Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Franken & McCain at New Ruskin College

www.NewRuskinCollege.com

“The Church does not have technical solutions to offer for the problem of underdevelopment as such, as Pope Paul Vl already affirmed in his encyclical. For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her own ministry in the world ... Its aim is thus to guide Christian behaviour. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology."

What is possible for the Church is to (a) establish in the minds of its members a "commitment to justice", (b) to offer certain guidelines as to the priorities which they should pursue, and (c) to delineate the special responsibilities of Catholics in seeking to influence the policies of their respective governments.

John Paul II leaves no doubt that, for the Catholic, the central objective of social action is not to be found merely in its political dimension but in "our manner of living", which should reflect the "love of and preference for the poor". --- Reprinted from AD2000 Vol 1 No 2 (May 1988), p. 4 commentary on John Paul II's new social encyclical, Sollicitudo rei socialis (http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1988/may1988p4_556.html)

Lecture Notes: 05-02-05 The Dishonesty of Stewed Tomatoes Part II

“Stewed Tomatoes”, that is what Franken said the other day . . . to be continued . . .

Counselor: But Senator McCain, (Arizona 5,580,811, San Diego & Orange Counties 5,771,599), was only making a reference. (see Lecture Notes 04-28-05) He only said “The dog barks the caravan moves on.” It was only a reference right? He did not say anything specifically?

Right.

Counselor: So, the part about “go ahead and blow your f---ing brains out, I don’t care,’ that was only a projection? He didn’t actually say that? You only---

He was on the Imus show.

Counselor: . . . um-hum . . .

Of course, when Mrs. Jack Swanson said that Senator McCain was a media whore my only thought was ‘she should know.’ One professional’s appraisal of another. Whore to whore.

Recall that Senator McCain was one of the geniuses in the Senate, Senator Biden, (Delaware 783,600, San Francisco County 776,773) was another, who were demanding that we send in more troops, (250,000 was their demand) and that we set as our war aim the defeat of the terrorists. Then abruptly as Secretary Rumsfeld stated that it was the Iraqi who must defeat the terrorists Senator McCain turned and actually appeared on every venue claiming that his policy had been to turn the war against the terrorist over to the Iraqi and that more troops were not needed. And of course no one in the media asked McCain about his sudden about face.

More troops, free elections, defeat the terrorists, it was Vietnam all over again. The mindless escalation without any clear strategic goal. The ceding of the war’s resolution to the enemy. According to McCain, as long as the terrorists continue to set off bombs our troops must stay over there, running around in helicopters, winning every battle, but without any strategic aim within our control to bring the war to conclusion. The North Vietnamese only had to carry the war on for one day longer than we were willing to stay. And then 30 years later McCain was doing it all over again, this time in Iraq. (His egotism is such that he was holding up hundreds of promotions because he was feuding with Rumsfeld. Even as he turned around 180 degrees, and adopted Rumsfeld’s position, he never acknowledged the superiority of Rumsfeld’s arguments, and continued to hold up the promotions out of pure egotism.)

I realize McCain was in a prison cell for most of the war but one might have thought the author of “Flags of our Fathers,” would have read up on it, you know just to find out what was going on. Come to think of it his father, Admiral McCain was one of the architects of our Vietnam policy. One of the many architects who did not resign in protest. The Joint Chiefs once had a conference to consider the question if they should resign. Did Admiral McCain ever consider resigning?

His father, also Admiral McCain was part of the decision to invade Okinawa. 12,000 men did not return from that adventure. 12,000 families were missing their sons. 12,000 families had to find other men to be husband and father. But it was felt at the time that we had to show the Japanese that we could invade a Home Island. Had to show them that we could take the casualties. Sound familiar? In Vietnam we were told that we had to show the world, the communist world, that America could take the casualties.

So there son and grandson was on the Imus show making a covert reference to this web site. ---

Counselor: But isn’t that what you want? Don’t you want them to visit? I mean ---

Want? What I want is for him to tell Imus that he knows what Imus has done and that it is wrong.

I have been told that what I have said was done was not done. Then I have been told that ‘well, ok it was done, but it wasn’t really that bad.’ Then I have been told that I brought it on myself; I should not have written all those letters to the Senate; or that I should not have kept that notebook, should not have written all those things down for Michael Weiner to steal and read on the air; etc.

Recently I was told that I should “forgive” them because I was only giving them power over me. I give them power over me?

See? It is my fault. I should not have taken those jobs at GAB Robins, Farmers, AAA, CENCAL, AIMS, Crawford, etc.

Sure I could have moved, changed my name, tried to hide from them.

But I chose to move to Marin and live right next to my enemies.

They have done their worst. I am defeated. I will kill myself.

But I have not run.

Unlike, Al Franken, who has made repeated references, (he is a pal of Garrison Keillor), but when confronted he has ducked. The coward. For two days now, Al “the coward” Franken has had nothing to say. No references. No witticisms. No ridicule. (see film Ridicule)

Oh, he can snipe, he is good at the sideways, covert, reference, but he dare not state a position and defend it.

For example, his repeated claim that Social Security is an annuity. At first I thought he was just ignorant. He was just repeating the lies he had been told.

But now after listening a few weeks it is clear that he does know the difference, but chooses to continue to call it an annuity. He knows it is not true but he thinks . . . what?

He calculates some sort of advantage. The problem is that his listeners, a small audience, and an audience that is already committed to his party, are not likely to understand the point. They also will continue to refer to Social Security as an annuity and thereby show their ignorance. They will be less able to persuade other voters. So Franken, “the coward,” loses the advantage of having an audience because he lies to them.

But he would rather sabotage his audience than having to take on the task of either defending the Social Security System even though it is not an annuity, or suggesting some change that might make it an annuity or otherwise improve it.

It really does not matter to me. This issue only serves as an example of the dishonesty of my enemies. I have been ruined by people just like Al “the coward” Franken. What characterizes all of them is that they are cowards. They are dishonest.

For example, on Friday Franken agreed with Mr. Bush’s proposal that the poor should be protected and even said that “we should not have to bribe the rich in order to provide a pension for the elderly poor.” Note the use of the word “bribe” and note that the same point was made here at this web site.

(see Requiem http://www.newruskincollege.com/id23.html : “They want the votes, the Democrat and Republicans, they want their money too, but mainly they want to buy the civil peace. The top 20% wouldn’t support the Social Security system if they did not get their end from the paychecks of the bottom 80%.

All through life they ripped off the people manipulating the government, to manipulate the market, squeezing the supply, raising their prices, why should they stop now in retirement and become altruistic? Especially in retirement! Now, when they can no longer raise their prices! No longer on the corporate expense account, no longer sucking the whory tits. Now, in old age, they must squeeze every last drop from the great sow, with their last dying strength. “)

So now if you agree with me and “the coward” Franken, that it is fundamentally unfair, unfair for three young workers, struggling to raise their families, (in an economy which has been constricted by our Post Liberal elite’s anti growth policies), should have to pay 13% of their income to those wealthy individuals making $75,000 a year, in non Social Security retirement income: Then you will agree that the top 20% of Social Security recipients are being bribed. We have to pay them to keep their interest in the Social Security system.

The top 20% control 50% of the national income. The top 20% control 60% of the financial wealth in the country. For these individuals to be loaded on the backs of three, just three, workers, who must carry them in their retirement, a retirement in which they enjoy an income, apart from Social Security, of $75,000 or more, (i.e. starting at $75,000), is obscene. That is why I called it a bribe. We pay this money to our elite so they will allow us to keep the program for the bottom 40% who would have no income except for Social Security.

This is the American system. This is another aspect of my protest. You make me so sick I prefer death.

But the point is not Social Security or the American system, or our Post Liberal society.

The point is that Al “the coward” Franken, today had Hertzberg on his show and when Hertzberg defended the “universality of the Social Security system,” our coward had nothing to say.

But then why did Franken “the coward” say just last Friday that we should not have to “bribe” the rich in order to provide old age security to the poor, and now today not confront Hertzberg? And here Hertzberg success in turning Franken back to the “universality” of Social Security is typical of the American system.

I think it was Hertzberg who recently said, “I believe in progressive taxation.” And why not. If you can believe in the “universality” of Social Security you should find progressive taxation an obvious fact. (It is not. Taxes are another cost passed on to the consumer. The very word capitalist comes to us from the Latin: one who bids for the right to become a tax collector. Without wage and price controls those who are able raise their prices and pass all costs, including taxes, on to their customers. Who pays? You and me, those whose income is not able to keep up with the rising prices.)

Why didn’t Franken confront Hertzberg? Because he is a coward. And this is what has troubled me and disturbed my resolution. To be destroyed, but worse, to be destroyed by such dogs! Such people!

These are the people who have worked to destroy my life. Cowards. Michael Weiner, another coward, who also hides behind his “Jewishness,” when confronted with the theft of my notebook went into a fit and hid for a week.

Mrs. Jack Swanson refused to go on the air and Lee Rogers shouting at her to come down to the station or he would not go on the air either, and still she refused. Coward.

And Imus, at State Farm, using Shotgun Tom Kelly’s brother, and then years later Frank Blaha, at GAB Robins, Michael Weiner, Mrs. Jack Swanson, . . . and Ron Owens, . . . Rick Alber, . . . the Red comedian . . . Scott Bobro . . . Mengus, . . . Sotos . . . Michael Krasney . . . . . . and now Franken, what do all these people have in common?

Cowards.

So no, Social Security is not the real issue. Go ahead call it an annuity. Say we should not have to “bribe” the elite, but then agree that it is the “universality” of the program that makes it great. Who cares what you say one day to another.

You are so dishonest it does not matter.

And the surprising thing is that I no longer even hate you. You have driven me to my death but I no longer see you as evil, or cruel. Your stupidity no longer seems malicious.

You are like fire. Or a terrible storm.

Your ignorance, your vanity and lies, they are like elements of Nature.

Your ill will itself, disappears into the background.

I call my death a protest, but to whom am I protesting? There is no one left.

www.NewRuskinCollege.com

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home