Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Early in American history, one was pretty much free to do as one saw fit on one's property so long as it was moral especially if one lived in a rural area where one's actions were not likely to encroach upon the sensibilities of one's neighbors. However, now it seems the landholdings of the United States in general and private property in specific are for everyone else to decide what to do with except the one to which it is titled.
As of September 1, 2009, the Virginia Department of Game and Fisheries has announced that it is illegal to artificially feed the deer through the first Saturday in January. This regulation is part of a program to keep the number of deer in check.
In other words, it is hoped that a number of them will starve to death during the winter months. If pristine, untouched nature is to be the standard by which our actions and decisions are to be judged, then shouldn't we speak plainly as to the policy's goals and intentions?
While the government has every right to set policy as to what it wants done on public lands and in state parks, private property holders should be able to do in regards to this issue on their own lots and in their own yards what they themselves believe best. Not everyone is going to feed the deer to begin with.
It should be noted that this bureaucratic mandate will go beyond regulating one single activity. According to a story posted at Harrisonburg Daily News Record titled "Deer Feeding Now Illegal", those with deer eating the seed spilled from birdfeeders will be ordered to temporarily take their feeders down.
Seems unwanted deer aren't the only extraneous animals authorities hope will die off and I am not talking about the birds. Obama's healthcare plan hopes that the aged demographic will simply throw in the towel with little resistance so that resources might be directed towards preferred groups such as illegal aliens.
Seems other public policy proposals may be furthering this agenda in a roundabout way. For you see, feeding the birds is often the highlight of the day of an elderly person who might not have anything else to look forward to in terms of entertainment now that television has pretty much been taken away from them unless they have a PH.D in electronics now that one has to have a digital converter box.
And speaking of illegal aliens and the like, it baffles the mind how environmentalists (who are usually some variety of liberal) that view human beings as being no better than animals and often of lower regard when it comes to the unborn as you can hack apart all the fetus you want so long as you don't smash open a bald eagle's egg or even touch a discarded feather for all that matter, fail to grasp a number of lessons that transcend the species barrier.
In an interview regarding the rational behind the prohibition, a wildlife official pointed out that once the deer get use to finding food in a certain place, they can become disgruntled and testy if nutritional allotments are discontinued. In other words, these ungulates loose their sense of self-sufficiency and develop an entitlement mentality.
Does any of this somehow seem familiar? During the speakership of Newt Gingrich, the Republican Congress thought they would get a handle on spending not really by cutting back certain programs such as school lunches but rather by slowing the rate of increase.
From the response to the policy at the time, one would have thought conservatives were smashing babies’ heads against concrete buildings, something a number of Obama’s closest advisors might not have all that much problem with. Likewise, one of the reasons elected officials are reluctant to do away with or eliminate many assorted handouts are the massive riots that would erupt across the country if the chronically dependent were suddenly expected to provide for themselves. Thus, one of the greatest bribes or ransom schemes in human history is basically continued for now to forestall what will one day result in history’s greatest bloodshed.
The issue of deer also provides an excellent study into other aspects of the immigration debate as well. The article says, “An overabundance of deer can lead...to increased human-deer conflicts, including vehicle collisions and disease transmission such as tuberculosis and other deer ailments.”
Illegal aliens and immigrants of dubious loyalties cannot be dealt with in the same manner as deer as one has a soul made in the image of God. However, the results are quite similar when the ratio of native born to foreign born becomes imbalanced in a similar manner.
Increased conflicts do result. Just ask Americans that have had their homes violated on the West coast.
I recall reading of incidents in California where Black families have come home only to find that illegals have moved in and staked a claim to a dwelling while the legitimate residents were out for the day. It is not uncommon for Arizonans to be awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of migrants rummaging through their refrigerators.
Secondly, though few want to talk about it since, in the eyes of the hypertolerant, being accused of racism is a fate worse than one's lungs filling with blood and festering puss, deer aren't the only ones spreading tuberculosis these days. Thanks primarily to deviants with compromised immune systems and diseased foreigners bringing in any number of previously conquered or even unknown diseases, America now faces an assortment of drug resistant pestilences.
Environmentalists are fond of pointing out that ecosystems are delicate things to balance. What they fail to realize is that one of the greatest threats to such harmony is government control.
by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
Guess Il Duce laments the open demise of his dark masters. Interesting how Berlin was good enough for a backdrop when he was stumping for Messiahship.
The White House has announced plans to expand its Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In an address to the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said the office would reach out to nonprofit organizations and "help them determine how to make a bigger impact...and learn their obligations under the law." From a number of things said in the speech and that have transpired in relation to the economic bailout, those who cherish both religious liberty and sound theology should be deeply concerned.
Under the Bush Administration, those not wanting to pollute the purity of their doctrine by accepting government funds were pretty much free to say "No thank you". However, under the Obama regime, will reluctant religious organizations be permitted to back out amicably? Don't be so sure.
In regards to the bailout of the nation's floundering financial institutions, it has been insinuated that Wells Fargo did not want the government's handout but had its arm twisted by Lurch Jr, Hank Paulson into accepting the funds. For in the glorious opening days of socialism, no organization or individual can be seen as better or sounder than any other without at least some kind of penalty being inflicted.
If an administration at one time as dedicated as that of George W. Bush to liberty and free market principles can begin to nationalize the economy on the turn of a dime, then how much quicker will an administration already dedicated to socialistic principles such as experts being able to order your life better than you jump at the opportunity to manage the minutest aspect of our lives.?
For example, if financial institutions can be forced to accept bailout money whether they want to or not, what is to prevent this White House office from exerting pressure on small churches and organizations not having the resources to resist such coercion? And once these religious organizations have buckled under to the demands as in the case of financial institutions accepting assistance, what is to prevent snobs in the Obama administration from dictating what policy preferences and doctrines these institutions will then be permitted to enunciate?
Those not accustomed to exercising spiritual discernment wonder with befuddlement about what’s the big deal with granting the government a more direct role in influencing doctrinal content. After all, activists from both sides of the spectrum hope to influence the values embodied by the state.
That is correct, but that is the church or other institutions existing apart from the government playing their role in the political process rather than the state imposing its values on the other associations of private individuals. For when this is done in areas other than those delineated constitutionally in a free republic, one begins to step onto dangerous ground since the state is the only one of these that can use force and confiscate property in the process to ensure that its purposes prevail.
For example, at the national prayer breakfast, President Obama remarked, "And today,...it strikes me that this is one of the rare occasions that still brings the world together in a moment of peace and goodwill.” It is this spirit of peace and goodwill, one might argue, that President Obama hopes to promote and expand through the Office of Faith and Neighborhood partnerships.
However, the President’s remarks are rife with contradictions as well as other assumptions in the background regarding his worldview that will spell the ruination of religious liberty if his ideas are allowed to come to fruition. For example, Obama insists in his remarks, “There is no God who condones the taking of innocent human life.”
On the surface that is correct. However, that seemingly simple utterance requires the discerning to dig much deeper.
By making this statement and claiming to be a religious man, Obama has proven himself to either be a liar or deceived. For example, recounting her testimony before the Illinois state legislature, Jill Stanek recalled how uncaring Obama seemed regarding a baby surviving an abortion but who was tossed aside like the contents of a used bedpan. So either Obama must confess his complicity in the murder of the innocent, admit he really doesn’t give a flip about the laws of God, or that the God he serves really does condone the taking of innocent human life.
As a master deceiver, one must parse and analyze every word flowing from Obama’s lips at the decibel level of Loud Howard from the Dilbert animated series. For while trying to placate somulent Americam Christians, he also extends verbal overtures to the nation’s terrorist enemies.
One will note Obama declared, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.” Ladies and gentleman, you believe that as an American going about your daily business that you have done nothing against homicidal Muslims like those blowing up the World Trade Center. However, in the eyes of terrorists, as an infidel, you are far from innocent and thus a perfectly legitimate deliberate target.
Even fellow Americans of a radical inclination such as Ward Churchill (a likely Obama voter) likened those working at the World Trade Center unto Adolf Eichman. Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers primary regret was not having planted more bombs as a member of the Weather Underground.
In the coming months and years ahead, don’t expect President Obama to call upon the Islamofascists of the world to moderate their beliefs and to embrace those aspects of contemporary Western civilization superior to a medieval Levantine mindset. Rather the obligation to alter your beliefs will be imposed upon you, dear Biblicist.
In his first interview after assuming control of the federal government, Barack Obama did not grant an audience with a prominent American broadcaster such as Barbara Walters, Larry King, or Sean Hannity. Instead, he went crawling to an Arab propaganda outfit probably infiltrated by Al Qaeda sleeper agents.
Yet in a move reminiscent of those duped into advocating the unilateral disarmament position of the nuclear freeze movement, of Americans, Obama expects, “I don’t expect divisions to disappear overnight...But I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge. In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding.”
To Obama, destructive zealotry does not mean car bombs, forcing women to wear bags over their heads, or even holding “God Hates Fags” signs outside the funerals of Americans having fallen in battle. In the viewpoint of tolerance and open-mindedness of the new President, what constitutes acceptable religious activity is actually quite narrow.
For example, from the quote, Obama enunciates that he expects old rifts to mend and new partnerships to emerge. In other words, you are entitled to believe whatever you want so long as you don't believe that it is the only proper way to believe or dare share this perspective with anyone else.
For example, according to Obama, in response to criticism leveled against him by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, it is no longer appropriate for believers to take seriously Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. Likewise, in an American ecclesiastical backdrop where the Obama Administration is pulling the strings either overtly or from behind the scenes, will Christians any longer be permitted to believe that Christ is the only means of salvation or to speak out on those areas where competing belief systems fall short of Christianity?
This is a valid concern because, in the mind of President Obama, the collectivist social democracies of the world are seen as superior to America's more individualistic republic. Yet in these regimes, the freedom to express one's conscience is shaky at best.
For example, in Scandinavia, Pastor Akkie Green ran afoul of the thought police for daring to exposit those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality. In England, American talk radio personality Michael Savage was barred entrance for being critical of Islam even though Islamic militants are essentially granted permission to colonize the land of the Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy, and some of the world's most imaginative literature.
Things are little better with our neighbor to the north. For example, a ministry in Canada lost its equivalent of our tax exempt status for daring to point out where Jehovah's Witnesses and other theologically aberrant groups differ from establishmentarian Christianity. Mark Steyan and McClean's magazine faced the possibility of being dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal (basically a Stalinesque kangaroo court) for "vilifying” Islam by pointing out what terrorists have themselves publicly stated.
There is just so much those holding different religious beliefs can do together before mutual affirmations veer across the line into outright apostasy. For example, one can have a Muslim doctor or Jewish accountant and even be friends with these individuals. However, one is dangerously close to making the state itself God when profound theological differences are set aside in favor of so-called “new partnerships” called for by leaders out to deceive all of mankind irrespective of belief or creed.
by Frederick Meekins
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Around the 25 minute mark, it is declared that the COMMUNITY does not exist for our benefit, but that we exist for the sake of the COMMUNITY.
If you are going to be president, please act like one.
It should be remembered that the American people are the ones playing for all this "flair".
Why do I get the impression I am going to soon be as sick of hearing that word as I am now of "diversity", "tolerance", "COMMUNITY", and "dazzle" (the last one is innoucuous enough, but if your job was on the line because of it, it make you nausceous also).
Monday, November 02, 2009
Things must be going bad again once again in the Mohler household as Albert as usual is flying into one of his early marriage tirades and must want everyone to be as miserable as he is.
I find it interesting how he will blame young men for being immature yet never will blame the young women these days for being a bunch of floozies.
For unless these young men are either sodomites or the young women rape victims, the girls are just as guilty of playing house without benefit of matrimony as the cads he condemns.
Why should any young person of either gender that has behaved themselves have to settle for someone that hasn't?
Hopefully, Al won't have to spend too many nights on the sofa.
Some like Mohler want it both ways: if a person doesn't get married they get chewed out, but then if they fall for a Catholic, a Holy Roller, or a McLarenite because hardly anyone in the sound churches anymore is under 65 years of age, they'll get chewed out over that.
Maybe it is about time so long as a particular young person pretty much keeps their pants on that people start minding their own business.
by Frederick Meekins