Re: future president?

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Tue Aug 28 2001 - 14:53:32 MDT

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Brian D Williams wrote,
> > >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.
> "If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of
> those great men, then I want to use that same gift now to reconnect you with
> your own sense of liberty of your own freedom of thought ... your own
> compass for what is right."

How do you know what Heston thinks his creator is?

> > >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
> "I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war
> that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your
> heart."

WHich says nothing about turning back history. It is about avoiding a
terrible possible future history.

> > The "birthright" he is refering to is the birth of our nation, and
> > the right of free speech.
> His quote of Lincoln was referring to the birth of our nation and the right
> of free speech. However, Heston said we are about to fight *another* such
> war today when he said, "Those words are true again. I believe that we are
> again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war...." This second war is
> not referring to the first one.


> > >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.
> He clearly describes his realization of this bigger issue in terms of his
> being president of the NRA and being "in the cross hairs of those who target
> Second Amendment freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only
> issue."

Which still does not say that the gun issue is the core issue, merely
that he is a central core target of those who are hijacking the

> > he's saying that if there is such a thing as black pride then
> > white pride, red pride, is equally valid. He is correct.
> He is correct. But he doesn't say all pride is equally valid. He is
> specifically arguing for the validity of white pride. He singles it out and
> implies that it needs to be bolstered up compared to the others. He implies
> that whites need more pride now while blacks and other races have enough
> pride.

Well, why not? US civilization was not predominantely created by the
minds of africans, chinese, or native americans. Why not give credit
where credit is due?

> > 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.
> Hate crime laws are not an example of gay rights. They are racial laws
> which sometimes include sexual orientation or gender. These laws give
> sentencing guidelines for criminals not rights to citizens. Gay
> equal-rights laws would be ones advocating marriage, cohabitation,
> insurance, joint tax returns, inheriting property, joint ownership of
> property, etc.

But they don't generally do this, they set sentencing guidlines for
those who exercise their own rights to not be forced into accepting
lifestyles they view as abhorrent. When these include proscriptions
against using words in speech which gays use as a matter of course in
their own intra-gay communications, then the line is crossed into
thought repression, equal protection, and first amendment violations.

> > >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.
> Give me a break. He compares gun-owners' persecution to the Holocaust. He
> compares gun-control advocates to Nazis. This is inflammatory hyperbole at
> best. I can't believe anyone would argue for the validity of this analogy.
> It was a stupid PR blunder, period.

Depends on what point in time you are referring to. Until Ashcroft made
his recent statement about individual rights recently, we were living in
a state somewhere between the beginning and end of 1938 when it comes to
gun rights in this country. I expect, Harvey, that you are rather
ignorant of the sort of civil rights violations that occur every day to
gun owners in this country, specifically because the media refuses to
report them, generally, except when they are able to present the gun
owner in the worst possible light. Police are generally ignoring due
process and even the letter of the gun control laws themselves in
persecuting gun owners who are exercising their rights. Innocent people
are having their homes raided by swat teams and having their property
destroyed, stolen, and confiscated by police on the simple hearsay of
one unsubstantiated allegation. Innocent, law abiding people who have
concealed weapons permits and are carrying their weapons in fanny packs
in accordance with state law are being arrested right and left in
Illinois, contrary to state law, by the supporters of one rogue
prosecutor and his henchmen. Tens of thousands of Californians are
living, illegally, in the posession of guns that were first registered,
and are now banned and confiscated. Registration and confiscation of
guns owned by jews was a precedent event to the Krystallnacht pogroms of

Today millions of non-violent citizens are sitting in concentration
camps in the US simply for posessing a substance that is not poisonous,
and when they get out of prison will never be allowed to own guns again
in their lives. A large number of these are at risk of execution by HIV
while incarcerated. They don't need gas chambers or ovens here, they've
got a handy virus to do the work for them.

> > >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?
> No, but you make my point for me. You think you know what he said, but read
> it carefully. He never said the patients have a right to know. He merely
> implied it. He said it was bad that they didn't know. You are taking the
> ball and running with it. You are deriving conclusions from the speech that
> were not explicitly spelled out as part of his agenda. This is the exact
> kind of implications I was talking about. I think you caught this one
> because you agreed with it. I think you would catch more of the other ones
> if you were inclined to agree with them as well.

Do you or do you not think that it is right for a person to not know
when their body tissues are being exposed to an HIV carrier under
conditions which have been proven to be communicable for the virus?

> > >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.
> He was specifically arguing against hyphenated terminology like
> African-American which refers to their geographical origin. He was
> specifically arguing for the terms "black" or "negro" which refers to the
> color of their skin. He wants to classify these people by the color of
> their skin and not by their geographical origin. It seems obvious from the
> words.

Which is more accurate? I mean, if a white fellow who was born in South
Africa or Rhodesia immigrated to the US, does he or does he not have the
right to call himself an 'African-American'??? Does he then have the
right to apply for positions in college and employment that are
determined by the fact that he is 'African-American', to the exclusion
of other white fellows who were born here in the US, or who immigrated
from european nations? If he doesn't have this right, then please
explain why...

> > 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?
> I agree. If someone didn't want to call people Scottish, British, Irish,
> Swedish, but insisted that they all be called "white" because they look
> alike, I think that would be racist. It's more than just a passing
> adjective. Heston is actually arguing against one set of terminology and
> for another. This is not a statement out of context. He is actually giving
> a speech to the NRA about their right to use the word "negro" instead of
> "African-American" because they prefer the term.

When 'African' has no common cultural referent. Is an Egyptian arab a
semite or an african? Is a pygmy and his culture more 'african' than
that of bantus? There are actually four or five different 'races' in
africa who have lived there for hundreds if not thousands and even tens
of thousands of years. Which one then is authentically 'african'? How do
you decide?

Since you've decided that 'white' is bad, what about 'european'? Who
decides what is 'European'? Do the Basques or Lithuanians, who have
little or no common cultural or linguistic connection to other european
cultures, get excluded or are they the default?

The primary reason Heston abhors the term is the same reason he abhors
all 'hyphenated american' referents: they place one's cultural origin
ahead of one's status as an American citizen. In his eyes, citizenship
(and current cultural participation) is most paramount, and one's
origins are secondary. I entirely agree with him.

> > >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.
> Then why does he want to distinguish between race, sex, or sexual
> orientation then? Why not call them all American? They are all "American"
> when he doesn't want to recognize differences, but they are all different
> groups when he does want to recognize differences. Likewise, he wants
> freedom of speech for some topics, but then argues against freedom of speech
> for certain songs, teachers or entertainers.

Apples and oranges, Harvey. He hates rap because rap encourages violence
against police, against the state, and for war and bigotry against
whites in general. Rap IS racist, and therefore, should be treated at
least as much a 'hate crime' as anything said by the KKK. It should not
be celebrated by popular culture.

> > >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.
> "Talking about race" is more than just referencing someone. He wants to
> "recognize" the difference, "discuss" the differences, and by implication
> act on the differences.

Discussion and action are completely different things, Harvey.

> > >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.
> Again, he didn't say it, but it sure is implied. Why did you feel compelled
> to agree that it's a pretty good implication based on the facts? Because it
> is clear what the implication is, even if he doesn't say it. Again, I
> believe that you would see more of the other implications if you were
> inclined to agree with them. Or, let me ask this in a more leading way: Do
> you think a racist would read more of these implications into this speech
> than you would? I think the code-words and possible implications are there
> for those who want to latch onto them.

This 'code word' term is one more catch phrase of political correctness
police doing their typical hate baiting. And why is what he said wrong?
We are all entitled to our own values, we just are not entitled to act
on them all. We cannot be compelled to act contrary to our values (with
a few obvious exceptions required by citizenship).

> > >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?
> No. He said who he was addressing. "You are the best and the brightest.
> You, here in the fertile cradle of American academia, here in the castle of
> learning on the Charles River, you are the cream."

I imagine you mean that 'cream' is one more 'code word' for 'elite white

> > 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.
> Exactly. He argues for his right to use terms and say things that people
> don't want him to say, but then he also brags that he got Ice-T's contract
> cancelled because he didn't like the lyrics of a song. I thought this was
> inconsistent.

No, it's not. It was his money being invested in ICE-T's work, and it
was his right to express his displeasure at how his money was being
spent. By expressing his displeasure, he was able to illuminate other
stockholders as to how their own money was being invested, and they made
their own decisions. Pop music is not speech, it is commerce.

> > Heston's speech was about free speech, not the political correct
> > jargon that passes for free speech these days, period.
> I wish. If he had argued for free speech for everybody, I would have
> agreed. But he seemed to criticize the speech of others as much as he
> argued for his own right to speak. I did not feel like he was arguing for
> my right to speak on any issues I might speak out on.

Only that rights have responsibilities. Misusing your responsibility
entails the risk of displeasure of your fellow citizens.

> As I read this, I felt like Heston would classify me as one of the liberals,
> as one of the politically correct, as one of the non-Christians, or in some
> other way as one of the enemy in the "cultural war" or second "civil war"
> that he is fighting. I certainly did not feel that he was arguing for my
> rights. In fact, I got the distinct impression that he was against gay
> rights, women's rights, blacks rights, native American rights and many other
> rights for groups that were somehow different than his own. In fact, the
> only rights he specifically supported seemed to be for white, males in the
> U.S. who shared a birthright of revolution. This was not an inclusive
> speech.

He was promoting the fact that most of western civilization was created
by whites, and white males generally. Emphasizing one does not mean
being opposed to the other.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT