a blasted plain where the only light comes from their own fucking skulls glowing in the dark.

    The US is forever, babe. Unless it crumbles from within. We win, or the whole world dies.

    This pre-WW-II power politics nostalgia really is extraordinarily silly. Nobody is coming to conquer us. If the Soviet Union couldn’t get it done, 20 guys in a cave in Afghanistan can’t get it done.

    1. The enemies of freedom are those who deny freewill and we have many potential tyrants among us.

      To deny Our Creator allows freewill is to deny freewill itself. Even Jefferson could agree with that concept then went ahead wrote some stuff based in that concept and shit happened – here we are today. Here we are today wondering where it all went wrong and how did we get here. We got here by denying the concept therefore freewill -see Obamacare. See Commerce clause and how its used to deny freewill of the states. We changed the checks and balances and it started with progressives who deny a Creator allows us freewill. Clarence Thomas properly applied the Concept in his dissension in Raich vs Gonzalez.

      The concept our Framers obviously believed and its self evident should be used to strike Obamacare too.

  20. DDavis:
    Your comments are spot-on.

    Fluffy:
    Nice response, thank you. But I would like to add that both the Left (yes, much of the Anti-War left) and the Islamists know that only an internal conflict can topple the US. And I think that’s what both are aiming for.

    Though I’m not saying that the Left and the Islamists are the same, nor are their goals the same. But their similarities are that they both want a top-down command and control government. The Left wants the US to be western Europe. The Islamists want the US to be Al-Ameriqa.

    Old Mexican:
    Seriously? You make fun of my name, point out a typo and then call me a illogical? You can do better than that.

    1. Hmm, I’m confused -is this a summary or does OM do that to everyone

    2. “Nice response, thank you. But I would like to add that both the Left (yes, much of the Anti-War left) and the Islamists know that only an internal conflict can topple the US. And I think that’s what both are aiming for.” Do you really, in your heart of hearts, honestly believe Islamists have anything approaching the same goals.

  21. And here we have yet another column from the liberaltarian (not a typo) Reason. I don’t know why this is being treated as some sort of revelation. Herman Cain has said as much as recently as last weekend in interviews.

  22. “including a bang-up profile of Herman Cain”

    Wow. I think they meant banged-out, as in about 5 minutes. Obvious also that they don’t like him very much. And you’d think a site like this would know the difference between a Fair Tax and the FairTax.

  23. Herman Cain is right! I also hope he doesn’t go wobbly anymore on not appointing Muslims to his office if he becomes President. They may kill him if they’re close enough.

    A proposed Amendment to ban Islam in the U.S.

    “There’s no need to fear. Underzog is here.”

  24. Professor do you believe a Creator allows freewill?

    Professor: Sure, I’ll play along.

    Did you support Obamacare?

    Professor: Yes.

    Then you do not accept freewill and you are a potential tyrant.

    Professor: You just flunked this course pal.

    Hey climate scientist, do you believe the Creator allows freewill?

    Climate scientist: I don’t believe a Creator exist let alone that one allows freewill.

    AGW Skeptic: Einstein was right.

    Climate scientist: Silence skeptic! We must sacrifice your rights and do what’s best for society as I see fit.

    Hey Hillary, progressives Dems do you believe Our Creator allows freewill?

    Leftwing Choir We must sacrifice the rights of the individual and do what’s best for society.

    Who decides what’s best? Certainly not society see Obamacare.

    Leftwing Choir From one, many see Obamacare.

    The progressive left has it all bass-ackwards and actions really do speak louder than words in a world that is not turned upside down -and they are doing it to this economy because they see the world bass-ackwards when they don’t understand the Concept then create policy accordingly.

    Devil: I don’t exist! It was Marx and Engels who dethroned your Framer’s Creator Concept – in order to destroy your capitalism with a bunch of demi-God demagogues.

    Creator: People seem to blame me because of what man has done – with an OBVIOUS self evident truth – which even an atheist can adhere to – the concept which the scientific method can be applied – where an atheist can even write a document steeply based in that Concept that deist and various sects of Christians could agree and form a nation. Test the concept throughout history. Did the tyrants of history deny the freewill which is self evident a Creator/Concept allows?

