This audio sermon is a good summary of this spiritual danger.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
A driver has deliberately rundown people in 12 locations throughout the San Francisco area, killing at least one pedestrian.
Omeed Aziz Popal was arrested as a result of the incident.
But because his is hardly a good solid Irish or German name, most accounts throughout the country have deliberately omitted the moniker of the alleged perpetrator.
Had his name been Joe Bob Lumpkin, tolerancemongers would have alreadytaken to the airwaves denouncing this deed as a hate crime and called upon additional federal oversite of the attitudes espoused by motorists, especially those daring to purchase SUV's.
But because this weirdo is probably a Muslim or some kind of sympathetic foreigner, once again sensitivity has been placed above survival.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 28, 2006
Less than four months until Christmas. Get your copy of "Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors".
Saturday, August 26, 2006
For years, enemies of mankind such as Steve Irwin and Jeff Corwin have duped the American people into believing we have nothing to fear from allowing megafauna to trundle unimpeded across the face of the continent.
On these propaganda pieces disguised as informative educational programming, we are told that alligators and black bears wouldn't harm a hair on a human head.
However, three deaths at the mouths of ravenous reptiles and the report of a child being mauled to death by a black bear makes you stop and wonder if the wrong people weren't eaten for the sake of the gene pool.
The next time citizens hear of pleas by environmentalists to reintroduce extinct species, they would do well to think back to the tragedy befalling these individuals and their families.
And this will likely become a more prominent issue in the years ahead. With the advent of sciences on par with something out of Jurassic Park, we are talking about more than a stray pack of wolves here and there.
According to one Reuters news story published in August 2005, suggestions are being made to reintroduce elephants and large cats such as lions and cheetahs to the North American continent since it is claimed such creatures roamed the countryside over 10,0000 years ago.
Couple this with the desire to conjure mammoths and sabretooth tigers from hypergenetic witchcraft, and we could have a real nightmare on our hands.
Those worshipping the creation rather than the creator will argue that in all these instances sounding like episodes of the Fox Network's "When Animals Attack", the human victims were at fault for intruding on the territory of the predator in question, and since naturalistic evolution teaches we are no better than the animals, these victims got what they deserved.
But frankly, where are humans suppose to live and if we are to be denied firearms if the gun control lobby has its way, how will we be allowed to defend ourselves?
By unleashing wild animals in the areas beyond designated human sanctuaries (a nice euphemism for relocation compounds), the government will not have to round people up or even offer them much of a payment for their property. The unprotected will be scratching at the door to get on the inside.
Already it is pretty much against the law to protect your loved ones and property from these creatures to which the elites have abdicated humanity’s rightful place at the top of the food chain.
In East Manatee, Florida, a retired lady marine was cited for hunting without a license for shooting an alligator when the ravenous reptile lunged through her doggie door on her patio in an attempt to make a quick snack of her golden retriever.
Those promoting evolution and other heresies about nature claim they advocate an equality of species.
However, unless they plan to bring up the trespassing gator on charges as well, what is really being implemented is a systematized human inferiority where we will not only be denied the right to live where we want but also the right to protect ourselves as well.
Had the gator lunged at the presidential pooch, the Secret Service detail would no doubt made quick work of the scaly assassin. If we are to maintain the perception that in the American system that there are no aristocrats or nobility, on what grounds can we deny the average citizen the same right to protect life and property?
In the NBC drama "Surface", the giant monsters prowling the depths of the sea turned out not to be creatures from outer space but rather produced in a laboratory, it was alluded to as the season drew towards its conclusion, for the purposes of a systematic campaign of depopulation where the elites would eventually emerge from their undersea bunker to reclaim a new Eden.
If people do not awaken soon, they might very well find their property, their freedom, and even their very children on the menu of the inaugural feast of the New World Order.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 25, 2006
Those in favor of the cultural and demographic changes sweeping over the United States as a result of immigration would do well to consider the discovery of an archeological site in Mexico where evidence has been discovered suggesting that the Aztecs did not have the Spanish over for dinner but rather had the Spanish for dinner.
For the Mexicans pouring into the United States as part of the downplayed insurgency actually taking place draw inspiration not from the Spanish side of their ancestry but rather from the homicidal, cannibalistic savages commemorated by the name "Azatlan" which they plan to rechristen upon the triumph of their subversions.
Already in their ruminations they claim there will be no place for the White man in their paganized empire.
As in the Germany of the 1940's, it is only a few short steps from posting signs saying "Whitey Keep Out" or "Get Lost Gringo" to implementing the Final Solution to the so-called "Caucasian Problem'.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Monday, August 21, 2006
Nowadays, if you glance at a police officer the wrong way, its 200,000 volts with a stun gun with the likelihood of additional shock if the cop doesn't like it that you happen to convulse and twitch after falling to the ground.
However, instead of being bound and gagged for his return trip to America, accused child killer and all around sicko John Mark Karr was subject to no such deprivations.
Instead, the aspiring predator shipped champagne and dined on roast duck and king size shrimp.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, August 19, 2006
According to reports, a trendy Chicago suburb voted “the sexiest suburb in America” may be on the verge of banishing from its venues of commerce those not conforming to arbitrarily contrived body aesthetics.
Lane Bryant, a retailer known for marketing clothing to full-sized women, has been denied the opportunity to open a store in a development called “The Village Of Oak Park”.
Before the hypercapitalists decide to slit my throat as they are wont to do whenever anyone dares to question a decision made by big business, it must be noted that the decision to deny Lane Bryant the retail space was not made by a private sector firm or entrepreneur but rather by the committee managing the village, an entity quasigovernmental in nature.
The bureaucratic mouthpiece for the community association told the press that, “Lane Bryant is not the kind or quality of shop that is desire for development,” and, “We want a more broad based retailer benefiting the village, rather than a niche market.”
In other words, “Fat chicks, keep out.” For unless the Village --- a term as almost as nauseating as COMMUNITY as it is usually invoked by an insular elite out to micromangage the lives of those residing in a particular locality --- is planning to open a Wal-Mart or a Target (places these Communitarian types despise even more than the overweight), by definition the retailer would otherwise serve a niche market.
For example, does Oak Park Village plan to offer a men’s clothier? By default, such an establishment would be niche because of excluding women’s garments. Does the Village plan to have an electronics store? By definition, wouldn’t that be a niche retailer since it would not sell groceries?
The rich and snooty thinking it is their place to tell us poor working slobs how to live and how we are not quite as good as they are since the names slapped across our rearends didn’t cost quite as much as theirs will look down their elevated noses and claim that what I describe above has nothing to do with niche retailing. Rather a broad-based retailer would provide raiment for members of the retailer’s targeted genders.
Maybe so, but the person slightly above “average” in size can hardly ever find attrative clothes in these places catering to the malnourished and emaciated. One is often more likely to find the Holy Grail than a decent shoe above a size 12 in many of these places.
In a Chicago Tribune account of the dispute, it is claimed that Villagistas banished Lane Bryant because there was already a place reserved for a full size specialty store. So what?
Is it really the place of a municipal authority or even a residential association to make such economic decisions? Consumers should be the ones to decide whether the market can bear two merchants appealing to a similar demographic. If it cannot, one will eventually fold opening space for a new establishment; if it can, consumers will be all the better off as both venues will compete for customer dollars through either discounts or choices of selection.
All local authorities should do is to make sure the area surrounding the mall is crime free and to eagerly take in any tax revenue to accrue from otherwise free and unfettered commerce. However, it is this idea of consumer choice that the proponents of the “New Urbanism” cannot really stand as they use their cloak of diversity to impose a mandatory conformity.
Many advocating this perspective on public planning are appalled at the idea of the cinema multiplex where moviegoers have a selection of motion pictures to choose from. To the Communitarians, we are to have a limited media so that we are all exposed to the same thing and thus have community thrust upon us through a uniformity of thought. Seems choice is only to be allowed when promiscuous vixens decide to have their unborn children hacked to pieces.
Today, Oak Park Village conspires to retain its distinction as “sexiest suburb” by taking steps to ensure that all those fat people the anti-obesity racket has labeled “unsightly and unattractive” use these facilities at a minimum. What is to prevent them from banning such people all together?
Don’t laugh. Shu Bartholomew hosts an informative webcast called “On The Commons Radio” that catalogs episode after episode the abuses of power and unbelievable petty bylaws endemic to the system of homeowner associations sweeping across the United States like a plague of locusts devouring all the liberties stranded in their path.
On her guest appearance on Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, another eye opening broadcast warning of the dangers of contemporary community planning and the like, Shu detailed the plight of one homeowner that had to have the family dog weighed periodically to ensure that the canine did not go a few ounces over the weight stipulated for pets in the residential association regulations.
What is to stop a similar law or regulation from being promulgated that people over a certain size are not permitted to live in a particular housing development? Ridiculous, those of limited perspective might snap.
But is it? Already various community development authorities are manipulating the rules of the game to attract the kinds of people they want to allow into their own little versions of utopia.
For example, in Hyattsville, Maryland, subsidized housing is being set aside for so-called “struggling-artists” even though hardly anyone else either can afford the dilapidated housing ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 with tax bills over $3000 a year (as Dolly Parton use to quip regarding her own appearance, it sure costs a lot to look so cheap). Another program paid for at public expense around the country gives preferential mortgages to teachers.
Neither artists nor teachers make that much less than us common folks and are often found on the more shiftless end of the labor spectrum. If anything, the members of these respective occupational classes given over to the radicalism infecting much of the intelligentsia have done the most to subvert this great nation over the past few decades.
Those favoring the malnourished look wouldn’t really need to be all that openly hostile initially in their campaign to banish the portly from these oases of optimal nutrition and fitness. In the name of health, municipalities and residential associations could enact rules demanding those living in a certain area participate in COMMUNITY exercise programs and those caught snacking on certain foods or weighing over a certain amount could be forced to pay a fine (or as such assessments are called in the Owellian lexicon) an additional fee.
Already the White House is conspiring to measure the urinary byproducts of dope in various sewer systems around the nation. I am sure some clever chemist could devise some kind of test to determine what kinds of snack foods are being excreted by the eating public.
Once Americans have been conditioned to accept increased dietary oversight, additional measures could eventually be introduced. For example, those refusing to comply with the promulgated standards of body aesthetics in reference to weight despite incurring the established financial disincentives could be relocated to cellulite liquidation centers where, of course, they would never be heard from again.
Some might laugh and say that in America such action would never be taken against those failing to abide by such arbitrary standards. At one time, the very same people said a government agency would never tell a property manager what retailer might set up shop in a private facility or seize a beloved home that’s been in a family for generations just to placate the influential as evident in the threat posed be eminent domain.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 18, 2006
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
According to the Department of Homeland Security itself, x-ray machines that screen airline passengers cannot detect explosives.
So unless the devices are being used to further increase the risks of cancer or to further condition the American people into doing as we are told without complaint, then what's the point.
But then again, maybe those reasons are the point.
Perhaps Americans should stop and consider this before they rush headlong into implementing other measures supposedly being enacted for our own good that won't do a thing to stop an actual act of terrorism such as the Real ID Act but merely tighten the chains around the neck of the American people.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, August 14, 2006
With much attention focused on the danger posed by eminent domain, one does not hear as much about the threat posed by "wetland preservation" as you once did.
However, in this interesting discussion, Sharon Hughes points out though this environmental smokescreen governments can effectively sieze control of your property without even having to compensate you for it.
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Over the course of the modern era, whether fairly or not, orthodoxy has come to be associated with glumness and austerity. Thus, those coming across Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton might assume they are in for a dull and obtuse recitation of doctrine and dogma. They will, however, be delightfully surprised by Chesterton’s wit, feistiness, and zest for life.
It is Chesterton’s contention that, rather than stifling the individual, it is through orthodoxy that man is liberated to both accept and embrace the contradictions of this life for what they really are in all their wonder and horror. It is the heretic that is unable to rise to a level that would give him a perspective that would enable him to appreciate things as they actually are since the heretic is ultimately beholden unto these very forces of life. Chesterton muses, “Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true (22).”
Often, believers are accused of being close minded. However, Chesterton contends that Christians are no more close minded than the adherents of any other outlook. Chesterton writes, “For we must remember that the materialist philosophy...is certainly much more limiting than any religion...The Christian is quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe. But the materialist is not allowed to admit into his spotless machine the slightest speck of spiritualism or miracle (41).”
As a result, the heterodox mind must increasingly withdrawal from a world that declares the glory of God in order to maintain the consistency of the fiction it has constructed. For example, in illustrating views regarding the existence of sin, Chesterton offers the following humorous illustration, “If it be true...that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat (24).”
Those adverse to traditional religious notions have constructed elaborate epistemological systems in an attempt to justify their unbelief. However, Chesterton assures, such intellects (though formidable by human standards in terms of the facts such minds have accumulated) actually bear a startling resemblance to the insane.
Like the insane, rationalists view themselves as the source of all meaning. In the struggle and strain to understand everything, Chesterton notes, the consistent rationalist is actually driven mad as they end up losing everything but their reason. Chesterton observes, “The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad; he begins to think at the wrong end...But we may ask in conclusion, if this be what drives men mad, what is it that keeps them sane (48)?”
The answer provided by Chesterton is none other than the mystical imagination found in religious orthodoxy. The thing about the cosmos human beings occupy is that is both physically and epistemologically too complex for the finite mind to fully comprehend. The only thing we can do is appreciate what we can and to accept that there is a power beyond us. Chesterton notes, “The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable but not quite (148).”
Chesterton further likens the spiritual realm to two wild horses threatening to bolt off into the extremities of either direction with only the church adhering to orthodoxy capable of reining in these powerful tendencies that are good and pure when kept together as a team but result in heartache and ruin if not kept working together in tandem. Ironically, Chesterton claims, though often depicted as scatterbrained the best poets (actually quite sensible and businesslike) are often the ones embodying the spirit necessary for handling this awesome responsibility. For what the average person desires above all else is a life of practical romance defined by Chesterton as “the combination of something that is strange with something that is secure (16).” And what is any more mysterious and secure at the same time than God Himself?
Written in the early years of the twentieth century, some of the authors mentioned by Chesterton might seem obscure to readers not that familiar with general literary history. However, the fact that they have been forgotten while Chesterton is still embraced as a foremost defender of the faith is a positive testament to the relevance of Chesterton’s ruminations that, though written nearly a century ago, ring with a truth that sounds as if they just rolled off the presses.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Ben Franklin is attributed with saying that those desiring safety above liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty. If one particular proposal being suggested as a potential solution to the seemingly insurmountable immigration problem is implemented, those living in the United States --- both those with the right to be here as well as those that should be tossed back over the border --- will have neither safety nor liberty.
Both the chairman of Verichip and the President of Columbia are on record as suggesting that the vaunted guest workers heralded as the future backbone of the U.S. economy could be implanted with radio frequency identification chips in order to ease security concerns by tracking the movements of migrants and reliably confirming their identities.
Citizens might respond, “So? This doesn’t concern us. This only applies to those that want to come here in compliance with the law and the first thing any law-abiding person does is always comply with the law no matter what.” You know, a variation of the old why-are-you-so-concerned-about-privacy-if-you- haven’t-got-anything-to-hide thing.
The program might start off implanting only foreigners, but little will prevent this program from being expanded to include citizens once full Americans have been conditioned to accept biochips. For the proposal to inject aliens with homing devices is nothing more than a technologically sophisticated manner through which to transform citizenship into a legal and economic irrelevancy and as a way to bring about the demise as Americans as a distinct and robust people in the world
In the future when the world will no longer be characterized by independent sovereign states but instead organized around regional or hemispheric districts, the privileges (as rights will no longer exist) one will be permitted to enjoy at the whim of global planners will not be based upon the natural rights bestowed upon the individual by God Himself but whether one has bended his knee before the masters of the end of the age and submitted to their global order by accepting the identification chip.
Those whose perceptions are confined by the realities of the immediate present and unable to conceptualize anything in the future beyond getting drunk next weekend can’t imagine Americans submitting willingly to a program of such extensive control. Yet we are already well down that path. All in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans just about now do a striptease in airports, have been compelled to drink their own breast milk, think little of the government rifling through their library records, and will probably not make much of a fuss about the NSA colleting dossiers right off their MySpace profiles.
All the government has to do to get the population to accept monitoring chips is to continue to do little to deter or interdict every piece of human refuse thinking it’s their place to mosey on into the United States (without respect for our laws, language or culture) and demand we acquiesce to their inferior way of life. If the acolytes of the chip promise that the device will dramatically cut down on undesirables while ensuring that this technology will allow the sincere (both native born and newcomer alike) to be able to contribute to the American economy, the naive will flock in droves to prove their fealty to the hemispheric union and ultimately the global order.
Despite the preeminent threat biochips pose to human liberty as well as their spiritual implications described in Revelation 13, such a proposal is actually quite revealing as to what the quasi-open border crowd actually thinks of Hispanics and others coming to our shores (or perhaps more precisely right on through our shores without even stopping).
Elites claim that, if anything, they want to see an increase in the levels of immigration and to legalize most of those already here out of their compassion for the downtrodden of the earth and out of appreciation for diverse cultures. What they really want is to reduce everyone below their lofty status to the level of a glorified slave class.
At the rally on the Mall in Washington, DC lauding the wonders of illegal immigration, a litany of radical liberals aided and abetted this criminal act by complaining how, if illicit cross border migration was curtailed these, elites would lose their steady stream of cheap labor. And in all the fancy rhetoric about the wonders of legalizing those in violation of the nation’s immigration laws the politicians, activists, and bigwigs , conveniently neglected to mention how these new additions will be incorporated into the system of statutes and regulations already bearing down on the American economy.
For example, unscrupulous businessmen often employ illegals because of their below the radar status so these firms can reimburse these laborers at rates lower than that proscribed by law. But when these workers are granted an occupational legality equivalent to that enjoyed by all other citizens and properly documented aliens, won’t those now bestowed the right to remain here through the alchemy of legislative and bureaucratic hocus pocus have to be given the same pay and workplace protections as everybody else? More likely, these guidelines will be altered or overlooked in their entirety to drag us all down to the squalor and poverty characteristic of the Latin American barrio.
Been giving the boss some lip about not getting a raise; you better watch out. Not only can you be replaced with a foreigner that will work for a pittance of what you make and who will not only be beaten gladly with a rubber hose but also endure being denied potty breaks as well.
Refuse to accept that identification chip? No problem. We’ll see just how long you’re able to last excluded from all economic participation, or as Revelation 13 puts it, “...no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark.”
Whereas the globalists claim to have the best interests of the migrants at heart only to use these laborers in pursuit of their agenda to turn the entire planet into one giant slave plantation, at least those opposed to the system of immigration (both legal and illegal) as it currently stands think enough of their counterparts originating outside this nation to force them to abide by the system of laws to which all people are to be subject.
For one is dishonest with those one is dismissively contemptuous, not with those one respects as a fellow human being. Furthermore, if all men really are created equal, shouldn’t they be expected to adhere to properly constituted law irrespective of their pity parties or sob stories? To grant them a waver from these statutory expectation is an admittance that deep down one believes those of the population in question to be an inferior breed of the human species incapable of rising to the standard everyone else is expected to adhere to.
In the circles that study the methods through which freedoms are lost and nations undermined, there is a concept credited with being Hegelian in origin known as “order from chaos”. According to the strategy, those in power allow conditions to deteriorate to the point where the people clamor to have an iron fist clamp down around them.
No doubt about it, the current immigration crisis did not come about unintentionally. Rather it is part of a deliberate plan to bring about the end of the United States and to eradicate human liberty from the face of the earth.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, August 04, 2006
Instead of buying into the new mentality that one is stuck in a bad church the way one is stuck in a bad marriage, Jan Markell does the body of Christ a service by providing a set of guidelines the believe can use to tell when it is time to break fellowship with an errant congregation.
Especially disheartening was the email she read about the elderly couple where the husband had an inoperable aortic aneurysm who was told by their "seeker sensitive" pastor (who was anything but sensitive) to basically hit the road because they would not go along with the heathen jungle music permeating so many of the houses of God today.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Robertson now says, "We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels."
But while you are suppose to feel guilty about driving around in a reasonably safe and comfortable vehicle such as an SUV or even air conditioning in your home, at one time Robertson had a race horse he spent over $500,000 and lives in a mansion atop a mountain with its own airstrip.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
According to Generation's Radio co-host Dave Buehner, those with fewer than three offspring don't really love children and that people refuse to have anymore for selfish reasons such as wanting additional consumer electronics.
I don't know how things are out there in the hinterlands, but some of us live in areas where it is irresponsible to procreate beyond that number as real estate prices have gone through the roof with smaller houses often going for over $300,000 with annual property tax bills topping $3000.
And if parents send even a two child family to Christian school, that's probably another 8 to 10 thousand on top of that, not to mention how we are lectured incessantly how we are greedy and irresponsible if we don’t sock away a hefty amount for retirement; maybe believers ought to cut back on their tithes to finance these expenses since they are just as much God’s work than recarpeting the sanctuary.
As homeschool operatives, Swanson and Buehner will probably retort that the children can be homeschooled; but what if the parents are more salt-of-the-earth laborers while the child's interests lie in a more bookish direction?
Being buddies with R.C. Sproul, Jr who was defrocked in part for browbeating those that dared to consider leaving his congregation, I guess these two would say those aspiring beyond the parameters of a neo-feudal class system where your place in life is determined by that of your parents should be chastised until they accept their lot.
As a parent, one's obligation lies with the children God has blessed you to have already.
If that means sacrificing your own pleasure in abstaining from having any additional children one might desire to take care of the one's you already have, that's just the way it has to be.
Does not the Bible say that he who does not provide for his own children is worse than an infidel; that dictum does not say anything about me having to pay for the kids of the guy down the street that can't seem to keep his pants on.
The number of children one produces is in no way an indicator of one's love for little one's nor is it always in the best interests of mothers to keep popping them out until she bursts.
My great-grandfather was an abusive drunk who fathered ten, with my grandfather brought into the world prematurely as a result of my great-grandmother having been kicked in the stomach. Nine children later, this once bright-eyed redhaired girl was dead by her mid forties from a heaviness of heart causing her to look as if she was in her late 60's.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
While I am a tad leery about some of Dr. Hovind's reasoning as to why he believes he should not be compelled to pay taxes like the rest of us, the treatment he and his wife recieved at the hands of IRS operatives is inexcusable.
One would think this would be a matter for accountants and tax lawyers rather than goon squads.