Sunday, July 18, 2010
The Minnesota Governor's Race
I have decided to support Kelliher and write the Pioneer Press and Strib supporting her candidacy. I figure if she's governor the food/exercise Nazi's in the MN Depts. of Health and Education will have to shut up and leave us alone. How can they possibly tout exercise and low BMI when the symbol of the state (Governor) weighs 800#, has an ass two axe handles wide and couldn't run fifty feet, let alone 100 yards. I love it and want a sow in the Summit mansion.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama Racists
As we watch the media frenzy following the election, an email to a friend, who happens to be black, is respectfully submitted for your consideration:
Wayne
I have been considering the election and responses to it and have decided that most commentators and many others are, in fact, racists. You, and many others, see a positive that "an African-American (or Black or I guess if one is old-fashioned, Negro) has been elected President of the United States".
Seeing the election as one of a "racial" gain or victory is in and of itself racist. To view Obama as a black, rather than a politician is indicative of a mindset that looks first at race, then at substance. For those who celebrate the Obama victory in these racial terms, equal victory would have been achieved if Fifty-cent, Ludicris (sp) or Larry Elder had been elected.
I view Obama as a despicable Marxist, steeped in Black Liberation theology and concomitantly hating the USA and the "white" oppressors. It it his social and political positions, alignment with people like Ayers and Wright, that make him unacceptable, not his race. Hell, I couldn't stand McCain or Palin either.
When you racists wake up and find you have furthered a communist/socialist agenda destructive of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and free market economy for the questionable prize of purported "racial" equality I just hope it isn't too late. You will find that Obama is no more in favor of "equality" and protecting the rights of all Americans than George Bush with his Patriot Act and Gitmo prison. Fascists are Fascists, whatever their color or party.
Bill
Wayne
I have been considering the election and responses to it and have decided that most commentators and many others are, in fact, racists. You, and many others, see a positive that "an African-American (or Black or I guess if one is old-fashioned, Negro) has been elected President of the United States".
Seeing the election as one of a "racial" gain or victory is in and of itself racist. To view Obama as a black, rather than a politician is indicative of a mindset that looks first at race, then at substance. For those who celebrate the Obama victory in these racial terms, equal victory would have been achieved if Fifty-cent, Ludicris (sp) or Larry Elder had been elected.
I view Obama as a despicable Marxist, steeped in Black Liberation theology and concomitantly hating the USA and the "white" oppressors. It it his social and political positions, alignment with people like Ayers and Wright, that make him unacceptable, not his race. Hell, I couldn't stand McCain or Palin either.
When you racists wake up and find you have furthered a communist/socialist agenda destructive of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and free market economy for the questionable prize of purported "racial" equality I just hope it isn't too late. You will find that Obama is no more in favor of "equality" and protecting the rights of all Americans than George Bush with his Patriot Act and Gitmo prison. Fascists are Fascists, whatever their color or party.
Bill
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
The 2008 Presidential Race - No Acceptable Candidate
We are currently inundated with the constant stream of political speeches, news reports, partisan “analysis” and political commentary of this presidential contest. Yet, neither major party’s candidate is acceptable to me nor do either they or their running mates reflect political positions consistent with my libertarian views.
Before turning to the candidates individually, let’s clear up the “race” question which has been so poorly and inadequately dealt with by the national media. I am sure that there are those voters who would reject any “black” candidate just as the perception in 1960 that a Roman Catholic candidate would suffer rejection by part of the protestant electorate. However, I believe it is Obama’s political and societal views which make him unacceptable, not his skin color. I asked many of my friends in the dog club all of whom are part of the hunting and “gun” culture if they would vote for Colin Powell. Without pause every one said yes, absolutely; however, that statement was occasionally followed by, “but there’s no way I’d vote for that nigger, Obama”. I, personally, would vote for Colin Powell or a Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell in a New York minute.
The “race” issue has nothing to do with skin color (race). It has everything to do with an unspoken societal and cultural battle that has been exacerbating in the United States and may very well be unresolved for years. I view it as a conflict between western civilization and tribal culture. I am willing to make a normative evaluation (a no longer acceptable act) that western civilization is good and a culture that had neither a written language nor the wheel when Beethoven was composing is not entitled to equal status or respect. Moreover, the American “black” culture is reflective of the least civilized portions of the white colonial settlers, see: Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks, White Liberals. Having lived outside of the USA for about six years, in the Nashville area, I detest the South and southerners. I shall never cross the Mason-Dixon Line again except to change planes in Atlanta or Miami.
The Candidates
John McCain - Senator McCain is a man of integrity and experience and would be acceptable but for his various positions. I disagree with his position on illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court appointments and the “bailout”. He is an elder man flailing, unable to attack Obama because of his (McCain’s) decency and respect for a fellow Senator. He is unable to articulate a cohesive policy for dealing with Islamic terrorism and the threat that Islam (both mainstream and radical) presents to the west. When it comes to the economy, McCain has no knowledge nor ideas; hell, he voted for the bailout with the Senate addition of $150B of “earmarks”. He just doesn’t “get” it.
Sarah Palin – Governor Palin, except for being sort of “hot” and a life member of the NRA, has nothing I find acceptable. She is no Margaret Thatcher or Ann Richards. She reflects the worst of fascist fundamental “Christianity”; anyone who believes in creationism has so little reality contact as to be almost committable. Hell, even Representative Michelle Bachman, another Republican “hottie” at least had the integrity to split from Bush and vote against the bailout.
Barack Obama – Senator Obama just ain’t kosher. This is a guy who managed to be on the Harvard Law Review (editor no less) without a signed case note, teaching at my Law School for years without publishing a single thing – unheard of! This is a guy who hides and obfuscates his past and his positions. His activity in Chicago reflects a mainline dirty Chicago democratic pol, I’m a native Chicagoan and know whereof I speak. His political mentor Bill Ayers is a despicable America hater as is Ayers’ wife. Come on, I was in Law School in Chicago for the ’68 Democratic National Convention, supported McCarthy, got gassed, helped in the “Chicago Seven” defense and know about the Weathermen and their ilk. There is NO position upon which I agree with Obama.
Moreover, for 20 years, Obama sat in the pews and ascribed to the religious and moral precepts of Black Liberation theology as espoused by Pastor Wright. If my priest ever said “God damn America” and meant it, it would be my last moment in that church; moreover, the only thing that would prevent me from beating the priest to unconsciousness is the fact that my priest is a woman. Hey, you want to damn Bush, OK, Pelosi, OK, the USA, NO. Obama knew and agreed with his moral mentor and only rejected Wright when it became politically necessary. Black Liberation theology, best explicated by James H. Cone, is an outgrowth of Marxist Liberation Theology developed in Latin America within the purview of the Roman church by people like Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez and Cardinal Lopez Trujillo. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI denounced the antichristian Marxism of the movement. Besides its Marxist basis, Black Liberation theology sees “whites” as oppressors and foments racial and class hatreds.
As to Obama, ye shall know them by the company they keep. I won’t even get into Obama’s ties to Acorn, voter fraud, or Resko.
Joe Biden – What can I say? He’s always voted as a liberal democrat and thinks President Franklin Delano Roosevelt calmed the populace in a TV address in 1929; he’s not only wrong, but may have pre-onset Alzheimer’s.
All of which leaves me either voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or the guy I voted for in 2004. He was the only guy I knew would do it the way I wanted it done, me.
Before turning to the candidates individually, let’s clear up the “race” question which has been so poorly and inadequately dealt with by the national media. I am sure that there are those voters who would reject any “black” candidate just as the perception in 1960 that a Roman Catholic candidate would suffer rejection by part of the protestant electorate. However, I believe it is Obama’s political and societal views which make him unacceptable, not his skin color. I asked many of my friends in the dog club all of whom are part of the hunting and “gun” culture if they would vote for Colin Powell. Without pause every one said yes, absolutely; however, that statement was occasionally followed by, “but there’s no way I’d vote for that nigger, Obama”. I, personally, would vote for Colin Powell or a Larry Elder or Thomas Sowell in a New York minute.
The “race” issue has nothing to do with skin color (race). It has everything to do with an unspoken societal and cultural battle that has been exacerbating in the United States and may very well be unresolved for years. I view it as a conflict between western civilization and tribal culture. I am willing to make a normative evaluation (a no longer acceptable act) that western civilization is good and a culture that had neither a written language nor the wheel when Beethoven was composing is not entitled to equal status or respect. Moreover, the American “black” culture is reflective of the least civilized portions of the white colonial settlers, see: Thomas Sowell, Black Rednecks, White Liberals. Having lived outside of the USA for about six years, in the Nashville area, I detest the South and southerners. I shall never cross the Mason-Dixon Line again except to change planes in Atlanta or Miami.
The Candidates
John McCain - Senator McCain is a man of integrity and experience and would be acceptable but for his various positions. I disagree with his position on illegal immigration, the war in Iraq, Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court appointments and the “bailout”. He is an elder man flailing, unable to attack Obama because of his (McCain’s) decency and respect for a fellow Senator. He is unable to articulate a cohesive policy for dealing with Islamic terrorism and the threat that Islam (both mainstream and radical) presents to the west. When it comes to the economy, McCain has no knowledge nor ideas; hell, he voted for the bailout with the Senate addition of $150B of “earmarks”. He just doesn’t “get” it.
Sarah Palin – Governor Palin, except for being sort of “hot” and a life member of the NRA, has nothing I find acceptable. She is no Margaret Thatcher or Ann Richards. She reflects the worst of fascist fundamental “Christianity”; anyone who believes in creationism has so little reality contact as to be almost committable. Hell, even Representative Michelle Bachman, another Republican “hottie” at least had the integrity to split from Bush and vote against the bailout.
Barack Obama – Senator Obama just ain’t kosher. This is a guy who managed to be on the Harvard Law Review (editor no less) without a signed case note, teaching at my Law School for years without publishing a single thing – unheard of! This is a guy who hides and obfuscates his past and his positions. His activity in Chicago reflects a mainline dirty Chicago democratic pol, I’m a native Chicagoan and know whereof I speak. His political mentor Bill Ayers is a despicable America hater as is Ayers’ wife. Come on, I was in Law School in Chicago for the ’68 Democratic National Convention, supported McCarthy, got gassed, helped in the “Chicago Seven” defense and know about the Weathermen and their ilk. There is NO position upon which I agree with Obama.
Moreover, for 20 years, Obama sat in the pews and ascribed to the religious and moral precepts of Black Liberation theology as espoused by Pastor Wright. If my priest ever said “God damn America” and meant it, it would be my last moment in that church; moreover, the only thing that would prevent me from beating the priest to unconsciousness is the fact that my priest is a woman. Hey, you want to damn Bush, OK, Pelosi, OK, the USA, NO. Obama knew and agreed with his moral mentor and only rejected Wright when it became politically necessary. Black Liberation theology, best explicated by James H. Cone, is an outgrowth of Marxist Liberation Theology developed in Latin America within the purview of the Roman church by people like Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez and Cardinal Lopez Trujillo. Both John Paul II and Benedict XVI denounced the antichristian Marxism of the movement. Besides its Marxist basis, Black Liberation theology sees “whites” as oppressors and foments racial and class hatreds.
As to Obama, ye shall know them by the company they keep. I won’t even get into Obama’s ties to Acorn, voter fraud, or Resko.
Joe Biden – What can I say? He’s always voted as a liberal democrat and thinks President Franklin Delano Roosevelt calmed the populace in a TV address in 1929; he’s not only wrong, but may have pre-onset Alzheimer’s.
All of which leaves me either voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate, or the guy I voted for in 2004. He was the only guy I knew would do it the way I wanted it done, me.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Religion and the Public Forum
Religion and the Public Forum
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….
Constitution of the United States, Amendment I
Approximately six weeks ago, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (my church), in her capacity as Presiding Bishop sent a letter to Congress encouraging defeat of the Farm Subsidy Bill then pending (see: Episcopal News Service, www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/). Yesterday, The Very Rev. Joseph Johnson, rector of the Cathedral of St. Paul, “…started courting community leaders…meeting with elected officials and staffers [regarding land use matters] (St. Paul Pioneer Press 6/08/08). Recently, the Episcopal Bishop of New York participated prominently in an anti-gun rally (ENS).
While I agree with the shattered hope for defeat of agricultural subsidies, my position is based on free market concerns, not “liberal” worry over developing nations’ problems. As to the New York Bishop who apparently doesn’t like the Second Amendment, he and I couldn’t be further apart. The Roman Catholic Church has no business attempting to influence government in St. Paul.
All of the foregoing actions by religious leaders – in their official capacities – are, at best, disingenuous, at worst, rank hypocrisy. The Episcopal Church receives tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in government subsidies annually. These subsidies which all other “religious” institutions receive are by way of tax exemption for real estate owned in the various political subdivisions which are precluded from assessing same by statute. Religious institutions want fire protection, police protection, good adjoining streets and sidewalks without paying for same as every other private or business citizen must. Instead, we all pay higher taxes to take up the slack of their tax exemption. There’s only so much land to tax and removing some parcels, increases the assessments on all others.
Moreover, contributions to the previously mentioned religious institutions along with all others are tax exempt and deductible by the IRS under Section 501(c) (3). However, if the religious/charitable institution steps into the political arena, the IRS is to revoke its tax exempt status. Why does the IRS not do so?
Taxation of religious land does NOT prohibit the “free exercise thereof” any more than taxation of individuals impairs their First through Ninth Amendment rights. Further, taxation would in no way prohibit Jefferts Schori, Johnson, the Bishop of New York, or even despicable characters like Pastor Jeremiah Wright from exercising their freedom of speech AS INDIVIDUALS.
Quite simply, I am advocating “strict neutrality” in terms of church-state relations. This premise of constitutional law best explicated by the late Professor Philip B. Kurland of the University of Chicago Law School suggests that subsidizing religions through tax exemption violates the “wall between church and state”.
Please, Bishops, Reverends, Rabbis, Imams, et al, if you chose to speak on public matters, lose the collars, yarmulkes, or other indicia of religious office or pay your fair share to be honest corporate citizens.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….
Constitution of the United States, Amendment I
Approximately six weeks ago, Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (my church), in her capacity as Presiding Bishop sent a letter to Congress encouraging defeat of the Farm Subsidy Bill then pending (see: Episcopal News Service, www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/). Yesterday, The Very Rev. Joseph Johnson, rector of the Cathedral of St. Paul, “…started courting community leaders…meeting with elected officials and staffers [regarding land use matters] (St. Paul Pioneer Press 6/08/08). Recently, the Episcopal Bishop of New York participated prominently in an anti-gun rally (ENS).
While I agree with the shattered hope for defeat of agricultural subsidies, my position is based on free market concerns, not “liberal” worry over developing nations’ problems. As to the New York Bishop who apparently doesn’t like the Second Amendment, he and I couldn’t be further apart. The Roman Catholic Church has no business attempting to influence government in St. Paul.
All of the foregoing actions by religious leaders – in their official capacities – are, at best, disingenuous, at worst, rank hypocrisy. The Episcopal Church receives tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in government subsidies annually. These subsidies which all other “religious” institutions receive are by way of tax exemption for real estate owned in the various political subdivisions which are precluded from assessing same by statute. Religious institutions want fire protection, police protection, good adjoining streets and sidewalks without paying for same as every other private or business citizen must. Instead, we all pay higher taxes to take up the slack of their tax exemption. There’s only so much land to tax and removing some parcels, increases the assessments on all others.
Moreover, contributions to the previously mentioned religious institutions along with all others are tax exempt and deductible by the IRS under Section 501(c) (3). However, if the religious/charitable institution steps into the political arena, the IRS is to revoke its tax exempt status. Why does the IRS not do so?
Taxation of religious land does NOT prohibit the “free exercise thereof” any more than taxation of individuals impairs their First through Ninth Amendment rights. Further, taxation would in no way prohibit Jefferts Schori, Johnson, the Bishop of New York, or even despicable characters like Pastor Jeremiah Wright from exercising their freedom of speech AS INDIVIDUALS.
Quite simply, I am advocating “strict neutrality” in terms of church-state relations. This premise of constitutional law best explicated by the late Professor Philip B. Kurland of the University of Chicago Law School suggests that subsidizing religions through tax exemption violates the “wall between church and state”.
Please, Bishops, Reverends, Rabbis, Imams, et al, if you chose to speak on public matters, lose the collars, yarmulkes, or other indicia of religious office or pay your fair share to be honest corporate citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)