Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Friday, December 17, 2004
Monday, December 13, 2004
Holidays such as Christmas and Thanksgiving are noted for their many traditions. Turkeys and football, decking the halls and all that stuff.
There is also the less noble tradition of conspicuous feigned compassionate charity on the part of local broadcast news outlets and the shame these glory hogs like to spread around during the holiday season in an attempt to lavish praise upon themselves as embodiments of enlightened progressive attitudes. However, in the light of such efforts, it would seem neither commonsense nor critical observation rank among the virtues heralded by these activist newsmen.
The thing about these charitable drives organized by TV stations is that these efforts would not be undertaken if the correspondents did not have a crew there to chronicle this fallacious eleemosynary in order to pat themselves on the back. At one of these celebrations of self-congratulation documented in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, one reporter interviewed an allegedly “underprivileged” woman with eight children.
Eight children. Mind you, it would be one thing if this woman had one or two kids and fallen upon hard times. In such a case, some kind of assistance might have been justified.
But eight children and unable to provide for herself? In all likelihood, that means she has spawned eight more times than she should have.
Advocates of social dependency and personal irresponsibility will snap, “Would you rather she abort her children?” No, I’d rather she’d exercise a little control and keep her pants on.
Unless she’s been raped eight times (highly unlikely), she should have never gotten herself into this situation. She is a human being, not a breeding sow; it’s about time she act as such.
The promiscuous schooled in the doctrines of “free love” and hedonism will gasp, “How dare you criticize this woman’s private life.” Maybe so, but as soon as this woman stepped forward for a public handout --- be it from either government or charitable institutions --- the matter ceased being a solely private concern.
Of course, one question (maybe eight in this instance) that few have the courage to raise in these cases is where are the fathers of these children. For in this era, most women --- unless they are remarkably devout and if so not likely not to require handouts --- don’t usually have that many children by one man.
Maybe broadcasters should plead with these copulating sleazebags to step forward to take personal responsibility for tossing their seed to the wind or do an ambush style interview with each of them as to why they think its everyone else’s responsibility to pick up the tab for their fleeting pleasures. It would also make for catchy holiday headlines: “Daddy, why don’t you love me this Christmas?”
After all, if you are the one having the fun, shouldn’t you be the one held responsible for the child’s welfare? It certainly isn’t that of those of us who go to work everyday and keep our noses to the moral grindstone.
Almost as politically incorrect is the observation that many of the indolent clamoring for the rest of us to fill their outstretched hands or suffer the wrath of public shame, humiliation and reeducation aren’t really “poor”. In this age of elastic definitions, poor no longer means being Ethiopian skinny or Appalachian toothless. Poverty, rather, is a conceptualization invoked when the slothful and their patrons in the social welfare racket believe they deserve a higher a standard of living than they are willing to exert an effort for in order to obtain.
A number of so-called “single mothers” I am aware of receiving public assistance as well as availing themselves of the bounty of annual school supply charitable drives instead squander the income freed by this misdirected philanthropy to purchase several hundred dollar handbags, go out partying at nightclubs, and on long, shellacked fingernails that would put a fighting cock to shame. Can anyone justify to me why I should pay higher taxes or increase charitable outlays so that the offspring of such women, who barely deserve the honor of being called mothers to begin with, might be able to have a Nintendo set or Nike basketball shoes?
If the rest of us have to squeak by on Ramen noodles and Budding Beef, so should those thinking they deserve better and expect you to pay for it.
As any good parent will tell you, there is more to love than giving an undisciplined child everything they want. Likewise, the greatest gift we might be able to give those claiming to be downtrodden this holiday season is the responsibility of fending for themselves for awhile.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Monday, December 06, 2004
Saturday, December 04, 2004
WUSA TV 9, the Washington DC Metro Area CBS affiliate, did an interview with author Tom Clancy.
The famed techno-thriller was consulted to determine what he considered to be the next terrorist threat.
In his estimation, he predicted Islamic radicals procuring the nuclear parts of Russian atomic buoys to be used as the components of a dirty bomb.
While overall the piece was informative and admitting that Clancy can be a bit gruff in interviews at times, the story is out of line in deriding Clancy for being a “right-winger” and for insinuating he deserves hate mail for conjecturing terrorist Muhammad Atta was a homosexual.
Friday, December 03, 2004
Earlier this year, I wrote a column about the impropriety of airing prophylactic advertisements during Saturday morning children’s programming. Aficionados of the moral debauchery into which our nation is descending snapped classic animation is no longer directed at young children but rather towards libertine post-adolescents with less control over their urges than barnyard animals. Some unable to muster a rational argument instead chose to disparage my personal appearance.
Even if the viewing public must concede dominion of old favorites to these reprobates, does that mean we must stand by and yield all quality programming to those who want to drag us down to their level?
Typically, broadcasters have had a tradition of airing quality programming during the Christmas season. Usually, parents don’t have to expend much moral anguish as to whether or not the innocence of their children will be compromised through viewing these often cute or touching shows.
However, as in regards to the older Saturday morning adventures of yore now under new custodianship, it is my contention that the ethical peril lies not so much with the content as it does with the commercials.
The American Girl series of books have received considerable acclaim as quality literature depicting the lives of young girls during the nation’s early years in a manner reminiscent of Little House On The Prairie or Anne of Green Gables. As with other successful literary properties that have come before it, this one has made the transition from bookshelf to film as a new television movie produced for this special time of year titled “Samantha: An American Girl Holiday”.
Sounds like a night of enjoyable, worry-free TV, doesn’t it? Such an assessment would be incorrect.
While the movie was itself well-done and will no doubt become a Christmas classic and hopefully spawn sequels, many parents --- at least in the Washington Metropolitan Area watching channel 50 --- were no doubt flustered when they either had to avert the attention of young eyes and ears or face having to answer questions about birth control pills or feminine hygiene products.
Call me old fashioned or out of touch, but I think a parent should be able to sit down to watch a children’s show without having to explain what a tampon or maxipad is to a seven year old. Furthermore, what’s the point of advertising these things anyway since they have a captive market to begin with whose demand is not going to fluctuate any appreciable degree due to persuasive advertising.
Disgruntled feminists cannot dismiss such criticisms as sexist, chauvinist, misogynist, or what ever other label they might throw around certain times of the month to intimidate cowering males. Most women I know of frankly find those kinds of commercials embarrassing. Even NBC anchor Brian Williams, hardly a pawn of the religious right, revealed on The Sean Hannity Show how he did not like such intimate matters discussed during commercial breaks.
In the movie, the grandmother chides Samantha for inquiring about the private life of the family servants. While contemporary social relations shouldn’t be characterized by the same degree of contrived hyperformality, a little Victorian modesty might do everyone a bit of good and would be a gift this season that would give the whole year through.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Stumbled across this ominous looking banner. It was taken at the congress of the National Bolshevik Party in Moscow.
Students of history will note it melds elements of both the symbols of Communism (the hammer and sickle) and the color scheme of the Nazi flag.
Bringing these two movements together does not bode well for freedom loving people everywhere, but yet one you are not likely to hear much about in the mainstream media.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Among Christian denominations, Presbyterians have a reputation for sobriety and decorum. However, as denominations and churches try to out do one another in the rush to appear the most “authentic” and “with it”, that noble reputation might be coming to an end.
On the website of Covenant Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America is a section where websurfers can listen to audio files addressing a wide variety of issues and topics. Finding one on tattooing, I thought I’d hear a rational discourse against this popular form of personal disfigurement since Presbyterians are renowned for their skill at argumentation.
Much to my surprise, the lecturer, Margie Haack of RansomFellowship.org , gave an exposition on tattoos literally making them of little more consequence than applying makeup up or toning one’s muscles. Haack deceptively lumps all of these under the politically correct banner of “body modification“.
While doing a satisfactory job explicating the various emotional traumas tempting individuals to do something like this to their bodies, her message is woefully inadequate in extolling the shortcomings and dangers of these ghastly scribblings. No where does she even suggest tattoos might be something questionable yet eraseable (at least in the metaphysical sense) under Christ’s redeeming blood.
In fact, the only guilt trip was laid on those daring to retain the traditional Judeo-Christian reluctance to the practice. Throughout, Haack criticizes Christians leery of those branded in this fashion, likening the attitude to racial prejudice. But the last time I checked, the individual has no choice over their race; getting tattooed is a matter of personal volition.
Might most Christians raised properly or later schooled in correct deportment pull back from individuals exhibiting these markings since there might be something wrong with tattooing? After all, most of those with an affinity for this form of decoration aren’t exactly known for their reputations as upstanding members of the community.
Haack attributes these pangs of conscience to misguided middle class values. Interesting, isn’t it, how these attacks on decency always boil down to this argument.
