Photo by Frederick Meekins
Click On The Headline
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
Have they not seen the nine movies and two TV series suggesting this sort of thing does not end well?
Click On The Headline
Regarding the senile Indian that beat his tomtom while a Catholic student who did little more than look on with a bewildered smirk was initially tossed to the wolves by operatives of his diocese . What does being a veteran have to do with the issue? In that case, are Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McViegh deserving of extra sympathy for simply being veterans?
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has decreed that a system that allows for the existence of billionaires is immoral. But isn’t a system immoral when it imposes so many regulations and confiscatory assessments that the individual of average intelligence and ability is discouraged to the point of no longer striving to better themselves or expending the effort to accumulate wealth for the fear of being destroyed for violating these byzantine obligations?
In his criticism of the purity movement, a homeschool activist applauds his grandmother for getting married at the age of 15. So if this is to be allowed nowadays in Christian settings, will these young couples be expected to provide for themselves? Or, as in the case of many missionaries, is everybody else going to be guilt-tripped into providing those with outstretched hands and superiority complexes?
In his condemnation of the unmarried, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that our primary concern ought to be keeping the commandments of God and that likely means that our children are to be married. In other words, getting children married is not about their individual happiness or personal well being. Rather it is apparently about children existing to mollify the psycho-spiritual quirks and mental deficiencies of their parents. Along with that, Swanson warned that Christians must not get sucked into romantic or idealistic conceptions of marriage and instead view the institution as a tool (much like haired shirt one supposes) to mortify the flesh. In other words, kids ought to smacked up side the head (probably literally in the minds of some acolytes of this extremist form of pedagogy) if they refuse to settle for a mediocre partner they are less than enthused about and must apparently acquiesce to because of their parents diminished sense of self-worth.
In condemnation of fantasy films, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson upheld as praiseworthy a movie detailing a massacre of early Virginian colonists on the part of American Indians. But why is it acceptable to examine the moral implications of those sorts of actions in the light of that described narrative but instead inappropriate to contemplate a similar ethical situation in the form of Thanos’ use of the Infinity Gauntlet?
Regarding the alleged assault against actor Jussie Smollett, Joe Biden tweeted that such attacks must never be tolerated in this country. Did the former Vice President ever issue similar statements against the knockout game where urban youth predominantly selected White victims euphemistically referred to as “polar bears” or in regards to activist hordes looting private property in response to unpopular police actions or jury verdicts?
The Governor of Virginia pontificated that, since most legislators are men, they should stay out of the abortion debate. Applying similar reasoning, does that mean women should remain silent regarding the formulations for determining child support since it is usually men paying it?
The 1/30/19 Washington Post announced that Rand Paul was awarded $580,000 in a lawsuit over injuries sustained in an attack by his neighbor over a landscaping dispute. The story also pointed out that the perpetrator spent a month in jail for assaulting a member of Congress. As a good libertarian, shouldn’t Paul be opposed to an increase in penalty based upon the station of the victim when the crime was not necessarily motivated by the elected office held by the victim? Likewise, did Joe Biden issue a statement how neighbors physically attacking neighbors cannot be tolerated in this country? Guess Rand Paul is neither gay or Black enough to warrant such additional sympathy.
Sophisticates across the political spectrum are warning that Trump’s border national emergency will open the door to dictatorship. So where were these voices when their beloved Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were drawing up plans to suspend the Constitution, seize private property, and to conscript the civilian population into slave labor details? Aren’t the political figures that formulated these sorts of procedures as much at fault as any office holder that might implement any power already on the books?
Alaska airlines is threatening to hire more minority pilots. So pandering to activists is apparently more important than successfully transporting aircraft from point A to point B.
Regarding the weather forecast. The way the meteorologist is referencing the transition of snow to rain as "the change over" sounds more like a report on menopause.
Presidential contender Kamala Harris assures that the New Green Deal is more something to aspire to rather than concrete policy proposals to actually implement. So she wants an America where people will not be allowed to eat meat or fly? Can it be explained why it is an outrage to erect barriers to keep out those that have no right to be here but perfectly acceptable to impede the travel within designated borders of those sanctioned to be within a particular territory?
Bernie Sanders raised nearly a million dollars just hours after announcing his latest presidential bid. As a good socialist, shouldn’t he insist that these funds be seized and redistributed to less successful candidates?
by Frederick Meekins
Local authorities are being asked to assist in the care of these undocumented transients.
But shouldn't enlightened progressives be outraged at this policy request?
They, after all, tossed conniptions at Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking it upon himself to enforce federal laws that were not.
The vigilante patriots of the Minute Man Project were condemned for doing nothing more than monitoring the border and reporting violations to law enforcement.
Activists are lamenting that the holding area for the horde of illegals swarming over the border resembles a concentration camp.
But unlike the case of the historical facilities alluded to, no one was forced into the ones the United States is accused of administering in this instance.
No goons banged down the doors of these people and dragged them here.
How many making these complaints are going to grant these migrants shelter in the gated communities from whence those making these sorts of allegations usually ensconce themselves with luxuries they would deny those deemed less enlightened in terms of espoused ideology?
By Frederick Meekins
These subversives constantly harp the shortcomings of the past in the hopes of disgusting the otherwise undiscerning into going along with the pending revolution to collapse what remains of America's constitutional liberties.
Now, the First Lady of Virginia Pamela Northam is accused of a thought crime for handling a legislative page a piece of cotton during a tour of the Governor's Mansion and asking the student to imagine what it would be like to be enslaved and forced to pick that all day.
Is not that the entire point of history, to try and better understand as much as possible what those in he past endured?
One must ask then what exactly was it that Mrs. Northam did so wrong?
Try and prompt someone to try and think for themselves rather than reflexively respond in a manner as commanded by social engineers?
A complaint letter --- not even written by one of the students to whom the cotton was handed which also included Whites as well ---- states that the First Lady of Virginia's presentation made one of the delicate snowflakes within eartshot “uncomfortable”.
So how is that worse than what the average American feels every time these regrettable transgressions of the past are invoked to justify developments such as looting after unpopular trial verdicts and the expansion of social programs that will plunge the nation further into a debt spiral from which it will likely never recover?
So what is it going to be?
Are we going to reemphasize the negativity of the past to the point where the positive things we do have as a country are forgotten or are we to ignore them entirely because some have so pandered to the aggrieved so spoiled by unmerited concessions that the fawning attention demanded now overwhelms them?
By Frederick Meekins
In an attempt to pander to Blacks in this sort of manner, Elizabeth Warren --- identified by Reuters in the account of this policy proposal as White so we can be relieved that the leftist press has settled this brouhaha as to whether or not she's actually an American Indian --- has come out in favor of reparations.
In particular, the Senator is backing legislation that would assist minorities in making a down payment on a house.
But if it is wrong to deny someone access to housing on the basis of race, why is it right to assist an individual to procure housing when it is obvious that the person does not deserve to own a house on the basis of meritorious achievement?
Conversely, why is a Rustbelt or Appalachian White barely getting by as a box store cashier obligated to provide the taxes so the likes of Jussie Smollet, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson can be provided a down payment on a house?
If targeted populations were lavished with these handouts, would they shut up once and for all regarding historic mistreatments they never directly suffered or will they continue to invoke these in the ongoing attempt to extort additional concessions from gullible and easily manipulated Whites?
Providing government housing to vast swathes of the population benefits neither those it is lavished upon nor the areas in which such individuals come to reside.
The squalor endemic to numerous public housing projects is testament to this truth.
If Elizabeth Warren really was an Indian, you'd think she'd already be familiar with this sad reality.
By Frederick Meekins