Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Monday, July 22, 2019
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Saturday, July 13, 2019
Thursday, July 11, 2019
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
Tuesday, July 09, 2019
A bill submitted to the Florida legislature for consideration provides clarification as to the precarious and interlocking nature of the Bill of Rights where, if one of these in undermined, they are all ultimately undermined. Now that what is insisted is a consensus has coalesced that firearms in the hands of minors is so lamentable as to require in most instances intervention on the part of the state, it has been proposed that it ought also be against the law to the extent of a penalty of up to $1000 and/or a year in jail for anyone under the age of 18 to post an image of a firearm to social media.
So what other objects not inherently illegal or immoral in and of themselves ought youth to be punished for depicting in an artistic manner disseminated by electronic communication?
Youths below a certain age are not permitted to drive automobiles. Does that mean that a teen auto enthusiast that uploads the image of a vehicle to a social media profile ought to arrested in a police raid?
Given how broadly the proposed statute is written, continuing with this analogy to expose how asinine this is, the teen would not even have to be depicted driving the car without a permit or even simply seated in the driver's seat. One would be in violation of the law for simply posting an image of an automobile. It must be seriously asked would hate crimes penalties be added if the car depicted happened to be the General Lee from “The Dukes Of Hazard”?
Given the way the proposed law could be interpreted, could a child that likes to draw robots be imprisoned for posting an image of Megatron, the Decepticon leader from the Transformers who in his classic form not only transforms into a gun but has a massive canon strapped to his arm? Don't think this is absurd?
In 2008, a passenger was booted from a flight for doing nothing more than wearing a shirt where Autobot leader Optimus Prime from the same Transfomers series was depicted holding a gun. That's right, a passenger was removed from a flight not for carrying an actual weapon but for rather wearing the shirt with a picture of a cartoon character holding a gun that in actuality could not fire a single shot.
If today subjects of the regime can potentially face imprisonment and financial ruination for mere images that do nothing more than symbolize inanimate objects, where will this theoretically end? Might someone be subject to interdiction by law enforcement for simply posting a picture of the Cross, a crucifix, or the equivalent of a status update reading “Jesus is Lord” or “He is risen, indeed”?
Sophisticates will respond don't be silly. Those only represent ideas or beliefs. Guns or the promotion of firearms, on the other hand, represent a tangible threat to individual well being and maintenance of a sustainable social order.
It might be one thing to enforce prohibitions against weapons conveyed in a manner that does not comply with promulgated standards. However, if one can criminalize something that is not inherently evil in and of itself as the vehicle through which an idea is transferred from one mind to another, the floodgates have been thrown open to a new form of tyranny that is nearly boundless. Should images of sugary snacks be forbidden because of the dangers these delights pose to diabetics and the obese?
C.S. Lewis once observed that the way contemporary society treats sex was analogous to those dieing of starvation gathering to catch a brief glimpse of a meal that the viewers would not be allowed to taste nor touch. One must now ponder in deliberative seriousness if a mind as formidable as his own could conceive of a time when even the image of something innocuous would be as forbidden as a behavior allowed to fester out of control as a result of the attempt to expunge the transcendent eternalities intended to protect against such horrific outrages.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 04, 2019
Wednesday, July 03, 2019
It is one thing to question President Trump’s proposed Fourth of July celebration on the grounds of fiscal responsibility, concerns about the impact to physical infrastructure, or if this about stroking his enormous ego.
However, what needs to be observed about the response to it on the part of the DC mayor is her longing for America to be a dejected third rate nation subservient to despotic globalist bureaucrats.
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, July 02, 2019
And do they intend that the make love interests in their trashy romance novels look like Bill Gates rather than Arnold before the steroids wore off?
Click On The Headline
Monday, July 01, 2019
Saturday, June 29, 2019
Thursday, June 27, 2019
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
Monday, June 24, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Saturday, June 22, 2019
Friday, June 21, 2019
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Monday, June 17, 2019
Sunday, June 16, 2019
The Seminary is correct to oppose this ultimatum.
Maybe these denominational functionaries now have an idea how the average pewfiller or frontline pastor feels constantly being clobbered over the head these past few years with this social justice tripe.
But for how long will resolve against this sophisticated form of ideological extortion remain?
After all, it did not take long to get the seminary's president Albert Mohler from one year categorizing C.J. Mahaney as one of his closest friends to the next referring to the controversial founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries with phraseology as if the two were barely acquaintances.
If the Southern Baptist Convention is now passing resolutions praising critical race theory, before his retirement, Albert Mohler will probably have a big smile plastered across his face as he surrenders the seminary's endowment to the equivalent of Al Sharpton who will immediately proceed to squander it.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 15, 2019
Friday, June 14, 2019
Maybe Catholics Outraged Over Vatican Tampering With Lord’s Prayer Will Realize Pope Not Infallible After All
Thursday, June 13, 2019
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
Tuesday, June 11, 2019
Monday, June 10, 2019
Sunday, June 09, 2019
Thursday, June 06, 2019
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
Tuesday, June 04, 2019
Monday, June 03, 2019
Friday, May 31, 2019
Thursday, May 30, 2019
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
Thursday, May 23, 2019
Cardinal Burke Extols The Virtue Of Patriotism In Defiance Of Pope’s Celebration Of World Government
Wednesday, May 22, 2019
However, according to a story posted at SyFyWire, there is a likelihood that there might never again be a Batman TV series .
That is because, DC Comics believes, Batman rightfully belongs in the movies.
So how's that working out for both viewers and the character?
With both “Superman vs. Batman” and “Justice League” underperforming, Ben Affleck has already, as they like to say, hung up his cowl.
This do not necessarily have to be this way.
There is no reason that there cannot be a cinematic Batman along with a small screen Batman that we are given more of than a glancing shot of as the screen fades to black.
After all, DC gatekeepers apparently have little issue with presenting the media-consuming public with two widely varying interpretations of the Flash.
Time to time, Superman makes an appearance on the Supergirl TV series and now Lex Luthor has been added as an ongoing antagonist.
An ongoing series of movies with installments released every two to three years are not enough to do a mythos as complex as Batman the justice and detail that would be possible with a TV series.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
Were students also required to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm?
Click On The Headline
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Thursday, May 16, 2019
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
An article posted 7/26/18 on the Washington Post website is titled “Why Some Christians Don't Believe In Gun Control: They Think God Handed Down The Second Amendment”. The analysis opens, “We're now at a point when Americans are killed or injured in a mass shooting almost every month...Despite this, resistance to gun control in the United States remains fierce.”
However, blame is not placed on those actually perpetrating such horrific acts of violence. Instead, blame is aimed at those nebulously referred to as “Christian nationalists”.
The author defines Christian nationalism as an ideology that holds to the inseparable bond between Christianity and American civil society. Adherents of the philosophy are accused of believing that America should remain broadly Christian in terms of underlying symbols and policies with the nation's foundational liberties to be understood in terms of a literal and absolute meaning.
Interestingly, the authors of the study point out that adherents of Christian nationalism do not necessarily adhere to a singular interpretative theological tradition. Rather those of this perspective are not only conservative Evangelicals but also traditionalist Catholics or even those that construe existence through a religious lens but do not necessarily practice their faith through formalized church attendance.
Such a definition raises a number of issues and questions perhaps even more important than the right to bear arms. Among these rank why certain technocrats want to eliminate this particular liberty and, conversely, why Americans must not allow this precious freedom to be taken away if they desire to retain those more obvious such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The first presupposition denigrated as going “beyond merely acknowledging some sincere religious commitments of the Founding Fathers” is that America should always be distinctively Christian in terms of national identity. But if the majority in the nation are Christian at least to the degree that they have no problem identifying the institutions of such in terms of origin, why are these obligated to be altered to placate a small cabal of disgruntled secularists?
The next issue raised by the authors of the study that ought to be of concern is opposition to enumerated liberties understood as being divine, literal and absolute.
If rights are not understood as being divine in origin, it follows that these protections must derive then from being bestowed upon the individual by the state as the ultimate authority answerable to nothing higher in a materialistic or naturalistic universe. After all, even if for a moment the institution decides to grant those subject to it a degree of leeway referred to colloquially as “rights”, there is nothing preventing these from being revoked at a moment's notice because of the near monopolistic use of force utilized by the state. For even in a situation where the population has access to basic firearms, these are minuscule in terms of the sorts of munitions available to the state in the era of total war.
Only when rights are construed as being bequeathed upon mankind by God apart from the state can they be perceived as absolute and unchanging. For such a gift would be a reflection of God's absolute perfection and unchanging goodness.
Nor would an honest or descent person want it any other way. For if rights are granted by an individual or institution that is fallible by nature, who is to say that these rights were not mistakes to begin with.
This concern is evidenced in the case of Alex Jones. It has been concluded that a controversialist such as himself must be “deplatformed” for the sake of the social good because of his propensity to disseminate ideas contradictory to the narratives concocted by globalist puppet masters determining what will or will not constitute acceptable factuality.
Most people, even his admirers, will eventually admit that Jones has said shocking and outrageous things over the years. But what if this government that can adapt the scope of the allowable in order to calibrate what the technocrats conclude is the sort of society that they desire decide to contract the boundaries of permissible utterances further?
Believe that Jesus is the only path to Heaven? But if rights do not exist above the material world, what if a government concludes such cannot be said for fear of undermining the sense of equality of those residing within its jurisdiction? Unless the people are allowed to retain some kind of tangible check on such power run amok.
By Frederick Meekins