    Professor: Your founders were racist capitalist pig slave holders.

    Common Sense: Professor with all due respect the Founding Fathers knew they couldn’t fight the Civil War before the American Revolution or shortly thereafter and remain United States. They were wise enough to put mechanisms in place though.

    The reason we are were we are at this point in time is because we lost track of our Founding’s concept that preceded and lead to the DOI. The Concept that Our Creator allows us freewill. whether we believe in a Creator or not we have to believe the self evident Concept.

  25. I don’t agree with Cain’s exact view of world affairs. However, there is some truth to his claims.

    – Much of the media do craft their presentation of conflict to both advance their own political agenda and to manufacture and amplify controversy and sensationalism

    – I don’t think any American politicians or major media figures want “the terrorists to win” (at least as far as your typical Islamist terror group’s stated long term objectives), but there are certainly figures in American politics and media who place their personal aspirations above national security.

    Importantly, the influence of the media on American public opinion, as well as the politicization of American defense and foreign policy, are factors that other national governments and non-state actors definitely pay attention to. They see it, they focus on it, they design doctrine around it. Until the enormity of our national debt and continuing financial gusher begins to destroy our military, there is no country on Earth that can defeat the U.S. in a purely military conflict. So, in order to resist U.S. will and impose their own will in conflict, various national governments and non-state actors look to ways of influencing and taking advantage of American media and political behavior. They seek to undermine American public support for policies that these foreign elements find unfavorable for their own ends. The best example of such an element is the national government of Iran and its relationship with Hezbollah. I don’t know what to make of this bizarre cartel-Saudi ambassador-bomb plot thing, but Hezbollah is very sophisticated as terror groups go, has developed extensive social, political, and information arms, and was able to put up a much stronger fight in 2006 against the IDF in Lebanon than would have been expected, even when accounting for the IDF’s poor state of preparedness in that particular conflict. Iran uses Hezbollah as an extension of its own forces. Iran has also developed organizations in other countries using lessons learned from operations with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Two of the most deadly attacks made by Hezbollah so far occurred in Argentina of all places, strangely “coincidental” with the end of Argentine assistance in the Iranian nuclear program. (Which does provide a historical precedent for Iranian terror operations in Latin America/western hemisphere via proxies – though Hezbollah almost seems more an extension of Iranian government than a real proxy). Terror operations, no matter how horrendous, never kill enough people to achieve their ends through direct attrition – they are always done to sway public opinion and influence political decisions. As such they operations geared for mass psychological effect, and the information domain is very prominent today. So, if you abstract Cain’s assertions to simply saying that there are politicians and media figures whose propensity for grandstanding, slandering, and rumor-farming are seen as fertile ground by hostile governments and groups, then Cain would be absolutely correct.

    1. Clarification regarding the meandering, incoherent babble in my post above: I don’t mean to associate Hezbollah with the Saudi-bomb plot thingamawhatsit, but to simply discuss Hezbollah and its relationship (genesis actually) with Iran, since the Iran-Hezbollah relationship is the clearest example of what is known as Hybrid Threat, which in plain English means governments using insurgents and similar groups to do things, mainly to screw with Western public support for military operations, but possibly also for more direct efforts. In any case, Cain is right that hostile and shady governments and groups do actively seek to manipulate the pieces in our political and media “machinery” here in the West.

  26. A few years ago Howard Stern drew up a list of about 50 well-know Democrat/Liberals and 50 equally famous Republican/Conservatives. He compared the list on which group had more military veterans. The left-wingers outnumbered the right-wingers about 5 to 1. The GOP (Grand Old Pussies) ought to change their name to the Chickenhawk Party. They have no problem going to war when it’s not their asses or the asses of their children on the line.

    1. Have you stopped beating your wife?

      A. Yes
      B. No

  27. Jesus Christ, John and MWG. Just kiss already.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.