Friday, March 07, 2014
A CPAC panelist claimed that Hispanics are the new Reagan Democrats. How about the Reagan Democrats being viewed as the new Reagan Democrats? When was the last time anyone made a fuss over ordinary White folks and blue collar conservatives? Cut off the welfare and entitlement handouts, Hispanic wombs will magically dry up like those of nearly everyone else that pays their own way through life.
Thursday, March 06, 2014
Wednesday, March 05, 2014
Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Friday, February 28, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
The cover article of the 3/7/14 issue of Commonweal Magazine is titled “Why The Amish Get Out?” The same secularists and religious leftists that often praise the Amish up one end and down the other would probably want the remainder of conservative Evangelicals and Roman Catholics wiped out for espousing views, such on marriage between one man and woman and the need to protect children from corrupting influences, that aren’t all that divergent from that held by the Amish once you get past the buggies and bonnets. Thus, what the magazine admires about the Amish is the sect’s rejection of technological capitalism and consumerism. With the exception of course being that which keeps the publication and its assorted sponsors afloat.
Instructive. Pope Francis has gone out of his way to denigrate capitalism but apparently holds a book party to brownnose the founder of Liberation Theology. In light of this and the British cardinal condemning welfare reform in the United Kingdom, if the Catholic hierarchy is asserting a renewed emphasis on the plight of the poor, why doesn’t the Vatican sell off its astronomical observatories and the like. While nice luxuries, no where in Scripture are those listed as a ministry priority. Or, as is the case of elites in the Emergent Church movement, is poverty something to be imposed upon the idiot pew fillers while the bigshots continue to ride high on the hog?
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
So regarding these churches that flaunt the term “multiethnic” in their mission statements. Is that just a snobby way of vocalizing a generalized loathing of White folks? In regards to evangelism and such, is the urgency of someone’s need to hear the gospel message determined by skin color with that decreasing in an inverse proportion in relation to the number in the congregation already of that particular skin color or ethnicity? And if outreach methods are to be modified to appeal to assorted audiences and demographics, will there be any specifically targeting Whites that who, though do not necessarily bear those of other backgrounds any particular ill will, are turned off by the anti-Americanism and anti-Western proclivities inherent to multiculturalism. After all, those of the other backgrounds for the most part were the ones that came knocking to be let in out door. You don’t go into someone else’s house and then proceed to urinate all over the living room rug.
On the Discovery Channel program Clash In The Ozarks, how about telling viewers why the protagonist is about to have his family’s property seized by the bank. If it’s because he’s a moonshine guzzling deadbeat that doesn’t work and his not paying the bills, why shouldn’t he lose his home?
In the opening scene of Superman: The Movie, Ursa (the wench that ran with General Zod) was accused of possessing such hatred of men that it threatened the planet's children. In essence, she must have been Krypton's chief abortionist or ran that world's equivalent of Planned Parenthood.
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
A hyperlegalist pastor praised his wife for refusing to call him by his first name, thinking a degree of formality should exist between clergy and layperson even when the two are married. Must make for awkwardness in the bedroom, or is this conundrum resolved by rubbing himself all over the church secretary and his hands wandering all over the underage teen girls in the youth group.
In a sermon by a church advocating the euphemism of "discernment through COMMUNITY", it was admonished that the right posture was "palms up". No doubt to catch whatever crap is about to be hurled your way and to condition you into being a mindless drone to obsequiously accept whatever a pittance of a handout the elites decide to bestow upon you.
CNN is categorizing a bill in the Arizona legislature that would allow a business to deny service to open homosexuals on religious grounds as "anti-gay".
Often, journalists hoping to feign an affectation of objectivity will shop around for quotes that affirm the bias preferred by the media outlet.
A pizzeria owner was found willing to cop to the following: “It's a ridiculous bill. Arizona has much bigger problems than allowing businesses to discriminate against people."
Couldn’t the same be said of this entire gay marriage rights movement?
Only a small minority really want this and most of those now professing this unending love for their partners will likely be separated within the year with the divorce obtained as soon as statutorily possible.
Instead, it is more about compelling the rest of society into applauding something they profoundly oppose.
Did this cable news network categorize the judicial decisions that would compel those opposed to gay marriages to provide services at such ceremonies as “anti-religious” or “ant-Christian”?
This has nothing to do with gays being banned from establishments where their preferences in partners has no bearing but rather in protecting those that disagree in the sectors of the economy where such proclamations of affection are at the center of such targeted enterprises.
Are Public Schools Conditioning Students To Embrace Lives As Servile Minions Of The New World Order?
Friday, February 21, 2014
Click On The Headline
The science side of the controversy contends that religion isn't merely an alternative way of looking at the universe but rather instead a harmful mindset that must by stamped out by science's proclivity to rely upon experimentation and evidence rather than an unquestioning reliance upon faith and authority as is endemic to its epistemological adversary. However, Jerry Coyne in the 10/1/10 USA Today essay titled “Science And Religion Aren't Friends” relies on more untested assumptions than can be found in the average Sunday morning sermon.
It is only natural that Jerry Coyne would have the tendency to end up relying on those things he has bluntly labeled as threats to mankind to make his argument. He is, after all, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago.
Both of these disciplines practiced by Professor Coyne these days are as much about philosophy and politics more so than the collection of objective facts through observation and experimentation. The University of Chicago is to at least be commended for exercising a modicum of caution in quarantining those on the faculty payroll oriented towards imposing opinion rather than simply elaborating actual details of natural phenomena as would a true biologist worthy of recognition as such.
Early in the essay, Professor Coyne asserts, “Evolution took a huge bite a while back [he means out of religion], and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality distinct from the lumps of jelly in our head.” From such an contention, he concludes, “We now know that the universe did not require a creator.”
That's quite a rambunctious leap on the part of the eager professor. It use to be thought that nothing existed below the level of the atom. However, eventually researchers discovered an entirely new kind of universe (if you will) existing in terms of even smaller particles and energy clouds at the subatomic level.
Why can't a similar position be held regarding the mind, soul, and spirit? Though it cannot be denied that these are somehow linked to the material brain, that does not mean these ephemeral building blocks of individuality and personality do not exist because those in lab coats haven't quite pinned them down and sliced them in half with a scalpel.
After all, it is doubtful scientists can conclusively tell us why a certain assemblage of chemicals has the spark of life coarsing through them and others do not. Since a number of their brethren have denied the existence of the Creator, perhaps a number of scientists will endeavor to convince that the phenomena that we call life does not exist either.
Coyne says of science, “Science operates by using evidence and reason. Doubt is praised. No finding is deemed 'true' unless it is repeated and verified by others.” And of religion, he writes, “...rather than relying on reason and evidence to support them, faith relies on revelation, dogma, and authority.”
That is, of course, until someone challenges those sacred cows that often eat at the troughs of big government, industry, and academia. For example, in “Reason In The Balance”, critic of evolution Phillip Johnson chronicled the plight of one professor that dared to buck the herd mentality by simply suggesting that the complexity of organisms MIGHT point to a creator.
At no time did this particular academic fill in to any great degree the detail of this nebulously defined ultimate power or coerce students into swearing allegiance to it. This professor's pedagogical approach was considerably more broadminded than the professor that essentially required students to declare an oath of fealty to the Darwinist position if they wanted the professor to provide the student with a reference for medical school. It would seem though that an aspiring physician believing in a Creator or Intelligent Designer might make a better doctor since such a student would see the patient as made in the image of God rather than as a worthless lump of tissue not all that different from what the orderlies dumped from the bedpans or the tumors zapped with radiation down in the oncology department.
Furthermore, evolutionists make a public display as to how much they eschew dogma and authority. However, can you honestly tell me that each and everyone of them has built from scratch through their own experimental observations the entire tree of knowledge? Is the lowliest among their number going to thumb their noses at names such as Goldschmidt, Gould, and Hawking. The very fact that they rally behind the image of Darwin is testament to how they are prone to bend knee to their alleged betters like many of the religious individuals they heap so much scorn upon.
Among the nondogmatic dogmas of those professing this mindset is that one of the few remaining sins that cannot be countenanced is for the individual to speak out or act in an field where one has not been certified or credentialed by the elites empowered to bring down ruination or at least the edge of destitution upon those failing to curry the favor of these authorities. In academia, reprisals just short of lynching take place if those not bestowed the equivalent of a knighthood in the natural sciences (an advanced graduate degree) dares to speak out regarding evolution and how it applies to the origin of life. However, very little criticism or reprisals in terms of occupational status is inflicted upon the members of this scholastic caste when they venture beyond the confines of their respective narrowly defined fields when making sweeping pronouncements as to how things are to be in religion's sandbox.
Those holding to scientism, the idea that science itself is an ultimate authority rather than a method or a tool, claim that the notion of religion is itself refuted because of the countless unreasonable propositions and doctrines advocated by those for whom an avowed faith is the primary framework through which they construe existence and the universe. As proof, Professor Coyne posits the person of Jesus and how Christians view Him as the Messiah, how Muslims do not, and how those of these respective faiths will incur divine retribution in the eyes of the opposing belief system for their misconstrued perspective regarding this one key figure. The fact that such attention is focused on an individual nothing more than an obscure carpenter and itinerant rabbi residing in a Roman occupied backwater is itself reason to stop and consider that there might be something more to this otherwise first rate failure by the world's standards.
Coyne adds, “I've never met a Chrisitan ..who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. I would have thought the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.”
G.K Chesterton remarked, in regards to those horrors that cause even the most devout to question whether or not God actually plays an active part in the world, that these outrages and tragedies were manifestations of the one Christian doctrine that could be verified by a cursory perusal of the daily headlines. That is none other than the reality and pervasiveness of sin.
It is because of the existence of a God and absolute values based on His unchanging character that we are able to say something like the Holocaust is even wrong. For without the principles embodied in holy documents such as the Ten Commandments, who is to say?
Is the barometer of acceptability and propriety to be found in that amorphous moral sense referred to as “world opinion”? If so, that means the Holocaust is only wrong because it was an affront to a majority of the nations of the earth.
In that instance, even if too late to prevent an incomprehensible atrocity and as much in response to other geopolitical factors, world powers came to the rescue of the Jewish people. In an attempt to correct the situation and to prevent something similar from happening again, the nation of Israel was established.
But what of a time foretold in the Book of Revelation when hostility towards both Christian and Jew will be stirred to such a fanatic level by a future world leader known in prophecy as the Beast who, it is believed, will convince the nations of the world to join first in a campaign to wipe out Jerusalem and then attempt an assault on the very Gates of Heaven itself? Are we to believe in one instance the proper thing to do is assist the plight of the Jews or lament the failure to do so and then at some as of yet undetermined point down the time stream attempt to wipe them and allied theists from the face of the earth all because the prevailing consensus demands it?
Coyne assures, “Science is even studying the origin of morality.” The professor assures that atheists embrace the same moral truths as the religious but without something existing above so-called “science”. But where ought we to find these principles?
At the Patuxent Wildlife Visitor's Center, there is a display of a kaleidescopic video montage titled “The Wisdom of Wildness”. The footage suggests that the course we stupid humans ought to pursue is to be found among the less deliberately rational creatures on the rung of what philosophers and theologians have titled the Great Chain Of Being.
If so, who is to say in a naturalistic ethos just what animals we are suppose to emulate? Some animals such as elephants take considerable care of their young and even seem to mourn their dead. It is often claimed that the Canadian geese mate for life and will leave the migration gaggle should the partner be unable to travel onward for whatever reason.
Other animals emulate behaviors that do not comply with what most societies that have been influenced by the light of Judo-Christian Scripture and moral reflection would find acceptable. For example, occasionally female cats will abandon a kitten if she is unable to care for more than one and male cats will sometimes kill kittens that are not their own in order to encourage female cats to mate with them. In order for the couple to copulate, the female praying mantis must rip the head off of its mate and the nature of the female black widow spider towards its mate has become synonymous with a woman that murders her husband.
Before feminists do a victory dance as to these alleged examples of girl power found throughout the animal world, perhaps they ought to tell us why if there is no God establishing the morality by which higher order minds reflect upon the Creator's own rationality and character in order to formulate ethics and values, why these examples ought to prevail over the ones more male-dominated as to how we interpret them?
Male lions pretty much loaf around and look fierce while the females do, shall we say, the lion's share of the hunting and the raising of the cubs. And male sea lions and fur seals are pretty much indistinguishable from breakaway Fundamentalist Mormons such as Warren Jeffes in that they accumulate as many females to themselves as possible while banishing young unestablished males to the periphery of the colony (or out onto the streets in human terms).
Coyne writes, “In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science --- just science, a multicultural search for truth.”
In regards to the first claim of that particular paragraph, scientists haven't really proven themselves that far removed and above the stains of the, shall we say, sin nature plaguing the remainder of humanity. The death counts under traditional religion run amok are nothing to be proud of and rightly give the sensitive seeker grounds for pause. However, one could properly make a case that these tallies pale in comparison to the 20th century totalitarian regimes that first and foremost dedicated themselves to Darwinian ideals in whose names were often justified the most appalling of atrocities such as the racialism of the Nazi regime attempting to purge the human gene pool of what that vile ideology considered contaminating elements or Marxism's attempt to manipulate social conditions such as education in order to bring about that system's new man devoid of individualism gladly embracing a place as a disposable cog in the technocratic collective.
The second claim in that paragraph insists that there is no particular variety of science but rather a multicultural search for truth. On the surface, that sounds correct as certain facts exist such as the distance between the earth and the moon irrespective of the religious outlook of the researcher ascertaining such an assessment. However, that is only part of the picture.
Like it or not, science arose to prominence as a method for obtaining knowledge about the world in which we live in a time when the Christian perspective was predominant even if not every last practitioner of this epistemological pursuit was an orthodox born again believer. As is attributed to Issac Newton, one of the initial motivations of what would be recognized as science was to think God's thoughts after Him.
It could be argued that the Judeo-Christian mindset as found in the pages of the Bible is the font from which the assorted impulses and brands of modernism (for good or ill) were bequeathed with their concern for the world as it actually exists and how we might improve upon its conditions for the greatest number possible. A consistent multiculturalist cannot view such a mindset superior to one that does not.
Not everyone believes that progress (especially if it is of the technological or economic variety) is necessarily a good thing. There are those that believe such innovations should be opposed at all costs including those tactics lesser bourgeois minds would categorize as violence.
For example, among the Postmodernists that spout this kind of drivel about multiculturalist science are those that do not see the likes of the Unabomber as a homicidal terrorist but rather as some kind of visionary whose artistic masterpieces did not consist of paint and canvas but rather in exploding shrapnel, lacerated sinew, and severed limbs. And unfortunately, this threat once isolated among a few lunatics, has infested the ranks of the Occupy Movement that would have no problem with dragging society back to preindustrial standards of living even though they themselves would be the least likely to survive in a milieu where a lack of self-reliance would spell certain death. But then again, a preference for individual life is one of those pesky values that balanced Christians or even generalized theists drawing ethical inspiration from the Bible can't seem to disimbue themselves of.
It must also be admitted that science came into its own as a research methodology in those settings where God was viewed as distinct from His creation with the natural world under the watchful eye of a single God with the universe operating in accordance with the physical laws He sustains by His own will. Though a number of exceptional minds were able to rise above the blinders of polytheism, there is something about the object you are about to study either being your god, containing the spirits of the entities that you worship, or the distinctions between you and the object ultimately being illusory that will discourage you from learning as much as possible about the given subject at hand.
Granted. Students from cultural backgrounds where Hinduism and Buddhism predominate are noted for their mathematical and scientific excellence. However, such aptitude came more into prominence when these societies came to adopt aspects of a more Western orientation.
Towards the conclusion, Professor Coyne writes, “Because pretending that faith and science are equally valid way of finding truth...not only weakens our concept of truth, it also gives religion an undeserved authority that does the world no good.” But it is only through acknowledging that truth originates in a personal fixed source (commonly referred to as God), it is possible for truth to even exist or to be something that is worthy of individuals and societies even pursuing in the first place.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, February 20, 2014
On an episode of Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and his wife justified bequeathing their eldest son a larger portion of their estate in their will on the grounds that such was mandated in the Bible. But doesn’t the same portion of Scripture commanding such also forbid one from eating duck?
The FCC plan to infiltrate American newsrooms with government operatives is being proposed on the grounds of ascertaining the “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.” That is a euphemism for sexual deviants, women that want to kill unborn babies, and the kinds of minorities that threaten to destroy property or inflict bodily harm should they hear a pronoun with a questionable vocal intonation.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
In an O’Reilly Factor segment examining America’s intellectual decline, Juan Williams claimed the downfall of the nation is linked more to those that believe creation science to evolution as their preferred origins hypothesis. But isn’t the nation’s downfall linked more to those like Williams who elected the current occupant of the White House because that particular candidate’s primary accomplishment in life was having emerged from his mother’s womb as half Black?
Fanatic Homeschooler Insists Fundamentalism Doesn't Allow Enough Booze & Lets Women Out Of The House Too Much
Monday, February 17, 2014
Before lecturing China about the free speech of bloggers, did John Kerry convey the same lesson to his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry? After all, she was the one that said in 2004 that a reporter should be “pimp –slapped” for questioning what exactly she meant by “un-American” tendencies creeping into the American electoral process (that primarily meaning independent and citizen media not controlled by the two major parties).
Of idiot snake handling preacher Jamie Coots who died after refusing treatment following a venomous snake bite, National Geographic released the following statement: “In following Pastor Coots ... we were constantly struck by his devout religious convictions despite the health and legal peril he often faced. Those risks were always worth it to him and his congregants as a means to demonstrate their unwavering faith.” Do these pro-evolution propagandists speak as respectfully of creationist Ken Ham and his Answers In Genesis Museum?
What a crock.
Fine and dandy if this is the goal that the Olympics aspires to.
But if this principle is to be elevated to the status of a human right extended beyond this borderline criminal racket, its implications could be downright frightening.
For example, the opening statement postulates that every individual must have the possibility of participating in sport.
What if an individual's parents refuse to grant permission?
Should the child be snatched from the home on the grounds of child abuse?
And conversely, if the International Olympic Committee is so eager to hand down grandiose moral pronouncements, will this august body uphold the principle that it is the human right of every individual NOT to participate in sports, free of coercion?
For example, what about the case of Red China where child athletes are snatched from their families to be mercilessly trained in what are little better than glorified slave labor camps? And to bring the issue back a little closer to home, what of the child whose classmates refuse to let him participate in a playground pick up game?
Granted, such bullying and exclusion is quite saddening.
However, it hardly rises to the level of an atrocity worthy of a UN human rights tribunal. Most of all, it must be asked isn't the International Olympic Committee violating the very spirit of the principles the organization's charter claims to embody.
For example, the charter insists that EVERY individual must have the possibility of practicing sport WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION OF ANY KIND.
So does that mean a 300 pound geriatric alcoholic with equilibrium issues should be allowed to ascend the balance beam during the prime time broadcast?
If not, isn't that a form of discrimination and exclusion?
Fascinating, isn't it that these internationalist organizations renowned for advocating the fundamentals of socialism for everyone else the world over insist that the activities undertaken under their own auspices publicly be characterized by the utmost meritocracy.
By Frederick Meekins
In INDONESIA, Secretary of State John Kerry insisted ALL PEOPLE must act responsibly to curb the impact of global warming. So did he WALK to this destination on the other side of the planet? Why couldn't his oration been delivered over skype or some other communication technology that would cut down on the need for pointless globetrotting excursions?
Regarding the trial of the gun man that killed a youth over loud music. Since he could get as much as 60 years in prison on the counts he was found guilty of, other than to stir the racial stew, what other point is there to retry the first degree murder charge? The perp will likely get a life sentence over this crime. Yet Jackson and Sharpton will still whip the mobs up into a riotous frenzy insisting there is no justice in America.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
If FreeRepublic insists that, as a private entity, that it is within its rights to ban an individual for any reason, on what grounds do adherents of that particular variety of Conservatism complain when the same thing is done to them by liberal institutions and media outlets?
So if FreeRepublic allows open Catholic and Mormon bashing to take place with out response but promptly bans those posting information regarding Transhumanism and transexual activists, shouldn't one conclude that the site is sympathetic to transhumanism and transexualism?
Banned by the BASTARDS at FreeRepublic.com. If you really believed in FREEDOM, wouldn't you offer people an explanation why you have summarily banned someone? They are not really CONSERVATIVES, especially if they will not allow one to post links to articles on Transhumanism and another to conservative columnist Rachel Alexander's insightful piece regarding the strings of the Occupy movement being pulled by a transexual activist.
The cover of the March 2014 issue of Mother Jones Magazine reads, “Kidnapped By Iran: One minute we were hiking up a mountain. The next we were pawns in the nuclear chess game.” Are we to believe that there is some kind of spatial displacement anomaly in Yellowstone that whisks the unsuspecting to the other side of the world? What did these listless beatniks think was going to happen vacationing in these parts of the world? If nothing else, hopefully these deadbeats will be disimbued of the notion about all cultures being equal.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Monday, February 10, 2014
Friday, February 07, 2014
If we can’t believe in a God capable of creating the universe in seven days, why ought we to believe in a God that can pull off other things like the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection? If we are to view the opening account of the Book of Genesis as literary and figurative, why not these other essential doctrines the faith would be pointless to follow without?
Thursday, February 06, 2014
Obamaworshippers Reeducate The Masses To Embrace The Liberating Nature Of Unemployment & Destitution
Why shouldn’t a Catholic school be allowed to fire a teacher that got pregnant outside of marriage? Though the Catholic schools usually aren’t as fanatical, from my own first hand occupational research I know that there are some Christian schools with a moral clause so ironclad that it equates going to the movies with joining a secret society. Thus, in such eyes, watching Star Wars is as bad as lighting a cross as a member of the Ku Klux Klan or prancing around naked in some Free Mason ritual.
Wednesday, February 05, 2014
In a Facebook update in reference to a blizzard, Glenn Beck writes, “In the middle of the country we don't complain, we shovel.” Technically, that is a veiled complaint. First, it is complaining about complaining. Secondly, it is vocalizing in a roundabout way how dissatisfied one is with the conditions one is referencing.
As one must do repeatedly in this politically correct culture, one must ask are men that die less dead than WOMENNNNNN that do so?
And if, statistically, women live longer than men and men are having fewer years of life, then why aren’t those deaths just as deserving of a targeted propaganda campaign?
Furthermore, shouldn’t WOMENNNNN so wrapped up in what is between their legs so as to ignore health warnings that do not directly address individuals on the basis of what is between their legs be condemned for failing to embrace the comprehensive range of gender identities displayed by the human species?
That is the idea, to phrase it bluntly, often referred to as “Name It, Claim It” where it is believed the Christian can through the power of God in general and the Holy Spirit in particular speak into existence physical health and material prosperity.
Mohler’s position was in the end correct, assuring the caller that this doctrinal aberration was sufficient grounds to leave a church.
However, a few of the assumptions used along his chain of ratiocination ought to give one pause.
According to Mohler, one may only leave a church over explicit violations Biblical doctrine.
One may never depart over secondary matters or more intangible concerns where if not addressed won’t result in overwhelming physical or spiritual harm but would very well prevent an individual from living life to the fullest.
So why then is a pastor permitted to pull up stakes and head for pastures where he can obtain a fatter salary or more satisfying opportunities?
Why shouldn’t they be stuck there like the saps in the seats?
But if there is nothing inherently questionable about this pharmacological compound and its preferred form of combustible vaporized conveyance, why shouldn't one be able to use it out in the open?
Should a diabetic be fined if they need to use an insulin pen on a public street?
Should an asthmatic be detained by police if they need a puff from their inhaler while walking down the sidewalk?
WMAL morning host Brian Wilson astutely remarked that this issue focuses around what kind of image Washington, DC wants to project to the world.
But if marijuana is to be considered as no different than anything else an individual wants to take into their body, what is to prevent legislation from being enacted forbidding the consumption of junk food in a public picnic area or even in front of children as part of a campaign to encourage healthy eating and nutrition?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Right off the bat, the Presbyterian pastor delivering the message concluded from Matthew 10:1-16 that one should not attempt to do so unless called to do so by Christ.
That is all well and good because nothing without Jesus at the center will endure.
The thing of it is is that Jesus is not exactly here right now in the physical, objective sense to tap the individual on the shoulder to convey these intentions.
This pastor warned that the believer must not pronounce religious or doctrinal exhortation without permission granted by established ecclesiastical authorities.
But what if one lives in an era or milieu where one is not likely to be extended such a blessing by nearly any organized authority? Does that mean we are to remain silent?
If we are to dig around in the New Testament for examples upon which to model our actions, it seems to me many of the founding Evangelists continued to speak out despite the overwhelming opposition of religious elites.
When commanded to stop the proclamation of the Gospel, Peter and the other Apostles responded in Acts 5:29, “We are to obey God rather than man.”
You might not be welcomed in a church building, but these days the electronic pulpit is nearly everywhere and available to anyone willing to step forward.
By Frederick Meekins
Radical Pluralists Denounce The Pope's Admonition For Catholic Universities To Teach Catholic Doctrine
Monday, February 03, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
By excluding the Anti-Christ from the remake of Left Behind starring Nicholas Cage, are producers intentionally soft pedaling the Apocalypse or setting viewers up for a drawn out series. And you thought the books were too long to make it to the end of the saga about the End. (I don't think I made it much past the volume Assassin).
The Afrosupremacist website RollingOut.com has posted a list of 10 Black child geniuses. Do those making a fuss over these prodigies intend to put out a similar list exclusively celebrating White child geniuses? And by establishing a separate list for Black child geniuses, isn’t one thus admitting the inferiority of the Black mind to that of the White? Interesting how we are obligated to look on the inside rather than the outside when it comes to lavishing honors and accolades with the exception of those specifically targeted for those that fly into homicidal, property destroying rampages when the mistake is made in regards to other demographics.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Will Future Avengers Films Be Scraping The Bottom Of The Character Barrel? (Let's hope they don't face off against Batroc The Leaper)
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Was Mall Shooter A Radical Jihadist? (Why Else Would Investigators Go Out Of The Way To Suppress The Journal's Contents?)
For bluntly addressing the pro-infanticide policies of Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, Greta van Sustern categorized pundit Eric Erickson as a creep and a jerk. Bristol Palin also lambasted Davis for a lack of parenting skills. Does Sustern intend to categorize the young unwed Palin mother in the same manner? Or will the Fox News broadcaster refrain from doing so as a friend of the family since Greta’s husband was at one time on the Palin payroll?
Congressman Threatens To Murder Reporter (Could You Say The Same Thing To An Elected Official Without Consequences?)
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
If morals do not exist or are not something that can be imposed on others, on what grounds do liberals get in a huff over venture capitalist Tom Perkins comparing Kristallnacht to the demonization of the wealthy and productive now underway throughout secularist popular culture?
In the August 28, 2013 edition of USA Today, Rem Rieder doesn't hold back in his disappointment at the news of this classic program's return and his overall contempt for the argumentative debate format.
Rieder laments, “Crossfire, which features a conservative and a liberal predictably and tiresomely bickering with each other, mirrors perfectly what is so wrong with today's hopelessly polarized and paralyzed politics.”
Rieder goes on to conclude that these days that there is no real attempt to solve problems or get outside of the Beltway.
Reider attempts to cast himself in the role of the kind of dispassionate analyst he claims that he longs to see heading into public affairs programing. However, his words betray blatantly leftist sympathies.
For example, in listing the identities of Crossfire's new hosts, Newt Gingrich is the only one held up for ridicule. Van Jones confessing to be a self-avowed Communist is glossed over as if such an admission is something normal and healthy.
Gingrich might daydream about space colonies. But in the ideal world of Van Jones where he identifies so enthusiastically with that particular form of tyranny, authorities would seize nearly everything you have worked for (with the exception of Van Jones' lavish CNN salary) and violently eliminate those that continue to speak out against a dictatorial regime despite extensive efforts at reeducation and social manipulation.
One might respond that an observation pointing out a failure to expose Van Jones as a leftwing subversive is reading too much into it. After all, with Kardashian bastards and Miley Cyrus stage humping, the average American no doubt finds it difficult to retain this constant barrage of information at the forefront of their cognitive awareness.
Rem Rieder, however, drops another comment that reveals that there is more to his agenda than a dispassionate pursuit of just the facts.
Apart from the incident where Robert Novak (likely suffering from the early stages of a brain tumor) stormed off the set no longer capable of handling James Carville's banshee-like shrieking, one of most recalled moments of the original Crossfire occurred with the visit of Comedy Central's John Stewart of the Daily Show. During the interview, Stewart lamented how the debate program and especially Tucker Carlson was hurting the country.
The thing of it is, the likes of John Stewart has done more to hurt this country than the number of interchangeable hosts and even greater number of guests exchanging wonky barbs at one another ever could.
Personally, I can probably count on both hands the number of times I have seen the Daily Show. The only segment that sticks out in my mind was of some bozo walking around in a giant penis costume promoting safe sex or some similar propaganda.
If that represents the kind of public affairs programming Rem Rieder thinks is needed to either elevate or save the Republic, we are worse off than most of us realize. It is likely not John Stewart's wisdom as a statesman that Reider is praising but something else entirely.
In the waning days of the Roman Empire, lavish entertainment spectacles were put on for the purposes of distracting the population from the public scandals and disasters that confronted the world superpower of that day.
Granted, in much the same way that politics is said to be a form of show business for the unattractive, programs such as Crossfire, Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor tend to be a form of pugilism or professional wrestling for the physically puny but verbally inclined. But despite any shortcomings that these programs might posses, it cannot be denied that they at least get across the point that there is something rotten in Denmark (or more accurately, the United States of America in this instance).
That's why the likes of Rem Rieder are more enthused about a perambulating giant penis costume. And the reason behind that might not be quite so obvious as one might assume by that shocking verbal formulation.
Elites talk up the delights and wonders of deliberative democracy. But the last thing they really want are those in the servile classes to passionately hold to any fixed standard or belief that would impede this human capital from being reshaped, deployed, and even eliminated in accordance with the most convenient timetable possible.
This is the sentiment spoken of euphemistically when talking heads, academics, bureaucrats, and elected officials express a nostalgia for a bygone era when legislators would get together at the end of the day to hash out compromises over cocktails or, in the case of Ted Kennedy, cocaine and lapdances. That approach might have been OK when the kinds of things discussed were the equivalent of whether a tax rate would be 9% or 10%.
But these kinds of backroom compromises have gone on for so long and the line of acceptability moved back so far that, for the go-along to get-along to continue, those of good conscience are being pressured into betraying the fundamental values and morals without which a ordered yet free society will surely collapse.
For example, if one the ethical building blocks upon which a just and free society rests is the assumption thou shalt not murder, meaning that it is beyond the limits of acceptability to deliberately take the life of an individual that has committed no crime, where is the moral wiggle room for an abortion of convenience or preference? On what grounds do you kill a life form, that will be no more genetically complete than it would be at the time of birth, without the consent of that individual for the purposes of harvesting that individual's stem cells or other biomolecular components?
Most believe that marriage is a sacred covenant instituted by God Himself predating the codification of organized religion in a time when man's relationship with our Creator did not require the medium of the written word. So on what grounds can that definition be changed on the whims of a jurist or plebiscite and on what basis do those making such a claim complain when these fickle procedures decide to change the arrangement back?
Just where does one compromise on these kinds of issues? For if one does, isn't doing so the equivalent of saying it is allowable to slap your spouse one time across the face but twice is going too far?
As these kinds of social developments continue to unfold, it is becoming more apparent that recognition of gay marriage is not so much about these individuals confessing unending love for one another which they are pretty much able to do so already in parts of the country where most mind their own business and where laws prohibiting illegitimate carnal knowledge haven't been enforced for years. Rather, it is about bringing the destructive power of the state crushing down upon those that do not stand around applauding the new world we are being thrust into.
Don't believe me? Perhaps you ought to ask the bakers and wedding photographers whose businesses have been ruined for failing to embrace diversity to this radical extent. What about their ability to express their preferences without fear of retaliation?
Only time will tell whether or not there is a place for a revived Crossfire in a media landscape where the clash of opinions is more the norm than an entertaining novelty, However, even if this particular program falls by the wayside as a result of attention being grabbed by flashier versions of this classic debate format, Crossfire deserves a place at least in the pages of journalistic and mass communications history for admitting that legitimate opinion worthy of national consideration exists beyond the narrowly defined parameters of the mainstream establishment.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, January 27, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
The same ones opposed to this suggestion probably think you shouldn't be required to document income levels when applying for the program as well.
If Americans are now required to show ID's in doctor's offices they have been going to for decades, why is it an outrage to require those on the public dole to acquire food to verify who they are?
It is claimed that the poor cannot afford to acquire proper identification.
But, by golly, it's probably a pretty safe wager that these indigents had the latest iteration of the Iphone as soon as it was released and can operate the technical intricacies of the device with an adeptness that would put a NASA engineer to shame.
By Frederick Meekins
A Fox News contributor made a fuss in reference to the active shooter situation at the mall in Columbia that the establishment consisted of “high end retailers”. Would the incident have been less tragic if it had occurred at a Walmart, Aldi's, Ollie's, Big Lots, or Rugged Wearhouse?
If members of a church want to participate together in a social media fast, that is one thing. However, there is no basis in Scripture to demand such a spiritual exercise be congregation-wide or to use such an activity as a measure to distinguish between the proverbial sheep and the goats. If anything, the Bible would seem to indicate such activities aren't even to be made public if you want to be technical about it.
Friday, January 24, 2014
To deceive the German people in part, the Nazis staged elaborate, large-scale theatrical events with smartly dressed stormtroopers marching in intricate formation. Even Jewish historian George Mosse admits he found himself nearly being swept along with the excitement when he witnessed these spectacles in his youth. In the attempt to deceive the American people, Obamaists presented Richard Simmons sticking his head between his legs and essentially whistling as part of a six hour informercial.
Not exactly sure what to make of the advertisement for “Real Time with Bill Maher” on the back cover of the 1/27/2014 issue of National Review. On the one hand, it shows that conservatism is broadminded enough to accept the money of the ideology's most vehement critics. And on the other hand, ought a publication that claims to stand for traditional values and morals to promote someone such as Bill Maher that has described his opponents such as Sarah Palin in the vilest of terms? Would the magazine accept funds on behalf of a media personality that utilized the “n-word” in reference to President Obama?
Click On The Headline