Haack further undermines traditional Biblical teachings on this issue by equating Scriptural injunctions against the practice in question with other Old Testament legal provisions no longer observed under the dispensation or covenant of grace of the New Testament such as dietary restrictions against pork, garments of mixed fabric, and other hygienic or ceremonial matters. While some rules such as those dealing with diet have been rescinded elsewhere in the Bible, ceremonial ones fulfilled by Christ’s coming, and others specified for the particular cultural and historical setting of ancient Israel, many still serve as moral principles and commands conductive to personal health and well being.
For example, nothing much is going to happen to you if you occasionally enjoy some pork or shellfish. However, it only takes one prick of a dirty tattoo needle to get hepatitis (ask Pamela Anderson) or AIDS.
When that happens, I suppose all the pro-tattoo clergy, academics, and otherwise unproductive intellectuals will turn around and lecture all of the unenlightened clods of the middle class why it is now our Christian obligation to put more into the collection plate or have taken out in taxes to alleviate suffering that could have been prevented in the first place.
Interestingly, Mrs. Haack goes on to create the impression that somehow Christians are spiritually superior if they deface themselves with this religious graffiti. Haack justifies tattoos all in the name of Jesus since some early and medieval Christians had them.
While we must study the past or be doomed to repeat it, that does not mean it is the end all in terms of doctrine and practice. After all, if everything had been peachy keen from day one onward, there wouldn’t have been much need for a Reformation, would there?
Haack also provides example of cotemporary Christians who have exhibited their “spirituality” through being tattooed. Specifically, she mentions Jeremy Huggins whom she is careful to point out is a graduate of Covenant Seminary and whom mentions in his own lecture about blogging archived on Covenant Seminary’s webpage his enjoyment of smoking and whiskey. My haven’t we come along way; I remember back in my Christian school days you played it down if you liked “The Simpsons” for fear of running afoul of authorities.
It is revealed that Huggins has a Hebrew word emblazoned across his chest and a Greek phrase etched into his back to remind him of his reliance upon God. If that’s what it takes to jog his memory, his faith must be pretty weak.
If these inscriptions are on sections of his anatomy not normally gawked at by the church going public, then why are we even being told about them? Could be it that those like Rev. Huggins feel guilty about what they have done to themselves, and instead of seeking forgiveness, they try to drown out the shame with applause and accolades from today’s doctrinally fickle congregations?
Since these human billboards advertise their intense religious devotion, it won’t be long until those with tattoos come to be seen as more dedicated to their God than those not decorated in this manner. Eventually in much the same manner as Christians who did not care to view “The Passion” were pressed for a reason as to why they did not want to see the movie, those without tattoos will be hounded by taunts such as “Jesus was scarred for you. Don’t you love him enough to be scarred for him?”
Interestingly, this unsightly body vandalism in a sense serves as a roadmap to certain questionable trends underway within the Presbyterian Church in America. This denomination, once noted for its sticktoitiveness to propriety now, from the attitudes conveyed on their flagship seminary’s website, would rather Christian young people drink, smoke, and turn their bodies into human sketchpads than read Left Behind novels.
Much of the ministry within this denomination is targeted at the highly educated. While that is commendable since this segment is often overlooked in terms of witness, maybe Presbyterians need to worry more about winning approval of the Lord rather than that of slovenly college professors and students.
I ask you what would you rather your children do? Are you going to be so pleased with you own sense of tolerance when your daughter or son comes home having put your broadmindedness into practice?
Furthermore, why should I listen to some preacher prattle on about the “evils” of some young adult activities such as dating (as is the case in the now pervasive Josh Harris I Kissed Dating Goodbye syndrome) or as to why I ought to drop more into the collection plate when the pastor looks like a cheesy roadside advertisement for his own lack of self-discipline especially if he does not readily display a sense of repentance over such an obvious shortcoming?
It has been said youth is fleeting; the indiscretions of it are not. As such, you should not do much of anything you would not want to catch your granny or grampy doing since, try as we might to put the passage of time out of our minds, one day each of us will be one of those elderly souls that have to dispense advice to the young whether they want to hear it or not.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
My cyberspace contacts inform me Kjos Ministries has linked to the review I wrote last year of a book on the Pilgrims and Puritans.
This was quite a pleasant surprise since I have enjoyed listening to Berit Kjos speak over the years about the socialist/New Age infilitration of the nation's educational system in prepartion of the New World Order.
I guess this makes me a third or fourth tier celebrity now. Now if there was only some way to get rich off such notoriety.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Sunday, November 21, 2004
I have been listening to a number of online sermons lately addressing The Da Vinci Code. With the popularity of this novel and a blockbuster movie expected, Christians will need to know how to refute this somewhat esoteric and arcane subject matter. I hope you find these informative.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
It has been leaked in a memo about the lack of promotion opportunities in the employ of the British royal family that Prince Charles believes those of us further down the social ladder ought not aspire to higher station in life.
According to the Prince of Wales, ""People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability."
While correct that this attitude is often the result of social utopianism rampant throughout the modern school system, to put it bluntly, what did he ever do to earn his privilege other than crawl out of his mother's uterus?
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Monday, November 15, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
There is one less Democrat to worry about. A kook from Georgia is believed to have shot and killed himself at the World Trade Center Site in despair over President Bush's reelection victory.
While sympathies natural go out to his family, frankly, this nut got what he deserved. Is any election in this country worth taking to such an extreme?
Life here is not yet that onerous. Nor should it have been for this self-inflicted victim, who is reported to have had a decent job in a university computer lab and was engaged to be married.
Sounds to me like he had a lot to live for. Hope he thinks George Bush was worth it.
In a system such as ours, political suicide would seem to be such a pointless, wasteful act with other outlets of expression readily available to the activist citizen. Hadn't this nitwit ever heard the adage "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day?"
Starting a blog would have been a lot less painful and possibly more persuasive.
Frankly, killing oneself over politics is about as pointless as one of Jesse Jackson or Mitch Synder's hunger strikes. Don't you want your opposition do themselves in and if done so by their own hand, they have no one to blame but themselves.
One of the dangers of liberalism has been to elevate politics to a place of centrality at the expense of other areas of life. Sometimes it's just to hard for sane, balanced people to see just how far the disturbed are willing to take it.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Back during the primary season, President Bush backed incumbent Arlen Specter over popular Pennsylvania Representative Pat Toomey.
Now it seems this decision might come back to haunt the President as Specter is giving Bush a bunch of lip about appointing pro-life judges.
Guess Bush is now getting what he deserves and a lesson in why principle has to be more important than party.
Copyright 2004 By Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 01, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Yet another election season is upon us, and through it, Americans hope to play a part in influencing the course of this great nation. But despite the solemnity of the decision facing the country, neither of the two main parties will do much in stemming the downward moral spiral griping the United States.
In enunciating his position on gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney has said people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want.
Really? Does that mean, if I can find a dozen women amicable to the arrangement, that I can form a harem that caters to my every whim, allowing me to lead a life of luxury since such a situation would allow me to sit back and send a number out to work, a number to tend house, and a number to shower affection on when in the mood.
If our base desires now constitute the basis of our connubial ethics, whose to say such an arrangement is illegitimate so long as no parties are coerced into it? After all, Cheney did say “any kind of relationship they want.” Seems polygamy makes much more sense than homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint if we are going to descend to the level of common beasts.
But we are not common beasts. Though a part of creation, we have also been set apart and above it by being made in the image of God. As such, He is the one --- not our individual libidos --- that determines the moral parameters in which humans are suppose to live.
Both Scripture and common sense reveal that the well being of the greatest number of human beings is maximized when marriage is limited between one man and one woman rather than allowing helter skelter to take place at the marriage altar between any combination in any number. When we refuse to acknowledge these limits, we literally invite all hell to break lose.
The end result goes beyond social confusion and emotionally shattered lives. In fact, innocent people end up losing their rights and even their lives.
In addressing the issue of abortion brought up during the debates, John Kerry --- in a classic display of his famed forked tongue --- in effect said that, while he thought abortion was wrong, it would be unconscionable to impose his own views upon anyone else. But what is law but the codification of someone else’s morality we are forced to live by?
Attempting to delude Catholic and Evangelical voters, Kerry admits the unborn are alive but refuses to lift a finger on their behalf since such a belief is religious in origin. Thus, since even the safety and well being of innocent human beings are not sufficient grounds to impose your morals on someone else, on what grounds can you then bring the sanction of law against a restaurateur for refusing to serve Black customers? After all, this also comes down to a matter of belief: whether or not all men are created equal. Besides, the customer discriminated against certainly isn’t suffering to the same extent as the hacked-apart fetus.
Abraham Lincoln did not win his place in America’s pantheon of historical greats by enunciating, “I believe slavery is wrong, but who am I to impose my conception of emancipation on those not sharing it?” It would be interesting to see if someone as vacillating as John Kerry would handle the greatest moral quandary of another era in the same manner as he does that of our own.
It would be unreasonable to expect any candidate to single handedly reverse America’s ongoing moral decline since the origins of the crisis go beyond anything the political process is able of resolving completely. However, it does not bode well for this great nation when those seeking to serve as its foremost custodians lack the will to do the simplest things within the scope of legitimate governmental authority to stand against the tide of desolation sweeping across this great land.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Often libertarians and conservatives studying the decline of liberty throughout the West speak of an elite that rules over the masses with an iron hand while ignoring the regulations they impose upon the rest of us lower down the social ladder that they hold in contempt. This conclusion is usually drawn by comparing what the snobs in positions of leadership expect from the rest of us and the lax manner in which they themselves live.
Usually, analysts of our contemporary situation have to wait awhile from the time a member of the overclass makes a proclamation and the evidence of their hypocrisy bubbles up to the light of day. However, it seems this election season political observers won’t have to travel far or wait long to see this social dynamic in operation in relation to Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Possibly even more so than Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz Kerry is coming to epitomize the contempt those in the highest positions of power exhibit towards Americans and the American way of life. At least with this harpy coming to the forefront of the news cycle, quasi-apathetic Americans have no excuse about not knowing what’s in store for them should Teresa’s attitude continue to prevail throughout policy and government in terms of curtailing the way in which Americans will be allowed to express themselves and in the very way in which they will be allowed to live their lives.
In addressing the Pennsylvania delegation to the the Democratic Convention , Teresa called for a return of civility to American politics by pointing out the “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” tendencies creeping into the nation’s electoral process. Usually when a liberal brings up civility it is little more than a warning that conservatives had better stop daring to criticize and question what the overclass has in store for American society.
For if Teresa was really concerned about propriety and decorum, she would not have stood up for war protestors as noble patriots. When she did, I don’t imagine she was referring to principled conservatives and libertarians opposed to the current foreign policy undertakings but rather to the grubby street agitators that threatened to disrupt the Republican Convention and even plotted to toss marbles onto the path of police horses in an attempt to injure both riders and mounts.
But perhaps of greater significance were her comments following the speech clarifying her conception of civility and the role it is to play in public life. When pressed by a reporter as to what she meant by “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” she responded, “Now shove it.”
Such a statement is a perfect example of the new civility called for by the likes of Teresa and others of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say” mindset. Apparently these standards are to be imposed upon journalists who have forgotten their place but not the ruling elite or its henchmen.
Not surprisingly, many of Teresa’s compatriots have expressed similar sentiments in even more robust words, serving as shining examples of postmodernist civility to lesser minds such as ourselves incapable of such lofty forms of ratiocination. Colin McNickle, the journalist who brought this brouhaha to light in the August 1, 2004 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune, catalogued many of the civil and uplifting comments that have been made about him and directed at him.
According to McNickle, coming to the aide of Her Royal Heinzness, Patti Labelle said McNickle should be “pimp-slapped”. That pinnacle of good taste and even better grooming, Michael Moore called McNickle “rude”.
As equally rotund Jack Germond said McNickle was not a legitimate newspaperman; since when do the canons of good journalism stifle curiosity and promote timidity? I think Germond’s chronically tight collars have finally cut off circulation to his brain.
Liberals that feign concern over the diminishing levels of propriety and manners allegedly characterizing contemporary political exchange go out of their way to publicize and wallow in incidents where alleged “Conservatives” comported themselves in a less than reputable manner. One only hopes they will put as much effort into condemning their own ideological kinsman for making lewd calls to the McNickle home and even logging death threats against this champion of journalistic integrity.
The double standard through which the elite imposes their will upon the rest of us extends beyond the lofty concerns of public discussion to the more mundane ones of everyday existence; that’s why there’s “total” in “totalitarianism”. For in expressing her position regarding SUV’s, the Ketchup Queen reveals that her life is considerably more important than cretins like you and me.
Groups funded by her foundation lament the American fascination with reliable, quality automobiles as epitomized by sport utility vehicles and go on about the evils of this mode of transportation as well as why good citizens ought to give them up. Unless, of course, you happen to number among the idle rich paying to impose such nonsense upon the masses.
The rest of us are to endanger our lives driving shoddy automobiles or be herded around like livestock in cattle cars on public transportation, Teresa thinks her life is so much more valuable, noting her safety comes first since she lost four family members in traffic accidents. So since I lost an uncle in a car wreck, does that mean I am entitled to an SUV? Probably not. Those buying into Teresa’s worldview see such tragedies befalling the lower orders of man as merely a trimming of the excess population.
Interestingly, Heinz uses her SUV for more than trips to Bloomingdale’s or wherever else the opulently wealthy like to spend their money these days. She also uses this environmental despoiler to drive in snow and sand at her multiple homes.
For you, on the other hand, Heinz’s elites are planning a so-called “sustainable” future where, unlike the Kerrys with their multiple estates, it’s doubtful you’ll even be allowed to own what we now know as a single-family house with a yard. Instead, those of us in the lower to middle echelons of society will be corralled into planned, high density communal dormitories. And forget about driving on sand: in all likelihood, you won’t even be allowed to set foot on a beach or any other part of nature where they plan to tear out the roads and designate as protected natural areas.
Most of the time, as in the case of the Clintons, evil seduces through subtle charm and beguiling doubletalk; however, in the case of the Heinz Hag and her henpecked hubby, this witch does little to hide her true intentions. If voters fall for this duo, those exercising their suffrage in such a manner will be getting exactly what they deserve.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Monday, October 18, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
Let this happen to the homes of liberals and see if they still think Muslims make cute pets.
Often the sincere piety and religious devotion of Southerners is worthy of admiration, but methinks too much stink is being made down south about Halloween falling on a Sunday.
On the one hand you have spook-day purists insisting what an affront it would be to move the celebration back to Saturday evening, which has often been the tradition when Halloween fell on a Sunday.
However, even those wanting the festival moved back to the 30th are enough to strain my sympathies for my fellow coreligionists.
Contrary to the tone of the Christians interviewed in the article, the Seals of the Apocalypse are not going to be broken just because a few kids go Trick-Or-Treating on a Sunday evening.
One distraught woman over exaggerated in the story, "You just don't do it on Sunday. That's Christ's day. You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil. That'll confuse a child."
Lady, you are not in church all day long. Bet these same hayseeds making such a big deal about the "Sabbath", which is technically Saturday anyway, don't have much of a problem going to Wal-Mart or watching football on the day under consideration here.
If your kid is thrown off the straight and narrow that easily, you have more serious problems on your hand. As Gretchin Passantino of Answers In Action said on a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast tackling the Halloween controversy, Trick-Or-Treating won't make you a Satanist anymore than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian. Like many other of life's activities, this one merely takes on the meaning we put into it.
The article detailing the Saturday vs. Sunday dispute went on to offer a very pro-market solution that allows everyone to win without having to call upon government for a solution. Those who want to, can go out on Saturday night. Those who prefer Sunday, can go out on Sunday. And to those enterprising young capitalists who don't have a preference, the can easily go out on both.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Chuck Pardee, editor of Newsbull.com, offers an interesting solution for those Christians and Churches torn between their sense of patriotism and Biblical obligation of putting God first in their lives as embodied by the debate as to whether an American flag belongs in our houses of worship.
The issue arises over a little known law requiring the U.S. flag be given the place of superiority over that of the Christian flag, thus potentially making the line of authority being country then God. His proposal would correct this potentially troubling oversite by rectifying the chain of authority back to God, then country.
His suggestion is worth consideration since it would satisfy both those Christians who don't have a problem with placing an American flag in their respective houses of worship while addressing the concerns of appearing to place the authority of government over God, something Christians will no doubt have to cotend with more and more as our society continues its downward spiral from its Judeo-Christian foundations.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Thursday, October 07, 2004
It seems my warning about a massacre occurring here similar to the one at the school in Russia is not that of a raving madman (as some no doubt contest).
Saw this link on the Drudge Report that the Department of Education and the FBI has issued a warning about this potential danger.
Thus stay tuned here for the latest developments threatening Western Civilization.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Over the past several years at the start of each new school year, I have written columns detailing the policies of a number of school systems where educators confiscate the school supplies of students in order to redistribute them along more communal lines as classroom administrators see fit.
Noting fewer and fewer signs of the practice in school supply lists at Wal-Mart, I figured either school officials had come to their senses by returning to a more individualistic approach to scholastic resource management, had grown tired of parents spurred on in part by my columns griping about this glorified form of socialism, or even worse, not informed parents of the crime before hand and quietly pilfered the goods from unsuspecting children unprepared to muster the courage necessary to defy teachers overstepping the bounds of their authority.
An email from my cousin confirmed my fears, prompting me to address this issue yet again and to bring to the attention of the reading public disturbing developments regarding this issue.
In her communication, my cousin notified me of the customary confiscation decree and of her frustration at being told its her responsibility to provide for everyone else’s offspring as well as her own. But beyond the tragedy of the common workingman being browbeaten and shamed into alleviating the plight of the willfully indolent and just plain lazy was her revelation that funds raised in relation to this nonsense might not be being spent in the most prudent of manners.
