Monday, December 29, 2008
One of the simple delights in the age of vehicular travel is coming across an empty parking space that still has time on the meter. Since the beast --- namely the municipalities obtaining revenue from the meter --- is still getting the amount of money it is due whether the spot is occupied by one or two cars in the purchased amount of time, one would think the taxmasters wouldn't care and simply let the lucky motorist enjoy one of the few pleasures remaining in our increasingly bleak and overcontrolled world.
However, it seems that technology is being used once more to tighten the noose of government around the neck of the law abiding citizen.
According to a Washington Post story titled “Meters Deny Parking Handouts“, a number of companies are developing devices sensitive enough to reset themselves once they detect that the space is no longer occupied. Instead of harassing motorists, perhaps these tech-heads should turn their sophisticated detection sensors towards securing America's border.
Especially revealing is the statist mentality of those supporting these Cylon parking meters (it's a wonder they don't have that little red light pulsating back and forth). The chief executive of IntelliPark (one of these companies out to get rich dreaming up new ways to further curtail human liberty) told the Washington Post, "You take away that free lunch, but on the other hand that's tax revenue."
If the primary concern here is that no one should get a "free lunch", wouldn't research efforts be better directed towards not developing a meter that resets itself as soon as a vehicle pulls away but rather makes change from the unused time?
"Why you skin-flint Conservative or tight-fisted Libertarian, how miserly of you to want back a few messily cents.” If we are to happily relinquish what is rightfully ours simply because it is just a few mere cents, just see what happens should you skimp on your IRS tax bill by the same amount.
If we are to view the motorist sneaking onto a spot where the meter has not yet run out of time as taking something out of the coffers of the state, why shouldn’t we cast the same glare of disapproval upon the state for pocketing a profit from time in which it’s space is not leased?
After all, to whom does the coinage for the unused time ultimately belong? For does it not actually belong to the original motorist that has since driven off?
Thus, it is the state (not the driver “sneaking” into the space) that is actually the small scale thief. Shouldn’t technology allow the original motorist to decide who gets to keep the change?
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
As I remeber John Warwick Montgomery remarking of Episcopal priests swallowing gold fish and parachuting off skyscrapers in the attempt to make the church relevant to the young: "If God's not dead, maybe He wishes he were."
Companies with dress codes should not permit this no matter how much it is justified in the name of religious freedom.
In response to the anti-Christmas crowd, it seems things may be veering too much in the opposite direction as well.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The only way this is proper is if there were ones for George W. Bush as well. Anything else is nothing less than idolatry.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
From at least 1994 when I remember writing my first column on the subject, despisers of the Almighty and liberals of the most spineless of stripes have conspired to undermine Christmas as a national celebration in the attempt to downplay and ultimately eliminate public recognition of God in general and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ in specific. These efforts have been so widespread that I was able to compile columns written about them over the years into a book titled "Yuletide Terror & Other Holiday Horrors".
Though the American people have been manipulated and their resistance worn down on a number of fronts to the point that they now let slide any number of outrages that would have caused considerable uproar in the past, for the most part citizens have been quite vocal about attempts by secular leftists to ban acknowledgement of the Christmas season. However, now that traditionalists have asserted the right to publicly affirm their god-given heritage, secularists are responding with alternative displays of their own promoting their own particular worldview.
Foremost among these is an ad campaign targeted at Washington, DC’s public transportation system. The posters sponsored by the American Humanist Association read, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake..” This simple question and accompanying reply are in need of a complex response.
For starters, whether we like it or not, if an atheist front group wants to pony up the cash, they have the same right to buy public advertising space like any other organization with too much money on its hands. Responses such as the one presented in a 11/17/08 USA Today article titled “Atheism: A Positive Pillar” where an Illinois state legislator told an atheist activist, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!...You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying.”
Such an attitude may itself be of a greater danger than the outright atheism. For it is wrong on a number of philosophical and apologetic grounds.
For starters, it is not really all that dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Granted, one might not want to, as in the example used by D. James Kennedy in a classic sermon, hand one’s child over to a thoroughgoing secularist who on the first day of kindergarten proceeds to indoctrinate the hapless pupil as to the alleged reasons why God does not exist and why Jesus Christ is not His Son.
However, part of protecting children is to warn them of the dangers out there bent on destroying them in body and soul. Thus, just as parents eventually one day have to have that discussion with their young ones about the existence of pedophiles and where to aim the kick should some sicko every try to rob the young ones of their innocence, parents also have the obligation to warn to warn that there are those out there that hate God so much that they’d like nothing more than to persuade you to give up your belief in Him as well.
The cause of Christ is not served by hiding these things from young minds and then finally exposing them to such apostasies upon adulthood. It’s challenging enough when you are taught about these things and then find your self surrounded by the products of an education system advocating such a viewpoint reeking of what you always heard pot smelled like and another hooligan wearing a t-shirt with decals of copulating skeletons as I remember the first day of college.
Secondly, lack of a belief in something is a belief about it. For too long, Christians and allied theists have played into the hands of atheists and agnostics by going along with the notion that those professing unbelief are objective and unfettered by preconceived epistemological commitments and that the believers are the ones holding onto bedrock dogmatic foundations. Many atheists are just as rabid in their assumptions as the most zealous of pulpit-pounding evangelists.
The anti-God Christmas placards intone the reader to "Just be good for goodness sake." But without God, can good truly exist? For if He does not, mankind is left with the alternatives of either nihilistic anarchy or regimented totalitarianism.
For example, if God does not exist, who is to say whatever the individual thinks or does is right or wrong? As has been said, in some cultures they are suppose to love their neighbors and in others they eat them. To the cannibal the adage is not so much finger licking good but rather good to lick fingers.
Furthermore, if God does not exist, on what grounds do the institutions of society such as the government have the right to tell you to do anything whatsoever? Without God and His revelation, the "IS" automatically becomes the "OUGHT" with rules and laws merely being those promulgations which keep the strongest in power.
But what about the individual, the timid may ask unsettled by the door that has been opened but too prideful to grasp Christ's outstretched hand. What about the individual?
If the individual is no better than all the other animals who are themselves just products of random chance, his welfare means nothing in comparison to the welfare and even the convenience of the larger group. Though it is a somewhat different philosophy, according to a Caryl Matrisciana column titled “An Enlightened Race?” New Agers who believe similarly to atheists that there are no absolutes rooted in the character of an eternal personal God don’t even want to say Hitler did anything wrong but rather merely things that were misguided at worst.
The New Atheists claim that the suspicions their worldview elicits are unfounded because as humanists they only have the betterment of the species in mind and that traditional religions are the ones responsible for the atrocities of history.
Margaret Downey of the Atheist Alliance International is quoted in the USA Today article as saying, "We atheists simply add an 'o' to our belief system --- we believe in good." However, that is in spite of rather than because of their unbelief.
If anything, what atheists exhibit when they manifest goodness is remaining Judeo-Christian moral capital. These individuals professing godlessness remain largely good because they have been acculturated in a milieu largely Biblical in its underlying ethical orientation.
However, as time marches on and these foundations are eroded as succeeding generations will become less familiar with this heritage. Future atheists will not be as eager to embrace the balanced approach to life we in the West have come to categorize as good.
Incidents where traditional forms of religion have been invoked to justify abridgements of individual liberty are horrifically tragic but because they betray the values espoused by the founders of these systems of belief. However, by default, that does not make those claiming to lack a religious faith are not necessarily more laid back in their approach to life and less prone to violence.
If anything, lack of divine restraints seems to send man's compulsion to prey (not pray) upon his fellow man into overdrive. One only need to look at the histories of regimes with an explicit antipathy towards the God of the Bible such as Soviet Russia, Red China, and Nazi Germany. And even in the United States where human dignity is for the most parts respected, numbers are appallingly high in terms of the millions slaughtered in the names of abortion and so-called “reproductive rights”, a charge led primarily by the godless along with the wishy-washy easily whipped up into a frenzied enthusiasm over the joys of baby-killing.
As commuters putter about this Christmas season and viewers watch the battle of the broadsides, there is more at stake than an esoteric debate as to the nature and origins of goodness. Both our very lives and our eternal destines could very well be on the line.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Halfwits thinking this incident was all fun and games should realize it was just not Bush that the shoe was hurled at but rather the entire United States.
Heathens around the world should be thankful that America is as restrained as it is and should ponder how a less-mercificul world power might have responded to this insult.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
So since Albert Mohler only has two children, should his position as a seminary president be surrendered to someone with more children since by the argument presented in this column that individual has a greater or more sincere faith.
Or as usual, is this just a standard that gets imposed upon the believer in the pew and not the professional religionist?
By the end of the broadcast version of this commentary, Mohler lets it slip that missionary types are not to be held to this standard and that those with children understand God better.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Is not something like "for all debts public and private" stamped across U.S. moneyt?
Thus, any government agency should be compelled to accept payment in whatever form of legal tender the compliant citizen chooses to pay the penalty leveled against them with.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Listeners may need to copy and post this link themselves into their web browser.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Each Thanksgiving, the President pardons a turkey --- an actual barnyard fowl and not a member of Congress. For the most part, the custom is itself harmless and mildly cute; however, should taxpaying citizens learn what is done with the turkey, they will likely end up with a case of indigestion.
According to a Fox News account, after the White House ceremony the turkey was to be flown first class to Disneyland in California. There the gobbling celebrity was to serve as the grand marshal of the park's Thanksgiving parade.
Many would dismiss this story as something not to get worked up over. Yet in this dawning era where we are constantly reminded how our very way of life must change or face collapse along various fronts, escorting a turkey to Disneyland in stratospheric luxury raises a number of questions.
First, is the turkey being sent there at taxpayer expense? If Disney wants the bird, that corporation is the party that should pick up the airfare.
Relatedly and even more importantly, shouldn't those that have set themselves up as our betters and the ones out to impose the new paradigms upon the rest of us have to live by their own standards?
For example, a letter to the editor published in the Prince George's Sentinel attempts to guilt-trip the reader into foregoing the turkey dinner by insinuating that this traditional culinary centerpiece is somehow bad for the environment. But what about the resources expended to get the turkey from Washington to California, and, even more importantly, what about the "carbon footprint" (the term used by beatniks of expanding girth like Al Gore to make themselves feel better about their own ostentatious consumption) left behind each year by the Disney corporation.
I for one have no problem with amusement parks and similar resorts. However, I am not the one haranguing the average American, who can hardly afford luxury vacations these days, into giving up one of the few remaining pleasures available, namely a reasonably priced turkey dinner.
Often, America’s Puritan and Separatist founders are depicted as absolutely joyless and not having much fun in their lives. And maybe so by out standards. However, these solemn patriarchs are party animals in comparison to the glum-faced busybodies out to control in the name of the environment all aspects of the food you consume from what can go into your mouth and, increasingly as in regards to proclamations regarding no flush toilets, what is to be done with it once it comes out.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Monday, December 01, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Normally in these posts, I usually address various social and political issues that happen to be in the news.
Through advances in technology, the average citizen is able to convey information and viewpoints in a manner not all that different than more formidable journalistic institutions. Not that long ago, this would not have been possible.
Even now, there are those sharing in the mindset expressed in The Cult Of The Amateur that the proliferation of voices taking place today is inherently deleterious to our civilization and should be curtailed for the sake of elites who are to guide the masses in what to think rather than have their actions put in check by the scrutiny of a discerning citizenry. These conflicting outlooks did not pop up overnight but are the result of a process that extends back years, decades, and even centuries.
Often, those that have embraced the new technology have taken it in the direction of providing alternatives to the mainstream press in the forms of blogs, webzines, and podcasts. I have contributed to this movement since the year 2000.
However, recently I have pondered that if blogs and podcasts have enabled those to participate in journalistic undertakings that they would otherwise be locked out of, why can't this technology also be utilized to provide an electronic classroom for those otherwise unable to teach in a more traditional academic setting. Thus as an experiment, in the coming weeks and months ahead, I will attempt to teach a basic introductory course on American History.
Academically, I hold a Bachelor's degree in Political Science and History. I also hold a MA in Apologetics and Philosophy in which these subjects were often approached from a historical perspective and a Doctor of Practical Theology in Interdisciplinary studies.
I have primarily written columns on current events and have no teaching or public speaking experience. As such, the manner in which the material is presented may be quite basic and not pass muster with professional historians and college instructors.
But that's OK. From the Jaywalking segments on the Tonight Show, Americans are not struggling with obtuse historical minutiae having little bearing on every day life, but rather with the broad outlines and themes that are essential for the free citizen to have a basic familiarity with if our Republic and our liberties are to survive.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, November 24, 2008
As the nation's capital, Washington DC is often looked to for various approaches on how to handle a number of growing issues around the country. Usually government eggheads like to formulate their grandiose schemes from their comfortable halls of power and impose them upon areas of the heartland so far from scrutinizing eyes that very few end up seeing what is actually going on. However, there are now a number of policies being implemented within the city that will soon be at the forefront of efforts to undermine life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the episode of "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" titled "Past Tense", areas called Sanctuary Districts were established in mid-21st century America as places in major cities in which to corral the economically challenged irrespective of their criminal status. Though initially established in the name of the well being of those assigned to reside there, according to the entry at Star Trek Wiki Memory Alpha, "This internment, in fact, amounted to nothing less than imprisonment."
Those thinking their feet are more firmly planted on the ground and heads out of the clouds will no doubt respond that all that is just a story that could never become reality. Think again.
In order to curb the crime in the Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast, Washington, DC, police established "Neighborhood Safety Zones" where checkpoints were set up blocking access. It's bad enough if law enforcement just about literally points a gun at the head of everyone coming into the neighborhood compelling motorists to permit officers to ransack through vehicles regardless of whether or not anything suspicious is going on.
However, things have gone beyond the limits of conscience when American citizens that have neither been convicted nor accused of a crime are then forbidden from proceeding down a free public street. Supporters of these police state tactics will counter that those entering the neighborhood with a “legitimate purpose” such as “going to a doctor, to church, or visiting a relative” could be granted access.
For starters, who are police to determine if an activity that does not violate pre-established law is of a legitimate purpose or not? Secondly, people that must divulge their law abiding activities to law enforcement who then pass judgment as to whether or not such innocent undertakings are appropriate are dangerously close to losing one of the most basic of fundamental liberties that at one time set this country apart from the lesser nations of the earth. Do we really want to further condition the American people into embracing their status as docile little Pavlovians who eagerly wag their tails every time the government blows its whistle and demands that we reveal additional information about ourselves?
Though it was claimed motorists would be granted access if they had legitimate reasons to enter the neighborhood, individuals with valid reasons in fact claim they were turned away. What part of public in "public street" don't these Keystone Cops not understand?
For now, these blockades are often temporary. What is to prevent them from being made permanent and expanded in the future?
What is to stop authorities from turning the entire federal city into a Neighborhood Safety Zone with anyone barred entry that cannot prove either residency or occupational status in the district? Already in the name of preventing terrorism, Americans are denied access to structures we are repeatedly told through propaganda belong to all of us such as the Capitol building in Washington, DC and the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
If there is power now to tell us whether or not we are to be granted access to structures belonging to "the people" and once deemed public, makes you wonder if there might come a day that they might tell you what otherwise lawful discretionary activity you can and cannot enjoy in your own home. Wait, they are already trying to do that now.
If these checkpoints are constitutional, what is to stop them from being implemented across the United States either independently by various municipalities or through the promulgation of a presidential executive order such as those already quietly drafted basically saying the government can essentially take from you anything it wants and do to you anything it wants including compulsory civilian involuntary servitude during a time of so-called "national emergency". Through implementing nationwide "safety zones", only those granted police or bureaucratic approval would be permitted to move within or without specified jurisdictions. There are likely those such as Al Gore and even Barack Obama (who chastised Americans for eating too much and driving SUV's even though he has been seen locomoting in this particular kind of vehicular conveyance on numerous occasions who would probably have no qualms about implementing such measures in the name of the environment.
The way in which the Nazi and Soviet regimes were implemented would not be successful here in the United States. Those seeking to control every last aspect of people's lives have noticed that at least here in America they must quietly implement their policies step by step so that Americans are stealthfully goaded into eventually embracing the future being planned for them by the elites of the New Order.
According to social planning, the new urbanism, sustainable development, or whatever other flurdelore you want to dress it up with, it is no longer satisfactory to allow concentrated areas of population to develop, expand, or contract in compliance with forces attributed to Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Rather, these areas are to be remodeled into the image seen fit by heavy-handed public-private partnerships even if it means ruining the lives of upstanding citizens in the process so long as it gives corporate tycoons what they want and makes politicians intoxicated on the narcotic of media attention look good in the press.
Social welfare programs instituted by government are often justified on the grounds of improving the lives of those experiencing hardship. However, often such assistance has very little to do with getting the unfortunate back on their feet but rather about fostering a state of dependence that will keep the tentacles of the government expanding often at the price of the individual's well-being, especially if the individual could actually get their life back together though private charity rather than public means.
In the District of Columbia where the city government is dominated by Democrats and the like who claim government's most important function is safeguarding the economically disadvantaged, it seems playgrounds for the hyperrich (commonly referred to as ball stadiums) are a greater priority than those struggling to make it on their own. According to a March 26, 2008 Washington Post article titled "Straining In The Stadium's Shadow", a number of those providing charitable and business services in the vicinity of the Nationals' stadium where in fact forced out using a variety of strategies.
One of the hardest hit is the group known as Positive Nature, which counsels troubled youth. In the course of about two years, taxes on the organization's property went from $9000 to $83,000. As a result, Positive Nature may have to close up shop, possibly causing those getting assistance from the organization to be taken away from their parents and placed in a variety of state run institutions such as psychiatric hospitals and possibly even in prison.
Maybe that is exactly what those thinking government is the only solution for what's plaguing the human condition want. Instead of providing for oneself or seeking assistance from other private sources, the individual is to seek purpose and solutions to life's problems from the state.
Others already capable of sustaining themselves through the efforts of their own toil might no longer be able to do so. Those trained to salivate on cue for their government handout might snap businesses ought to be soaked to provide for the havenots.
Oh really? Does this include small businesses and sole proprietorships with tax bills that went from $600 to $16,000 and from $1500 to $22000. If that is the bribe one must pay to the state, why not just throw in the towel and become a welfare leech and suckle off the system as well?
According to the Washington Post story, the stadium was marketed to citizens forced to pick up the tab for this playground for millionaires as a way to raise revenue for schools, roads, and subsidized housing. But as with all the other grandiose promises made by tax boosters throughout history, downplayed is how these assessments are also enacted as a means of social and economic engineering with any money raised a secondary matter compared to the implementation of a far more comprehensive agenda.
Considerable grassroots backlash has arisen against the Kelo decision in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of forcing owners to sell property to developers in the name of economic improvement. But now, instead of drawing out this process as reluctant owners might put up a fight in an attempt to retain homes and businesses, all governments have to do to get people out is to raise taxes to either force owners to sell or (even better in the eyes of bureaucrats) get the owner to fall behind in their taxes so revenuers can move in to seize the property without having to pay a dime in order to acquire it.
Furthermore, by tinkering with tax rates and the like, governments, developers, and other organizational monstrosities such as public-private partnerships can economically corral undesirable populations into parts of town deemed appropriate for those not deemed worthy of living amongst the elite even if those no longer deemed worthy of an area have lived their for decades. Ultimately, such populations can be forced into low-cost housing where the movements of such individuals can be more effectively monitored, controlled, and even curtailed. Thus establishing, in essence, “sanctuary districts” quite similar to those described earlier in this essay in a manner less shocking than they may have sounded initially.
The concepts of private property and freedom of movement as we once knew them are endangered species going out of existence. In their place will arise a new system where those once knowing liberty will be manipulated into clamoring for more and more control all for the rotting pottage of prosperity and security.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, November 21, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Though there is much to admire about former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, isn't it mildly hypocritical for him to be the figure calling for the end of adolescence as when he was that age he was running around with his Geometry teacher and was having an affair that ended his second marriage when he was leading the charge against Bill Clinton running around with Monica Lewinsky.
If the taunting was the other way around, you can bet Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been flown in.
While the faculty did a reasonable job of maintaining a balance in the past with the exception of a foul-mouthed female journalism instructor that wore wife-beater T-shirts in the middle of winter, even back then many of the students were your typical liberal drones that regularly had to remind everyone what color they were with a number of them comporting themselves as if they deserved special applause and academic concessions simply because they procreated illicitly.
One can only imagine the fanatical frenzy these malcontents have been whipped up into under Obamaism.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Did they get the day off for George W. Bush?
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
The fantacism spreads. Guess not long until we must be stamped on the right hand or forehead as well.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
If Ralph Nader can't use the term "Uncle Tom", why isn't the governor of Virginia saying "Old Virginny is dead" also being condemned for propogating racial stereotypes.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
If it really is true that COLOR is more important than CHARACTER as we can deduce from the numerous talking heads in the media (who by the way I wonder as White people would step aside to give their own positions to "people of color" or that is only an obligation of those of us below their lofty status on the socioeconomic ladder), since Black people make up about 10% of the population, does that mean they are only entitled to 3 or 4 more of this segment of the population to hold this office?
Don't get ticked at me for pointing out the obvious as I am not the one that advocates Affirmative Action and quotas.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Monday, November 03, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Abraham Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. If the proposals of one pedagogical theorist are implemented, students will in all likelihood never know anything about the figure believed to have uttered such an astute observation.
According to a Daily Mail story titled “Drop middle class subjects says school adviser”, in the United Kingdom, education officials are considering a proposal that would eliminate traditional academic subjects such as English, History, Science, and Geography because these disciplines are “middle class”. In the place of the old curriculum, schools will emphasize a series of “personal aims” such as energy conservation, sustainable development, and personal relationships.
Such change must be made because these “middle class values” are a holdover from the 19th century as “mere stepping stones to wealth” and “alienated many youngsters...from disadvantaged backgrounds.” These comments exhibit a desire to tear down and reconstitute more than the public education system but rather the entire society.
For example, first and foremost the remarks are a rallying cry against Western civilization’s Judeo-Christian foundations. Across Europe, the spineless and effeminate are afraid to raise their voices against Islamic encroachment for fear of radicalized adherents of this particular faith flying into homicidal hissy fits. By undermining the legitimacy of the values upon which society (and thus the educational system as part of society) rests, revolutionists hope to rebuild what they tear down in their own image.
In the Judeo-Christian worldview, the individual is imbued with considerable moral value for having been made in the image of God. However, in secular theory of education, since God is taken out of the picture, the individual loses much of his distinctive worth and becomes little more than an extension or cog of the group from which values and worth are alternatively derived.
The ultimate threat to such intentional collectivism is the ability to think and provide for oneself. In fact, part of the criticism of the traditional academic subjects is that they are "mere stepping stones to wealth."
State forbid (can't say heaven anymore since that is likely to offend some philosophical deviant), the individual (yet another ontological concept out of fashion in the New Order) that the individual should provide for himself. Rather one is to be taught reliance and dependence on the group and to aspire no higher than the station predetermined for them by committee.
In pursuit of this goal, students are instead to be taught a series of themes and personal aims such as civic responsibility, commitment to sustainable development and valuing personal relationships. Thus, students are not to be instructed in how to evaluate claims and policies made in regards to these matters but rather what to think about them.
Under the old regimen of traditional subjects, students assimilated and synthesized facts which they then utilized to weigh the different sides of an argument and then adopted the position they felt was closest to the truth. Under the new way of doing things, students are being told ahead of time what (to use a word popularized in the 1990's when this kind of nonsense percolate to the surface of mainstream pedagogical theory) "outcomes" they are to embrace.
For example, students not taught geography or science don't really know if they are being told the true state of the environment or being sold a total crock about sustainable development. Likewise, if students are not being taught the lessons of history and literature, how are they to know whether or not what they are being told presents a balanced perspective, what constitutes good citizenship, or that they are merely being brainwashed into sacrificing everything they have on the altar of the Fatherland (or rather the "Homeland" as it is becoming known as today).
Relatedly and more importantly, what if by some slim chance a student managed to transcend the intellectual shackles placed around their mind and did not embrace the presented outcomes? Will it be annotated in the student's file as has been suggested by the proponents of Outcome Based Education in this country with one's station in life no longer determined by one's talents but rather if one has embraced the values and outlooks one has been told to by elites.
Furthermore, while the educational system ought to teach students basic values such as treating others with a basic level of respect regarding person and property (what use to be called the Golden Rule and the Ten Commandments before we were told to be all jittery about mentioning God and the Bible), do we really want bureaucrats assessing whether or not our children "value personal relationships"? These days this is probably psychobabble for applauding homosexuality, shacking up outside of marriage without guilt, and additional welfare handouts for each additional mouth brought into the world as the result of such unions, thus making what usually gets tossed into the face of the disapproving as a private matter into a very public one.
Though improvement could be made in informing students as to how these subjects are applied to life beyond the classroom, the liberal arts have earned their name as those bodies of knowledge worthy of a free man. Any reform that does more than tinker around with the edges of the system that has for the most part proven itself for centuries is not about improving the life of the individual but rather about devising more efficient ways to enslave it.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
If his grandmother, who he one time referred to as a "typical White woman" (just ask Ross Perot what happens to candidates who refer to Black folks in less than fawning terms), means so much to Obama, why did he wait so many days to see her?
Makes you wonder what she was slipped or pushed down to so he could take advantage of this ready-made story.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The best thing to do in these unsettled economic and social times is to basically not send money to anyone and if their is a cause you care for is to blog about it yourself. That way, you retain control over the message and ensure that your hard-earned money does not end up in the hands of snakeoil salesmen from other extremes of the spectrum of belief.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
From this sermon, one gets the impression the Christian is suppose to let identity thieves and aspiring tyrants to walk all over them.
Food Stamps have been renamed "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" in order to downplay stigma.
Maybe what is needed is a little shame to get many of these people with the gold-plated teeth and Cadillacs off the government take.
Many of these poor are not as poor as they make themselves out to be but instead spend their incomes on non-essentials or on food items higher up the food chain than where they have earned the right to eat.
In this episode of the Albert Mohler program, guest host Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Seminary laments how American Christians are spoiled.
If so aren't the pastors just as bad or even twice as worse?
For example, you'll have preachers now whose congregations live amidst swathes of unconverted foreigners still lecturing parishoners how wretched we are for not sponsoring overseas ecclesiastical junkets.
Let offerings slack off awhile and you'll see just how unmaterialistic the clergy can be. Will there be as big of smiles plastered across their faces when it's their salaries that are cut and just not of those sitting in the pews?
And speaking of foreigners, according to Moore, those living in poverty stricken areas are somehow more inherently spiritual because the squalor in which these people live are closer to those experienced during Biblical times.
Yet if God wanted a society to remain at such subsistence levels, would He have included in His Word many of the principles (though by no means a blueprint for the "name-it-claim-it" prosperity gosepl) that do lead to increased standards of living on average?
Besides some of the foreingers I know seem to have this ability to talk spirituality one minute and then cut loose with a string of profanity and lewdness the next that would make Hugh Heffner blush.
Often among conservative Evangelicals, Brian McLaren is regarded as a dangerous subversive. However, though more orthodox than the guru of the Emerging Church movement, Russell Moore may present almost as much of a threat as he has been taken into our own midst.
by Frederick Meekins
Monday, October 20, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the alleged demise of Communism, it was assumed that the Olympic games would no longer be as much of an arena for showcasing the competing ideologies of individual liberty and nearly total social control. And even though East German woman with mustaches no longer quite raise eyebrows and hushed chuckles the way they once did, the Olympics are as much a battle for the minds of men as they have always been.
On the surface, it would be easy to conclude that the success of a country's Olympic efforts would be determined by its medal count, particularly gold. If that is the case, the world is once again presented with contrasting examples provided by the United States and Red China.
On the one hand, China won the most gold but the United States won the most medals overall if silver and bronze are also factored into the tabulation. To some athletic diehards, though, it is only the gold that counts.
A story titled "U.S. Will Be Rocked By China's Heavy Medals" by Yahoo Sports posted 8/22/08 analyzes the situation as follows: "The difficult thing for the Americans to stomach is this is unlikely to change in future games. This isn't a one-time surge by a host nation...Whether the U.S. holds on this time or not, eventually China's system, coupled with it 1.3 billion people, should be unstoppable."
Of this development, Peter Uberroth of the United States Olympic Committee said in the story, "It's going to be difficult (to dislodge China). The resources that they put toward their Olympic team and the population base and the dedication is fantastic."
Even though it is inspirational when Americans take the gold in these events and our flag and national anthem are lifted above all others for the world to see and hear, this country needs to stop and think for a moment if emulating the Chinese approach to obtain gold is really worth it. For if we do, we will have turned our backs on the values that made America --- not China --- the beacon of hope to the world.
In the United States, individuals pursue athletic glory because that is that they want to do with their lives free of state coercion. In China, there is no such choice.
In “U.S. will be rocked by China’s heavy medals”, Dan Wetzel writes, “In China, they wouldn’t have had a choice. A sports star, like the property a house is built on, is owned by the government...China selects athletes at young ages and pushed them into sports in which their expected body types might thrive. In the U.S., an athlete is allowed to follow his own path to success and failure.”
Those having embraced the communitarian outlook growing in popularity in this country that conditions us more and more into accepting the arbitrary whims of the group as superior to the prerogatives of the individual might not be able to fully grasp what this means really without explanation.
Though even in America those aspiring to athletic greatness must dedicate a seemingly inordinate amount of time to perfect their skills, often family especially in the form of parents are there in the background providing the kind of emotional and logistical support necessary to obtain this goal. However, things are quite different in China.
One report that aired on the NBC Nightly News during the course of the Olympic games showed a training facility where children no more than six or seven years old were warehoused around the clock like livestock as they were drilled in gymnastics by their Communist taskmasters. These children detained at the training camp were permitted to see their families only a couple of times per year.
Some made uncomfortable by such living arrangements that defy God’s intentions for the family of parents being the primary caretakers and source of guidance in a child’s life will try to console their consciences by positing that, even if we don’t like it, it might be the only path to a better life for these children. Even through this grueling toil, there is little chance of that.
In the United States, since the interests of the individual also carry weight and just not those of the larger group, there is emphasis (even if there are instances where the results have fallen short of this goal) of cultivating athletes capable of providing for and looking after themselves once their time in the limelight has transpired even if the life the athlete ends up with is less than the one dreamed of. However, in China where the individual is viewed primarily as a cell within the broader social organism, this aptitude is honed at the expense of other skills since under Communism the person's worth is derived from what they can contribute to the overall group or nation.
Some will argue that this is all merely the rantings of an individualistic borderline-libertarian conservative who doesn't like Communism very much reading back into all of this. However, a quote from a 5/6/07 Los Angeles Times store titled "Athletes Are Run Into The Ground In China" proves that my assessment is not all that far off the mark: "The athlete's entire training is financed by the state, and successful athletes...are considered government properties who must do as their leaders say. Their job is about gaining glory for the country, not pursuing personal interests."
Some today who have an admittedly milder and diluted philosophy similar this pounded into their heads by government, academia, and increasingly even by the nation's churches might initially respond, "What's so wrong with that" as they proceed to spout rhetoric about the wonders of community and the evils of self interest. However, in a land of over one billion people where the government owns you, once you break or are outdated by the newer model rolling off the assembly line, there is nothing to protect you from being tossed aside like yesterday's garbage.
For example, marathon runner Guo Ping thought that, once her days as an athlete were over, the government would reward her with a position as a police officer as her coach (who also beat those training under him with a whip or knocked them to the ground with the bumper of his car) promised. The coach's defense in court was that the beatings "weren't severe".
Unfortunately, such a case is not so much a rarity as it is the norm. According to a similar article titled "China's Disposable Athletes" published in the 7/17/07 issue of Time Magazine, nearly 3000 athletes retiring each year in China end up unemployed with educations barely beyond the primary level. One distraught female Chinese athlete lamented, "I gave my youth to sport, but in return, I was thrown out like garbage with no knowledge, no skill, and a barren womb."
However, the liberal media is only willing to take its critique of world socialism so far. It has been jokingly said that the few remaining Communists in the world can be found on American college campuses; however these subversives and their fellow travelers can still be found in many more places, especially among the ranks of prestigious journalists
For instead of blaming these outrages on the systematic dehumanization inherent to all forms of collectivism, the Times article says, "The root of Zou's troubles, like so many things in China today, can be traced back to the country's wholesale adoption of capitalism."
Are you going to tell me things were hunky-doory under Communism when millions were starving to death and the hungry resorted to cannibalism? Are you going to tell me it's Capitalism's fault today that house church pastors rot in prison?
What links each and everyone of these is a fundamental devaluation of the individual.
Frankly, if that is what it takes to excel in the Olympic games of the 21st century, perhaps the United States should be proud of its diminished Olympic prospects.
Dan Wetzel writes, "In the U.S., the athlete's goal is most often himself," and in appraising the decision of an athlete that pursues opportunities other than the Olympics, "No one in their right mind in the States would expect him to do anything else." Who needs a gold-plated trinket when you can buy the real thing?
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
If someone wants to sell their wedding ring for charity, that is their business. However, I don't think this should be institutionalized to the point where there will eventually develop an attitude where woman that do not part with this cherished keepsake of their nuptuals will be seen as less spiritual than those who do in a manner similar nowadays in Christian schools where there is almost two tiers of students with those considering careers in missions and such as somehow beeing seen as more holy than those contemplating more "secular" occupations.
From missionary propaganda the average Christian is often told how morally superior and kinder those hailing from the Dark Continent are than the average westerner. So when are we start going to kick out unwelcome foreigners?
Monday, October 06, 2008
In her brief time in the national spotlight, Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, if nothing else, has rejuvenated the debate in this country regarding certain fundamental values. Interestingly, not all of this stems directly from the candidate's spoken statements but rather from a number of comments made about her by her Democratic counterpart Senator Joseph Biden.
From comments made on Fox and Friends mentioned in an Associated Press article titled “Biden says Palin family is off limits to critics”, voters learn that, to the Delaware Senator, government and politics are the ultimate and perhaps only source of values, truth, and hope.
In analyzing Palin’s acceptance speech, Biden remarked, “I didn’t hear the phrase ‘middle class’ mentioned. I didn’t hear a word about healthcare. I didn’t hear a word about what we’re going to do about the housing crisis, college education, and all the things that the middle class is being burdened by now.”
Maybe these things were not mentioned because for the most part they are not much of the government’s business. If anything, government involvement for the most part tends to exacerbate the problems in these perplexing areas.
For example, why is it the government’s responsibility (and thus ultimately the taxpayer’s) to bail you out of bad real estate investments? By subsidizing education to such an extent where it is available to just about everyone whether they really want it or not, its value has been undermined to the point where a bachelor’s degree may actually signify less actual learning than a high school diploma from previous generations.
Traditionally each social sphere oversaw the affairs in its own domain and exercised caution when venturing into the waters overseen by the neighboring spheres (especially if the one doing the intruding was the government). However, to liberals such as Biden, now as the government reaches into additional corners of our lives in the name of supposedly making our lives better, ultimately government and politics will be the only sphere that remains or be the sphere that ends up controlling all the others even it terms of the attitudes that these institutions will be permitted to express.
If the Obama campaign wants to refrain from commenting on the propriety of the daughter of a Vice Presidential candidate being expectant with child outside the bounds of marriage, that is the prerogative of the Obama campaign. After all, there are platoons of the far more deviant in the Democratic Party such as Chelsea Clinton who has been shacked up for years living in what used to be called “sin”.
However, though Obama might think he hands down stone tablets from on high with Biden taking them to the people as some kind of 21st century Moses, to say what the press and the people can and cannot discuss hints at a theoretical usurpation of the First Amendment even more offensive than an out of wedlock pregnancy or a recalcitrant segment of the public that does not sweep under the rug the moral values they have been taught simply because they have become an inconvenience to the elites that have set themselves up on a level above the rest of us.
The American people, through opinion-forming institutions such as the media, churches and now the blogosphere, must be the ones to decide for themselves this weighty ethical concern. For while the only right decision is to keep the baby, there are some so progressive in their outlook that they would ship to a Khmer Rouge-style reeducation camp anyone that does not reflexively embrace these new reproductive fads where the baby shower. To some of us, to takes a while to debate the consequences for any potential parental shortcomings when minors become parents before they properly ought.
There is indeed forgiveness and restoration in Christ. However, most of the time those stepping into these challenges are not up for consideration for one of the nation’s most solemn offices.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
More of the same from the Swansonite sect.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
While Dr. Mohler is to be commended for tackling the new spate of cussing clergy, in other respects it seems at times he may be losing his spine.
Earlier this year, he condemned Ann Coulter for her remarks about John Edwards (laregley in part because Edwards is married and Coulter, insinuating that somehow this makes Edwards a better Christian despite not honoring marriage vows). And now, Mohler has repented around the 28 minuted mark of the above broadcast for calling the British royal family "spectacularly maladjusted".
If we are to go into apoplexy over something that trivial, the culture war is already lost.
Much of Mohler's ministry centers around the need to return to sterotypical gender roles. If that is the case, Mohler should talk like a man and not like a pious but overly fastidious grandmother.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Can the polygamous invoke the same excuse?
Found it interesting how Al Mohler blamed the Evangelical community for the singer keeping this a secret for so long.
Rather, could it have been that Boltz did so because his own conscience knew what he wanted was wrong?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live. However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possible tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.
Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.
David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?
Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.
By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.
Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.
To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.
According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."
Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."
The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.
Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."
Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."
Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?
Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?
Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.
Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.
Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.
According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?
The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.
According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.
If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.
For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?
Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.
There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.
John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.
According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.
Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."
Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.
In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".
In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.
Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."
In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.
Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.
Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?
If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.
In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.
by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, September 18, 2008
At this presbyterian church I use to attend, they wouldn't take much of a stand against boozing either but certainly got hissy and dogmatic about membership.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
According to this Generations Radio broadcast, women should not be involved politically but should instead cook dinner and have kids.
By criticizing Palin's baracuda nickname, Swanson insinuates women should be walked all over politically rather than speak out from a conservative perspective.
This society has been so screwed up by reprobate men AND women don't we need every voice of reason to take a stand against the threats both from within and without that treaten this great nation?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
This is the literary pottymouth we were all suppose to feel sorry for because the Ayatollah Khomeni had issed a fatwa calling for the death of for publishing a novel parodying Muhammad.
Frankly, if he is applauding the death of innocent people, why should we get all weepy should Islamist violence befall him now?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Monday, September 08, 2008
No one is perfect. As such, at times correction and admonition may need to be promulgated to set the ethically concerned back on the right path.
When issued by those adhering to the high standards to which they profess, such criticism can be looked upon as a helpful corrective to assist equals in living up to their potential. However, when such accusations are leveled or sustained by those with no intentions of living up to the standard themselves, the maligned should turn the tables against such dubious defamers and expose just who it is that undermines dignity, order, and liberty.
According to a May 20, 2008 Washington Times article titled "U.N. Puts Its Scope On U.S. Racism", this world body has sent an envoy to the United States to gather information regarding racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and "related intolerance". According to others in the human rights industry, such as Freedom House, this category of protections does not limit itself to narrowly defined matters such as abridgements of free speech or mass killings and seizures of property but also includes healthcare, education, and equal justice for immigrants and minorities.
For starters, before we start badmouthing what is available in this great land for these particular classes of people (especially immigrants), perhaps we should take a look at the places from which the new arrivals came. For a toilet bowl might be a dramatic improvement if you just crawled up from the sewer. If they have it so poor here, why did they come here in the first place, and if it is not to their liking here, they are always free to go back.
But even of greater concern than the quality of quantifiable conditions ought to be how much of what the U.N. is investigating is more attitudinal in nature. While no one that loves justice and views each individual as a unique creature made in the image of God wants to see the rights of others infringed upon in terms of the individual being secure in the livelihood and possessions they are able to acquire for themselves, neither is it really the place of government or international institutions to infringe upon the ability of other individuals to think and express themselves in a free and minimally orderly manner. Civil society may be able to condemn certain beliefs from a moral standpoint, but it is not really the place of government to keep you from being as much of an ass as you want to be provided you keep your hands off the nose and the stuff of the guy next to you.
For example, the state has an interest in preventing instances of racial discrimination where an objective public accommodation has been denied. However, “xenophobia and related intolerance” are much more nebulous in nature and something much more in the eye of the beholder. To the average American with a background capable of balancing the need for free expression while maintaining a minimal level of politeness, when they hear the words “xenophobia and related intolerance” images come to mind of some uncouth lout yelling out “Stupid [insert racial slur of choice]” while hurling rotten tomatoes at his neighbor undeserving of such treatment.
However, even in other highly advanced English speaking nations such as Australia and Canada, these offences can be defined in such a way as "disparaging" a religion. This can consist of claiming that the doctrines of your faith are superior to that of another sect under consideration such as in the case of a Canadian ministry that pointed out the shortcomings of the Watchtower Society and in the case of McClean's Magazine where those pointing out the intentions of radical Islamists have been sued for racial defamation but no action has been taken against the aspiring Jihadists wanting to kill people.
However, it is likely not the traditional adversaries of freedom and liberty that those feigning an institutionalized concern for human rights may be out to squelch. For example, the grand inquisitor being sent to infiltrate the United States, Doudou Diene of Senegal, according to the Washington Times "has written extensively about Islamophobia in the 6 1/2 years since the World Trade Center Attack."
While it is not right to infringe upon the rights of those not responsible for the 9/11 Attack, a phobia does not by default constitute an abridgement of anyone's rights, and according to such a broad definition, any women that has seen the Sally Field picture "Not Without My Daughter" and has had second thoughts about being romanced by a Middle Easterner could possibly be prosecuted for a hate crime. If one wanted to make a career of ridding the world of oppression and atrocities, one could find more fertile causes than nitpicking the shortcomings of the United States if one felt called to an international focus.
Frankly, one could spend several lifetimes rifling through the human rights records of many of the nations on the U.N. Humans Rights Council and still not have the time to air America's dirty laundry which is nothing more than a single used piece of toilet paper when compared to these cesspool countries.
For example, if you think prisoners on death row have it bad here, in Red China those executed (often for offences far less than the heinous deeds it is reserved for in the USA) are often shot in the back of the head so that their organs can be harvested. But I guess since this is done by Chinese to other Chinese, it doesn't really matter as the colorblind who claim we are all equal only get jacked out of shape when one color does it to another, proving they are not as colorblind as they bellicosely claim.
One of the reasons promulgated for this grand inquisitor of the United Nations to come poking around in the business of the United States is to sniff out any potential undercurrent of Islamophobia. Perhaps the council should be more concerned about the festering stench of Christophobia emanating from a number of the member nations sitting on its board.
For example, according to a story published at WorthyNews.com titled "Egypt: Security Police Torture Christian Convert Woman", for converting from Islam to Christianity one man's wife was beaten, raped twice, and electric shocks applied to her private parts. In Saudi Arabia, residents were deported for holding private Bible Studies in their homes.
Surely as much as Mexico trumpets for the rights for the free movement of people from one nation to another that that country must take a principled stand for immigrants to move and prosper elsewhere. Such a sentiment only applies to Mexicans going elsewhere and they don't even have to be doing it properly.
If the United States implemented Mexico's stand on immigration, we'd never hear the end of it from the leftwing rabble. Mexicans citizens born in Mexico can't even aspire to higher political office unless their parents are natural born citizens. And while Americans are to lavish all kinds of welfare handouts on illegals for violating our borders and expected to applaud the nobility of those violating these most basic of laws, Mexican police and military officials regularly rape and murder residents of other Latin American countries only doing what Mexican officials claim their own surplus populations have an inalienable right to do to the United States.
As sociopolitical entities comprised of fallen human beings, every nation has its flaws. However, the resources of the United Nations would be better utilized going after mass killers and the like than whether or not someone is getting their knickers in a knot over a wary glanced tossed in their direction as they walk down the street.
by Frederick Meekins
Around the 8 minute mark.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Friday, September 05, 2008
More of the "you-are-a-bad-Christian" mentality if you are not enthused about your boring work-aday job that popped up on Albert Mohler a few weeks ago that seems to be a corollary with the groups that advocate the philosophy that you are some deviant if not married by the time you are 22.
Wonder if the Pallin lass's loverboy with her name tattooed around his finger is as interested in his job, or as Dobson and Mohler have revealed this week, their strictures only apply to those of us among the lower castes of the species and do not apply to those on the higher level.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
This piece mirrors alot of attitudes all the way to Focus on the Family.
Interesting how when color benefits minorities we can wallow in it, but when it's to Whitey's advantage we aren't suppose to consider it.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
An example of freedoms living under the Obama regime where whether or not you get to enjoy your civil rights is contingent upon whether or not you agree with the new lord.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
According to this report, horses have lived on this plot since 1935.
Those threatening America's rural ways of life are probably the same ones that would turn around and tell us we have no right to expect the flood of immigrants swarming here to abide by our own standards of hygiene and the like.
Rather easy to impose this expectation on others when you yourself have a fulfilling career.
Would Mohler be as cheery if rather than blathering into a microphone he had to stair into monotonous data entry sheets during the day or no matter how much he threw his back out for his boss he never got ahead in his company because he did not happen to be of a politically correct racial background?
While the Bible might command us to do our best, I don't remeber there being a verse about having to like it.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
And I wonder if similar fees will be assessed against sodomite employees or those who repeatedly procreate outside of marriage since these behaviors are deleterious to health as well.
Dedicated to the preservation of animals, is it really the place of zoological institutions to be fostering politically correct racial posturing?
Since this public institution apparently has enough financial resources at its disposal that it can expand the scope of its mission beyond biological conservation, perhaps Whites ought not contribute a single extraneous penny to its coffers now that it has taken on as part of its mission the cultural subversion of the United States.
Monday, August 25, 2008
If we are suppose to view ourselves as one big human family as we are constantly told by these agitators when it is to their benefit, why aren't they expressing as much concern over White families or just families in general?
For example, in the press release is the following statement: "As a Latina I must speak now for marriage - speak now or forever hold my peace."
Shouldn't this be seen with as much disgust as if the person had said, "As a Caucasian, I must speak now for marriage - speak now or forever hold my peace."
These kinds of statements show that the highest loyalties of those making them are neither to the Lord of heaven or even the United States of America.
While one can hardly argue with the need to penalize truants, one is forced to ask how long it will be before we hear of the cry for the need to protect all children with this technology and that those opposed to it must be abusers, have something to hide, or plain just don't care.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
To those of us whose vocations consist largely of commenting on the momentous trends and events going on all around us, it can be easy to fall for the delusion that ultimately the world itself orbits those of us observing it.
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church has gained for himself and his congregation a degree of notoriety for his insistence that "God Hates Fags".
One can at least argue with this proposition as either incorrect or for at least failing to remember the distinction of God hating the sin but loving the sinner. However, it is from this oratorical peak that Phelps descends into rhetorical irrationality.
Phelps skyrocketed to national infamy when he started showing up at funerals of U.S. military personnel having given their lives for their country in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of respecting this sacrifice irrespective of whether or not one agrees with an interventionist approach to the war on terror, the Phelpsians show up at what should be the most solemn of moments and basically rub it in the noses of grieving families that their fallen loved ones got what they deserved for serving in the government of a nation under the judgment of God for applauding outright immorality.
The outrage does not stop there. Though mocking the honored dead in this fashion grates upon the patriotic sensibilities of all good Americans, military families are for the most part an admirably stoic lot and able to take the ingratitude of certain elements in stride.
However, even this level of disgust is not low or self-absorbed enough for the Phelpsians.
On April 5, 2008, two teens were killed in a car accident late at night in Finksburg, Maryland. Most upon hearing a tragedy such as this would attribute the occurrence to some kind of driver error, vehicular malfunction, roadway mishap, or environmental conditions. However, to the members of the Phelps cult, the lives of these young people were cut short because of God's judgment against the State of Maryland for defying the will of Westboro Baptist Church.
For you see, a jury in the state awarded a $5 million judgment to the father of a soldier whose funeral the Phelpsians had protested. According to a press account mentioned in a 4/8/08 Carroll County Times story titled "Church Plans Teen Funeral Protests", the sect believes God now hates Maryland and all tragedies befalling residents of the state can be traced back to this particular ruling.
Doesn't such a claim border on idolatry for at least two reasons?
Firstly, doesn't only God know why He allows certain tragedies such as teens having their lives cut short before they have really begun to live them?
Secondly, isn't it the epitome of arrogance to think you are so important that God is going to smite an entire state just because its judiciary ticked you off?
The congregation of Westboro might claim to be Baptist, but my friends, any Fundamentalist worthy of the name cannot speak to the specificity of God's will to that degree as the good Fundamentalist sticks to those things revealed in His word or deducible from it and hesitant to act on those things they think God is whispering in the ear that cannot be backed up.
Thirdly, one of the saddest facts of living in a fallen world is that, sooner or later, suffering and death will touch every single one of us. One doesn't have to be Robert Schuller to appreciate the adage that those living in glass houses shouldn't hurl stones.
Thus the Phelpsians should think long and hard before one of life's inevitable tragedies comes knocking at their door, and someone will rub the noses of this sect in the misfortune happening to fall upon them.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Tom Horn discusses this topc on "Future Quake" with Doctor Future.