« Ruminations – 15apr22 (updated 16apr22) | Main | He is Risen! »

16 April 2022



Dare I say that Clark’s faith is every bit as ardent as your dear brides is George. They merely worship different gods.

Bill Tozer

Fingers on the chalkboard to some, every darn time. Of course our nation was founded on Judo-Christian values and principles. Guiding principles, if you will, from Anglo-Saxon development of common law. Most all of the Ten Commandments deal with man’s interactions with his/her fellow man.

That is our country’s founding roots, and of course our founders had impassioned and vigorous arguments and disagreements of their differing points of view (including religion) as evidenced by the Federalist Papers. One can deny or acknowledge or embrace such roots all they like.

If you were want to flush the punch bowl at a good cocktail party, just have some oaf start talking about the ‘G’ word…aka…God. Or religion. Sort of taboo in polite company.

JoAnne’s unforgivable sin (in Ms. Clarke’s opinion) was using the word, ‘us’ in her Hits and Misses blurb. What do you mean “we”, paleface? as the oft repeated joke goes. And ‘us’ means only one thing to Ms. Clarke: Christians, those preachy Christians…and of course those Puritans and Holy Rollers and science deniers.

Judo-Christian tradition was a class I once took in college (now a university) under the heading of Western Civilization. Western Civ was once a class offered to meet the Liberal Arts requirements. That is ancient history now.

Can’t use us. You ain’t speaking for me!! I recall the worse thing a person could say beside the n-word was “those people”. Man o man, that would get you re-educated but fast. ‘Those people’ is a no-no, a big no-no. Equivalent to saying fried chicken and watermelon back in the day. Words to be avoided. Now, saying ‘those people’ is ok, as I heard Social Justice Warrior refer to ‘those people’ with frequency. Probably talking about Christians, I dunno.

On thing that was not changed over the years is such talk of Christianity is still fingers on the chalkboard. Us! Don’t include me in your cult! Us? That is not who we are or even been. Ok, fine. I allow those people to say whatever they want. Daddy issues and all.

The fool in his heart rages against God, yet says there is no God. Folks, go ahead and fashion God in your own image. That’s just only my humble opinion.

Paul Emery

Actually George many of the founding fathers—Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe for example were Deists not Christians. I'm sure you know they denied that the Bible was the word of God and rejected scripture as a source of religious doctrine. They are certainly not part of the "Judeo-Christian roots” you cite as being our fundamental heritage traditions.

George Rebane

PaulE 903pm - Actually Paul, you've totally missed the nuances of the personal beliefs of leaders and their public countenances. Every one of the Founders, regardless of their own deepest feelings, understood that America of the times was a deeply religious nation composed of many different sects based on the Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions. And on that foundation they fashioned the enduring public image of America.

Paul Emery

But George they themselves did not necessarily believe what they "fashoned" as you put it.

George Rebane

Paul, they knew knew their public, the sentiment of the country, and their duty.

Bill Tozer

Fingernail on the chalkboard.

PaulE 903pm - Actually Paul, you've totally missed the nuances of the personal beliefs of leaders and their public countenances. Every one of the Founders, regardless of their own deepest feelings, understood that America of the times was a deeply religious nation composed of many different sects based on the Judeo-Christian scriptures and traditions. And on that foundation they fashioned the enduring public image of America.—Dr. Rebane

Perhaps this short piece is worth reading….every signal word. All men of faith have courage in times like what Washington and his men faced. Without Divine Providence, there was no way to hope for victory. Without Divine Providence, there could be no victory at all. 10,000 men vs the Greatest Military on the Earth.


Don Bessee

It is hilarious that the ponytail of ignorance wants to pretend the founding father did not write the founding documents that acknowledge the gift of rights from God.

HAPPY EASTER! Ham, scalloped potatoes, asparagus, wild rice, hot buttery rolls, bubbly and chocolate to the max!


Bill Tozer

Link within link. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe…..I guess it all depends what one’s definition of a Deist is. All good if they aren’t Christians.