Instead of having to endure hectic back to school sales in pursuit of classroom paraphernalia, parents could have surrendered $30.00 per child to endow educators to acquire the needed supplies. Instead of falling for this wily plea, my cousin decided to obtain the scholastic accoutrements on her own.
Much to her surprise, her grand total came to $35.00. The shock did not stem from the total exceeding the figure tabulated by the school system but from the fact she was buying for three children.
According to school system documentation, her shopping excursion should have cost her $90.00. It doesn’t take an Ivy League PhD or Philadelphia lawyer to see that these degreed, credentialed, and certified educators apparently can’t do simple arithmetic.
Those not having their skills of critical analysis dulled through over-exposure to public schools are left asking that, if parents can outfit their children for around twelve bucks apiece, what in the name of John Dewey is being done with the rest of the money? Either schools are getting hosed on school supply prices or its going for purposes other than those spelled out for parents in the memo to parents such as caviar (or at least pizza) in the teachers’ lounge.
Usually soliciting money for one reason and using it for another is called fraud. In reference to the private sector, this constitutes criminal activity; when committed by certain government agencies venerated by social engineers such as public schools, it becomes a civic duty to turn our heads the other way and keep our mouths shut.
This farce is buttressed through the invocation of a number of arguments designed to titillate the seeds of collectivism strategically planted in the modern psyche. Those still bold enough to think for themselves in such matters daring to voice misgivings about such compulsory altruism are shamed by the powers that be with sob stories of how little school children will be denied an education should greedy citizens refuse to fulfill their civic obligation of outfitting every single whelp in their own child’s class.
Such a claim in support of redistribution is about as faulty as the philosophical assumptions upon which these policies rest. Those snatching paper and pencils from one student to put in the hands of another in order to bask in the ecstasy that results from exercising arbitrary power over others assert these confiscatory policies are necessary since the so-called “underprivileged” can’t afford classroom necessities.
Is that so? Of Black ghetto culture, Bill Cosby remarked how the same parents complaining about the price of Hooked On Phonics have little problem with buying $200 basketball shows for their rugrats. Likewise, if those living in welfare apartments and trailer parks can afford tattoos, gold teeth, and Nintendo sets, surely they can afford a pack of notebook paper for under a dollar and a pack of pencils for around the same price if they shop at Wal-Mart.
If things are that bad financially around the house, kids can scrounge around for secondhand stationary or freebies foraged from county fairs, fire department open houses, and other assorted municipal festivals. Contrary to the propaganda of the classroom Communists, children will not be irrevocably stunted if forced to use last year’s notebook or pencil box; their development will be, however, if they come away with the impression it is their right to have the nicest possessions whether they have earned them or not.
The discrepancies between what my cousin paid and the amount demanded by Calvert County school officials speaks to one of those fundamental socioeconomic truths radical educators simply refuse to learn: that, of course, being that individuals and families are eminently more qualified to determine the proper distribution and allocation of resources than any petty bureaucrat or dimwitted schoolmarm. This is because, unlike the professional educator, the parent not only loves the child but must provide for the offspring from the family’s own limited income. Educrats, on the other hand, have access to what these misguided statists misperceive as the inexhaustible revenue source of public tax funds, which they do not have much compunction to spend with the same care and prudence as the average mother.
Obviously, my cousin isn’t the only one disturbed by these blatantly socialistic policies even if they cannot put their finger on these as such since such outright theft is an affront to commonsense and the natural order. When my cousin enunciated her surprise at the disparity in costs and the manner in which the supplies were to be divied up, the cashier was nearly as disgusted as my cousin. Perhaps it’s about time parents and concerned citizens taught educators just who the students belong to and who it is that really supplies the needs of these pupils.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Saturday, October 02, 2004
It was reported on CNN's "Crossfire" that correspondent Bob Novak broke his hip and would need to have it replaced.
According to Broadcasting & Cable, he did this in the shower in his hotel room in Miami. He was there in Florida to cover the Presidential debate.
His leftist counterpart, Clinton stooge Paul Begala, made a snide comment that instead of flowers donations could be made to alleviate capital gains taxes. Too bad it wasn't Begala who injured himself instead.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
On his program, Mike Savage has urged bloggers to post the following on their sites a letter from a Congressman calling upon a radio station to remove his program from the airwaves. I hope you will take the time to read of this dangerous threat to frees speech.
September 29, 2004
Mr. Ken Charles
Director of Operations/Programming
Clear Channel Communications
510 Lovett Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77006
Dear Mr. Charles:
I was shocked to learn of your actions and read your comments in an Associated Press article "KPRC Gives Rather's Radio Show the Boot" filed September 28, 2004. Apparently, KPRC makes programming decisions based on a political agenda, rather than on ratings or broadcasting standards.
The CBS television news organization and Dan Rather made a huge mistake by airing a story based on faulty documents from an unreliable source. The CBS story was wrong, it was presented wrongly, and the network took too long to set the record straight. However, CBS has spent a considerable amount of airtime correcting that mistake and apologizing for their error, which apparently resulted from the sloppy work and the competitive nature of the news business, rather than by a political agenda.
Removing one radio show for one acknowledge mistake by its host while continuing to run shows of commentators who often make inaccurate and unverified statements reveals a double standard. I believe KPRC should hold Mr. Rather and all others to the same standards. The failure to do so strongly suggests KPRC has no broadcasting standards of accuracy and only a political agenda. Here is a sampling of just a few inaccurate, uncorrected statements from other KPRC commentators to illustrate my point.
From Michael Savage's "Savage Nation":
1. Sen. John Kerry has given "some intelligence to Osama bin Laden." 9/17/04.
2. The Democratic Party is "ethnic minorities and women and immigrants." 7/28/04
From Rush Limbaugh's "The Rush Limbaugh Show"
1. "[W]e spend over two times on education already, what we spend on defense." 6/30/04
2."There aren't families living on the minimum wage" 4/29/04
I strongly support the free speech rights of Mr. Savage, Mr. Limbaugh, and your station as a whole, but the above statements are completely inaccurate. Sen. Kerry has never given intelligence to Bin Laden. As a white, native Texan male, I can testify that the Democratic Party is diverse and open to all Americans, and is not based on race or gender. Furthermore, the federal government spends fully 14 times less on education than we do on defense, and millions of American families do, in fact, live off the minimum wage. How does KPRC justify Mr. Rather's punishment, while ignoring repeated inaccuracies by other hosts?
Please make a commitment to your listeners that KPRC has standards of accuracy and they are enforced for all broadcasters. If KPRC can make such a commitment, then there is no justification for removing Mr. Rather's radio show. However, if KPRC makes no such commitment, then at least listeners should be forewarned.
Member of Congress
Doctor Savage points out that, in typical Democrat fashion, the above statements are incorrect as they have to taken out of context.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Saturday, September 25, 2004
According to Ken Ham in the September 2004 edition the Answers In Genesis Newsletter, hot cross buns won’t be quite so cross anymore in merry ole England because a number of local governments there have banned them because the shape of the pastries offends Muslims. Ham’s article does an excellent job explicating how such asinine policies are the result of an unbridled form of pluralism that goes beyond allowing different ideas to exist within one’s borders to actively undermine the foundations upon which Western civilization rests, thus allowing those alien beliefs the upper hand in determining how society is to be ultimately run.
If the politically correct are now going to get this jacked out of shape over the shape of a desert, maybe Christians should reciprocate the protest with one of our own by organizing a boycott of croissants. Croissants, you ask, the flaky moon-shaped masteries?
That’s right. Croissants are shaped like crescent moons, which are in turn the traditional symbol for Islam.
Such a boycott would show the multiculturalists and the Islamophants just how stupid this game really is.
The world over, radical Muslims are killing off Westerners and our allies left and right and the most important thing some limp-wristed tolerance monger can find to have a hissy fit about is some filthy heathen’s hurt feelings. If this is the extent to which our civilization has declined, perhaps it deserves to be taken over or to fall into the garbage can of history.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Can you imagine the stink that would erupt if a similar donation went to a Christian school?
Ironic thing is, Jews --- especially the liberal ones that support any form of "spirituality" so long as it is not Christian or Conservative --- would be whining the loudest.
Ehrlich is trying to justify the expenditure with the tired "we are in a new post-9/11 world" excuse.
The last time I checked, Bin Ladin despises Christians, whom he refers to as "Crusaders", almost as much as he does Jews; so why is it more important to safeguard the lives of Jewish children than Christian ones? Could it be the parents of the Jewish ones are more capable of lining his campaign coffers?
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Monday, September 20, 2004
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Sunday, September 12, 2004
He silently slipped into the back pew as those gathering for the day’s service quietly talked amongst themselves. Since he had never been here before, most simply ignored him. A few nodded cordially, but did not really pay much attention since they had never seen him before.
Others glanced as they walked by, trying to win a glimpse at the slim black object the visitor held in his hand. They strained their necks in an effort to get a look at what it was, but did not want to appear to be rude to the visitor who was able to keep the object concealed in a polite manner.
Those gathering hurried to their seats as the music began to play. The visitor kept an eye on the bustle around him. He usually didn’t attend these kinds of functions, but his curiosity had gotten the best of him and he just couldn’t resist at least a peak to see for himself how things were being done now. Besides, he might be able to do some good here or at least plant some kind of seed that could germinate into such.
The visitor looked straight ahead to the front of the auditorium. Upon the platform located there he noticed the circular, upright lectern.
It looked like wood, but the visitor knew it was not since few who regularly came here would want to inconvenience a tree in such a manner and would find it appalling to impose upon such a noble creature in such a way. The visitor continued to study the lectern’s deliberate craftsmanship. He could tell from the way light and shadow played off it that it was a multidimensional representation of the sign of peace, the symbol of everything this grand hall claimed to stand for.
The visitor continued to look forward towards the platform. His eyes looked up from the peace sign lectern to the peace sign tapestry adorning the wall at the back of the room high above the floor. Interestingly, in the days of Before it was said that the arms of the broken cross pointed in another direction. The mind of the visitor wandered back to the days of Before prior to the time of the Change.
The Change. The thought of it hung in the visitor’s mind.
When did it happen? He wasn’t sure. Seems no one really was. No one remembered when it happened. Just that there had been a Before. Little by little, the time of Before slid into the days of the Change, but so infinitesimally no one conscientiously realized it while it was happening but soon enough those sensitive to such things had an inkling something was going on even if they couldn’t quite put their finger on it.
The thoughts of the visitor came back to the proceedings transpiring around him. The music came to a conclusion as just about everybody was in their respective seats and were eager to get the service underway. The visitor himself felt a tinge of anticipation to see just how things had changed since the time of Before.
A cloaked figure ascended the platform. From that distance, the visitor could not tell if it was a man or a woman. Many of the celebrants prided themselves on the degree to which they could blur the distinctions of such a trifling human characteristic as gender.
The celebrant smiled, “Good morning. Before we get started, I’d like to welcome those gathered to the Schauungtown Toleration Fellowship. My name is Sibling Cecilia and this is my partner Catherine.” Catherine briefly stood to wave to the congregation.
As much as she tried to downplay her natural features with the short buzz-cut and silver stud protruding from her eyebrow, the visitor concluded that “the Sibling” was in all likelihood a woman no matter how much “she” did not want to admit it. At times, even ideology had to yield to biology, but for whatever reason, the most dedicated celebrants within the Toleration Fellowship insisted upon expressing their devotion to Oneness by using the title “Sibling” rather than more gender specific appellations such as “Brother” or “Sister” carried over from Before and still used by celebrants who --- despite their devotion --- just couldn’t seem to rid themselves of those pesky ingrained inclinations leftover from less progressive times.
Sibling Cecilia continued, “Won’t you all stand, please, as we render supplication unto Oneness.”
The congregation rose. The visitor stood along with them even though he would not be joining them in spirit. He clutched the concealed object close to his chest.
“Transcendent Oneness, we approach We now. Looking to the unity within to overcome the degraded apartness for the sake of the All. And forgive us still so ensnared by our individuality to still require the confines of language to share these aspirations between consciousnesses. In Diversity’s name, Ahumyn.”
The visitor hadn’t assented to the words as they were said aloud; but he nevertheless felt spiritually soiled upon hearing them, almost like he had no business being there. But he knew that even in this setting he was not alone, a table having been set for him in the midst of his enemies. There was work, even here, that needed to be done.
The congregation sat back down at the conclusion of the invocation. Sibling Cecilia stepped to the side of the podium.
“Now, it gives me great pleasure,” she smiled, “to introduce this morning the latest addition to our Toleration Fellowship and to welcome her into our midst. I’d like to introduce you to little Sally Witherspoon. Won’t you bring her on up, Betty and Cal?”
A young couple probably in their early 30’s stood up and brought their newborn to the front of the sanctuary. The congregation cooed with the obligatory “Awwwww!”
The family joined Cecilia at the bottom of the raised stage, slightly to the left of and below the hewn peace-symbol lectern. “As responsible parents, Betty and Cal, inform me they want to raise Sally in reverence of the values espoused by the Toleration Fellowship. As part of this dedication ceremony, we must ask each of you a series of questions to determine your degree of sincerity in wanting little Sally to grow up in the ways of the Fellowship. So Cal and Betty, whom do you say gave you the gift of little Sally.”
Her mother responded, “The forces of nature.”
“Correct, Betty.” Cecilia replied. “And who controls the forces of Nature?”
The baby’s father answered, “The All.”
“That’s right, Cal. And how does the All manifest itself to us?” questioned the Sibling.
Betty answered, “In the form of the universe, in the Earth and our relationship with Her, and the Holy within all of us.”
Cecilia asked, “Since we are all part of the All and since we are all of one another and ultimately none unto themselves, who is it that bears final responsibility for this child?”
“The Community,” both parents answered without hesitation.
“Realizing such, do you swear to abide by the wisdom and decisions of the Community --- in all its diversity --- in having the final authority over your fami......” Cecilia caught herself. “...excuse me, domestic collective.”
Cal responded, “Yes, without the Community, we are nothing.”
Cecilia smiled. “I now present to you the latest component of our communal body.”
The “domestic collective” turned around smiling to face the congregation. They dutifully returned to their seats.
Cecilia took her place behind the distinctively-shaped podium. She fiddled through her note cards as she prepared to begin her homily.
“The ceremony we were just privileged to experience spoke to one of the universal suggestions which me must all recognize: the fundamental realization that we as mere humyns are nothing without the approval and sanction of the Community.”
The visitor both listened and tried to gauge the reactions of those seated around him in the congregation.
Cecilia continued, “In the time of Before, it was often believed the individual possessed a certain status apart from that bestowed by the Community. As strange as that sounds to us, in those days many believed their value and worth was something found within themselves. Some thinking this way even believed certain social privileges they called rights came from God rather than from the Community.”
The visitor could hear the faint, audible gasps and sighs of disbelief of a few of those seated around him.
“That’s right,” Cecilia continued, “at one time quite a number believed God stood above the Community and even above Nature itself instead of believing as we do that the concept once understood as ‘God’ arises from the intersection of the totality of All. Those living under such a disjointed perspective were alienated from reality by such an absolutist hierarchy that they failed to recognize their own, shall we say ‘god within’. Instead, of realizing that as a part of the All that all that happened also happened to themselves, they would compete with one another --- even inflicting harm upon one another --- in hopes of bettering their status or acquiring additional resources. They failed to realize that by harming others they were harming themselves. Today we have overcome such primitive notions from the time of Before. And even though we still come across an occasional misguided individual holding to these notions to be pitied and assisted in anyway possible in helping them achieve the awakening that comes so easily to some but not to others, most of us have embraced our cosmic and communal obligation to accept whatever place the Community, in its unquestionable wisdom assigns to us, in its pursuit of actualizing the All.”
Cecilia stopped, lowered her head, and intoned as the congregation stood, “Dear Oneness, we come before ourselves now as the glorious manifestation and embodiment of the All asking ourselves to muster the power within to do as the Community requires of us, no matter how low it might seem through our perceptions of individuality and by submitting to its wisdom find fulfillment as part of the greater social organism. In Diversity’s name, Ahumyn.”
The congregation opened their eyes knowing that the service had now concluded. The visitor knew his moment to act, the reason he came here this day, had arrived.
The visitor looked down at the leather-bound object concealed in his hand. Amid the bustle of activity as members of the congregation bid farewell to their friends for the day and probably the week, the visitor found the opportune moment of anonymity to carry out his mission as those around him were too caught up in their own conversations to notice a congenial but quiet stranger.
The visitor held the black leather rectangle to his chest a moment longer as he quickly bowed his head for a moment. He gently placed the object on the seat he just occupied and slyly exited the pew.
With others making their way out the door or so engrossed in their conversations so as not to have to notice those making their way out the door, the visitor extricated himself unnoticed under such chattering cover. He hoped, however, that the small rectangular object he left behind would not go as unnoticed.
Worshippers continued to linger in the sanctuary for awhile after the visitor had slipped away. The object the visitor left behind occupied the same seat as the visitor with the same quiet dignity as the one in whose hand it had just previously rested.
But whereas most had avoided making contact with the visitor out of shyness or a desire simply not to be bothered, most passing by the rectangular object could not resist the urge to take a quick glance at it. But since few could really make out what it was, they just kept walking.
Eventually, the final barriers of reluctance eroded as one college-aged student lingered a little longer than most to catch a good glimpse of the object. He stopped and edged closer towards it.
He bent over and scooped it up. His eyes focused on the unfamiliar words printed across the textured leather.
“Holy Bible,” he read. The words seemed strange yet familiar all at the same time. For some reason, they conjured images in his mind of dignified yet loving grandmothers: judgment yet acceptance. A sense of well-being swept over him as a tinge of terror also panged deep within his soul.
The young man wanted to run. Instead he yielded to an even more compelling urge to study the book further.
He carefully opened the cover. The message scribbled across the title page caught his eye.
The young man felt overwhelmed with confusion. He called out, “Sibling Cecilia, I think you need to see this.”
“What is it?” She rushed over to the miniscule throng gathering in the vicinity of the now-empty pew. They stood aside to make way for their spiritual leader.
Cecilia took the mysterious book into her hands and read the message scribbled across the title page: “To whom it may concern: It is obvious that the words contained within these pages are desperately needed within this place. It is my prayer that this book will serve as an island of truth amidst this sea of error. Courtesy of the Bible Peddler.”
So much anger began to well up within her normally composed facade that the piercing above her eyebrow began to jingle. “By Tolerance, how dare this filth undermine this Community’s diversity and inclusion!”
The congregation watched and wondered as she frantically ripped pages from the book and threw them across hall built as an expression of the equality of all ideas.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Here’s a little shameless cross promotion.
Louis Petolicchio formerly of LancasterInternet.com recently moved to another Pennsylvania location and has rechristened his newspage PoliticalBackwash.com.
The site focuses a great deal on news and politics from a South Central Pennsylvania perspective, but also provides considerable coverage of wider national issues. As such, Mr. Petolicchio has been gracious enough over the past couple of years to publish a number of my columns on his site.
To publicize the relaunch, Mr. Petolicchio has sent out a press release to various media outlets informing these organizations of this online journalistic undertaking. As part of the outreach, I was invited to contribute a quote regarding news of, shall we say, the “redigitalization” of this quality source of information.
Mr. Petolicchio does a classy job of incorporating my comments into the text of the release. By identifying me as Frederick Meekins of Washington DC, the reader gets the impression I possibly wield a bit of power or influence. Such an aura of mystery and sophistication lends a degree of credibility to both of our websites.
Unlike the mainstream media, independent websites do not have vast marketing or advertising budgets. However, through word of mouth (or rather blog) hopefully an information revolution can be triggered putting the power back in the hands of individual Americans where it belongs.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, September 10, 2004
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I would like to offer words of commendation to Governor Bob Ehrlich and Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele. On Monday, August 30th, Governor Ehrlich asserted that he saw a message coming out of the Democratic convention. The message is that “if you happen to have black skin, you have to believe one way.” Otherwise, “you are a traitor to your race.” Lt. Gov. Steele, who delivered an outstandingly auspicious speech at the Republican National Convention, can relate to the governor’s words of wisdom. Have we forgotten that supporters of former Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend threw Oreo cookies at Steele during a gubernatorial debate in 2002? It was people on the Left who did this malicious, racial act.
Steele recently did a national talk show on an African-American station and the first question presented to him was “How can you be a Republican?” He cleverly responded by asking the caller, “How can you be a Democrat?” To suggest that Steele is traitorous to his race because he is a registered Republican is the most invidious, baseless accusation. Why should Steele be targeted as one who abandoned his race because of his political identity? Is the evidence that the Democratic Party best represents black Americans?
During the period from the 1940s to the 1960s, there were some leaders in the Democratic Party who advocated civil rights protections, most notably Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson. According to a black history issue of The WallBuilder Report, Truman “introduced an aggressive civil rights legislative package that included an anti-lynching law, an anti-poll tax law, desegregation of the military, etc.,” however, he fought strong opposition from his own party. Truman was able to include civil rights language in the platform for the National Democratic Convention, but a “walkout of southern delegates resulted.”
In 1964, President Johnson, a Democrat, was unable to garner support from his own party to pass the Civil Rights Bill and the Democrats controlled two-thirds of the seats in Congress. It was necessary for Republicans to work with Johnson to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As a result, millions of African-Americans were able to register to vote in southern, Democratic-controlled states where literacy testing was abolished and the federal government intervened to oversee voter registration.
The WallBuilder Report further indicates that in “Democratic-controlled States, rarely are African-Americans elected statewide (with the exception of US Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1992-1998) and African-American Democratic Representatives to Congress usually are elected only from minority districts (districts with a majority of minority voters).” However, members of minority groups running as Republicans are “elected statewide in Republican States, or in congressional districts with large white majorities.”
Furthermore, in 2000, US Rep. JC Watts (OK) became the “third African-American to chair a National Republican Convention (the first was US Rep. John Roy Lynch (MS) in 1884 and then US Sen. Edward Brooke (MA) in 1968.” Why is it that there has never been an African-American to chair or even co-chair a Democratic National Convention?
President Bush has an administration that is more racially diverse than that of any other in US History! Why aren’t the multiculturalists celebrating with elation? This is because they despise a Republican President who appoints minorities to high positions in government but who do not adhere to radically liberal ideologies. Any minority member who serves in the Cabinet under a President who is a conservative Republican is viewed as disingenuous and disloyal to his race by people on the political Left. I find such tactics to be utterly reprehensible and blatantly racist.
Bush campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, articulated the facts well when he said that “all families should ask whether or not the party they’ve supported is best for them.” (Newszap.com) Holt contends that Republicans generally appeal to African-American voters on issues such as values while “Democrats have tended to take a different approach.”
Copyright 2004 by Matthew Pasalic
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
During the Cold War, both sides used the Olympic games as a forum to rally world sympathy for their respective causes. But with the conclusion of that ideological conflict, it seems an act of Hegelian synthesis has taken place surrounding this international festival that would make Marx’s whiskers tingle in delight.
Incorporating aspects of monopolistic capitalism and command socialism into their managerial approach to the games, Greek officials and the International Olympic Committee planned to exercise a degree of control over spectators no human being should be allowed to exert over any other. It has become common practice for major corporations to pay millions of dollars to have their names emblazoned across the public consciousnesses as being affiliated with the Olympiad. But instead of accomplishing this with witty advertisements during commercial breaks or less than inconspicuous billboards in every broadcast shot, marketers schemed to establish product dominance not through the rigors of free market competition but rather by emulating practices more in common with the arrogance associated with pompous bureaucrats and centralized planners.
According to the Sunday Times of London, spectators could be refused admittance to the games for sipping the wrong brand of soda or told to flip their shirts inside-out for displaying logos of corporations not coughing up the dough for the vacuous honor of being an Olympic sponsor. Just because these tycoons aren’t confident as to the soundness of this investment is no reason to take out their insecurity on unsuspecting spectators.
It would be bad enough if game officials concocted the excuse that no outside beverages could be brought into the venues for fear of protestors or other related leftwing Euro-trash using cans and bottles as projectiles and then sell gullible sports enthusiasts marked-up, water-downed soft drinks in dainty, sissy-sized cups. But how in the name of homeland security can you justify allowing someone to bring in a Coca Cola but refuse entry to someone should they have Pepsi or the local Wal-Mart off-brand equivalent let alone demand someone obscure unobscene clothing logos if no functionally justifiable dress code has been delineated?
The last I heard, onlookers weren’t the ones receiving the obscene amounts of money. Spectators are not under any contractual obligation to blithely do as they are told regarding matters not even remotely connected to those of public safety.
Fortunately, despite the socialist grandiosity of Olympic organizers, the public thwarted some of the ambitions of these aspiring potentates by utilizing the strengths of the free market system to thumb their noses at these petty micromanagers. Rather than subject themselves to such control, many Greeks forsook attendance and viewers tuned out to avoid being brainwashed or to at least to avoid the severe nausea that often results from exposing oneself to such globalist blather.
One disgruntled Greek told the Sunday Times, “I don’t see why, after all the money that Greek taxpayers will end up paying to host the games, McDonald’s should dictate what I can eat in my own city.” While it’s nice to cheer for your country’s team if you are from a country worth loving, there is nothing anywhere saying we have a duty to pay attention to the Olympics: game overlords have not yet discovered a way to coerce such interest.
If International Olympic Committee officials and their sycophants in multinational corporations continue to undermine basic human freedoms --- foremost among them being the right to consume whatever foodstuffs one has legally acquired irrespective of brand --- hopefully this antiquated pageant of feigned brotherhood and other hypocritical drivel will once again go the way of the heathen deities such athletic spectacles were invoked to venerate as curious but best forgotten footnotes of ancient history.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Thursday, September 02, 2004
We Have A Name Don’t You Know: Bush Campaign Ashamed Of The Words “Protestant”, “Evangelical”, Or “Christian”
Someone forwarded me an email about volunteering with the Bush Reelection Campaign . Curious, I clicked on the link for no other reason than to see what was up --- or to phrase it in a more sophisticated manner ---- to gather intelligence.
As part of the volunteer registration process, those logging onto the site have the option of participating in various outreach efforts targeted at specific demographic groups or policy interests. Among the groups potential volunteers can direct their efforts towards include Arabs, Hispanics, African Americans, and Young Professionals. There are even efforts targeted at faith-based communities, Jews and Catholics being specifically mentioned.
It would seem the remaining one-third of America ecclesiastical triad, Protestantism, is not named. Sure, there are a number of policy categories that would appeal to Protestants such as pro-life and homeschool efforts, but if you are going to mention Jews and Catholics by specifically, don’t Evangelicals or Protestants deserve the same courtesy?
The form does provide the nebulous choice of “Religious Conservative”. But when you come down to it, that can cover just about anything. One could argue that within his own faith Osama Bin Ladin is himself a “Religious Conservative” as well as is the Utah polygamist who ups and marries the local junior high cheerleading squad.
If one is not going to mention Evangelicals or Protestants, then why extend such recognition to Jews and Catholics? After all, aren’t the ones within these respective groups likely to vote for the President come November religious conservatives anyway?
Defenders of these campaign tactics might counter that these groups are more denominationally homogeneous than their religious counterparts on the Protestant side of the ecclesiastical divide. However, while there might be fewer independent denominational organizations to deal with among Jews and Catholics, in many respects these communities are as theologically fractious even if not so obvious on the surface.
The most prominent voices of Jewish leadership are so pathetically leftist as evidenced by rackets such as the Anti-Defamation League that it’s frankly a waste of money and a lost cause for Republicans to try and persuade these people since most belonging to groups such as this one barely embrace anything even remotely resembling Old Testament values.
The same can be pretty much said about Roman Catholics as well. For while all Catholics might belong to the same church, does anyone believe Bills Bennet and Buckley have that much in common with the Brothers Berigan.
Still others will counter that Jews and Catholics are more cultural identity than anything. But why not the same with Evangelical Protestantism?
As with Jews and Catholics who embrace these sociological classifications as their primary cultural identity, those embracing Protestantism often share enough behavioral characteristics unique to their way of life to qualify as what Randall Balmer termed the “Evangelical subculture” in his Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory. Likewise, as with Evangelicals, Jews began as a community organized around a shared system of belief, but so many have abandoned that faith and must now organize around the less noble foundation of ethnicity in order to maintain some kind of identity.
Even if one accepts the previous points as valid, one might still argue its best not to mention Evangelicals by name since many people find them offensive. And in this age of radical inclusion, inoffensiveness and tolerance have become the highest values to which we are to aspire --- even surpassing in importance those of less enlightened eras such as truth, self-reliance, and liberty.
Going back to our previous examples, there are critics to the theological left and right of the Catholic Church offended by beliefs held by that particular denomination; but apparently the Republican Party has no qualms about publicizing their desire to appeal to Catholic voters. Even more importantly, the GOP has no problem with pandering to immigrants by also providing a translation of the website in Spanish even though, despite the fact most are terrified to admit it for fear of being labeled “racist” or whatever other slur the hyertolerant are using this week to beat the common man into submission, the vast majority of Americans are sick and tired of the ongoing surrender to foreign tongues uttered by freeloading aliens harboring no intentions of acclimating to our way of life and catered to by elites using these unsuspecting transnational vagrants as a tool through which to undermine the foundations of this republic.
If the Republican Party is so ashamed of its Evangelical supporters perhaps it should try winning elections without their votes. I doubt they’ll get very far electorally since the reprobate vote is pretty much sewn up by the Democrats.
Matthew 10:33 reads, “But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.” If the higher-ups in the Republic Party continue to distance themselves from Evangelical voters, maybe Evangelical voters should reciprocate the gesture come election day.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
One of America's foremost Political Scientists, Larry Sabato, observes how the mainstream media covers up the rough edges of the shabby protest movement.
I watched part of the protest march on Sunday and frankly, the things these people said could not even be aired on television.
But whereas the media creates the impression that these malcontents are engaged in the noble American tradition of speech and assembly, much of what this riff-raff has to say isn't even fit to broadcast in forms of decency and propriety.
Some of the grand oratory diplayed during this hellfest included the following:
"F" Fox News
"F" The Republicans.
Long live the Intifada. (In other words, long live terrorism. So much much for these being peaceful protestors).
One protestor F'ed out a spectator who dared ask why do these people hate America so much.
One might dismiss it as Republican spin, but you can't argue with CSPAN's inflinching eye. Unlike other networks that either edits their footage to suit their agenda or to make it even fit to show on the evening edition, CSPAN, in the spirit of true bipartisanship, shows you all the truth --- no matter how ugly. The only one with a more complete view is God Himself.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Friday, August 27, 2004
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Monday, August 23, 2004
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Friday, August 20, 2004
Headline: “Puerto Rico beats the United States in Olympic Basketball.” What’s wrong with the above statement? Well, the last time I checked, Puerto Rico is part of the United States.
As such, shouldn’t Puerto Ricans pursuing Olympic glory be required to do so under the banner of the United States if they are going to enjoy U.S. citizenship? If they desire the beneficence of being Americans, shouldn’t they want to be on the U.S. Olympic team?
More importantly, if we are going to permit such geographic and cultural separatism, to what extent are we going to allow it and on what grounds do we extend it to some but not to others? Some smart alecks will counter that Puerto Rico is not a state and thus not fully part of the Union in the same sense as those jurisdictions represented as stars upon Old Glory.
But neither is the District of Columbia. Does that mean Washington, D.C. should be allowed to have its own Olympic team? Unlike residents of Puerto Rico who don’t pay federal income taxes, residents of the District of Columbia are saddled with this form of revenue bondage without enjoying full legislative representation. The least we can do is to allow the District to enjoy the other forms of favoritism extended to other non-state areas.
Other Ricanists will argue that Puerto Rico deserves its own Olympic team since it is culturally distinct from the rest of America since the island is majority Hispanic. If that’s the case, do Indian tribes get to field their own Olympic teams since, in the eyes of the law, these distinct groups are often viewed as nations within our nation? Furthermore, since no one holding public office is going to lift a finger to stem the tide of immigration flooding this country, will the Puerto Rican Olympic team lose its justification for existence as Spanish influences comes to dominate the once-American culture?
Interestingly, when the South tried to exert an independent identity, this country fought its most devastating war to keep that region in line. Maybe we ought to grant the Confederacy its own Olympic team in consolation. A shame those still bent on making sure the South never rises again aren’t as vigilant against those out to wrest the national fabric asunder in an even more violent manner.
If Puetro Rico does not want to be identified with the United States, so be. But when they go, just make sure they know they won’t be getting anymore handouts from their rich, fat uncle they don’t like anymore.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Guess you might say I was counterterror before counterterrorism was cool and ahead of my time since I took a Political Science class on International Terrorism way back in 1996.
Had an interest in the topic ever since early high school as I figured it would be one of the major forces shaping what then seemed the distant geopolitical future. One reason I don't work in Downtown DC where I'd have to take the subway.
At least students might be studying something productive for a change rather than "queer theory" or other such PC drivel. Still wonder though how many of these classes will be cast in "It's all America & The White Man's Fault" frame of reference.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
It is an unpardonable sin in America to opine condescendingly about issues such as race, immigration, homosexuality, feminism, and multiculturalism. However, there remains one group of Americans that is unprotected from derisive comments, public mockery, and censorship. As columnist Pat Buchanan once reminded us, “Christian-bashing is a popular indoor sport.”
Recently, Linda Ronstadt was performing at the Aladdin casino in Las Vegas when she politicized her performance by advocating for Michael Moore and his controversial documentary, Fahrenheit 911. Vociferous protests greeted Ronstadt and she was eventually ejected from the Aladdin. In an interview with the San Diego Union-Tribune, she said: “It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment.”
In a commentary entitled, “It’s Open Season on Christians Again,” Orthodox Rabbi Daniel Lapin, author of America’s Real War, came to the defense of Christians by putting forth the following considerations: “What do you suppose might be the reaction if an entertainer would say, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out someone in the audience is Jewish. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Or what if some politician had once announced, “It’s a real conflict for me when I find out that someone in the audience is homosexual. It can cloud my enjoyment”? Such comments by any politician or entertainer would unquestionably constitute hatred and create serious consequences. Unfortunately, the media do not come to the defense of Christians because they are not entitled to the same protection that the aforementioned groups are. Furthermore, Rabbi Lapin acknowledges that “many ! Americans view Christianity as a problem, an execrable obstacle to America’s progress,” yet the rest of us, including “many serious Jews, view Christianity as part of the solution to America’s problems.” I commend Rabbi Lapin for defending Christianity, the foundation of Western civilization.
While recently speaking at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) event in Boston, actor Alec Baldwin affronted religious conservatives with some harsh remarks. According to a CNSNEWS.COM report, Baldwin told the audience that the Republican Party “has been hijacked by these fundamentalist wackos.” Such vitriolic comments are not surprising from Baldwin. Several years ago, on the Conan O”Brien Show, he shouted, “If we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of us together---all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death!” He continued with, “We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their homes and we’d kill their wives and their children! We would kill their families!” These threats are outrageous. Why are some Democrats associating with this hateful, irreligious, actor of the Heathen Left? Why is the media silent?
There are innumerable examples of Christian-bashing throughout the media, Hollywood, and the arena of public life and ironically among those who advocate tolerance for every ideology except Christianity. Have we forgotten when billionaire Ted Turner asked a group of CNN staffers if they were a “bunch of Jesus freaks” because they were observing Ash Wednesday? Turner, who labeled Christianity as a religion for “losers” years ago seems to enjoy assailing those who the media will not defend. The Washington Post once described followers of the religious right as “largely uneducated, poor, and easy to command.” To the consternation of many Christians, a retraction was later printed identifying the blatant categorization as “without basis in fact.” I believe that it is time for the hatred and bigotry against fundamentalist Christians (those who adhere to the fundamentals tenets of the faith) to come to an end. Americans should be indebted to the many contributions of Christianity that we often take for granted such as the establishment of hospitals, universities, charities, free enterprise, and countless other benefits.
Copyright 2004 by Matthew Pasalic
Monday, August 09, 2004
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Through the wonder of supermarination, the Thunderbirds used fantastic gadgets, rockets, and futuristic vehicles to rescue those in harm’s way from the most harrowing circumstances. However, there is one thing even the famed international rescue team couldn’t save and that seems to be the nation’s declining moral values.
Fans of the filth presented as acceptable broadcast fair today often counter critics of decaying entertainment standards with one does not have to watch the programming available if it is an affront to their convictions and beliefs. While that is true to an extent, it is not a charge as easy to make in regards to commercials since they often implant their messages in our minds and are over many times before we are even able to get up and change the channel or find the remote.
Despite the fact that much of television is not fit for children to see, it has been generally understood by both parents and broadcasters that Saturday morning should be a reasonably family-friendly time free of smut and sexual innuendo. One would think this would be especially true during classic shows one normally doesn’t have to be afraid of sitting their children down in front of to watch.
Depicting wholesome, clean-cut adventures rendering assistance to those in danger, one would think of “The Thunderbirds” as the kind of program parents would not find objectionable. However, it seems the eggheads at TechTV have figured out a way to defile even this most innocent of pleasures.
Throughout sci-fi and comic book history, most superheroes have been known for defending uprightness and propriety. However, a new costumed character named “Trojan Man” epitomizes and spreads what some hope will become the new American way of loose living and promiscuity by getting condoms to amorous couples in the nick of time without even first ascertaining their matrimonial status.
The promiscuity lobby will no doubt respond with their cliched lament of how dare you impose your values upon viewers. With that said, I retort a parent should be able to turn on what is considered a kid’s show without having to answer or cleverly evade “Daddy, what’s that mean?” type questions.
Good grief people. Have we become so licentious and unashamed that we can’t even wait to watch our filth until after the little ones have gone off to bed?
The purpose of placing a condom ad on mid-Saturday morning could only be to alter the values of those seeing it and ultimately those of the broader society. It’s definitely not about profit or even product placement, for how many Geeks do you know in the market for quality prophylactic?
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 06, 2004
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
For the past several decades, the steady stream of sodomite propaganda has assured us that all gays want is a bit of privacy since what one does in the confines of one’s own bedroom is no one else’s business. But as these activists stand on the threshold of having their liaisons sanctified in the eyes of the law and thus the broader culture, it becomes more apparent that their interests do not lie so much with being left alone as in being granted special privileges and in compelling the rest of us to accept their aberrancy as legitimate.
During the Clinton administration, Americans were assured under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that, if we minded out own affairs, gays would be content to stay to themselves and out of everybody else’s way. However, in the decade or so since that policy first came before the public as a grand socioethical compromise, American politics has seen gays grow increasingly bolder about wearing their sexuality on their sleeves.
Equality use to mean that those aspects of an individual that set them apart from their peers were not taken into consideration when dispensing the rewards of achievement or the privileges of status. Yet as the cognitive and linguistic revolution continues to tear down the traditional understandings of the most basic concepts, equality now means conscientiously taking into account the very characteristics we were once told were of little consequence in determining who among a particular group is worthy of a specific honor.
Democrats, though the record of the Republican leadership is often little better on the issue, have become renowned as supporters of Affirmative Action, the idea that someone deserves a given accolade for no other reason than that the individual happens to belong to an identifiable social group. Now the party of the ass wants to take this controversial public policy one step further by extending it to homosexuals.
Claming they want to be a reflection of America, party leaders across the country are aiming for up to 10% of the delegates to be homosexual --- double the number fielded at the 2000 convention. Never mind the fact that actual estimates for those practicing buggery are considerably lower, giving this population an undue influence over party policy and proceedings.
Regardless of one’s position for or against quotas in relation to racial matters, at least with that issue they can be applied in a manner approaching at least a warped sense of objectivity. For in most instances, a Black person looks like a Black person and the same generally applies for most other ethnic groups.
Homosexuality, on the other hand, is a behavior. Though you can sometimes tell because of the overly feminized behaviors of gay men such as limped wrists and a propensity to squeal like schoolgirls and the tendency of lesbians to exhibit an affinity for flannel shirts and close-cropped haircuts, one cannot always spot a homosexual so easily or with the same degree of certainty of knowing you have stumbled across a Black person or a Chinaman.
Often the only way to ascertain someone’s sexual preference is to ask. But what about the fundamental tenet of the homosexual creed that it’s no one else’s business what goes on in another person’s bedroom between two consenting adults?
Conversely, if privileges are to be granted over aspects of an individual’s nature its practitioners assure us bears no impact upon their qualifications for the beneficence under consideration, aren’t we engaging in a new form of discrimination against those not answering questions about this specific characteristic in a politically correct manner? And if “discrimination”, meaning the application of arbitrary criteria by which to exclude a particular class of individuals from a particular prize or privilege who would other wise be qualified for it, is acceptable in this context, then why is it now unacceptable to apply the standards and qualifications inherent to traditional conceptions of marriage when adhering to these is not a form of discrimination since (to borrow terminology from the world of employment) they are bona fide occupational qualifications that can be met by anyone willing to abide by them --- unlike, of course, the inability to alter one’s race or ethnicity no matter how much one might like to.
Even those swept up in the intoxicating rush of revolutionary fanaticism have to stop and admit such a system is easily prone to abuse. For whereas most of the time you can look at a Black person and tell if they are being truthful about being Black, often you only have someone’s word as to whether or not they are gay.
How are you going to get them to prove it? Show them a bawdy picture and ask them to raise something other than their right hand if they find it appealing if you catch my drift?
Furthermore, in this day of privatized relativism, why should anyone be rewarded over how they like to have their fancy tickled? Some people are repulsed by redheads; does that mean those attracted to this particular follicular coloration deserve political favoritism and patronage made available through special interest groups?
Some just sit back and say, “What else do you expect from a bunch of liberals and radical Democrats? The Boston convention has little bearing on my life.” Thing is, though, radicals are never content to sit back patting each other on the back (maybe on the behind in the case of this crowd) over how broadminded and progressive they are but instead insist upon changing your mind --- or at least your way of life --- whether you want them to or not.
Metaphorically kissing the backsides of gays won’t confine itself to the corridors of Democratic lunacy and foolishness. It will eventually work its way out into the rest of society into places where those opposed to such practices cannot as easily avoid them as is the case with party membership or political participation.
People of sound moral character do what they can to avoid corruption by the debauched extremes of contemporary culture, often separating themselves from the institutions celebrating the most degraded tendencies. However, there some aspects of society such as public education whose demands and influence can’t be avoided absolutely by even the most fastidiously scrupulous citizen.
As part of the system of racial preferences set up under Affirmative Action, many institutions of higher education have funneled scholarship dollars and set aside programs for students who have accomplished little more than having been born into a certain ethnic group. As has transpired at the upper echelons of the Democratic party, some partaking of the same manner of blasphemies at similar levels of power within the corridors of higher education now want to extend preferential treatment to the libidinously aberrant.
At Michigan State University the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans-gender Concerns and the Office of Financial Aide have set up a scholarship exclusively for Black homosexuals. Since this is a public university, much of the finances for this program have no doubt been hijacked from the pockets of taxpayers repulsed by the gay lifestyle.
But even more importantly, by setting up a system of academic recognition that celebrates and rewards perversion, educators are showing students (or as Rush Limbaugh use to call them years ago, young skulls full of mush) that these lifestyles are acceptable and perhaps even preferable if its going to set them up on easy street with all kinds of sweet handouts. After all, what’s permissible in the eyes of the state has a way of becoming a behavioral norm in the minds of many people.
Some natural laws are so fundamental to the moral order of the universe that should the finite, corrupt understanding of man try to recast things to his own twisted likening he will ultimately cause all of the rational foundations culture rests upon to come crashing down all around him. One cannot attempt to legitimize something as antithetical to God’s purpose as homosexuality and not expect such a decision not to impact all other facets of the complicated undertaking referred to as civilization.
Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins