| | Advanced Search


NEW: Hull Criticizes Smiley Withdrawal—Rhode Island State Representative Ray Hull has criticized…

NEW: Fung Opposes Chafee Administration Pay Hikes—Republican candidate for Governor Allan Fung testified against…

Friday Financial Five - August 22, 2014—Little bundles of joy are considered priceless, but…

Jackson Browne Digs Deep at PPAC—Jackson Browne arrived in town with a grand…

5 Live Music Musts - August 22, 2014—Here at “5 Live,” we absolutely refuse to…

Moms Can-Do’s: Kamp Kid Adventures LEGO Engineering and More!—Moms of little ones—from toddlers to elementary schoolers—looking…

Tax Breaks for Developers - See the Special Deals—See the special deals and millions in tax…

Hodgson Names Gobeil as Campaign Manager—Republican candidate for Attorney General Dawson Hodgson has…

Block Calls on Fung to Explain His Role in Cranston Police Scandals—Republican candidate for Governor Ken Block has called…

Progressive Democrats Of Rhode Island Endorse Clay Pell for Governor—The Rhode Island Progressive Democrats of America (RIPDA)have…


Travis Rowley: Pilgrims and the Pope

Saturday, November 30, 2013


Admittedly, there is much to be noted concerning warnings of the “idolatry of money” and the “excesses of capitalism.” But after carefully studying Pope Francis’ remarks touching upon economic philosophy within his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel) I have drawn a conclusion: The Pope’s commentary is unfortunate.

And, like any other pro-collectivist argument, it is grounded in ignorance.

Forcefully correcting Francis’ claim that free market economics have “never been confirmed by the facts” – and that free markets fail to “[bring] about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world” – editor-in-chief of Reason Magazine Matt Welch penned an article that neutralized the Pope’s claim, providing numerous “facts” that would at least force Francis to modify his opinion.

This proud Catholic couldn’t help but agree with Welch when he wrote, “Francis's hyperbolic rants about the role and allegedly dictatorial power of free markets are embarrassing in their wrongness…To look upon the miracles of this world and lament the lack of ‘means of escape’ is to advertise your own ignorance. To call [capitalism] a ‘tyranny’ is to do violence to any meaningful sense of that important word.”

Thanksgiving vs. The Pope

Perhaps the timing couldn’t have been worse for Pope Francis. Evangelii Gaudium was offered on the Eve of Thanksgiving, when conservative pundits were reminding everyone of this national holiday’s true history and the real source of the pilgrims’ plight. As the governor of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford reported, after having ended the practice of a “common stock” for all the settlers in favor of private land ownership, the “face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Bradford wrote, “Any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.”

Another historical testimony came from Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor. Apparently, under the organization of “common stock,” the pilgrims “reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now.”

Four hundred years later the Bishop of Rome will denounce this anti-poverty system as a “selfish ideal.”

Pope Francis asks, “Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving?" – Astonishingly incurious as to the structure that provided so much food to discard in the first place.

But Francis seems to be in agreement with the most radical of leftists, obsessed with material “equality” and philosophically averse to a world of plenty: “The culture of prosperity deadens us.”

Pope Francis also writes, “Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.”

For the Pope to proclaim that “today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest” is pure hyperbole to the point of complete inaccuracy. Indeed, the Tea Party movement sprung up in 2009 in defiance to the socialism being administered within the housing market, and in order to return us to a state of “competition.”

This particular statement manages to match the total oblivion represented by the Left’s repeated assertion that “free-market healthcare delivered us to this point” – the point where something like Obamacare was absolutely necessary. In reality, there may not be an industry that has been under more government control during the last 60 years than the markets dealing in health care and health insurance.

Pope vs. Pope

There is much less wiggle room for conservatives in this instance than there has been in recent months, when progressives were attempting to take advantage of more ambiguous remarks made by the Roman Pontiff.

In his exhortation, Pope Francis doesn’t merely encourage the wealthy to individually decide to care for the less fortunate. Rather, he calls on “the more fortunate” to “renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others.” Among many unmistakable remarks, Francis declares, “Inequality is the root of social ills” and calls on us to “[attack] the structural causes of inequality.”

While progressives again became giddy over the Pope’s latest comments, they likely won’t be asked by brokers of information to balance them against the anti-socialist comments made by popes of the past.

Most people understand that the Church is despised by progressives for its resistance to abortion and gay “marriage.” Less known is the fact that the Church has a long – while uneven – history of denouncing collectivist ideologies.

Pope John Paul II wrote, “The fundamental error of socialism is anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that the good of the individual is completely subordinated…Socialism likewise maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without reference to his free choice…From this mistaken conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to private property…[Socialism] makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an authentic human community.”

In 1878, Pope Leo XIII was emphatic in his understanding that the “special object” of the Church’s “doctrines and precepts” is “the uprooting of the evil growth of socialism.” He warned of the socialist desire to “debase the natural union of man and woman,” that socialists are “lured…by the greed of present goods,” that they “assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law,” and that they “strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life.”

Leo XIII had a prophetic message for today’s unionists: “It is no matter for surprise that men of the lowest class, weary of their wretched home or workshop, are eager to attack the homes and fortunes of the rich.”

“But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings…For, while the socialists would destroy the ‘right’ of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Pope Francis vs. The Future

The struggles against abortion and gay marriage are worthy – and even related to the collectivist effort. But I would venture to say that the widespread cry for economic socialism represents the most immediate threat to America’s future. Too many Americans – along with one of the nation’s major political parties – are now in full subscription to the collectivist ideal. If its unworkability and its evil roots aren’t decoded and outlawed soon, reaching the American ideal again will be made impossible.

This urgency is why a devout Catholic friend of mine decided this week, “If [the Pope] feels like wading into economics, I’m not gonna cut him any slack.” And this is why Matt Welch has declared that “cheering” for Pope Francis’ anti-capitalist sentiments is “like [liberals] donating money to a Creationist Museum, only with more potential impact.”

Conservative Catholics shouldn’t be afraid to speak out against the Pope’s promotion of collectivist theory. We should pray for Francis. We should remember that the socialist idea is seductive. And we should never forget that we have previous popes on our side.

Travis Rowley (TravisRowley.com) is the author of The RI Republican: An Indictment of The Rhode Island Left.


Related Slideshow: The Best of Travis Rowley

Here are some of Travis Rowley's most well-read articles to date:

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Liberty By Law

November 24, 2012

In the event of a victory by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney several weeks ago, I had prepared myself to draft a column intended to quell the anticipated jubilation of the political Right nationwide – my primary point being that, despite such a Republican triumph, America’s enduring crisis would have been that Barack Obama was practically guaranteed 47 percent of the popular vote simply by being the endorsed Democratic candidate (Obama ultimately secured 51 percent).

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Republicans Told You So

August 25, 2012

While Anthony Gemma’s highly anticipated press conference was certainly compelling, it remains unclear whether or not it will be enough to sink Congressman David Cicilline’s re-election hopes. At the very least, however, it seems Gemma is in possession of convincing evidence of large-scale voter fraud that would incriminate high-level officers within Cicilline’s inner circle.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Gay Marriage is a Sham

January 5, 2013

The consequences of silence were on parade this week when Channel 10 aired a report titled “Same-Sex Marriage Could Help RI Economy.” The premise for saying so is that many people, while decidedly against the passage of a gay marriage bill, have been entirely bullied out of the controversy – and that this has resulted in a growing confusion over how to even begin defending traditional values.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Lessons From Boston's Post-Bombing Lockdown

April 20, 2013

In the midst of the ongoing debate over the 2nd Amendment, I discovered lessons to be learned from the events in Boston this week.

Let me start with this: Owning a gun is not a natural right. After all, how can a firearm be a natural right if man had to invent and manufacture it?

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: A Letter To An Undocumented Student

September 28, 2011

Dear Undocumented Student,

Regarding the Board of Governors for Higher Education, I had the chance to attend its meeting on Monday night, and also the chance to observe the body of teenage students – some illegal aliens, and some devoted friends – that you were a part of.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Hendricken, Progressives, and Homosexuality

May 19, 2012

Bishop Hendricken High School president John Jackson set off somewhat of a Facebook firestorm this week when he penned a letter to the Providence Journal that criticized President Obama for “favor[ing] same-sex marriage,” and for essentially recapitulating the Catholic Church’s position concerning homosexuality.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Rhode Islanders, Pay Your Own Damn Taxes

March 10, 2012

Local property taxes in Rhode Island are among the highest in the nation. And it has little to do with what progressive Democrats claim. That is, that recent tax cuts for the state’s high-income earners are the cause of your skyrocketing property tax bill – that “the rich” are not paying their “fair share.”

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Outlaw Government Unions

April 7, 2012

Offering collective bargaining privileges to Rhode Island’s public employees was always an imprudent idea. And they should be rescinded immediately.

This is a simple conclusion to reach when one considers the nature and purpose of a union. That is, when a group of workers view themselves as having collective leverage over their employer, and find it in their best interest to threaten him with a work stoppage unless their demands are met – most commonly, a greater share of company profits.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Gay Marriage: The Odds of Error

January 19, 2013

It is no secret that both the conservative and the liberal often charge the other with ignorance, a natural imputation for those with whom one disagrees. You don’t know what I know. And that’s why you disagree with me.

Read More

Prev Next

Travis Rowley: Left Wants Gays To Receive Magic Beans At Mass

August 10, 2013

Reverend Brian Sistare, the pastor at Sacred Heart Parish in Woonsocket, is currently denying Holy Communion to Lew Pryeor and Pierre Leveillee, a gay couple who are members of Sacred Heart’s regular congregation.

Read More


Related Articles


Enjoy this post? Share it with others.


Travis -

Spot on as ever. The pope's statements are as you note unfortunate. They're also identical to those of this socialist president. They are as well an inversion of history, reality, and truth.

Marx grew up as a rich brat who never worked a day in his life. He lived off his pal, Engle's, money and croaked in London, where he was the darling of Oulde Europe's inbred, mindless, tertiary syphilitic Elites. Marx's lies thus far have cost one to two hundred million people their lives during the past hundred years, in peacetime. Admittedly that's quite a spread but as FDR's pal, papa joe stalin, said, 'one death is a tragedy, a million are a statistic', so if we're off, so what? It's just numbers.

Marx's ideas seduced the jealous, the resentful, the vain and pompous who know it is their mission to reinvent the wheel and create utopia, even if it takes the deaths of millions to do so. That's what comes across in the pope's tiresome 60s prose.

He's right in line with this nation's socialist president and the resentful, jealous, vindictive losers who subscribe to communism's ideology of looting and genocide.

Does this pope really expect Americans to believe that after President Reagan proved marx to be a dead wrong, death-dealing mental case, that somehow danny-boy Ortega and the rest of the social-justice termites who destroy healthy nations with the cancer called communism have the right idea?

None of this bodes well. The pope, by his statements, as served notice that he stands with the world's doomstruck bitter clingers to a failed ideology of jealousy and looting whose sole legacy is genocide.

Comment #1 by paul zecchino on 2013 11 30

This recalls William F. Buckley's response to now Blessed John XXIII's economic offerings in his social encyclical, MATER et MAGISTER, Mother and Teacher. Buckley responded: Mater, si; Magister, no.

Comment #2 by John A Kiley on 2013 11 30

This pope, more than any other since John XXIII, is most closely following the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's why he chose the name of St. Francis of Assisi, who, although born into a wealthy family, lived a life of poverty to serve his fellow man.

Comment #3 by Peter Cassels on 2013 11 30

If this pope wants to lead a life of poverty, let him divest himself of his assets and move to the projects.

But what he's advocating is boilerplate marx. Literally. Inequality causes all the social troubles? Really? This from a cleric who knows his Bible? Extraordinary.

His utterances are taken verbatim from marx's psychotic, covetous, bullshss. That's right, I said it: bullshxx.

There's no other way to describe the genocidal drivel written by that wild-haired spoiled brat problem child of wealthy merchants.

He's living well, good for him, but his espoused beliefs dictate that the rest of the world live like serfs. If they're lucky to live at all.

Horrible. Was half away when read this article first at 0500. Now on second pass, it gets the blood up all the more.

This is nothing more than the head of the world's major religion advocating Marxism for all.

If you'd like to see the jolly results, Google, "South Africa's Descent Steepens" to view the lovely holiday video at 'moonbattery dot com'.

That's the end result of this obsession with 'inclusiveness', 'equality', 'diversity' and the rest of the Jacobin's genocidal lexicon.

Comment #4 by paul zecchino on 2013 11 30

Travis: try reading Lester Thurow's "Generating Inequality." Why is so difficult for people to accept that Capitalism is a greed system based on exploitation that results in inequality? Men are greedy, that's why Capitalism works to generate wealth; it also generates inequality. The challenge is to find a way to regulate this inequality to the satisfaction of society as a whole. What's wrong with that? Even Adam Smith wrote within 5 years of his publication of the "Wealth of Nations" (1776) that his worst fears of the excesses of the system were evident.

Comment #5 by bill bentley on 2013 11 30

Unlike when a former conservative Pope flies into Africa and proclaims that AIDS "cannot be reduced through the distribution of condoms that isn't a "white lie". AIDS kills someone in Africa every two minutes. Some countries have a 25% infection rate. Condoms diminish the spread by as much as 80%! So the Pope's bald face lie killed people and makes certain a new generation of Africans will have a higher infection rate than the last.

The Church is growing in Africa, faster than the population. At the same time AIDS is spreading at a similar pace.

Combine the numbers, the conservative pope's statements, the eternal damnation promised if you use a condom, and wonderful gems like this: "Catholic Archbishop claims condom makers infect condoms with AIDS"

Sammy in Arizona
Remember 1983 Reagan disarmed the Marines while ordering them into Beirut, 241 Marines died needlessly.

Comment #6 by Sammy Arizona on 2013 11 30

Anothetriteshoddy article by the simplistic Mr. Rowley. No amount of pompous and pseudo intellectual babbling, and "babbling" is the perfect description, cannot hide selfishness and a total lack of compassion for one's fellow man especially those who are disadvantaged. When your usual response is to distort and exaggerate the meaning of what one has to say, in this case Pope Francis, then you clearly show intolerance, a dogmatic and close mind; not characteristics you associate with creativity, brightness, and the ability to deal with modernity.

Comment #7 by Otto Benson on 2013 11 30

It was a shoddy article. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Comment #8 by bill bentley on 2013 11 30

Can't golocal get someone more insightful to fill the tea bagger role? I mean, shit, I can argue a conservative perspective better than this twit and I'm a radical.

Comment #9 by bill bentley on 2013 12 01

The Pope is an idealist--if all people were as selfless as he, his way would work. And we wouldn't need laws, lawyers, police and so forth. Bill's comment above, however, proves we are not all selfless, thoughtful or kind--or even educated.

Comment #10 by Jimmy LaRouche on 2013 12 02


How dare you infer that bill bentley is not even educated. He himself says he can argue a conservative position better than this twit.... I guess that you can not see the brilliance of the argument that he has so carefully laid out. billy's educated response very much reminds me of the old saying - Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to speak out and have all the world confirm it. Well done billy.

Comment #11 by Michael Byrnes on 2013 12 02

Human nature drives every society. With common ownership and forced distribution of wealth, people simply stop making effort. They work as little as possible and let someone else do the work, because without incentive, reward, and the personal satisfaction from creating something, people feel they're entitled to simply sit down and put their hands out.

With private property rights, personal effort and reward for one's effort -- and the satisfaction that comes from creating -- prosperity can and does flourish.

It really is unfortunate that the Pope is in the Marxist camp. Someone who is supposedly spiritually enlightened would understand that the human desire for freedom and prosperity does not find expression under collectivist force and theft.

Comment #12 by Art West on 2013 12 02

Where to start. Jimmy, wtf are you talking about? If Travis would avoid some long winded soliloquy that goes no where then I guess I would refrain from calling him a twit. Oh, and so the rule of might is your solution to society's ills? Great.

Michael, do you understand my argument? I am not advocating changing economic systems, I'm supporting the idea that they need modifications. Whether that is through redistribution or expanded opportunities for non-privileged sectors of society (poor and non-White) needs to be adequately determined. And your Ad Hominem retort only supports the conclusion that you have not understood what I'm saying.

Art: you can dress it up and put lipstick on it but in the morning its still a pig. Men are greedy, the rest of your descriptions are a smoke screen for the problem. Capitalism generates inequality. Because some people accept Marx's analysis of Capitalism does not mean we are advocating socialism or communism. And to suggest that the way it is is the only way to foster freedom and prosperity is an obfuscation and intellectually shallow.

Comment #13 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02


I doubt that we would ever see eye to eye.

Of course men are greedy. We are driven to survive, dream and succeed. No imposed "system" will ever tamp these qualities down.

I only know that when government controls people with rules and regulations and overly confiscates the fruits of one person's labor to give to another person who is aligned with that government, then freedom and prosperity give way to envy, stagnation and corruption.

Comment #14 by Art West on 2013 12 02

Again no one is getting my point. The economic system is based on greed. In Adam Smith's world, this greed was to be limited by his sympathetic nature. Unfortunately, we don't see much of that sympathetic nature and consequently economic determinism becomes the value structure that promotes greed. So, while you my espouse Libertarian principles you have not addressed the bigger picture, which is what the Pope is trying to do. So, how do you restore a sense of sympathy? And in fact, Adam Smith was completely disillusioned within 5 years of publishing his work. So, that is my point. You assume all people have access to the fundamental tools for success in a Capitalist system, this is not the case. This is why I advocate a more progressive form of Capitalism that encompasses these considerations and attempts to correct them. Neither I or the Pope are promoting hand-outs as you conservative folks keep crowing about. But I do advocate mechanisms for creating a more level playing field.

Comment #15 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02


I have to admit that it is not easy to understand what you are saying.

Ad Hominem retort? I was just following the tone your own reply. To use the terms “tea bagger” and “twit” are not Ad Hominem? How do YOU spell hypocrisy?

I have read Thurow. Maybe you should read Hayak and we might be able to meet in the middle. Although one could argue that Thurow’s Third Way could be the Road to Serfdom.

Our political and economic systems may benefit from modifications, but the real question is what type of modifications. I am a little worried about your “modifications” given your self-proclaimed label as a radical. What exactly do you mean by “non-privileged” sectors of our society? Does this include Asians (non-White)? Sicilians (Arab background and arrived here dirt poor)? You seem to use the word “poor” as an inviolate category that cannot be changed.

It is not so difficult to accept that Capitalism is a self-interest based system that may highlight the innate inequality that exists in the real world. I am not sure that there is a causal relationship between Capitalism and inequality. Capitalism is a system that has lifted some 600-800 million people of out poverty in the past 40 years in China and India. You see greed, I see self-interest. I see inequality as a natural condition and you see it a product of society.

Comment #16 by Michael Byrnes on 2013 12 02

Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism (like your beloved Ronnie is the father of conservatism) based the economic system on GREED. Re-name if you want to quell your guilty conscience, but its greed and generates inequality. If you can't even recognize these facts then discourse with you is a waste of energy. I recognize that collective concepts don't work, Marxism is fundamentally and fatally flawed. men will not work for the benefit of others, I accept the human condition. That being said, Marx's critique of Capitalism is valid even if his alternative is not. A modification needs to take in the entire spectrum of ideas, not just a few. And yes, my use of tea bagger is not complimentary, I despise all people that are intolerant of opinions other than their own and particularly when they try and hijack power to oppress me with their babble. Including Progressives that are this way. I am also offended by the racist undertone of the tea party agenda.

Comment #17 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02


Great. List your 10 most important policies to modify capitalism.

Comment #18 by Art West on 2013 12 02


Please listen to your self: "I despise all people that are intolerant of opinions other than their own and particularly when they try and hijack power to oppress me with their babble." And this statement follows your remark "If you can't even recognize these facts then discourse with you is a waste of energy." Gee you sound pretty intolerant and I have the impression that you are trying to oppress me and others with your babble. The Tea Party intolerant? Perhaps there are individuals who are, but I seem to remember a black Tea Party Senator who is currently serving.

Words do have meaning and there is a significant difference between self-interest and greed. Smith's focus was on self-interest. You are entitled to construct your opinions but not the facts.

I think you have to go back a lot further that "Ronnie" to find the father of conservatism -maybe back to Hume and Burke.

Comment #19 by Michael Byrnes on 2013 12 02


1st, I am tolerant. I accept your greed even though its offends me deeper than Obamacare offends you. So, you really not understanding what I'm saying, its not inconsistent. You on the other hand won't accept that Capitalism needs modifications and that it generates inequality.

2nd, you have obviously never read Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments. In this work, which preceded its companion work, The Wealth of Nations, he establishes his dualism. He states that man has 2 natures a sympathetic one and a greed one. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, his sympathetic nature, is a synergy of Christian principles and Stoicism. In the Wealth of Nations, he creates his Laissez-faire economic system know in common parlance as Capitalism. In Smith's world view people are to use their sympathetic nature to bridle their greed. Smith recognized, and wrote extensively, that Capitalism with a proper moral structure would result in monopolies and inequitable distribution of wealth. As I stated earlier, writing 5 years of the Wealth of Nations, he observed that his fears were already validated.
I understand that calling it self-interest makes you feel better, but it is greed and they are not the same concept.
As for Hume and Burke I've read both, I'm referring more to the new Reagan Republicans and their blind veneration of Ronnie. I would add that Mario Cumo insightfully pointed out that Reagan made Americans feel justified for lacking compassion to their neighbor; this I also find reprehensible but I tolerate it.
You, sir, have failed to point out one area where you and your hate mongering tea party brethren show any tolerance of opinions other than the ones you presently hold. So, it seems I'm the only one here willing to compromise.

Comment #20 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02

(1) Income supplements for the working poor;
(2) Free higher education and/or vocational training for the working class;
(3) Subsidized loans for low income persons to purchase homes;
(4) Universal healthcare;
(5) Expansion of food stamps to include middle class families to a percentage of the poverty index, possibly in line with the ACA income guidelines;
(6) Loan forgiveness for current student loan debt;
(7) Development of a German model of apprenticeship programs;
(8) A Platonic system of public servants;
(9) Disruption of business interests driving the political process;
(10) Elimination of all private monies for political purposes; everyone gets the same amount no more no less.

These are off the cuff and pose many concerns, I know that. But I haven't even touched on changing tax structures.

And lastly, #11, prosecution of corporate criminals. Like China maybe, beheading?

Comment #21 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02

should read: "without" a proper moral structure

Comment #22 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02

In case your a pedantic as well.

Comment #23 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02

Wow, Bill, so typical of those sad, yet dangerous, close minded idealologues of teh far left. Please forgive me for being blunt for I wish not to engage with a stone wall. You really have your head fully engaged, up and locked.

Comment #24 by peter hewett on 2013 12 02


You sure do make a lot of unfounded assumptions. You need to relax a little and reflect on why no one seems to be getting your point. Actually I did agree in my earlier post that every political and economic system may need modification (no apology necessary), but of course the question is what type of modification. I do not agree with your opinion that it generates inequality. Inequality of the most obvious sorts exist in nature and among men. While proclaiming that you are tolerant you characterize Tea Party folk in a most intolerant manner. I do not belong to the Tea Party but they seem to be nice polite folks. Don’t rush to find Reagan guilty of such a reprehensible crime of creating many more jobs in his term of office than the current administration and turning the economy around which greatly benefited all Americans. I think anyone who creates jobs is pretty compassionate, much more so that those who proclaim compassion loudly and do nothing substantive. Billy, you are most modest about your self-proclaimed willingness to compromise.

Comment #25 by Michael Byrnes on 2013 12 02

Peter: Its helpful if one makes some kind of definitive statement using an example. The point is to find common ground. So what specifically are you talking about. my thoughts on Adam Smith and Capitalism? Possible solutions to easing the inequality? Otherwise, just another loud gong.

Comment #26 by bill bentley on 2013 12 02

MIchael: what? I supported everyone of my assumptions with evidence or references to source material that more exhaustively makes my point. Most folks here are just spouting off from their back pocket. Its not my opinion that it generates inequality. I cited Lester Thurow, who at the time he wrote it was the Dean of Economics at MIT. So its not my opinion. And Thurow is not alone in this thinking. And this is my point, if people can't even admit that the system generates inequality, based in factual data, then how can we have a discussion. And I have no idea what Tea Party people you know, but ALL and I mean ALL of the one's I've met carry a caricature of Obama as a monkey in their wallets. Their rallies have no diversity and they lack compassion and use racist language. And I am anything but modest, but I am intellectual honest unlike many of the writers here. So, if you can refute my argument, by a means other than your opinion, then I'm all ears. Or eyes in the case.

Comment #27 by bill bentley on 2013 12 03

And by the way, the only people who call me Billy are my family and close friends.

Comment #28 by bill bentley on 2013 12 03

Bill, I hate to break it to you but there is only one source of gong sounding off in this string of comments on the Rowley essay. It's you. You are an intolerant self proclaimed elitist who spouts opinions without benefit of any supporting facts. How many tea party folks do you actually know? I know quite a few. They are all very nice folks who are very concerned about the well being of this country and its people - all its people. You lie with impunity when you say that all whom you have met carry a caricature of Obama in their wallet; that their rallies have no diversities; lack compassion and use racist language.
You do not have an intellectually honest bone in your body. You do not engage in honest debate of discussion of important issues. You throw bombs indiscriminately. You vilify good people whose only sin is to disagree with your perversions of the truth.
It does no one any good to engage you in meaningful discussion. You are not interested in the truth. It is an effort in futility to engage the likes of Bill Bentley. I do not wish you well Mr. Bentley. You do not deserve it.

Comment #29 by peter hewett on 2013 12 03

Peter: And all the references I gave me nothing? I'm not saying "hey this is my opinion." I am citing the sources of these ideas to support my argument. I have an idea, find 1 picture from a Tea Party rally that has more than 5 people in the crowd that aren't White. Just 1 and I'll shut up. Or how about this, peruse the rolls for RI Tea Party and find 5 people on it that aren't White and then I'lll shut up. Just because you shroud yourself in the flag doesn't make it right. And I vilify people who spout racist, hate-filled rhetoric and have no clue what their saying. I'll show you the real meaning of "Don't Tread on Me."
Here's one, show me how I perverted the truth, then I'll shut up. it should be easy.
And lastly, well it must be obvious that I don't want your good wishes and don't give one rat's ass what you think of me. why won't you do this? Because you can't. Go read a real book not some collection of bombast put together by simple minded partisans.

Comment #30 by bill bentley on 2013 12 03

Excuse me? The Tea Party is bad because it's not diverse enough? By that twisted logic LaRaza and the Congressional Black Caucus are also bad, no? You are seriously in error if you judge an organization not on their ideas (Tea--taxed enough already)but by their skin color. Sounds like someone is accusing others of being hate filled racists when, in fact, the accuser is guilty. Try a little introspection.

Comment #31 by Jimmy LaRouche on 2013 12 03

I always learn a lot in these comment sections. Thanks to all for their thoughts and passionate arguments.

Comment #32 by Art West on 2013 12 03


1st, neither of these groups has real power so at a minimum they may be prejudiced, racism requires power. 2nd, the Tea Party is part of the Republican Party, as this point anyway, and as such are part of the White establishment. 3rd, I imagine that these groups welcome liberals, progressives, etc. 4th, I'm still waiting for a picture or role to refute my point. Why no picture? Because I'm right. And I am not defending discrimination from any group and am not an apologist for liberals, progressives or however you label the other side (commies, Marxists, etc.).

Comment #33 by bill bentley on 2013 12 03


I think that you have assumptions, facts and conclusions mixed up. There are night courses you could take to help you with this. You have not supported any of your assumptions that you made about me and you cannot because you do not know me. For example you made an assumption about me that I am offended by Obamacare (we have to call it ACA now) and you made another assumption that the “ hate mongering tea party” are my brethren. That is a pretty hate filled statement but an assumption that I am a Tea Party member. You have attempted unsuccessfully to support your opinions and conclusions. Citing Lester Thurow’s opinion to back up your opinion does not make your opinion a fact. If I cited Milton Friedman’s work to back up my opinion would my opinion become a fact? Your statement about Tea Party members that “I mean ALL of the one's I've met carry a caricature of Obama as a monkey in their wallets.” is irresponsible. No night course for this problem.

Comment #34 by Michael Byrnes on 2013 12 03

Obviously my hyperbole got beyond you. I have read Friedman and consider myself a supply-side guy. I don't believe Friedman and Thurow are on oppositional sides, they just come at things from different angles. Additionally, I cited Adam Smith directly, maybe should try reading the Theory of Moral Sentiments. As for the Tea Party, they speak for themselves and I'm still waiting for a rally photo with faces other than White people. And if you cited something by Friedman instead of just using his name, I might be swayed as I do respect his work. Anything more you got to say?

Comment #35 by bill bentley on 2013 12 03

Write your comment...

You must be logged in to post comments.