(Promise: They will hate you because they hated me first). Fingernails on the chalkboard


Let’s pick on Franklin for one:

“Even the few American Founders who some claim were deist, including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, specifically expressed the belief that God is active in the world. Jefferson, after all, was the primary author of the Declaration with its “Divine Providence.” Later, in a 1815 letter to Baptist minister and abolitionist David Barrow, former President Jefferson again acknowledged Providence. He writes, “We are not in a world ungoverned by the laws and the power of a superior agent. Our efforts are in His hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in his own time.”[6] Similarly, when the 1787 Constitutional Convention almost fell apart, during a long and difficult deadlock among representatives in their drafting of the United States Constitution, Declaration and Constitution signer Franklin stood up and gave an impassioned speech advising delegates to remember God’s aid during the revolution and to pray again for God’s direction in constructing their government. In this speech, Franklin expressed with striking biblical illustrations his view of a providential God. In doing so, he alluded to Bible verses including Job 12:25, James 1:17, Matthew 10:29-31, Luke 12:6-7, Psalm 127:1, Genesis 11:1-9, Deuteronomy 28:37, and others. He exhorts, … “

“Since God had answered their prayers during the revolution, Franklin offered, the Founders could rely on God to help them construct the new nation and its laws. Soon after, the convention deadlock was broken, and the discussions continued successfully. Such expressions of God’s intervention in human affairs clearly departed from the deist view of a distant, passive God in favor of a near, loving God as conveyed in the Bible.”

Franklin was also convinced that God was instrumental in the founding of the nation. Alluding to Acts 17:26-28, he expresses,

…I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence, that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler, in whom all inferior spirits live, and move, and have their being [Acts 17:26-28].[9]


This discussion is truly fascinating but today on the Lords day of resurrection we need to think about good works and charity……

BUT OF COURSE: President Biden Made More Money in 2021 Than in 2020 and Gave 50% Less to Charity, But Paid Less Taxes.

Pay your fair share….pay your fair share…..pay your fair share…..

Honestly….:at this point isn’t it only the “enjoyed the bad brown acid” squad …..cough, cough…Psul Emery types along with the usual gaggle of geriatric Nevada City window lickers who still back this senile mick grifter.


Paul Emery

Here is a reasonable description of Deism as followed by the above mentioned founders of our democracy. If you read it and follow the link you will get a pretty good idea what Deism was about and how referencces to God were not necessarily to the Christian God but to God of another definition.


Deism or “the religion of nature” was a form of rational theology that emerged among “freethinking” Europeans in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists insisted that religious truth should be subject to the authority of human reason rather than divine revelation. Consequently, they denied that the Bible was the revealed word of God and rejected scripture as a source of religious doctrine. As devotees of natural religion, they rejected all the supernatural elements of Christianity. Miracles, prophecies, and divine portents were all proscribed as residues of superstition, as was the providential view of human history. The doctrines of original sin, the account of creation found in Genesis, and the divinity and resurrection of Christ were similarly castigated as irrational beliefs unworthy of an enlightened age. For Deists God was a benevolent, if distant, creator whose revelation was nature and human reason. Applying reason to nature taught most deists that God organized the world to promote human happiness and our greatest religious duty was to further that end by the practice of morality."


Scott O

Paul - our nation was founded on the basic ideas and principles of the Judeo-Christian ethic. That is an established fact. ALL of the founders were raised and steeped in that ethic. Most of the members of the Constitutional Convention were practicing Christians.
The new nation was overwhelmingly Christian. The fact that a handful of the founders as adults personally hewed more towards some sort of deism does nothing to alter the other facts. Just because you have found a contemporary definition of what a deist is does not prove that any of our founders shared all or any of those views. There was a heavy amount of clergy and they had a large influence. Here - learn something:

Paul Emery


The Diests had a tremendous influence on the Constitution. "God" is not mentioned once in the Constitution created in 1789.

Scott O

Paul "The Diests had a tremendous influence on the Constitution."
Funny how this is the very first time I've heard that. Got any proof?
"God" is not mentioned once in the Constitution created in 1789."
OK - you run with that one fact, Paul. You can use it to beat the dead horse.
Happy Easter!

Paul Emery


So in your opinion Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and Monroe for starters did not have significant roles in creating the Constitution.

Scott O

So Paul, you're claiming that druids and furries were the basis of our govt?

George Rebane

PaulE 653pm - Paul, please give it up. You are so far off the topic of my commentary and of how the Judeo-Christian faiths and traditions affected our founding that it is embarrassing. Our Founders knew the republic they were about to found could only be maintained by people of abiding faith (with its strong values, mores, and ethics), and they knew from the European experience not to integrate state and faith, most certainly not to establish a state religion. They went with what they had, which was a people imbued in Judeo-Christian beliefs and traditions. You are being silly in not understanding this, and to continue implying all kinds of conclusions based on some of the Founders being of the Deist persuasion.

Paul Emery

Sure enough George but you have to admit it's not reflected in the Constitution because there iwe no mention of God till some time in the 50's I believe when it was ammended. What you are saying is that connection to the Judeo-Christian faiths and traditions is implied but not specified. That's a pretty weak argument. It looks to me like they had no intention to include it or any other religion in the Constitution. Not a peep about God or any specific religions. Culturally you may be accurate but that's as far as it goes.

Bill Tozer

fingernails on the chalkboard.

Ilhan Omar Slammed Over Tweet About Christians Singing On Plane: ‘Shut Up And Stop Being A Bigot


Paul Emery

You can add Thomas Paine to the list of Deists who helped shape the Constitution. Here's a quote from hi,:

"But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in the Bible, and of the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament, that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog."


Paul Emery


Here's a quote from him...

Scott O

re BT 7:52 - "“I think my family and I should have a prayer session next time I am on a plane,” Omar wrote on the video, which she tweeted out to her 3 million followers on the platform. “How do you think it will end?”"
Box cutters or shoe bombs?

Scott O

Paul 7:58 - "You can add Thomas Paine to the list of Deists who helped shape the Constitution."
To paraphrase SNL: "Paul, you ignorant slut."
You might want to check with the folks that actually know something about Paine. From the Thomas Paine National Historical Assoc: "He left for Europe two months before the Convention began, but he was not invited."
But, thanks for playing, Paul - we enjoy the humor of the court jester making an ass of himself.

Bill Tozer

Morning all.
What is the Judo-Christian tradition that influenced our founding as a nation, and by extension, influenced our founding fathers?

In a nutshell, from brief readings, the Judo-Christian tradition has God active in the affairs of human beings and nature, and is close to all who call upon (seek) him. Seek and you shall find, if you will.

I have never met anyone who has perfectly walked the talk as all of us make mistakes and have feet of clay. “Carry the message, not the mess” was a statement I once heard years ago at a non-profit meeting, which always stuck.

What surprised me most (without opening any of Paul’s links) was why Paul did not begin with Thomas Paine first instead of last. Thomas Paine was an influential writer of his time, taking nothing away from him.
Once saw one of those ‘one man shows’ stage productions. You know, like a guy dressing up as Mark Twain and doing an evening with Mark Twain kind of things. Anyway, it was a one man show presented as an Evening with Thomas Paine.

Paine, on his stage act by the actor, explained that he could never be associated with a God who killed his own son. Murderer. Paine found the mere idea as brutal and a complete lack of love. No way, Jose, could he ever be associated with that kind of God or Christianity, thus he rejected the entire notion. Fair enough. I ALWAYS appreciate candor.

So, to repeat, I was surprised Paul did nor begin with Thomas Paine as the topic of the Judo-Christian tradition influence on our founding as a nation and our Constitution. A deity that is involved in the affairs of man and who answers prayers and does ‘miracles’ or one that set the whole ball of wax in motion and left the scene. Certainly such questions of one’s core beliefs will not be answered here. But, it helped me out because I never looked at the Judo-Christian tradition before in the terms of an active in the affairs of men versus a God which is not. If Washington did not believe in an active God, why did he order his men to fast and pray when things looked the bleakest?

Maybe Washington had his group of rag tag men fast cause their was not food to feed them, lol. All men of faith have courage when the chips are down and you have run out of solutions and ammo.

Paul Emery

Of course Scott he did not directly participate in the Convention. He was however the most influential writer and motivator with his pamphlet Common Sense which sold over 500,000 copies. This is a quote from history.com called How Thomas Paine's 'Common Sense' Helped Inspire the American Revolution:

"By promoting the idea of American exceptionalism and the need to form a new nation to realize its promise, Paine’s pamphlet not only attracted public support for the Revolution, but put the rebellion’s leaders under pressure to declare independence. And even after the victory over the British, Paine’s influence persisted, and some of his ideas found their way into the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

He was a dedicated deist. Once again I include his quote

""But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in the Bible, and of the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament, that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog."


George Rebane

PaulE 1047am - Pray, what does this single quote from one man removed from the constitutional process have to do with the Founders recognizing and positioning the country on the continuance of the European Judeo-Christian heritage? Your reaches to deny this are becoming more tenuous and bizarre.

Paul Emery


What is bizarre about direct quotes that characterize the opinions of those we historically regard as the most influential individuals during the process of writing our constitution? Do you not regard Thomas Payne as a very important influence during this time? Besides the Constitution did not directly include any allegance directly to Christian spiritual influences or values so how do you attach the " continuance of the European Judeo-Christian heritage" to the Constitution anyway...


Do you not regard Thomas Payne as a very important influence during this time?

Yeah George.....why don't you consider Thomas Payne as incredibly influential to the process of composing the constitution?

It's almost like you'd never heard of Thomas Payne or something!

Scott O

I just feel sorry for this dead horse.
Aren't there laws concerning the abuse of a deceased equine's remains?

George Rebane

Scott 213pm - I'm afraid abusing the remains of a dead horse will go on as long as the event has an audience.

Paul Emery

So I get it George. Here's a basic question. What references do you have to illustrate your contention that the founding fathers intended to " positioning the country on the continuance of the European Judeo-Christian heritage? "

Bill Tozer

Fingernails on the chalkboard continues.

Scott @ 2:13 pm

I don’t know about other states, but California's law prohibiting Sexual Abuse Of Animals (CPC §286.5(a)) makes it illegal to have any kind of sexual contact with an animal. The law covers both living and dead creatures.

Shower time.

Steven Frisch

So I don't believe I am doing this but....

I agree with George that the objection to Joanne Rebane's use of the word "us" is kind of ridiculous, and that the overall objection to an individual in an opinion column stating their belief as the equivalent of an effort to "foist her brand of religion on everyone in the vicinity," is equally ridiculous.

"Us" as it is used in the context of Mrs. Rebane's comment does not mean everyone. To read it that way is simply grammatically incorrect.

I also think it's ridiculous for anyone studying American history and our founding not to acknowledge that the United States and the western European culture we substantively derived from had strong cultural roots in what is now called the "Judeo-Christian" tradition--although I must note that the very term'Judeo-Christian" is largely a 20th century construct that almost never appears before Nietzsche popularized an already existing term to describe Jewish converts to Christianity.

It is possible to be an atheist and humanist (as I am) and still recognize this historical and cultural tradition exists in our arts,
laws, ethics and even our economics. As a matter of fact the very concept of "social justice" is a part of the Christina tradition.

Acknowledging our Christian tradition in no way implies that the founders did not found a secular state, the evidence of that is clear.
Nor does it imply that at our founding there were not other strong influences present as well, particularly the deist and rationalist perspectives inherent in The Enlightenment, and arguably the traditions of the Iroquois Confederacy.

Of course George's contention that anyone objecting to Mrs. Rebane's comment is attempting to restrict free speech is equally as ridiculous...Mrs. Rebane has no right to protection from individuals objecting to or criticizing her speech, only the state doing so.

Bill Tozer

Pretty well put, Steven. May disagree with the last paragraph, but lets let that slide. The word “us” in Jo Ann’s contribution to Hit and Misses” was the trip wire for Ms. Clark.

What I was going to post next (before you posted) was the American Revolution did not just happen out of the blue. Events of 1735 come to mind as well as the Pilgrims and the Puritans leaving their homelands. Freedom to practice their religion as they saw fit..without the government middleman. It did not simply start with the Boston Massacre riot on March 5, 1770….where, BTW, a black man standing up to the British soldiers was the first to be killed.

Paul’s contention with the word ‘intending’ @ 2:35 pm is something I doth protest.

“contention that the founding fathers intended”. The founding fathers recognized that the colonists were religious and did not ‘intend’ to make the new nation a Judo-Christian nation. It already had is roots in the tradition and acknowledgment of the here and now was not profound or revolutionary.

I have read two long essays that point to the same conclusion. One, surprising enough, was from David Horowitz the older (there are two Jewish David Horowitz writers) who made a compelling point that it’s was the European Protestant beliefs that influenced the new nation more than any other influence. Quite open minded for a Jewish scholar and former card carry American Marxist, literally.

The second compelling essay tons of pages of references argued without the Judo-Christian tradition, the civil rights movement, specifically Rudy Bridges, would have never happened.

Anyway, Steven, I do concur with your opinion. It would be sticking our heads in the sand to not acknowledge the influence…the very strong and prevailing influence of the time, good, bad, ugly, or indifferent.

George Rebane

StevenF 411pm - Good points Steve, save the last paragraph where you went off the rails. Nowhere did I refer to or imply anything to do with my wife's "right to protection from individuals objecting to or criticizing her speech". My 'vestiges of free speech' remark is a commentary on today's constriction of free speech in America that is promoted by the Left as part of their politically correct cancel culture should you use the wrong word or say the wrong thing that doesn't support/sustain the progressive narrative. But for the record, Jo Ann's writings over the years have drawn countless comments by local liberals questioning and/or dunning the newspaper in publishing her and her membership on the Union's editorial board. Bottom line of such a chorus from the Left is that her voice should be silenced.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane has been silent on “those people” trashing on his lovely bride for far too long. Way to long. Bit his tongue…I know I did more than thrice. Come, let us reason together.

On Dr. Rebane’s own blog I am most gladden to see the good doc sharing his feelings and he ain’t going to stay silent no more. What the heck is wrong with that? Crabb does on his.
Dr. Rebane is a wood splitting man. There are limits even to those blessed with the gift of long suffering. How low will they go? Demand Jo Anne’s head on a platter?

As Abe Lincoln once said…Pay me 8 hours to cut down this tree and I spent 6 hours sharping the axe. Think the 6th hour has passed. About friggin time!
It is not wise to take off the armor before the battle beings. We are still only in the early innings and hell bent for leather.

Let’s let Paul die on a hill he can’t defend. Programmed to react to certain stimuli a certain way. Sooner of later, the Ever-Ready battery bunny pounding the drum.

Sorry, I have no idea where that came from. All good.

PS: This was Jo Anne sin: Somebody got triggered, big time.

“These observances in our community help maintain our culture and remind us of our country’s Judeo-Christian roots.”

Take the emotion out, and it’s nothing to write home about.

All Dr. Rebane was saying is there is a lot of our neighbors calling for Jo Anne to be erased…..run off the Union site, never to darken the pages of our only newspaper again. It’s their safe place. Ok, maybe a pic for the group of hospital fundraisers.
Hate to have to hear what Don Rogers has to hear every day. No wonder he has 1,500 or 6,000 downloads from Spotify on his headphone playlists. All makes sense now. You people are evil. Shameful. I hope they don’t kiss their mothers with that mouth.

Steven Frisch

George, the issue is that the public has just as much standing to critique Mrs. Rebane”s writing as she has to express her opinion. In short, it’s not a free speech issue. We as citizens are only protected from government interference with speech, not the approbations of our fellow citizens.

By framing this as a free speech issue by referring to The Union retaining “vestiges” of free speech, and contending that people dunning Joanne and demanding her silence are trying to curtail her free speech, you are perpetuating the false premise that our individual speech is protected from our fellows objections.

The law, including from our founders was quite clear on this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law….” Nothing in there about citizens contending their fellow citizens are idiots and should not warrant a microphone.

Steven Frisch

I do have to say that I am often amused by my fellow secularists who attempt to deny the Christian roots of the philosophical beliefs that coalesced to contribute to the founding of our country.

Our art, music, literature, poetry, architecture, philosophical traditions, holidays, diets, celebrations and ethical principles are riddled with Christian philosophical icons and motifs. One cannot appreciate art, literature, etc. unless one understands these traditions and can see in their many forms of inclusion in our culture that tradition.

Yes, we have classical influences from Greece, Rome, and other pre-Christian traditions. And yes, we have aggregated numerous icons and motifs from the far east, from indigenous peoples, from the near east, from Africa, etc. and all contribute in their way to the rich culture we possess. (my defense of multi-cultural on hostile ground here)

Our founders were products of that culture in their time, and many basic principles ensconced in our founding documents, perhaps the preeminent example of which is the principle that power corrupts and that a key role of government is the protection of the people from the corruption of power, which is the very basis of natural law, divided governments and checks and balances. This is not solely a Christian belief, it’s included in Buddhist philosophy and to a lesser extent Judaism, but the belief our founders brought to the table was rooted in Christian philosophy.

We can understand, appreciate, and even incorporate Christian philosophy and tradition and have a secular government and humanist philosophical system at the same time.

It is the exclusivity of belief, from both Christians and secularists, (and I must add I often see here) that I truly object too…I mean fuck, if we can’t walk and chew gum are we even human.

Scott O

Frisch 7:17 - "perhaps the preeminent example of which is the principle that power corrupts and that a key role of government is the protection of the people from the corruption of power,..."
Yes - witness the Dems and the FBI and the main stream news media colluding to protect criminals and to stitch up innocent people and attempt to bring down an elected president they didn't like!
"(and I must add I often see here) that I truly object too..."
Too bad we never get any actual examples of these objections from you - all we see from you is name

George Rebane

StevenF 648am – You are misguided, no one has claimed that Jo Ann’s commentaries and contributions in The Union are a “free speech issue”. Regarding her and other (including mine) right-leaning writings in our newspaper, my only contention in these pages has been of the asymmetrical calls by leftists to cull and censor such expressions in a private newspaper. You can’t find anyone of the Right demanding the silencing of leftwing voices. In fact, we welcome them both in the large, as I welcome your comments and commentaries on these pages. The problem is that the Left today and always has been reluctant to publicly debate issues and policies from their ideological basis. The reason, of course, is known to both sides and vindicated by actions and history.

And you apparently didn’t read my commentary very carefully. Nowhere do I suggest that “our individual speech is protected from our fellows objections”, I merely report on the occurrence and nature of these perpetual and ongoing objections, which has nothing to do with “perpetuating” such a “false premise” as you claim. And you might be interested to know that such reporting has been going on for decades in the conservative literature and media, without any reciprocal calls to silence collectivist commentaries.

But today I and half the country understand that the Left has indeed launched a successful campaign to censor free speech that they don’t like. And in their programs to proscribe this freedom, they have institutionalized their control of speech in academe, news and entertainment media, industry, and now the military. This institutionalizing today draws on our justice system to enforce such strictures as leftwing-ascribed ‘hate speech’, ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’, ‘fake news’, etc. People’s careers are now regularly redirected and/or ruined for uttering words that our new cadre of speech nazis consider offensive or ‘insensitive’ or ‘racist’. National polls constantly reveal that most Americans no longer feel that they can freely voice their opinions in the public square without some recourse emerging from somewhere. And my discussions with Union management have confirmed that even private newspapers feel these strictures as also witnessed by a recent article (on a topic that received national coverage and debate) of mine being refused for publication.

Yes Steve, that’s why I framed our current clampdown as having left America with the “vestiges of free speech”, of which, for reasons that apparently are a mystery to you, those of the Left are completely unaware.

Scott O

George, the new deal is that while the left mouths the platitudes of "free speech on the public square" they also applaud the richest person in town buying the public square and putting a fence around it and only allowing his buddies to speak.

Bill Tozer

Interesting portrait of the complete life of Thomas Paine. No grave site.

The Corruption and Debauchery of Thomas Paine



"And yes, we have aggregated numerous icons and motifs from the far east, from indigenous peoples, from the near east, from Africa, etc. and all contribute in their way to the rich culture we possess. (my defense of multi-cultural on hostile ground here)"

Nice cheap shot all dressed up from Steve Frisch. Your defense of multikulti? Hostile ground?

Multicultural was never about art, about people's bringing what they value into the E Pluribus Unum of the country be it a melting pot or salad bowl.

The hostility you bring here is legendary, but thanks for the obvious defense of the USA founding to be based on judeo-christian principles.

(Now back to watching "Walk Like an Egyptian" by the Bangles)

Steven Frisch

"But today I and half the country understand that the Left has indeed launched a successful campaign to censor free speech that they don’t like."

This quote in and of itself is proof that you are contending this is a free speech issue, which it is not.

Joanne has a right to speak, and people have right to object to that speech, or even call for The Union not to print it. It's a free speech issue as soon as the government gets involved.

Steven Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 22 April 2022 at 10:40 AM

I think George is pretty much on record as being oppositional to multicultural influences in the good old USA.

George Rebane

Re SteveF’s 934 & 936am – Thanks again Steve for joining the fray here, it always gives many of us the chance to correct common misapprehensions that are endemic to the Left.

Are the calls by mainstream leftwingers to censor/silence voices they don’t like a “free speech issue”? They most certainly are, as so ascribed nationally by both the right/left media. And the reasoning, that you apparently miss, is that it remains a free speech issue so long as and to the extent that America continues to vote democratically. That means that leftwingers proscribing speech in the media and in their poll responses also vote for candidates and support institutions that reflect their views. As has now been demonstrated in spades over the last ten plus years, Americans’ jobs, careers, and opportunities are massively impacted by their speech in the public annals, and also when private exchanges have been exposed. And the ‘speech nazis’ invariably turn out to be leftists of the progressive bent who have imposed a woke cancel culture on the country. So definitely yes, with such de facto impacts, free speech is an existential issue in our lives way before government’s de juris hand reaches down to silence us.

My record on multicultural influences here is long, consistent, but unfortunately not clear to everyone, especially to those of the Left with an agenda. I am and have always been a student and promoter of multicultural influences that have shaped American culture over the last two centuries and continue to do so today. The hundred million plus Americans of my ilk believe in the great melting pot that has been our country, absorbing immigrant cultures from all over the world at a pace that does not cause contention of cultures in the public square. It is when markedly different immigrant cultures arrive here illegally in large numbers, and are then supported by political factions to remain insular and/or make outrageous demands on our extant culture and common weal, and also contend in the public square, that I and the many millions of us stand in opposition. That to us is not immigration (a two-party agreement), but an assault. And I consider resident institutions (public and private) that promote and succor such alien invasions to be anti-American. Such distinctions between cultural meldings and muggings are either ignored by or invisible to the Left.

And here I speak as a grateful immigrant who witnessed and participated in the patient melding of his native culture into the wonderful resident culture that welcomed homeless refugees from a war-torn continent. Getting to America and becoming a citizen was then an eleven-year process. This may explain to those who can understand why I have little patience with aliens from demonstrably deficient cultures, aliens who wantonly and illegally enter our sovereign nation-sate, and also with those of us who are bent on destroying America’s still-evolving but historically dominant mono-culture, and changing our land into a polyglot of multi-cultural enclaves that replicate the social chaos we witness in multi-cultural third countries across the world.


George, Frisch is dancing the Motte and Baily Tango a'gin.

Can you even get ballots in your native Estonian from Greg Diaz?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad