Monday, July 31, 2006
Now we are a bunch of heathens if we stay to ourselves.
According to the author There Is No I In Church, God did not intend us to confide in spouces but rather in the church.
In the episode, host Chuck Crismier says, "The more togethernress that we can experience, the more we are experiencing church the way God designed."
Frankly, if it's with people outside one's immediate family, sounds more like Hell on Earth to me.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
As many age and grow saddened that the pleasures of this life diminish and are to soon come to an end, they often cope with this existential crisis by criticizing the young for behaviors they themselves use to participate in and wish for future generations lives of struggle and material deprivation. Normally, such disgruntled reflection provides a kind of psychological outlet through which to vent pent up frustrations and anxieties, however, it can be cause for concern when those making these kinds of complaints implement such ramblings as the foundation of public policy.
According to WorldNetDaily.com, in a commencement address at Long Island University and in a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Hillary Clinton declared to the youth of the nation that “work is not a four letter word” and that the young have a “sense of entitlement” having grown up in a “culture that has a premium on instant gratification”.
Isn’t a Clinton the last one that should be lecturing us on the perils of instant gratification as the old man pretty much wrote the book on this behavioral pathology throughout the 1990’s? However, it must be noted that what the wicked witch of the east is talking about is not so much the wastefulness and licentiousness endemic to the ruling elite but rather codespeak of revolutionary globalists that the American people enjoy too high a standard of living and must have Third World levels of squalor imposed upon them.
For in justifying her comments, the battle ax continued, “I just want to set the bar high because we are in a competition for the future.” Yet I wonder how much of her salary and book proceeds she is willing to forego for the sake of national productivity.
And it is highly doubtful she is speaking out against welfare recipients, the backbone of the contemporary Democratic Party. Rush Limbaugh observes in a quote in the WorldNetDaily account that Senator Clinton is sponsoring a bill to build 15,000 houses with high speed Internet for those on low income.
It’s bad enough to build houses for the indolent at government expense, but how can you justify giving them high speed Internet? I ask the junior witch from New York who will be getting instant gratification under such a program without working for it?
As the woman who just a few years ago realized “janitors are people to” as if this was some kind of breakthrough in the Grand Unified Theory, Hillary isn’t exactly in touch with those outside the New York/Washington loony bin. After all, her own spawn pulls down a six figure salary as a “consultant”, basically a position where she sits around doing nothing for which her primary qualification is having sprung from their loins of her progenitors.
Apparently, Hillary fails to realize that as politicians like her continue to expand education budgets to the point where almost anyone can acquire one irrespective of whether or not the actually deserve one in terms of aptitude, the value of an education has been diminished to such an extent that pursuing a degree provides the recipient with little economic advantage as college graduates today barely qualify today for jobs --- if the positions have not already been shipped overseas --- that used to be filled by high school graduates. Eventually, Americans will need a PhD in Economics just to say, “Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart.”
Maybe since Hillary has lived high on the hog for so long, it’s time she gave back to the community and all that other it takes a village drivel and herself partake of that low-paid menial labor the rest of us are suppose to be content with.
It seems she is not the only Clinton having done one thing and imposed something else on what to them are the lesser classes of the human race. Apart from his whoring around, one of the things Bill Clinton was most famous for was his love of nutritionally ambiguous snacks. However, if this former President no longer in office has his way, he will hold unprecedented power over what children in public schools will be allowed to ingest; no doubt making them fit little minions of the New World Order in that not only will they have lean bodies fit for all kinds of public project slave labor but also be of diminished critical capacity unaccustomed to questioning what is demanded of them since they will have been conditioned that it is their place to pliantly accept the decisions made for their lives by those claiming to be their betters.
According to an accord hashed out between the Alliance For A Healthier Generation (an entente consisting of the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association) and Cadbury Schwepps, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and the American Beverage Association, only low calorie and nutritious drinks are to be sold in the nation’s public schools. So while Bill Clinton spent a goodly portion of his Presidency shoving sweet things into his mouth and into the mouths of others (some while on their knees under the desk in the Oval Office where Reagan wouldn’t even remove his suit coat much less unzip his pants), if these captains of industry and institutional eleemosynary have their way, school children will be denied the decision regarding what far less offensive syrupy substances they may take into the human body.
Those hoodwinked by all the hype about an obesity epidemic relieved that someone has stepped forward to address this alleged crisis have missed the point. Encase some have forgotten or prefer to live in a liberal fantasyland, Bill Clinton is not the President anymore. Shouldn’t he be out building houses for the homeless or something?
Is it just me or is anyone else as disturbed as I am that unelected personalities not even in the government responsible to no one are able to exert such control over the lives of average Americans as to what we’ll be having for lunch? Shouldn’t the free market influenced by the decisions of individual consumers determine what is on the menu?
Those still not convinced will respond that the concordat only affects public school cafeterias and vended snacks. Students are perfectly free to bring their own junk food from home.
Maybe so for now. But once the initial details are worked out, what is to stop Clinton and his minions from conspiring together and issuing an edict that henceforward food manufacturers will only produce healthy foods such as beansprouts and seaweed? Furthermore, few will be left to resist such a decree as most will have been conditioned since childhood that theirs is not to reason why but to submit cheerfully to the plans both mundane and grandiose of the vaunted overlords.
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. America has yet to fully recover from it’s last go-a-round with the Clintons. I doubt the country could take much more with Hillary in the White House and Bill free to impose his will upon the nation and the world beyond as either a private sector powerhouse or as even Secretary General of the United Nations, as some have proposed, and still retain what little liberty we have remaining.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, July 24, 2006
If Brother Colson is so worked up that the compassionate thing to do is to let the illegals stay, maybe he'll invite them into his own neighborhood to toss their empty corona jugs onto the ground or perhaps give his own high-profile job to someone that will work for less.
Immigrants lose their huggability when you have 15 to 20 of them living in a single family dwelling next door.
A Puerto Rican gal has been crowned Miss Universe.
If Puerto Rico wants to enjoy the niceties of nationhood such as fielding their own Olympic team or sponsoring their own beauty pageant contestants, shouldn’t they surrender even more alluring benefits such as exemption from U.S. taxation, U.S. citizenship, and welfare payments, which according to columnist Michael Barone now top a billion dollars annually?
Diversity mongers will claim that Puerto Rico constitutes a unique culture deserving of such privileges as it enjoys a unique status keeping it distinct from Americas overall national fabric.
Then why doesn’t the District of Columbia get to field their own Miss Universe contestant since residents there have an ambiguous status in terms of Congressional representation?
For that matter, why can’t the states of Dixie field a Miss Confederacy or Southern belle since they have very little in common with lasses from New York?
After all, did not the Beach Boys elaborate the distinctions of females originating from the different parts of the country?
If so, why should Puerto Rico be allowed to have their cake and welfare too?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 21, 2006
Irvin Baxter in this edition of Politics & Religion points out that at least with the European Union the nations and people involved got to vote on the issues whereas the Bush Administration is imposing hemispheric union without approval or legislative consultation.
From the July 18, 2006 broadcast of Generations Radio, once again it’s always the man’s fault.
In this edition, host Kevin Swanson lamented the state of the contemporary male as sexual predator, but unless he has gone over to the side of feminism like so many in the Evangelical church have, why doesn’t he also point out the deviant nature of the modern female as well as just as many of them are out to use men these days as the most lecherous of men in regards to the opposite sex.
Seems to me the Reformed perspective does not make a distinction between the degree of total depravity to be found between the sexes.
Are not both genders possessed by the same sin nature seeking to maximize its own debased desires?
Another troublesome comment was regarding how men should be willing to die for women.
Such should only be the case if the man has a wife and family for in the Bible it says a man should love his wife as Christ loved the church; not that men are to feel this way towards every gal that comes along.
For if I am not married, no woman has pledged fealty unto me as the church has done Christ.
Rather than women and children first when it comes to getting into the lifeboats, shouldn’t it be women WITH children first primarily for the sake of the children rather than for the benefit of the woman?
Why is the life of some single woman anymore valuable than that of a single man?
Frankly, unless one has volunteered for military service, one should not be expected to die for someone else’s family, especially if the woman in question has no emotional connection to you.
For while the father has a primal instinctual need to preserve his line, the single man has no such vested genetic interest. Thus once the children are aboard, why shouldn’t the women wait in line like everybody else?
Edmund Burke once said that in order to love my country, my country must be lovely. Likewise, in order to die for a woman, they must be worth dieing for and frankly nowadays, most of them are not worth the trouble.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 20, 2006
From ecology, it has been learned that a complex interplay of factors and forces results in the balance of nature that environmentalists insist can be easily thrown out of whack should any one of these readings stray too far from the optimal norms. As the pinnacle of the food chain, a number of these principles apply to human beings and their societies as well.
For example, one of the strongest human desires is to copulate and produce children. These urges are kept in check by the responsibility of having to provide for and take care of the offspring that could potentially result from the physical intermingling of man and woman preferably in the context of binding matrimony.
As such, most rational people discipline themselves to have no more children than they are capable of taking care of. However, Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams wants to upset the delicate balance by instituting a program where government school students in the city could receive three meals per day at government expense.
Supporters say the program would “take a big step towards ending child hunger.” However, such a proposal hardly has the best interests of children at heart.
For by taking over the task of procuring and distributing the nutritional allotments of some 20,000 children, the government is unhinging from parenthood one of the fundamental reasons for this most important of human undertakings, namely providing for the kids you yourself had the fun of making.
Very few are going to have the courage to admit it, but often the families enrolled in these assistance programs are rarely ever headed by model parents. Now being freed almost entirely of the burden of expending their energies tending to the progeny they do have, by no longer having to provide three meals a day, what is to prevent parents tottering along the edge of delinquency and neglect from either spending the money freed up by not having to pick up most of the family food tab during the week on luxuries they don’t deserve such as plasma screen TV’s and nose piercings or to revel in additional promiscuity resulting in additional babies they have no intentions of raising properly?
Those wracked by the sex fever gripping our society will invoke their favorite refrain that it’s nobody’s business how those on public assistance conduct their lives. Maybe so if these people had kept their business to themselves and not come forward to suckle off the public teat with the same lack of discretion they exhibited in bedding multiple partners. But once these people come forward and admit they are unable to effectively run their own lives by demanding assorted forms of assistance despite not suffering from a crippling disability, the matter becomes the business of all taxpayers.
Another fundamental question few have the courage to ask in this overly communitarian age is why do the rest of us have to pay for other people’s kids to eat? Frankly, are these kids even starving?
Though the American people have been duped into believing these meals are all that stand between the youngsters that receive them and malnutrition, that is not necessarily the case. For you see, in DC, students are eligible for free breakfasts irrespective of income.
Theoretically, citizens of modest means could end up financing the meals of the well-to-do such as members of Congress or successful interest group functionaries. Who’s to say the expanded program won’t invite all comers to dine at the government trough?
Neither is the program simply about the bare nutrition needed to survive. With low cost stores such as Wal-Mart, Aldi’s, Save-A-Lot, and even Dollar Tree there is no reason why any self-respecting parent can’t get some kind of food into their offsprings’ bellies.
They might not eat like kings and their parents might have to delay getting that tattoo or the gold teeth they wanted, but to put it bluntly, no where are these luxuries guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or the Declaration for those unwilling to provide for themselves. If they can work their tails in bars and nightclubs, they can work their hands on the jobsite or in the office.
One of the most memorable lines ever uttered on the Simpsons (quite an accomplishment on this television classic with so many memorable moments) was set in the future when Lisa Simpson is President. Milhaus as presidential advisor says to her that the only thing school lunches and midnight basketball got us was a generation of supercriminals that didn’t requite sleep.
In many ways, the human economy is as delicate and as beautiful as the natural environment. And like it, should any one of the components be unduly stimulated, the whole system faces the possibility of collapse with civilized man becoming yet another endangered species.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Particularly interesting were the comments of how a foreign power such as China could take over the Mexican ports upon which the U.S. would be dependent and essentially starve America into compliance by cutting off the food supply.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Monday, July 17, 2006
From this sermon, one get’s the impression it’s Biblical to pawn your daughter off as spoils of war since, according to Judges 1:13 Caleb offered his daughter to the first man to take a certain hill, but immoral to let single daughters having reached the age of majority live on their own.
Many sermons lament the number of broken marriages occurring within the church. Maybe if more pastors preached actual doctrine rather than invoking obbsure historical references to justify their own theological peculiarities such as the impropriety of otherwise chaste dating and condemnation upon the single for not having gotten married, maybe there would be fewer divorces within the kingdom of God since believers would then be making decisions reflective of the Lord's will for their own lives rather than being pressured into situations because the preacher did not know when to keep his mouth shut.
According to the Detroit Free Press, the numbers of Freemasons are in decline.
Given the tendency of this protocultic organization to lure members in through established churches and religious organizations, perhaps this is the reason so many across the spectrum of Christian theology are today harping COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY until they almost want to make you puke.
For in the call to thrust your nose ever more completely into the affairs and business of your neighbors, you will notice that most of these clerics harken back to the glories of a supposedly less individualistic era earlier in America history.
This alleged golden age just also happens to coincide with the time when greater numbers belonged to these quasi-occultic fraternities.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
C.S. Lewis is renowned as one of the foremost Christian thinkers of the twentieth century. Despite being an Anglican and exhibiting a number of tendencies making him a bit of an iconoclast among his fellow believers, C.S. Lewis has been fondly embraced by a broad swath of the church in part because of his efforts to promote a version of the Christian faith amicable towards all denominations by appealing to what all of these theological niches have in common, which could be referred to as mere Christianity.
As such, one of Lewis’ best known apologetic texts is titled none other than Mere Christianity. Originally presented as a series of broadcast talks, Lewis vetted much of his text past four members of the clergy --- an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic --- in order to keep denominational idiosyncrasies to a minimum. Because of such conscientious effort, the Christian finds in Mere Christianity a rational defense of the faith of considerable sophistication.
Mere Christianity begins as a recitation of what is known as the moral argument for the existence of God. According to Lewis, the moral law consists of the fundamental rules by which the universe operates and to which all residing within are bound. And even though considerable intellectual resources have been expended to deny its existence, not even those making it their life’s purpose to undermine these eternal principles can escape from them try as they might. Lewis observes, “Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him, he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say ‘Jack Robinson’ (5).”
The very fact that human beings are able to argue that one set of moral claims is superior to another, Lewis observes, is itself proof that some kind of higher law exists. Lewis writes, “Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer has committed a foul unless there was some kind of agreement about the rules of football (4).”
Lewis notes, “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring...Christian morality to Nazi morality...If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something --- some real morality --- for them to be true about (11).” Thus, the standard by which human moralities are judged stem from a source apart and above them.
From establishing that natural law exists, Lewis moves on to examine where this eternal law originates from. Lewis postulates there are approximately two sources that this law could possibly originate from: the materialist view that the principles governing the universe arose through a process of chance and the religious view that the universe was established by a conscious mind. And since the law comes to us in the form of principles and instructions, this would seem to conclude that the promulgator of this law would have to be mind rather than inanimate matter.
Despite the fact that the universe was meant to run according to moral law, it is obvious from a quick look around that the moral agents operating within it fail to live up to these noble ideals as we are regularly aware of even our own shortcomings. As such, the universe requires a divine intervention to set things right. Lewis writes, “Enemy occupied territory --- that is what the world is. Christianity is the story of how the rightful king has landed...and is calling us all to take part in a great campaign of sabotage (36).” This king is none other than Jesus, whom from his own claims, must be God or, as Lewis famously points out, is a lunatic “on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg or a devilish liar (41).” It was the primary purpose of Jesus to suffer and die so that our sins might be forgiven so that we might be made whole in Him.
Fundamental as this message is to man’s eternal salvation, Mere Christianity is also full of practical observations less cosmic and more down to earth. Lewis writes, “Theology is practical. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology...It will mean that you have a lot of...bad muddled, out of date ideas (120.)” Many of theology’s practical concerns manifest themselves in the form of morality.
Lewis lists morality as being concerned with three matters: harmony between individuals, the inner life of the individual, and the general purpose of human life as a whole (57). Lewis observes that different beliefs about the universe will naturally result in different behaviors and those closest to the truth will produce the best results (58).
Lewis demonstrates how this phenomena manifests itself in a number of ethical spheres, sex being one of interest to just about all people. It is this obsession with sex, Lewis point out, that shows just how out of whack contemporary morality has become. Lewis comically comments that the level to which this biological impulse has been elevated in our own society is akin to a land where the inhabitants have such a prurient interest in food beyond nourishment and wholesome pleasure that the inhabitants watch a plate containing a mutton chop that is uncovered just before the lights go out (75). Ironically, Lewis points out, such deviancy is not usually the result of starvation but rather overindulgence.
Though Lewis is witty in regards to most issues he addresses, even in regards to this beloved Oxford professor, the Christian must remember to be a Berean and measure even his formidable intellect by the standard of Biblical truth. Unfortunately, there are at least two matters that must be approached with caution.
Lewis likens the process of change we go through as Christians to the biological theory of recapitulation where it is believed an embryo passes through the various phases of evolution during development in the womb. Of the process, Lewis writes, “We were once like vegetables, and once rather like fish; it was only at a later stage that we became like human babies (159).”
One hopes that had Lewis lived until more technologically advanced times that he would have not retained this scientifically erroneous theory. For at its most innocent, it is used to justify Darwinisim and from Lewis’ statement one could very well use it to justify abortion.
From another passage, it would seem Lewis tottered dangerously close to a “proto-universalism” in his thought. Lewis writes, “There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it (162).”
John 14:6 says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” And Acts 4:12 says, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
In writing Mere Christianity, Lewis does a commendable job overall of balancing the theoretical and practical concerns of the faith. As such, Mere Christianity will no doubt continue as a classic apologetics text for decades to come.
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 14, 2006
Thursday, July 13, 2006
If this was done anywhere else, this would be called cultural genocide; but since it is the rural American middle class, it will be called "progress".
Freedom21 Santa Cruz examines how sustainable development is being used to curb individual liberty and implement global government.
An interesting segment also goes into detail about the proposed transnational highway being built extending through Central America, up through the United States, and into Canada.
This is of particular significance since China now controls both ends of the Panama Canal and could easily use this proposed thoroughfare predicted to be ten lanes wide in each direction to very well launch an invasion into much of North America.
The discussion also does a superb job of pointing out the movement to eliminate the gas tax and replace it with a mileage tax designed to condition the individual into the mindset that travel is a privilege granted to us by our "beneficent" overseers rather than a right.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
According to this Michelle Malkin column, these La Raza schools don't want to drink the White man's water.
Perhaps we should force them to be consistent and refuse to give them any of the White man's money.
Use to be, those that sent their children to religious schools instead of the secularist counterpart were derided as closet racists.
Now that the most radical of minority activists have set up their own advocating Marxist revolution, we not only give them a hearty round of applause but grant them an audience with the President's own Sith apprentice as well as a hefty handout in the process.
by Frederick Meekins
Speculation is beginning to fly whether or not the daughter of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes even exists.
While the couple might be within their rights to withhold public photos of the baby girl, on Fox News it was insinuated that even Hollywood friends and associates have yet to see the little one and a number of discepancies have surfaced regarding the birth certificate since the document was filed late and there is some hanypanky regarding signatures on it.
Given the strange birthing rituals of the Scientologist cult, it wouldn't surprise me if the child was still-born or passed away shortly there after. The one's I feel sorry for are the parents that will probably have a baby snatched from them so Cruise and his concubine can continue this facade.
If it turns out that Cruise is perpetrating some kind of fraud, lets see him wiggle out of this one bouncing up and down on Oprah's sofa.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Monday, July 10, 2006
Saturday, July 08, 2006
In websurfacing David Barton's Wallbuilders website, I clicked on the link for his organization's pastor's briefing.
At this event, Christian ministry leaders (common believers not being good enough apparently) are given a tour of the Capitol building by Barton and Christian members of Congress detailing the religious symbolism throughout the building.
Are regular Christians somehow not pious enough or simply too stupid to hear this information from the Holy Barton himself and must instead receive it second hand from their pastors?
Apart from the hypocrisy that Barton himself would not qualify to go on his own tour since he is technically not a pastor but a historian, Christians should be more concerned about something else on the Wallbuilders site.
On the site’s registration page for the tour, apart from asking for name, address, and ministerial affiliation of the applying cleric (no doubt to weed out those in the laity unworthy of an audience with such auspicious elites), one of the blanks the applicant is forced to fill out asks for race.
Why in the name of Lincoln’s beard is this any of Barton’s business?
Scripture says that in Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew. Unless Barton is looking for a spouse for his children among those gathered, what bearing should the ethnicity of those assembled have on his presentation? And for those offended that I dared to insinuate that it’s OK to take someone’s race into consideration when contemplating matrimony, shouldn’t you get even more upset it is being considered here for something less permanent or intimate?
Those conditioned to blithely accept what they are told to do without additional reflection simply because someone from behind a pulpit or on television told them to will likely conjecture, “Well, in this Post-9/11 world security at the Capitol might simply need to know who’s going to show up at the door and ethnicity is simply one of the easiest ways to initially confirm identity.”
But if that’s the only concern and someone was really up to no good, what’s to prevent the ne’er-do-well from assuming the identity of someone of a similar phenotype as themselves?
However, it is safe to assume that security played little reason in compelling those wanting to attend the briefing to reveal this information. For elsewhere on the site listing the dates of these events, web browsers find a date set aside for African American pastors underneath of which it reads, “African American Pastors Only".
As I mentioned in recent commentary, Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status not for violating any law but for transgressing “public policy” for not allowing interracial dating even though it permitted Blacks to attend the school. Shouldn’t Barton face similar sanctions since he is going even further by denying accommodations to some of his programs solely on the basis of race, the very definition of discrimination?
The weak-minded having fallen for multiculturalism and diversity will respond that due to the unique circumstances of the Black experience that those of this particular background might not feel comfortable addressing these sensitive issues in the presence of White devils (eh, I mean people). If this is the case, will Barton dismiss himself from his own seminar since he is not Black or is this once again an example of where those in leadership are not going to abide by the same rules they wish to impose upon the rest of us?
I did not see a date set aside for “White Pastors Only”. Aren’t Whites just as entitled to discuss these matters since in mixed company nowadays Caucasians, as Shelby Steele points out in White Guilt : How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era, are likely to self-censor themselves for fear of being categorized as racist by Black malcontents ready to bounce on a misinflected word or misdirected glance like a shark waiting for the first drop of blood to hit the water to commence a feeding frenzy.
For the past several years various tolerancemongers in Evangelical circles have beat the White brethren over the head for being reluctant to attend Black churches (often because of the raucous and borderline disorderly worship services many in this ethnic group are known for) by lamenting 11 am Sunday’s is the “most segregated” hour in America. Isn’t it about time we chastise these very same leaders when they turn around and praise this behavior in other ethnic groups when the natural tendency to prefer the company of one’s own breed of man when it manifests itself in instances beyond reason or wholesomeness?
On TBN’s Praise the Lord program, David Barton gave an eloquent exposition on how the Ku Klux Klan has traditionally been more of a phenomena of the Democratic Party. Frankly, it is saddening that such an insightful historian would cave to political correctness so easily and endorse what amounts to a retread of the pernicious notion of Separate But Equal.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 07, 2006
Monday, July 03, 2006
According to this story, conservative website Townhall.com is to relaunch July 4, 2006.
From this MSNBC/Newsweek article, this portal once overseen by the Heritage Foundation will now be under the auspices of Salem Communications and Hugh Hewitt.
Hopefully, it won't decay into a mouthpiece for high-profile GOP hosts but rather maintain the high degree of interactivity that often characterized the soapbox forums of the site since pro-conservative does not anymore mean unwavering Republican.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Saturday, July 01, 2006
In the commonwealth where Patrick Henry intoned, "Give me liberty or give me death" there is considerably less liberty to die for.
A Virginia law is requiring colleges and universities in the Old Dominion to hand over the names and social security numbers of students to be checked against the jurisdiction's sex offender registry.
While one can understand the need to keep the perverts away from little children, why does the state need to know if these sickos are enrolled in higher education?
After all, the majority of those enrolled in these institutions are of the age of majority and are free to decide for themselves with whom they want to have conjugal relations as we are told ad nauseam by those on college campuses dishing out the condoms and scrawling in chalk all over the sidewalks just how much they love their privates.
If those engaged in these kinds of acts are so bad that authorities have a vested interest in keeping track of their whereabouts (as it is argued), why aren't they locked away with the key thrown away?
Chief sponsor of the bill Kenneth W. Stolle told the Washington Post, “I've got two kids in college right now. You're going to have a . . . hard time explaining to me why my daughter is living next door to a sexual offender. My guess is every parent out there would have the same expectation that I do."
Maybe if college-aged women dressed a bit more modestly and didn’t drink like fish, the vast majority would not have to worry all that much about these libidinous males; for while many on the list are violent from whom the innocent should be protected, since this rogues gallery of wandering hands now includes the non-violent, many are themselves now simply victims of “he said, she said” where the so-called lady had second thoughts because the fellow saw no need to send flowers the next day since what he wanted had already been so freely given.
Proponents of the law will argue that the law will inform administrators of potential offenders roaming their campuses. But is this about keeping the disturbed in check or simply yet another excuse to pry into the lives of average Americans?
For if one is by nature prurient and obsessed with doing prurient things, why would one knowingly place oneself on the radar screen of those charged with overseeing the safety of those one desires to prey upon? One would simply roam the campus without enrolling as a student; how does vetting students’ social security numbers (itself a questionable legal usage of these numerical identifiers) solve your problem there?
We could protect society from the sexually deviant by conducting raids from house to house and hold random ID checks on the streets. Maybe we should get public officials on record where they stand on such invasions of privacy and why they are appreciably different than having the various children of the Beast in the form of the different government agencies and institutions transferring vast amounts of personal data back and form between one another.
Those not enrolled in tertiary education thinking this does not involve them are in for a bit of a surprise; for this same legislation also requires that whenever a Virginia resident applies for a license or change of address their name will also be checked against the registry.
Unwilling to admit the existence of sin, personal guilt for these moral offenses has been diminished by reclassifying these misdeeds as behavioral disorders. So instead of making the errant shameful over what they have done, we rewrite the law so that we are all suspects standing in a single nationwide lineup.
By Frederick Meekins