Re: future president?

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Mon Aug 27 2001 - 13:45:30 MDT

>From: "Harvey Newstrom" <>

>These kinds of arguments scare me for what they imply more than
>what they actually say. Heston seems to want to strike up a chord
>with certain hate groups without actually saying he agrees with
>them. He references specific subjects and code-words, but doesn't
>actually repeat the full litany. As such, he and his supporters
>take the high ground. He can truthfully claim that he didn't say
>anything bad about a specific group. He just referenced them
>without really saying anything specific.

I've re-read this speech several times without finding anything
like this there. Please list specifics.

>This is the exact kind of speech that is posted all over and
>quoted by white-supremacists, homophobes, anti-Semites, etc. They
>all "know" what he is talking about, but it is hard to prove that
>he said anything.

Have you seen this speech being misrepresented on any such site?
Let me know and I'll pass it on to Mr Heston.

>It is the exact vague speech that Clinton uses to describe his
>sexual activities, or that drug dealers and prostitutes use to
>negotiate a deal. They know they can't say what they mean, so
>they talk around an issue. If they get caught, they will insist
>that they didn't really say anything.

Lets see, your comparing Heston to Clinton, a drug dealer, and a
prostitute. I think I know political propaganda when I hear it.

By the way, Mr Heston is a man of character and integrity and a
better man on his worse day than Bill Clinton will ever be on his

>When he says his Creator gave him a gift which might be used in
>the political process, he implies that God will guide him to run
>for president and guide his decisions while he is president.

He never says any such thing in this speech. Retraction please.

>When he says we are fighting a great civil war and cultural war
>that is trying to hijack our birthright, he is implying that he
>wants to turn back history to earlier political times and have
>rights based on birth.

He says nor implys any such thing he says "with Orwellian fervor,
certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated." Thats what he
said, that's what he meant.

The "birthright" he is refering to is the birth of our nation, and
the right of free speech.

>When he says that he that our problems are bigger than the gun
>issue, he implies that the gun issue is at its core.

Nonsense, he's saying there are more important issues than guns and
that he should be listed to for what he is saying, not because he
is the elected president of the NRA.

>When he says that white pride is not racist, he implies that he is
>supporting white pride groups without mentioning any support for
>other races.

Mr Heston is not a white supremacist Harvey, he's saying that if
there is such a thing as black pride then white pride, red pride,
is equally valid. He is correct.

>When he says that gay rights should extend no further than "my"
>rights or "your" rights, he implies that gays are fighting for
>unfair rights not equal rights. He also implies that gays are not
>part of "us/me/you" but some other group.

Yes, sometimes these groups do try to get special treatment laws
passed, hate crimes are an example. When someone who is gay refers
to themselves as gay they have drawn a distinction, it is equally
ok for anyone else to make that distinction.

>When he spoke against the Axis Powers in World War II, and draws
>a parallel between the holocaust and what is currently happening
>to gun owners, he implies the holocaust was less than it was or
>that gun control equals Nazi atrocities.

He implies no such thing, he said "But during a speech, when I drew
an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out
innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite." He is arguing
against singling out those who haven't done anything wrong, he is
talking about unreasoned prejudice.

>When he gives an example of dental patients who got AIDS from
>dentists who didn't disclose it, he implies that AIDS patients
>must be publicly disclosed and kept away from the general public.

He did not say anything about keeping them away, but he does feel
their patients have a right to know. Shall we take a vote?

>When he points out that Dr. King said "negroes" but its not
>allowed now, he implies that we should be allowed classify people
>into another race by the color of their skin.

COME ON NOW! How do you derive that from what he said! From now on
anyone referring to me as "white" is a racist. Now do you see?

>When he claims to be a Native American because he was
>blood-initiated into a tribe, he implies that we should discount
>any racism that native Americans see because he is one and doesn't
>see any discrimination.

He referred to this in a very brief discussion as to the
awkwardness of hyphenated names. Mr Heston believes citizens of
this country are "Americans", period.

>When he says one can talk about race without being a racist, he
>implies that he wants to talk about race and make decisions based
>on race.

No, he means what he said, I can refer to someone as black or
hispanic or white or anything else, imparting information without
negatively discriminating.

>When he says that one can see distinctions between genders without
>being sexist, it implies that he wants to observe differences
>between genders and probably make decisions based on gender.

No, once again he is saying that you can refer to the obvious
differences in people without meaning anything negative.

>When he says you can think critically about a denomination without
>being anti-religion, it implies that he wants to criticize
>specific religions for their beliefs without criticizing others.

Again he is saying that you can make observations based on
difference without implying any sort of negativity.

What he said specifically was "If you talk about race, it does not
make you a racist. If you see a difference between the genders it
does not make you a sexist. If you think critically (Extropian)
about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion.

>When he says you can accept but not celebrate homosexuality
>without being a homophobe, he implies that we can accept that it
>exists but we don't have to like it or even cooperate with it.

He didn't say the second part but in this case I think that's a
pretty good implication based on the facts.

>When he says disobedience is in our DNA and follows the awesome
>power of Gandhi, Thoreau, and Jesus, he implies a racial rights
>and manifest destiny for certain groups.

For Indians, writers and a christian mystic?

>When he argues for the right to discuss race, guns, religion and
>conservatism, but then argues against the right to discuss
>liberalism on campus, anti-authority in entertainment, or
>political correctness in entertainment, he implies that
>free-speech is more for some ideas than others.

Where did he argue against discussing liberalism on campus?

The right to discuss anti-authority in entertainment? He made no
such statement.

You mean the part about the ICE-T song about murdering an innocent
cop? He was taking that position as a stockholder that it was wrong
for the company to profit from such a thing, and he put his
reputation on the line to defend what he thought was right.

He was encouraging people to have the guts to stand up for what
they believe.

>Heston seems to be gathering support for some political agenda to
>address "negroes", "homosexuals", "feminists", "anti-authority
>musicians", "politically correct entertainers", "liberal
>teachers", "AIDS-infected people", etc. He wants to recognize
>differences based on race, gender, orientation, religion and
>political beliefs. The fact that he doesn't specify what he wants
>to do with these groups or how they should be treated differently
>does not diminish the fact that he seems to be singling out
>specific groups for different treatment in some unspecified way.

Heston's speech was about free speech, not the political correct
jargon that passes for free speech these days, period.

>Even though I can't prove that his plans for these groups are bad,
>the very fact that he is publicly compiling a list of groups
>ominous. He is drawing the lines between "us" versus "them". We
>can only guess what the next step will be.

Actually we know what the next step was since this speech was years
ago, he ran for, and was elected to an unprecedented third term as
NRA president.

That's all there is to it.


Extropy Institute,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

Disclosure notice: currently "plonked"
"Joe Dees" <>
"Party of Citizens"<>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:19 MDT