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.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
According to Jerome Corsi on the 6/13/08 edition of "Radio Liberty with Stan Montieth", Obama was intellectually mentored by Saul Alinsky who dedicated his "Rules For Radicals" to Satan. Thus, Obama could in a sense be considered Satan's intellectual grandchild.
Friday, August 15, 2008
It's bad enough that those living under the heal of tyranny have their God-given rights suppressed, but one expects to hear of this transpiring in less-developed countries that have never really known freedom to begin with. However, things have really gotten out of hand when those living in the United States have to fear for their livelihoods for speaking out against abridgements of liberty occurring overseas.
According to an Associated Press story titled, "Protestors Take CNN To Task Over Commentator's China Remarks", Jack Cafferty observed, "We continue to import their junk with lead paint...and poisoned pet food and export, you know, jobs to places where you can pay workers a dollar a month to turn out stuff we’re buying from Wal-Mart. I think they’re [the Chinese government] the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years.”
So instead of addressing the factuality of the allegations, a group of Chinese Americans took to the streets outside of CNN’s Hollywood office and called for the firing of Jack Cafferty. Of the group, one must question whether its loyalties were to be found with Red China or the United States.
One of the ringleaders is quoted as saying, “We understand free speech.” No, apparently they don’t as Cafferty stated a perfectly legitimate opinion in a non-obscene manner.
In such a situation, one ought to fight back against a claim one does not like by leveling a counterargument against it. However, in this case, the statement cannot be refuted so the only recourse is to appeal to the strong-arm tactics more like those used in Communist countries than those that ought to be considered in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The Chinese leaders are in Cafferty’s words, “basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they’ve been for the last 50 years."
Are not the leaders of the People’s Republic of China still Communist? Do they still not engage in the same kinds of human rights violations inherent to that sociopolitical philosophy no matter how much they claim to liberalize the economy?
How else other than as goonish or thuggish does one describe a government that blocks its citizens from accessing the Internet unfettered, forbids its citizens the right to affiliate religiously with whomever they please without fear of reprisals, and interferes with the number of children couples are permitted to have?
Distracted by weightier matters such as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, many Americans have problems relating to issues and events beyond those directly brought to their attention on the nightly news. Even if that is the case, they still don’t have to stretch their diminished attention spans too greatly to become familiar with the goonishness and thuggery of the Red Chinese.
For as the Olympic torch made its way through Western lands, citizens of the Free World were granted the privilege of experiencing first hand on a small scale the kinds tactics employed by these Eastern despots. Chinese paramilitary units “protecting” the torch laid hands on American and European protestors demonstrating against this regime’s civil rights abuses and even threatened those carrying this global symbol not exactly in a manner how its Marxist caretakers thought it ought to be. I ask you, do these operatives have the right or authority to lay a finger on a single person outside their nation's territorial jurisdiction?
Here we are being told to shut our own mouths out of respect for a foreign society while representatives of this very same society have no intentions of honoring our tradition of dignity and restraint while on our own soil. And don't think this will all blow over with Westerners, particularly Americans, going back to enjoying our God-given right to say what we want about whomever we want.
According to a Reuters story dated 4/28/08 titled "CNN Now Sued For $1.3 Billion --- $1 For Every Person In China", the global network has been slapped with a lawsuit in a New York court by a beautician and elementary school teacher (both of Chinese origins) on the grounds that Cafferty's remarks "insulted all Chinese people and intentionally caused mental harm". One wonders if those shot in the skull by Red Chinese organ harvesters will be allowed to seek recompense for the "mental harm" inflicted upon them by the government there.
Such legal action could result in silencing criticism of Red China not only in areas controlled by these diabolical Communists but even in nations where freedom of speech is suppose to prevail. CNN might be able to stand up to such judicial challenges, but what about the average citizen journalist or blogger?
Yet despite droning on and on about how glorious their homeland happens to be and how we as Westerners are not to pass judgment against the regime ruling over this particular nation and its territory, there is one glaring hypocrisy that has to be pointed out. And here it is: if China is such a swell place that isn't ruled by a bunch of goons and thugs, why are those so eager to rush to its defense living over here rather than contentedly over there?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, August 14, 2008
While biologically and ontologically we are all created equal and children of the same loving God, the way many areas no longer having a majority Caucasian influence have gone into decline, one almost cringes to think what the world of 2042 will be like.
Though these characters still remain at the forefront of popular culture, in some instances their origins have been slightly reinterpreted to reflect the concerns of the new generation of authors putting their own creative spins on them and to capture the imaginations of a contemporary fan base. For example, in the Spider-Man films, the arachnid conveying its abilities to an unsuspecting Peter Parker is no longer just an average one accidentally bombarded with radiation but rather one deliberately tinkered with at the genetic level that somehow escapes lab captivity.
Though tastes in entertainment may differ on both sides of the Atlantic, it is pretty safe to say that Doctor Who is a venerable sci-fi icon among fans irrespective of their country of origin. Even though I myself am a relatively new fan as classic episodes use to air well past midnight on the local PBS affiliate when I was a youth, much of the appeal of the crumble-coated space-fairing time traveler has been because of the unique manner in which the show's creators project ethical concerns against unique cosmic backdrops and circumstances.
For example, one episode of season three of the revived series dealt with the frustration those of us dwelling in urban areas have to contend with in the form of what seems to be unending traffic congestion. In this story, commuters on what was a second earth set millennia in the future literally spent much of their lives in contraptions that looked like a cross between a flying minivan and a cramped apartment where it could literally take years to travel just a few miles.
Tucked away between that amusing tidbit and a complete singing of "The Old Rugged Cross" that was rendered with such seriousness that one could see tears in the eyes of the characters was another narrative detail that just jumped out at the viewer in tune with where science and philosophy might be headed if concerned people of common sense don't soon put a stop to it. Though the geriatric lesbian couple was shocking enough, their risqué union seemed outdated and quaint in comparison to that between two of the other commuters the Doctor came across.
For in one of the vehicles was a regular looking human woman who was married to an individual half human and half feline in his physiology. As unsettling as that was, viewers were in for an even bigger surprise when the husband beams with pride to the wife and asks her to let the Doctor see the babies. The doting mother returns with kittens that sound like they are meowing “momma”.
The scene alone served as a startling warning of the future we might have to confront if a growing number in the Transhumanist movement have their way. For those whose news diet consists primarily of what gutter Lindsay Lohan puked in the night before, Transhumanism is the movement hypothesizing that human beings must move beyond the limitations inherent to our physiology if we are to proceed to the next stage in our development as a species. Transgenics would be a subset of this movement believing this goal is best accomplished by incorporating characteristics of other organisms into the human genome by essentially engineering an amalgamation on the molecular level of two distinct species.
Proponents of this ontological melding will respond that the family in this episode of Doctor Who was depicted in such a positive light that Transhumanism could easily be seen as a benefit or as at least ethically neutral. However, despite dancing gingerly around the topic in one episode, producers were more blatant in their concerns in the next.
In the episode "Daleks In Manhattan", the Doctor and rebound companion Martha Jones travel back to the Big Apple of the Depression Era. Here they encounter a bit of a mystery intertwining missing transients from a Central Park Hooverville and the construction of the Empire State building. From that point forward, the story begins to parallel events and developments here in our own time more than most of us would be willing to admit.
The Cult of Skaro (think the Dalek version of the Free Masons or Illuminati in that it has been alluded to that this group exists above and beyond the normal authorities of this species in order to facilitate long term reflection regarding galactic domination) co-opts the construction of the Empire State building to use as a genetics research facility. As part of their experiments, the Daleks kidnap the nearby homeless and meld the dimwitted among the captives with porcine DNA to create a hybrid slave race similar in appearance to Jabba the Hutt’s Gomorrean guards in “Return Of The Jedi” or the things that ran Bespin’s carbonite freezing chamber in “The Empire Strikes Back.”
Eventually, the Doctor stumbles upon these pigmen. Interestingly, the pigmen are told by their Dalek overseers to take the Doctor and the captives of higher intelligence to the TRANSGENIC laboratory.
While one may come across science fiction stories where some lunatic tries to create some kind of abomination by fusing together disparate species, seldom has one heard the word “transgentic” bantered about that freely. Viewers then learn that the pigmen are not an end in themselves but rather tests to work the kinks out so that the Daleks might merge with human victims since it has been concluded that such a step is necessary to bring about the next stage in Dalek evolution. From the process emerges a cycloptic monstrosity that even the other Daleks turn against as the result was anathema even anathema to their worldview of destruction and conquest summarized by their Naziesque catchphrase of “EXTERMINATE. EXTERMINATE.”
All well and good for a Friday night's entertainment, but what does this have to do with real life, the unsuspecting might ask. Quite a bit, actually.
For starters, along the fringes, one hears accounts of individuals abducted by nonhuman entities (the origins of which is not relevant to this line of argumentation as one band of researchers sympathetic to this reality claims such beings are biological hailing from elsewhere in the universe while another claims these beings are actually non-corporeal or the offspring of the biological and non-corporeal) for the purposes of amalgamating distinct orders of life.
And even if one does not buy into speculation regarding intelligent life beyond our own, one has to bury one's head deep in the sand to avoid talk these days about proposals to join man and animal on a genetic level. Not long ago, one could easily dismiss such conjecturing as the hyperactive imagination of those who have spent too many hours watching the Sci-Fi Channel. Now though, one sees an increasing number of credentialed scientists with the financial backing of industry, academia, and government that can actually ruin innocent human lives openly discussing these kinds of experiments that will potentially result in hybrid entities such as mice with physiologically human brains and human beings with the wings of birds.
Use to be one would imagine the likes of Dr. Frankenstein prowling around in some dank laboratory or at some ultrasecret government facility. However, now such advocates of deliberate biological deviancy proudly herald their position and hold conferences at prestigious universities where they act like you are the sicko if you don't have a smile plastered across your face about the plans for a generation of intentionally disfigured children.
Now one doesn't even have to turn to obtuse scientific journals printed in exceedingly miniscule typeface read only by a handful of eggheads that have not seen a hairbrush in years. One only needs access to a mainstream newspaper.
According to the Washington Post in a June 24, 2007 piece titled "Making Manimals" by Slate.com correspondent William Saletan, at the moment most efforts at joining human and animal DNA are reasonably modest such as transplanting baboon hearts and pig valves into human subjects in order to keep them alive. However, it would not take too much effort beyond what is possible now to dramatically expand the scope of these endeavors.
Saletan writes, "To make humanized animals really creepy, you'd have to do several things. You increase the ratio of human to animal DNA. You'd transplant human cells that spread throughout the body. You'd do it early in embryonic development so the human cells would shape the animals architecture, not just blend in. You'd grow the embryo to maturity. And you'd start messing with the brain. We're doing all of these things."
Though the author will admit to the general public what is going on, instead of condemning the things such practices might lead to, he turns around and condemns those condemning this technology by casting suspicions on them as those Evangelicals the Washington Post likes to categorize as "poor, uneducated, and easy to command."
Saletan concludes his remarks by saying, "If you want permanent restrictions, your best bet is the senator who tried to impose them two years ago. He's the same presidential candidate now leading the charge against evolution; Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican. He thinks we're separate from other animals, 'unique in the created order'. Too bad this wasn't true in the past --- and it won't be true in the future."
If that is how the elites of the scientific establishment are coming to feel, that should give all of us hayseeds that happen to think there is something special about the human race cause for concern. For although Saletan and others like him try to make a laughing stock of those opposed to the hobo stew of species amalgamation by insinuating that, as with evolution, only buffoons oppose the process, they are approaching a truth that defenders of this technology may not want to touch. That truth is of course being that without evolution as an operational paradigm (as it is not an established fact at the macro level) transgencis would not be morally permissible.
For if human beings are not "unique in the created order" as the transgenic evolutionists who now hold sway in the halls of corporate, academic and government research now argue, then why should human beings be granted any special rights at all? And in some circles, we probably have even fewer rights as some of the shrill harpies in the animal rights movement who go into apoplexy over a smashed eagle’s egg are often the loudest banshees for the right to hack human babies to pieces.
Initially, these technologies and procedures will be marketed under the banner of medical progress and those opposed will be castigated for their lack of sympathy for the suffering just as those opposed to embryonic stem cell research were cast as being opposed to Superman ever walking again as in the case of Christopher Reeve. Saletan writes, "We're not doing these things because they are creepy. We're doing them because they are logical. The more you humanize animals, the better they serve their purposes as lab models of humanity. That's what's scary about species mixing. It's not some crazy Frankenstein project. It's the future of medicine."
However, it is not like this is where researchers will stop their work out of some reverence for the well being of human beings made in the image of God as this ideal has already been held up for condemnation and ridicule. As even someone as sympathetic to this research as Saletan writes, "When Stanford first head of the proposal for humanized mice brains, they were grossed out. But after thinking it over, they tentatively endorsed the idea and decided that it may not be had to endow mice with some aspects of human consciousness or some human cognitive abilities.” The British Academy and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences have likewise refused to permanently restrict the humanization of animals.
Thus, once the urge to use this technology for legitimate medical applications has reached its limit, there will be little there to prevent its use just a little more and then just a little more. After it is used to bring a handicapped or diseased person back to normal, what is to prevent it from being used to make a perfectly healthy person better beyond what a rational person steeped in Judeo-Christian morality would conclude were God’s initial intentions and specifications?
For example, successfully transferred neurons from an animal to help the paralyzed? All well and good, but if someone does not put a foot down somewhere, what is to prevent the Pentagon from calling up soldiers given the charge of an electric eel?
Ghouls in lab coats want to create such creatures no doubt so the can carry out Dr. Mengle-like experiments. Saletan writes, “Imagine that: a hominid brain network you can treat like a lab animal because it is a lab animal.” The same thing use to no doubt be said about Jews and Black folks in decades past with atrocious consequences.
It is claimed in a New York Times article by Nicholas Wade titled “Chimeras On The Horizon” that, given the 20-day gestation period of a mouse compared to the nearly nine months a human being is baking in the oven, it is doubtful human cognitive abilities would have time to develop. But how can anyone be absolutely certain? To this day, despite the number of books on the subject containing five inch words no average person could possibly pronounce, scientists and philosophers are still not sure of the exact link between the brain and mind, this conundrum so perplexing that it is called the mind/body problem.
In the Wade article, Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops provides probably the soundest advice: “If something were half human and half animal, what would our moral responsibilities be? It might be immoral to kill such a creature. It’s wrong to create creatures whose moral stature we are perplexed about.”
Many times, the unaware viewer sits back and thinks many of the things seen in science fiction could never become a reality. However, if things continue on their current pace, it won’t be long until such tales join the historical chronicle of what has already transpired rather than as a depiction of where things might be headed.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thursday, August 07, 2008
I can understand how one can get sucked in by bawdy humor such as South Park on the idiot box if one lets one's defenses down for a bit as I have fallen into that myself from time to time, however, it is a sad comment on our society when some deliberately seek out and pay for something they know to be filth beforehand.