RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 0
by 0
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Politics can turn into holy war
By Dennis Clayson
As Mitt Romney's presidential campaign gains traction, the issue of religious bigotry has raised its ugly head.
We are told by everyone that bigotry is bad, and shouldn't be tolerated. Very noble. Reality, however, is not always so gracious.
Among the polite folk, religious bias is the last remaining acceptable form of bigotry in America. In one of my classes, it is necessary to talk about racial differences in the marketplace. During this lecture, the students sit in stunned silence staring at the floor, afraid that even eye-contact could conceivably brand them as a bigot.
In the same class, we must also deal with differences in religion. When Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists are mentioned, many of the students give each other knowing smiles, and a little insider laughter is heard.
When ideas are trendy, no group is trendier than professors. A recent poll showed that these esteemed educators were 50% more likely to hold negative views of Mormons than the population as a whole.
Proper Iowans know from the first moment they look into their parents’ eyes that they will NEVER have any contact with certain religions, literally come Hell or high water.
There are, however, three groups that are especially bigoted. The first group is paid ministers who lose customers to other religions. It is not clear if their opposition is bigotry, or just competition envy.
The second group is interesting because their bigotry is contradictory to their own interests. Conservative evangelicals are especially negative. Much like radical Muslims’ view of the modern world, they see Romney’s religion as a heresy that must be stomped out. They produce pamphlets with titles such as, "Why Mormons will Burn in Hell," and others warning of "cults," in which Charles Manson is placed next to Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists.
The third group is the far left. To be fair, they don't like any traditional religion practiced by their own culture, especially if it is a faith that people actually believe in. They especially despise Mormonism, but will tolerate individual Mormons, as long as they keep their mouths shut.
Now a few predictions. If Romney looks like he will be the candidate for the Republican Party, this is what we can expect to see:
The Iowans and ministers will decide that Romney’s religion is weird, but he could still be voted for. Much like Kennedy, he would be acceptable as long as he behaved himself.
The evangelicals will not know what to do. Culturally, Romney should be their man, and the larger culture is telling them not to be bigots, but how can you spend your life warning people about cults and then elect a proud member of the most successful "cult" in America? They may decide that they have been in error for the last 150 years; at least it is something to be hoped for.
The left will do what they always do. If Romney is seen as a threat, then all bets are off. They will play the religion card for all it's worth, while maintaining on a stack of global warming pamphlets that they don't have an ounce of bigotry in them.
There will be articles in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, and all the major networks, and they will look like this, "Religious bigotry is bad; we are not bigots; Romney appears to be a wonderful man, but people who know him better than we have said..." This will be followed by some very negative comments related in a first and second-order-way to Romney’s faith.
We will hear stories about Romney’s grandparents. There will be long pseudo-scholarly articles on obscure things that some Mormon leader said 90 years ago. Mormon apostates will suddenly have open mikes and admiring reporters willing to air their grievances.
All, of course, because of the voters’ right-to-know, and because the controversy (which they created) demands that the media (against their own wills, you must understand) give all this wide exposure, although, of course, they are not religious bigots, because religious bigotry is very bad.
To the left, everything is political. If they think that religion can be used as a wedge issue, they will use it. They will exploit all the religious bigotry they can possibly ignite, while maintaining all the while that they are pure and totally worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies of the temple of tolerance.
We are told by everyone that bigotry is bad, and shouldn't be tolerated. Very noble. Reality, however, is not always so gracious.
Among the polite folk, religious bias is the last remaining acceptable form of bigotry in America. In one of my classes, it is necessary to talk about racial differences in the marketplace. During this lecture, the students sit in stunned silence staring at the floor, afraid that even eye-contact could conceivably brand them as a bigot.
In the same class, we must also deal with differences in religion. When Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists are mentioned, many of the students give each other knowing smiles, and a little insider laughter is heard.
When ideas are trendy, no group is trendier than professors. A recent poll showed that these esteemed educators were 50% more likely to hold negative views of Mormons than the population as a whole.
Proper Iowans know from the first moment they look into their parents’ eyes that they will NEVER have any contact with certain religions, literally come Hell or high water.
There are, however, three groups that are especially bigoted. The first group is paid ministers who lose customers to other religions. It is not clear if their opposition is bigotry, or just competition envy.
The second group is interesting because their bigotry is contradictory to their own interests. Conservative evangelicals are especially negative. Much like radical Muslims’ view of the modern world, they see Romney’s religion as a heresy that must be stomped out. They produce pamphlets with titles such as, "Why Mormons will Burn in Hell," and others warning of "cults," in which Charles Manson is placed next to Jehovah's Witnesses and Adventists.
The third group is the far left. To be fair, they don't like any traditional religion practiced by their own culture, especially if it is a faith that people actually believe in. They especially despise Mormonism, but will tolerate individual Mormons, as long as they keep their mouths shut.
Now a few predictions. If Romney looks like he will be the candidate for the Republican Party, this is what we can expect to see:
The Iowans and ministers will decide that Romney’s religion is weird, but he could still be voted for. Much like Kennedy, he would be acceptable as long as he behaved himself.
The evangelicals will not know what to do. Culturally, Romney should be their man, and the larger culture is telling them not to be bigots, but how can you spend your life warning people about cults and then elect a proud member of the most successful "cult" in America? They may decide that they have been in error for the last 150 years; at least it is something to be hoped for.
The left will do what they always do. If Romney is seen as a threat, then all bets are off. They will play the religion card for all it's worth, while maintaining on a stack of global warming pamphlets that they don't have an ounce of bigotry in them.
There will be articles in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Time Magazine, and all the major networks, and they will look like this, "Religious bigotry is bad; we are not bigots; Romney appears to be a wonderful man, but people who know him better than we have said..." This will be followed by some very negative comments related in a first and second-order-way to Romney’s faith.
We will hear stories about Romney’s grandparents. There will be long pseudo-scholarly articles on obscure things that some Mormon leader said 90 years ago. Mormon apostates will suddenly have open mikes and admiring reporters willing to air their grievances.
All, of course, because of the voters’ right-to-know, and because the controversy (which they created) demands that the media (against their own wills, you must understand) give all this wide exposure, although, of course, they are not religious bigots, because religious bigotry is very bad.
To the left, everything is political. If they think that religion can be used as a wedge issue, they will use it. They will exploit all the religious bigotry they can possibly ignite, while maintaining all the while that they are pure and totally worthy to enter into the Holy of Holies of the temple of tolerance.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
iaoregon wrote on Jun 4, 2007 8:53 PM:
" No question about it. The left will indeed paint an ugly portrait of not just Mitt but whoever the Republicans nominate as their candidate.
As will the right paint ugly the Democratic nominee. Remember those swift boat ads?
Surely Mr. Clayson has not so soon forgotten the last twelve presidential elections. Every campaign just a little uglier than the previous one.
I suppose your point is religion is private. In national politics, nothing is. Sad!
All of which should make us feel robbed of the decency we should demand in political campaigns. But we have to demand it in large enough numbers to be heard.
"
Kramerica wrote on Jun 5, 2007 12:37 PM:
" ""To the left, everything is political." Surely Mr. Clayson means to say "To the right"." blah blah blah, Karl Rove is evil , blah blah blah, Republicans are all racists, blah blah blah, President Clinton was a private matter, blah blah blah, Scooter Libby, blah blah blah, party first country second blah blah blah.......Come on Phil, be original.. Time to teach the dog some new tricks, Phil. "
iaoregon wrote on Jun 5, 2007 10:54 PM:
" Kramerica and Phil make my point all too well. Maybe you fellows could look for some common ground?
Neither the left nor the right can claim an edge on fairness or decency when campaigning for POWER.
At the grass roots though we should at least demand it. And practice it.
"
Kramerica wrote on Jun 7, 2007 3:51 PM:
" Really? My point was Phil's got the same response to every Clayson article that comes out, just keeps parroting the same DNC talking points without considering what Clayson's saying. Phil's response is if it's pro-republican or pro-conservative, it MUST be wrong. "
iaoregon wrote on Jun 7, 2007 10:28 PM:
" I often disagree with things Mr. Clayson writes. At the same time, I have great respect for his editorial skills which are evident because of the unusually high number of responses from readers.
I may not agree with his opinions but most of the time they encourage me to give a great deal of thought to the subject.
That may be the highest compliment an editorialist can expect.
Respect the writer. Fairly critisize the opinion.
But I can't be as reational with folks like Rush Limbaugh. "
Kramerica wrote on Jun 8, 2007 12:36 PM:
" then folks of your ilk need to stop lumping all conservatives in with Rush Limbaugh, it is possible for conservatives to think for themselves. "
Phil wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:13 PM:
" Kramerica - I am supposed to be original? I am waiting for you to counter my (and they are ones I come up with myself) arguments with some factual statements of your own. Yet you never do, you simply claim I use the DNC talking points, and by default basically admit you have no counter argument, therefore validating mine. You must visit the DNC web site a lot and read their press releases cause you sure seem to know a lot more about their "talking points" than I do. Let me say one last thing, when the Democrats or the left do something that is wrong or bad for the country I will be happy to criticize it - my question is will you or Mr. Clayson ever do the same for the Republicans or those on the Right? "
Phil wrote on Jun 8, 2007 1:55 PM:
" Kramerica thinks I like to use the DNC talking points - actually one person I really enjoy reading is Paul Craig Roberts - I suggest all of you Clayson followers who consider yourself conservatives check him out - here is some info on him: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. "
Kramerica wrote on Jun 8, 2007 3:40 PM:
" Phil, not going point by point simply means I have a life and don't waste mine focusing ONLY on politics, and don't pretend to know me. I'm conservative, and not a member of ANY party, I can't stand party politics which is why your comments hack me off because it seems to be all you care about. Specificaly what points to you want me to cover above?
I wasn't for the impeachment of Clinton as it did the country no good, but I would have liked to have seen charges for perjury after he left office. AND I think Scooter Libby got everything he had coming to him. Perjury is perjury, no matter what party you belong to. So at least I'm consistent. If you want to talk to Kool-Aid drinkin' Republicans, you're barking up the wrong tree. "
CoalPlant wrote on Jun 8, 2007 4:57 PM:
" The only arguement Phil wins is the one he has with Clayson every week. Of course Mr Clayson never responds so it is a hollow victory but I am sure Phil feels like he really showed him this time. "
OFJohn wrote on Jun 8, 2007 6:10 PM:
" I have say this is a pretty spot on editorial by Mr Clayson, up until the end. I just don't get why he has to write from "the right". It seems that he has jumped on the bandwagon of the success of conservatives talk show hosts, journalists, pundits, etc, who all jumped on Rush's coat tails. He has seen the immense and intense following those folks have. Why couldn't he just make what were solid points and leave off the last shot at the left? I don't think there would be much argument that evangelicals are primarily conservative republicans, but he conveniently leaves that out. I have to agree with iaoregon and kramerica. Both political parties will stoop to any depth necessary to gain power and both have some seriously pungent bigots among them. All claiming to be righteous and only justified in their views. It just irks me when intelligent folks like Clayson have to take shots at those they oppose instead of making good, solid observations that shed light on the chuckleheads of both parties and the serious problems of our current way of doing political business. Instead, he has to take only a conservative stand and lose all credibility as someone who may actually have some cogent, worthwhile things to say. It's just weak to pander to either the far right or the far left. Most of us aren't truly dumb enough to believe that there is only one side in any political debate that is completely correct nor totally honorable in their posturing. I think I'll just read iaoregon and olof from now on. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 8, 2007 7:06 PM:
" And Clayson writes: Much like Kennedy, he would be acceptable as long as he behaved himself.
And Kennedy did not and was not going to behave himself and that is why "OUR" government had him taken out.
Watch UTube and the video's that show the driver of the Kennedy motorcade turn around and shoot the President. He was treading on ground that certain specific departments did not want happening. "
iaoregon wrote on Jun 8, 2007 9:02 PM:
" Kramerica: What ilk are you dumping me into? When did I ever indicate to anyone that I believe all (or any other conservatives) are in the same tank with Rush Limbaugh?
I am politically independent. A bit left of center on some issues but right of center on others.
grammainiowa: Where on earth do you come up with such stuff? "
Phil wrote on Jun 8, 2007 10:37 PM:
" Kramerica - well its good to see we agree on something - your observations about Clinton and Libby are spot on - can't argue with either of them. And CoalPlant, isn't that the point of this comment section - to comment on what Mr. Clayson writes? And since Mr. Clayson NEVER looks at things from other than the conservative/right wing side, I try to offer the alternative view. I can assure you if Mr. Clayson ever tried to offer even a remotely balanced perspective I would keep out of these comments. But he lives in a "cultural bubble" - government job, government pension and a six figure salary - he is clueless as to what most of us live with every day - and it shows in his columns. "
shirley wrote on Jun 9, 2007 1:37 AM:
" what is bigotry? i know i have heard of it but i cant put my finger on it.
i have decided a few months ago that i am independent- cuz of comments made earlier- one group pulls at the other and then that group pulls back and it just gets to be a hatefest. i think that both democrats and republicans have good things come from them. i disagree with things from both sides also. well at least the things i understand.
i think that clinton had his closet as so does the rest of the world and that was a very dumb thing to impeach him on. he should have just kept his closet shut!
and that is my opinion- now i think i will TRY and get some sleep- u guys and gals have a great- day! "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 7:26 AM:
" The dictionary states that bigotry is:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
So I guess it is a person that can not be convinced to change their mind or views. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 7:33 AM:
" bigotry is more or less meaning a stubborn person.
Not being able to change their mind or views. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 7:39 AM:
" Ah, I see we have no comments on how President Kennedy was murdered.
This is one that I would like to debate and see what the others out there are thinking about the whole entire situation. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 7:54 AM:
" To: Phil
Then it is time Mr. Clayson comes out of the woodwork and lives among us common folk for a while.
I'm sure we could give him a balanced view once he didn't have his six figure salary to back him. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 7:55 AM:
" And one more item: Mitt Romney, in my opinion does not stand a chance considering the othe candidates that are running also. He is out of his league here, just my opinion. "
Kramerica wrote on Jun 9, 2007 9:37 AM:
" iaoregon : my comments were directed at Phil, not you. Phil never considers the other side either, something he accuses Clayson of, it's always the "all Republicans/Conservatives are evil" mantra and I've just gotten tired of it. Doesn't matter what the article's subject matter is, it's the same old tired arguments. I'm done with it. "
Coalplant wrote on Jun 9, 2007 11:07 AM:
" Phil, What does Mr clayson's salary have to do with anything? Do the folks who the Courier provide as a balance ( Wood, Thompson and Cawelti) ever present a view other than the liberal bird droppings that your posts are filled with. Should we only be exposed to those peoples views who earn a living that you find just and equitable? I honestly believe that all these so called educated elites (including Mr Clayson)should refrain from writing opinion pieces as long they continue to represent our state Universities. They do far more harm to our universities by showing how out of touch they all are with what actually transpires in the real world than any good that comes from there writings. "
OFJohn wrote on Jun 9, 2007 12:32 PM:
" Sorry Phil, but I have to agree with Kramerica on this one. I am probably a little left of center on many things, but it's no more accurate or compeeling when the left claims all of the countries problems on the right. There are actually some fine, moderate conservatives would be fine leaders. Same thing for moderate Dems. It's just that the primary system panders to the extremes on both sides. iaoregon seems to have some true common sense. Let her be your guru. As for mr, I'm dying to hear more from gramma about her Kennedy theories. I'm cookin' popcorn for that. (gramma, I met one of the Dallas ER docs and have some interesting facts from him as well) Let's get conspiracy crazy!!! "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 9, 2007 3:21 PM:
" To: OfJohn
Ok...let's get conspiracy crazy!
Kennedy was going to do away with the Federal Reserve and the CIA. He had already begun to print silver certificates. This definitely did not set well with specific government departments.
There is an ex-CIA agent on UTube with his video and what really transpired.
He is dead now, had a heart attack, wonder how that happened?
But his family or someone posted the videos that he made and they somehow keep disappearing and re-appearing, probably thanks to our government. But whoever has the videos will not let it die.
This video shows that the driver turned around and shot Kennedy. At the time of shooting both of his hands should have been on the wheel and getting out of the "kill zone" as they call it; but they weren't.
Then you see Jackie trying to crawl out the back of the car and a CIA agent pushing her back inside. Why was she crawling out, did she actually see the driver shoot her husband? I think so.
This man wanted the truth to come out and this is his reason for making the videos. If you are truly interested I can post the UTube link. "
OFJohn wrote on Jun 10, 2007 8:14 AM:
" Hi gramma,
Please do post the address, I'd love to watch it. I'm fairly sure we will never know the truth of Kennedy's death. Of all the mysteries of this nation, this is the one I am most intrigued by and am pretty sure we have not heard the truth and never will. Like I said before, I got to meet one of the doctors present in the ER when Kennedy was brought in. He told me that the Secret Service oversaw what they did with Kennedy's body the entire time. They were not allowed to do the autopsy in Dallas, as federal law stated. He said he has no idea what went on after his body left Dallas, but that the descriptions we have received about his wounds were not at all consistent with what they were when his body left Dallas. That's all he would say and said he was uncomfortable talking about it. So I'm with you and am fascinated by any possible info. It is to the point that it's just kind of fun for me, which is probably not good, as this could be the most damning example of how nefarious and Sopranos-like our secret gov't agencies can be. "
think wrote on Jun 10, 2007 8:15 AM:
" I’ve seen the film you’re speaking of. Right there clear as day the driver turns around and fires that fatal headshot. This after Kennedy was hit in the throat. Had the bullet come from the back, there would have been an exit wound and flying tissue. Also note that there are no Secret Service agents on the back of the limo and no police vehicles in front. Jackie does indeed scramble onto the trunk in fear and a Secret Service agent then pushes her back in. Kennedy did in fact order the printing of real money and said it made no sense for the Federal Government to borrow money from a private bank and signed an order to disband it. LBJ undid that order.
http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij2.html
No one knew the exact route the motorcade would take, except LBJ who had arranged the trip. At the last minute the motorcade changed routes and drove past the building where the shots were suppose to be fired from. There is also Jack Ruby saying LBJ was behind it. That video gets removed and reposted all the time. So we are suppose to believe that Oswald with a $10.00 surplus worn out weapon with a beat up old scope fired 3 shots in 6 seconds? I’ve seen the debunkers try and explain the magic bullet. They say the Governor was 18 inches to the left on a jump seat. He has long arms as the film shows his arm resting on the door. Also fact is the night before most of JFK’s Security Men were at a strip club drunk. This is documented. JFK made two fatal mistakes. He disbanded the Federal Reserve and made the pubic statement that he was going to break up the CIA into a 1000 pieces. Robert Kennedy was a shoe in for the 68 election and said he would end the war in Vietnam as soon as he was in office. They also knew as President he would find the killers of his brother. The rest as they say is history.
"
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 10, 2007 6:19 PM:
" To: OfJohn
Think is very well informed; he must have the same line of thought as you and I.
There are three links right now. The very good one has disappeared "again".
Here we go: You have to watch very closely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RMbsdh_N8w&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIets8XuQR4
"
Steady wrote on Jun 11, 2007 10:03 AM:
" Phil; You asked for a counter argument with factual statements (even though your original comments don't have any) in your original post. 1. You mentioned Karl Rove and the Justice Department. Since you were not specific and there were no facts I am assuming you might be referring to the fired U.S. Attorneys. Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the president. It is appropriate that they follow the general political priorities of the president (even if you don't agrgee with him). 2. Impeaching Clinton over a private matter. It would of been a private matter had it occurred outside the White House and not an intern. I was serving in the military and observed several Drill Sergeants prosecuted and dismissed for the same thing their Commander in Chief had done. Does any company allow sexual acts to occur within their offices? 3. Scooter Libby was thrown out without any facts, do you know the story or use his name as a punch line? Lets not forget this whole thing started with a book that was written with false information and of course the media ran with the story as factual. To defend itself against a false story information was put out to correct the lies. The prosecutor, Fitzpatrick, could not prove the original criminal complaint, so he goes after Libby. 4. Republicans voting lock step and again you did not provide any facts of your own, I'll offer one of my own. Have you been watching the immigration debate? Pretty much not following party lock step. Everything you mentioned in general about the Republicans can easily be echoed for the Democrats. Are the Republicans clean, no, but there is not way you can claim the Democrats are - most recently $90,000 in Democrat William Jefferson's freezer. "
shirley wrote on Jun 11, 2007 3:31 PM:
" thanks grammain iowa- u have been verykind to me in all these different blogs. i really do appreciate it. "
olof wrote on Jun 11, 2007 4:33 PM:
" One more thing about the poor 'victim" Valerie Plame: according to a 20/20 report, she used her name and CIA occupation on a membership application to a health club.
Also, she was never a covert operative.
Clinton's sec. of defense Sandy Burger outed several double agents in Europe who were subsequently "silenced" by the KGB.
"
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 11, 2007 7:25 PM:
" To: Shirley
I think you meant to post this in another blog, but that's okay.
Thank you for thanking me.
It doesn't take much to be a kind person and takes less muscles to smile as opposed to frowning.
I believe some of the negative posters are always frowning. lol "
shirley wrote on Jun 11, 2007 7:58 PM:
" lol ur right i guess i was just reading the posts and saw yours so wrote away. LOL "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:18 AM:
" To: OfJohn
Here is another link that a yellow arrow about in the middle of the video points out the driver and the gun regarding Kennedy. Have you watched the other 3 I gave you yet? Opinions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrAbmahBeQ&mode=related&search "
olof wrote on Jun 14, 2007 6:56 PM:
" Funny how the Hillary starts to use religion, no, make that "faith" (so as to deflect questions about her ACTUAL afilliation?)so to make herself look so compassionate and caring.
Much like she uses a southern accent in the south and a new york accent in the northeast.
No doubt she considers herself Morman in Utah and baptist in Georgia.
"
Newswatcher wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:53 PM:
" Olof, you are SO right on about Hillary and her "convenient accents" and "faith". She also has put a 'black sound' to her accent when speaking to the African Americans. What a hoot! I think that this is a red flag that shows her lack of true confidence that she can win her party's candidacy by simply being herself. A Phony! What kind of President would THAT make? As President, traveling to other countries, her fakeness would be easily noticed and embarrassing! Folks, the reason some of you like her isn't because she'd be the Great Leader you THINK she'd be, it's because she says things that she knows YOU want to hear (in an accent that causes her to appear as "one of your own"). For crying out loud, don't fall for that easy stuff. Look into Vince Foster's supposed "suicide", Travelgate, the Rose Law Firm, her husband's many affairs (think about 'why', and more. Behind the closed work doors, she'll shed her accent and do just what SHE wants to do, no matter who suffers in her path. The USA deserves better than this. No wonder Monica and others showed up in her husband's life, she's been married to Bill to get HERSELF into the White House. She's certainly not Presidential material folks. She's a phony and you're naive if you believe her. Just because she's smart doesn't mean she'd make a good President! "
OFJohn wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:23 PM:
" Hi gramma,
I checked out the videos and it just gets more amazing all the time. I'm not convinced that the driver was the shooter, but I'd never even heard anything like that before. I'd also never seen nor heard anything about the Secret Service Agents being pulled from their normal positions. There can be no denying that happened. I just can't believe what we are never told by our government. How can we really have any trust in anything they do? "
think wrote on Jun 15, 2007 5:00 PM:
" There is no doubt that a military coup took place on Nov. 22 1963. The evidence of windows left open, Kennedy’s Secret Service agents ordered off. None of this was suppose to be seen. There is no doubt that the Free masons and Skull & Bone are behind this. All of them now tied to the Nazis. We won the battle but lost the war. The CFR and Tri lateral Commissions are a part of the new world order. Even those that claim to be Jewish are indeed Nazis. Why? To link the banks, and Hollywood to rich Jews a keep the propaganda going and the hate of the Jews. The question is why does the media go along with the Coup. All the networks know what happened. You should see the confession by Jack Ruby we never got to see on You Tube. Don’t take my word. Look on You Tube at the old footage we were never meant to see. Like the agents being ordered away from JFK’s limo. Now there is evidence that JFK Jr. got to close and look at what happened to him. JFK did sign an oder to print real money and do away with the FED. He was dead 3 weeks later. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 16, 2007 7:42 AM:
" To: OfJohn
Isn't that amazing. I'm glad you checked out the videos.
Believe that your government only lets you know what they want you to know and that is why I'm very skeptical about trusting our gov't to answer your question.
It is scary and I mean really scary.
And I've heard many times in my earlier years (I'm not that old even tho I go by gramma-I'm a baby boomer) that our gov't has done even worse.
I think I can honestly believe that this happened. He was treading on "unsafe waters" and he had to be taken out-and they did.
"
OFJohn wrote on Jun 16, 2007 10:11 AM:
" Gramma and others,
I have never been a big conspiracy believer and always got a laugh out of what the latest conspirorist was coming out with. I have come to truly believe that is exactly the gov'ts hoped for outcome. By lumping in the truth with the way out theories, it makes it all easy to laugh off. I think it all started in the 60's with the Kennedy assissination and then the Viet Nam War. We were given too much information and saw too many graphic images in the war and too many people were asking too many questions about Kennedy. When the first Gulf War came about, we were only allowed to see certain images that the government wanted us to see. All of the news media had to be "imbedded" with certain troups so they were limited in the exposure they could give to the war. Each administration has been harder and harder to get information from. Vice President Cheney just had the rules changed on Presidential papers being released from ten years after the administration to never. Please don't think this is a shot at the Republicans either. They just happen to be in power at this time. There is no way that a truly democratic, representative government that believed in the Costitution would allow the type of censorship of governmental information that has happened in the past thirty years. This has to be a concentrated effort that transcends political lines. True freedom of the press and access to information does not exist. The political powers must realize and fear that if it did, they would not be able to do business as usual and the light of day would shine upon all of their misdeeds. Finally, the press has become a joke that does no more real investigative journalism when it comes to our government. If it weren't a joke, they would be bringing lawsuits against the government for quelling freedom of the press constantly. But it seems they are just content to spit out the same stuff they are fed by press releases and PR staffs and do no real searching for the truth. What a disappointment they all have become. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 17, 2007 8:48 AM:
" And I could continue although I know this is not the topic of the article.
But JFK's son supposedly had a bomb implanted on his plane, why?, because his magazine was posting articles that were "off limits".
Also the Trade Centers-think about it.
If the terriorist wanted to disable the US, why didn't they hit our oil refineries? That would have crippled us beyond destruction. Why the trade centers?
My husband has done a lot of research on these and you would be amazed at what he has found out. Totally amazed and it makes you wonder. "
olof wrote on Jun 23, 2007 2:08 AM:
" There are conspiracies, and then there are conspiracies....I think that the government is hiding UFO information from us. I have been with witnesses where we have seen some very odd things in the sky.
Can't say they were being driven by little green people, but then, they definitely were not swamp gas either.
I think we should be told by the government just what is actually known about this.
Why is it that senators and even presidents can't get information from the CIA regarding this?
When Bush 1 was CIA director he denied access to records to Carter!
Bill Richards, senator from from New Mexico, was denied access as well.
The Air Force reports on UFO's have already been discredited.
"
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 23, 2007 9:30 AM:
" And why do you think there is an Area 51 in Nevada.
I lived there for a while; you get no where near that place, or you could be shot.
Supposedly when a space craft crashed, the "thing" inside was taken to Area 51. There were people that saw it and it was hushed hushed. "
olof wrote on Jun 23, 2007 1:01 PM:
" Hey gramma:
My brother in law's brother was a colonel in the Air Force. He was stationed at Nellis outside of Las Vegas, as was his wife, another Air Force officer. Both were in aeromedicine. She served a stint at Area 51.
A few years after she was retired with a medical discharge, she came down with all sorts of serious health and mental problems related to her work there such as cancer and schizophrenia.
She developed a great fear of staying in one place too long because as she said: "they can see us".
She died in 1988.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, no one who worked there can get help for medical problems because the place officially does not exist.
He signed a presidential order exempting the place from any environmental regulations.
"
shirley wrote on Jun 23, 2007 6:05 PM:
" i agree- we live here and it totally affects us if there are aliens. me personally i have notthe slightest clue if there is or not i am more worried about ghosts- but anyways ya so we r not warned about finding aliens- so they can just come and scoop us up while playing sand volleyball at the beach! and if we keep catching whatever is inside i think that their "people things" family memebers or whatever u want to call them might get mad sooner or later and attack us or something. "
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 23, 2007 10:00 PM:
" To: olof
I am so sorry to hear about that sad situation. Unfortunately I do believe everything you are stating.
Area 51 also has bunkers...what for?
My husband and I have our opinions about that; but I won't get into it.
My hubby actually had a buddy that talked him into going under the fence there quite a few years ago and within seconds there were armed guards all around them and a hovering helicopter. They asked them if they would like to go back up the hill and under the fence and forget this incident or go with them. Of course they went back the way they came in. lol
Just too much going on that we aren't informed correctly about.
Sad but true "
Think wrote on Jun 23, 2007 10:17 PM:
" Like a magician area 51 is there to distract you. They do work on top secret aircraft but the real stuff that takes place has no name. It is near the Idaho border. The signs at 51 say “Deadly Force May Be Used”. At Area X the signs say “Deadly Force Will Be Used”. 51 has private security, the white jeeps. X has active duty SEALS. X was built after 51 became known. Janet flights come and go to 51 from Vegas everyday. Nothing leaves X until it is allowed. In the middle of the Deseret it could be bio, nuclear or genetics. No one will ever get close enough to find out. Some think it is the site of the New World Order Capital. I think they do the bio-weapons etc out there. Not even Navy Pilots are allowed over that area. "
Nosretep wrote on Jun 24, 2007 2:02 PM:
" Grammainiowa and others, I checked out the videos and they were what I thought they would be. OBVIOUSLY doctored, and very amaturish. When you shoot someone in the front of the head the blood spray goes out the back not out the front as in those videos. Nice try but no cigar. "
Nosretep wrote on Jun 24, 2007 2:05 PM:
" Dennis, love your articles, and I agree with most of what you say. It is nice to see there are some educators that can think for themselves and not spout the usual politically corrct clap trap. "
think wrote on Jun 25, 2007 8:38 AM:
" Nosretep,
Nice try at disinformation. His head and body jerk back violently and there is a hole in the windshield. I thought that car was bullet proof and they just took the top off.
I would love to hear your comments on this. Maybe your 322? Are you forgetting the hundreds of witness that seen the gunman that were dismissed by the FBI after their films were taken? On Nov. 22 1963 the 1000 year plan began. Both Bush and Kerry as well as Gore all members of the New World Order. The facts are well documented that Granddaddy Bush was a Nazi. You can’t hide the facts of his business deals. The Bush fortune began with money laundering for Uncle Adolf. So why did the Secret Service abandon the car? That was doctored video as well?
http://www.rense.com/general41/wew.htm
"
grammainiowa wrote on Jun 25, 2007 11:01 AM:
" To: Nosretep
You can think what you want.
Too many discrepancies, not just the video. Read!
Kennedy was taken out because of what he was proposing to do.
You have your opinion and I have mine. "
Nosretep wrote on Jun 25, 2007 2:24 PM:
" To:think and grammainia check out (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BPyhsW_CNI&mode=related&search=)
It's obvious the driver has turned around but no gun, sunglasses yes. No hole in windshield just glare.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy just that THIS video is doctored. "
think wrote on Jun 25, 2007 9:17 PM:
" Nosretep
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs-x0-ffP0Q
The video you posted was put up May 21st and is the fake. The real was posted May 15th. The limo was torn apart within minutes by the SS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79lOKs0Kr_Y
The wink at LBJ. What are the odds that LBJ would be looking at a man blinking with one eye? Now we have E Howard Hunts death bed confession. Also why are the files sealed for another 35 years?
"
shirley wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:23 AM:
" i checked out that utube video too and u cant even tell whether he has a gun. that pic is so blurry u cant even see his face- it is black. very bad example nosretep. i dont even know anything about this whole conspiracy thing but i am gonna start looking into it since it is such a big hit on here. i will get back to ya n some good footage give me a couple days=) "
olof wrote on Jun 29, 2007 1:21 PM:
" It was no secret at the time about the sour feelings between JFK and LBJ.
Kennedy needed Johnson to swing the south in the '60 election.
LBJ had a special hate for Bobby Kennedy as well, (because RFK had led an investigation into corrupt Texas officials who supported LBJ) and arranged a (botched) accidential shooting incident at LBJ's ranch while out shooting skeet.
RFK never saw Johnson after that incident without some sort of bodyguard with him.
RFK was also very acidly critical of LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam war, and of Hubert Humphrey's support of LBJ's policies. LBJ needed Humphrey to win the '68 election because he could still call the shots through him.
"
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
Phil wrote on Jun 3, 2007 9:39 PM: