William Hung Takes Stand For Cinematic Virtue

India Developing Anti-Gravity Technology

Burning Away Our Liberties

As many have no doubt heard by now, the nutcase that set himself on fire in front of the White House was a government informant. From his actions, makes you wonder what else he might have been on the government payroll to do or manipulated into possibly doing by his Machiavellian handlers.

Interestingly, these pyrotechnics weren’t the only street theater that transpired less than a week after the reopening of Pennsylvania Avenue to pedestrians. Those bent on fostering a nationwide siege-mentality did not have to wait long for the excuse they needed to turn the people’s boulevard into an off-limits thoroughfare once again.

Some will respond that, in this age of terrorism, we must accept changes to the way of life to which we were accustomed to in less dangerous times. Maybe so, but unless those alterations are in accord with clearly defined and publicly agreed upon rules, these measures are little more than a grab for power no matter how those in positions of authority make the situation sound.

Many of the so-called “security precautions” around the nation’s capital cannot be described any other way. A number, upon careful scrutiny, aren’t even based whatsoever on what civilized individuals classify as duly promulgated regulations but rather upon the arbitrary whims of petty bureaucrats intoxicated by their own delusions of self-importance.

Traditionally, government buildings and monuments in Washington have been admired as symbols of American justice and liberty. However, tourists exhibiting too much awe and enthusiasm for these physical manifestations of the nation’s might might come away from the experience now realizing these structures no longer adhere to the idealistic notions we have all been led to believe these agencies were allegedly created to safeguard.

WUSA TV 9, the Washington DC local CBS affiliate, reported tourists face possible arrest if caught photographing certain government buildings. Various agencies justified these punitive measures on the grounds of new regulations promulgated by the Department of Homeland Security.

Thing is, the Department of Homeland Security admits no such regulations exist prohibiting the photographing of government buildings. However, operatives within that agency insist it is acceptable for security forces to harass you as to what you are doing in areas open to the public.

Maybe some courageous patriot should remind errant authorities that in a free society citizens should not have to divulge such information unless they have actually done something wrong.

Yet even this reluctant admittance will not keep the enthusiasts of unbridled power from devising new ways of asserting their lust for domination over the American people. Even those loyal to our own system, but who endeavor to keep it within its intended bounds of authority, are not safe from these stifling tentacles.

In October, former Idaho Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage was pulled aside at an airport to receive an additional rifling through her person and possessions. She then inquired to see the regulation authorizing the additional scrutiny.

Her request was denied because the rule is itself deemed “too sensitive” to be looked upon by mere mortals (you’d think it was written across the Ark of the Covenant or something). Like a true patriot, Mrs. Chenoweth-Hage refused to submit and, at her own financial loss, decided not to fly.

Such regulations have little to do with security but are rather about conditioning the American people into accepting greater and greater intrusion into their lives. Today, we pliantly step aside to let the minions of the state fiddle with our belts or bra straps and to rummage through our underwear bags; where will it all end?

There have been threats of female bombers hiding explosives in their vaginas. Does that mean airport screeners will get to boff female passengers to make sure they aren’t concealing anything, with women and husbands objecting detained for not cheerfully placing evasive government directives over personal modesty?

Don’t laugh. Already one woman was forced a few years ago to take a swig of her own breast milk and a number of women have already filed complaints about the wandering hands of overly-enthusiastic security personnel. Pregnant women have been forced to disrobe in order to verify their gestational status.

As William Lind of the Free Congress Foundation remarked about the need to inspect footwear in light of suspected shoe-bomber Richard Reid, thank God he did not have an exploding suppository. Can you imagine what they’d make us take off and look into if he had?

If we are not allowed to see the regulations pertaining to these procedures, how are we to determine what is and is not permissible under the audacious banner of “homeland security”. If we are to be a nation of law rather than of despots, shouldn’t such policies be open to public scrutiny?

Five or ten years ago would so-called Conservatives, Libertarians, or even semi-consistent Liberals let the government get away with refusing to allow citizens to see the very laws it uses to justify the curtailment of our liberties and way of life? How long until Americans will be forced to endure Fallujhan-style security measures with retinal scans on every corner, identification displayed at all times, and mandatory reliance on militarized public transportation? But more importantly, when that day finally arrives, will the average American even care?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick B. Meekins

Peanut Butter Connoisseurs Ostracized As The New Smokers

One Indiana School requires those eating peanut butter to consume their victuals in a separate room because of one student with a peanut allergy.

If the tot is that sickly, why is he allowed to attend school at all?

Frankly, I am not too hip on the stinky slop some Asians eat. Does that mean they should be shunted away to a separte dietary facility? If some one is allergic to fried chicken and watermelon, does that mean Black kids should be sent to their own separate but equal lunchroom?

Where does this stupidity end? In the article, they are already concerned about what to do with the lactose intolerant kids who might get ahold of cheese from kids already brainwashed into being vegetarians: but since they are intolerant, perhaps they get whatever they deserve.

Are Terrorists Gathering Intelligence On American Churches?

Digital Fingerprints Convict The Innocent

Racoon-Sized Rats Invade Florida

British Subsidize Mulsim Polygamy

Hispanic Women Selling Out To Islam

Laser-Guided Terrorism?

Black Hooligans Demand More Handouts Before Heeding Cosby's Advice

Immigration Plan Will Destroy The Middle Class

Pentagon Coversup Rumsfeldian Slip: Backpedals Claim Pennsylvania Flight Shot Down

Is The President A Moonie Stooge: Bush Posse Lauds Cult's Brainwashing Tactics As Strong Family Values

White House Dreaming Of A Godless Christmas

Power Of Positive Thinking Not What It Use To Be: Schullerist Blows Brains Out

Broadcast Charity Drives Full Of Something Other Than Stuffing

Holidays such as Christmas and Thanksgiving are noted for their many traditions. Turkeys and football, decking the halls and all that stuff.

There is also the less noble tradition of conspicuous feigned compassionate charity on the part of local broadcast news outlets and the shame these glory hogs like to spread around during the holiday season in an attempt to lavish praise upon themselves as embodiments of enlightened progressive attitudes. However, in the light of such efforts, it would seem neither commonsense nor critical observation rank among the virtues heralded by these activist newsmen.

The thing about these charitable drives organized by TV stations is that these efforts would not be undertaken if the correspondents did not have a crew there to chronicle this fallacious eleemosynary in order to pat themselves on the back. At one of these celebrations of self-congratulation documented in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, one reporter interviewed an allegedly “underprivileged” woman with eight children.

Eight children. Mind you, it would be one thing if this woman had one or two kids and fallen upon hard times. In such a case, some kind of assistance might have been justified.

But eight children and unable to provide for herself? In all likelihood, that means she has spawned eight more times than she should have.

Advocates of social dependency and personal irresponsibility will snap, “Would you rather she abort her children?” No, I’d rather she’d exercise a little control and keep her pants on.

Unless she’s been raped eight times (highly unlikely), she should have never gotten herself into this situation. She is a human being, not a breeding sow; it’s about time she act as such.

The promiscuous schooled in the doctrines of “free love” and hedonism will gasp, “How dare you criticize this woman’s private life.” Maybe so, but as soon as this woman stepped forward for a public handout --- be it from either government or charitable institutions --- the matter ceased being a solely private concern.

Of course, one question (maybe eight in this instance) that few have the courage to raise in these cases is where are the fathers of these children. For in this era, most women --- unless they are remarkably devout and if so not likely not to require handouts --- don’t usually have that many children by one man.

Maybe broadcasters should plead with these copulating sleazebags to step forward to take personal responsibility for tossing their seed to the wind or do an ambush style interview with each of them as to why they think its everyone else’s responsibility to pick up the tab for their fleeting pleasures. It would also make for catchy holiday headlines: “Daddy, why don’t you love me this Christmas?”

After all, if you are the one having the fun, shouldn’t you be the one held responsible for the child’s welfare? It certainly isn’t that of those of us who go to work everyday and keep our noses to the moral grindstone.

Almost as politically incorrect is the observation that many of the indolent clamoring for the rest of us to fill their outstretched hands or suffer the wrath of public shame, humiliation and reeducation aren’t really “poor”. In this age of elastic definitions, poor no longer means being Ethiopian skinny or Appalachian toothless. Poverty, rather, is a conceptualization invoked when the slothful and their patrons in the social welfare racket believe they deserve a higher a standard of living than they are willing to exert an effort for in order to obtain.

A number of so-called “single mothers” I am aware of receiving public assistance as well as availing themselves of the bounty of annual school supply charitable drives instead squander the income freed by this misdirected philanthropy to purchase several hundred dollar handbags, go out partying at nightclubs, and on long, shellacked fingernails that would put a fighting cock to shame. Can anyone justify to me why I should pay higher taxes or increase charitable outlays so that the offspring of such women, who barely deserve the honor of being called mothers to begin with, might be able to have a Nintendo set or Nike basketball shoes?

If the rest of us have to squeak by on Ramen noodles and Budding Beef, so should those thinking they deserve better and expect you to pay for it.

As any good parent will tell you, there is more to love than giving an undisciplined child everything they want. Likewise, the greatest gift we might be able to give those claiming to be downtrodden this holiday season is the responsibility of fending for themselves for awhile.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Girl Arrested For Possessing Scissors

Museum Opens Blame Whitey Exhibit

Europeans Slowly Awakening To The Extinction Of The White Race

Liberty Counsel Abandons Blogger's: Gay Marriage More Glamourous

President Honors Sodomite & Womanizing Communist Sympathizer

Tom Clancy Predicts Nuclear Attack

WUSA TV 9, the Washington DC Metro Area CBS affiliate, did an interview with author Tom Clancy.

The famed techno-thriller was consulted to determine what he considered to be the next terrorist threat.

In his estimation, he predicted Islamic radicals procuring the nuclear parts of Russian atomic buoys to be used as the components of a dirty bomb.

While overall the piece was informative and admitting that Clancy can be a bit gruff in interviews at times, the story is out of line in deriding Clancy for being a “right-winger” and for insinuating he deserves hate mail for conjecturing terrorist Muhammad Atta was a homosexual.

Happily Ever After Not As Long As It Use To Be: Fairy Tale Marriage Between Exotic Princess & American Marine Ends In Divorce

MSNBC & Newsweek Whitewash Broken Homes For The Holidays

Unwrapping Innocence

Earlier this year, I wrote a column about the impropriety of airing prophylactic advertisements during Saturday morning children’s programming. Aficionados of the moral debauchery into which our nation is descending snapped classic animation is no longer directed at young children but rather towards libertine post-adolescents with less control over their urges than barnyard animals. Some unable to muster a rational argument instead chose to disparage my personal appearance.

Even if the viewing public must concede dominion of old favorites to these reprobates, does that mean we must stand by and yield all quality programming to those who want to drag us down to their level?

Typically, broadcasters have had a tradition of airing quality programming during the Christmas season. Usually, parents don’t have to expend much moral anguish as to whether or not the innocence of their children will be compromised through viewing these often cute or touching shows.

However, as in regards to the older Saturday morning adventures of yore now under new custodianship, it is my contention that the ethical peril lies not so much with the content as it does with the commercials.

The American Girl series of books have received considerable acclaim as quality literature depicting the lives of young girls during the nation’s early years in a manner reminiscent of Little House On The Prairie or Anne of Green Gables. As with other successful literary properties that have come before it, this one has made the transition from bookshelf to film as a new television movie produced for this special time of year titled “Samantha: An American Girl Holiday”.

Sounds like a night of enjoyable, worry-free TV, doesn’t it? Such an assessment would be incorrect.

While the movie was itself well-done and will no doubt become a Christmas classic and hopefully spawn sequels, many parents --- at least in the Washington Metropolitan Area watching channel 50 --- were no doubt flustered when they either had to avert the attention of young eyes and ears or face having to answer questions about birth control pills or feminine hygiene products.

Call me old fashioned or out of touch, but I think a parent should be able to sit down to watch a children’s show without having to explain what a tampon or maxipad is to a seven year old. Furthermore, what’s the point of advertising these things anyway since they have a captive market to begin with whose demand is not going to fluctuate any appreciable degree due to persuasive advertising.

Disgruntled feminists cannot dismiss such criticisms as sexist, chauvinist, misogynist, or what ever other label they might throw around certain times of the month to intimidate cowering males. Most women I know of frankly find those kinds of commercials embarrassing. Even NBC anchor Brian Williams, hardly a pawn of the religious right, revealed on The Sean Hannity Show how he did not like such intimate matters discussed during commercial breaks.

In the movie, the grandmother chides Samantha for inquiring about the private life of the family servants. While contemporary social relations shouldn’t be characterized by the same degree of contrived hyperformality, a little Victorian modesty might do everyone a bit of good and would be a gift this season that would give the whole year through.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

New Bolshevik Flag Weds Elements Of History's Deadliest Movements

Stumbled across this ominous looking banner. It was taken at the congress of the National Bolshevik Party in Moscow.

Students of history will note it melds elements of both the symbols of Communism (the hammer and sickle) and the color scheme of the Nazi flag.

Bringing these two movements together does not bode well for freedom loving people everywhere, but yet one you are not likely to hear much about in the mainstream media.

EPA Considers Human Experimentation

Brit Faces Six Months For Carrying Swiss Army Knife

Shepard Murder Not A "Hate Crime"

Women Object To Degrading Airport Security

Third Of Illegals Criminals

Glow Worms Honored For Contribution To War Effort

Obesity Epidemic A Big Fat Lie

Attorney General Nominee A Hispanic Supremacist

Not Your Granny’s Presbyterians

Among Christian denominations, Presbyterians have a reputation for sobriety and decorum. However, as denominations and churches try to out do one another in the rush to appear the most “authentic” and “with it”, that noble reputation might be coming to an end.

On the website of Covenant Theological Seminary of the Presbyterian Church in America is a section where websurfers can listen to audio files addressing a wide variety of issues and topics. Finding one on tattooing, I thought I’d hear a rational discourse against this popular form of personal disfigurement since Presbyterians are renowned for their skill at argumentation.

Much to my surprise, the lecturer, Margie Haack of RansomFellowship.org , gave an exposition on tattoos literally making them of little more consequence than applying makeup up or toning one’s muscles. Haack deceptively lumps all of these under the politically correct banner of “body modification“.

While doing a satisfactory job explicating the various emotional traumas tempting individuals to do something like this to their bodies, her message is woefully inadequate in extolling the shortcomings and dangers of these ghastly scribblings. No where does she even suggest tattoos might be something questionable yet eraseable (at least in the metaphysical sense) under Christ’s redeeming blood.

In fact, the only guilt trip was laid on those daring to retain the traditional Judeo-Christian reluctance to the practice. Throughout, Haack criticizes Christians leery of those branded in this fashion, likening the attitude to racial prejudice. But the last time I checked, the individual has no choice over their race; getting tattooed is a matter of personal volition.

Might most Christians raised properly or later schooled in correct deportment pull back from individuals exhibiting these markings since there might be something wrong with tattooing? After all, most of those with an affinity for this form of decoration aren’t exactly known for their reputations as upstanding members of the community.

Haack attributes these pangs of conscience to misguided middle class values. Interesting, isn’t it, how these attacks on decency always boil down to this argument.

Haack further undermines traditional Biblical teachings on this issue by equating Scriptural injunctions against the practice in question with other Old Testament legal provisions no longer observed under the dispensation or covenant of grace of the New Testament such as dietary restrictions against pork, garments of mixed fabric, and other hygienic or ceremonial matters. While some rules such as those dealing with diet have been rescinded elsewhere in the Bible, ceremonial ones fulfilled by Christ’s coming, and others specified for the particular cultural and historical setting of ancient Israel, many still serve as moral principles and commands conductive to personal health and well being.

For example, nothing much is going to happen to you if you occasionally enjoy some pork or shellfish. However, it only takes one prick of a dirty tattoo needle to get hepatitis (ask Pamela Anderson) or AIDS.

When that happens, I suppose all the pro-tattoo clergy, academics, and otherwise unproductive intellectuals will turn around and lecture all of the unenlightened clods of the middle class why it is now our Christian obligation to put more into the collection plate or have taken out in taxes to alleviate suffering that could have been prevented in the first place.

Interestingly, Mrs. Haack goes on to create the impression that somehow Christians are spiritually superior if they deface themselves with this religious graffiti. Haack justifies tattoos all in the name of Jesus since some early and medieval Christians had them.

While we must study the past or be doomed to repeat it, that does not mean it is the end all in terms of doctrine and practice. After all, if everything had been peachy keen from day one onward, there wouldn’t have been much need for a Reformation, would there?

Haack also provides example of cotemporary Christians who have exhibited their “spirituality” through being tattooed. Specifically, she mentions Jeremy Huggins whom she is careful to point out is a graduate of Covenant Seminary and whom mentions in his own lecture about blogging archived on Covenant Seminary’s webpage his enjoyment of smoking and whiskey. My haven’t we come along way; I remember back in my Christian school days you played it down if you liked “The Simpsons” for fear of running afoul of authorities.

It is revealed that Huggins has a Hebrew word emblazoned across his chest and a Greek phrase etched into his back to remind him of his reliance upon God. If that’s what it takes to jog his memory, his faith must be pretty weak.

If these inscriptions are on sections of his anatomy not normally gawked at by the church going public, then why are we even being told about them? Could be it that those like Rev. Huggins feel guilty about what they have done to themselves, and instead of seeking forgiveness, they try to drown out the shame with applause and accolades from today’s doctrinally fickle congregations?

Since these human billboards advertise their intense religious devotion, it won’t be long until those with tattoos come to be seen as more dedicated to their God than those not decorated in this manner. Eventually in much the same manner as Christians who did not care to view “The Passion” were pressed for a reason as to why they did not want to see the movie, those without tattoos will be hounded by taunts such as “Jesus was scarred for you. Don’t you love him enough to be scarred for him?”

Interestingly, this unsightly body vandalism in a sense serves as a roadmap to certain questionable trends underway within the Presbyterian Church in America. This denomination, once noted for its sticktoitiveness to propriety now, from the attitudes conveyed on their flagship seminary’s website, would rather Christian young people drink, smoke, and turn their bodies into human sketchpads than read Left Behind novels.

Much of the ministry within this denomination is targeted at the highly educated. While that is commendable since this segment is often overlooked in terms of witness, maybe Presbyterians need to worry more about winning approval of the Lord rather than that of slovenly college professors and students.

I ask you what would you rather your children do? Are you going to be so pleased with you own sense of tolerance when your daughter or son comes home having put your broadmindedness into practice?

Furthermore, why should I listen to some preacher prattle on about the “evils” of some young adult activities such as dating (as is the case in the now pervasive Josh Harris I Kissed Dating Goodbye syndrome) or as to why I ought to drop more into the collection plate when the pastor looks like a cheesy roadside advertisement for his own lack of self-discipline especially if he does not readily display a sense of repentance over such an obvious shortcoming?

It has been said youth is fleeting; the indiscretions of it are not. As such, you should not do much of anything you would not want to catch your granny or grampy doing since, try as we might to put the passage of time out of our minds, one day each of us will be one of those elderly souls that have to dispense advice to the young whether they want to hear it or not.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Kjos Ministries Links To Review Of Pilgrims & Puritans

My cyberspace contacts inform me Kjos Ministries has linked to the review I wrote last year of a book on the Pilgrims and Puritans.

This was quite a pleasant surprise since I have enjoyed listening to Berit Kjos speak over the years about the socialist/New Age infilitration of the nation's educational system in prepartion of the New World Order.

I guess this makes me a third or fourth tier celebrity now. Now if there was only some way to get rich off such notoriety.

Parody Of Clinton's Jenning's Interview

On-Line Audio Resources Regarding The Da Vinci Code

I have been listening to a number of online sermons lately addressing The Da Vinci Code. With the popularity of this novel and a blockbuster movie expected, Christians will need to know how to refute this somewhat esoteric and arcane subject matter. I hope you find these informative.

“The Da Vinci Code” by Norris Belcher, Church Of The Open Door, Westminster, Maryland

“Analyzing The Da Vinci Code” by Jonathan Sampson, First Baptist Church Of Park Texas

“The Da Vinci Code Code: Fact Or Fiction, Part 1” by Dr. Charles Roberts, Ballston Center Associate Reformed Church

The Da Vinci Code Code: Fact Or Fiction, Part 2” by Dr. Charles Roberts, Ballston Center Associate Reformed Church

“An Overview Of The Da Vinci Code” by Phil Fernandes, Institute of Biblical Defense

“The Fallacies of the Da Vinci Code” by Phil Fernandes, Institute of Biblical Defense

Toilet Summit Held In China

Prince Charles: "My Poop Doesn't Stink"

It has been leaked in a memo about the lack of promotion opportunities in the employ of the British royal family that Prince Charles believes those of us further down the social ladder ought not aspire to higher station in life.

According to the Prince of Wales, ""People think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability."

While correct that this attitude is often the result of social utopianism rampant throughout the modern school system, to put it bluntly, what did he ever do to earn his privilege other than crawl out of his mother's uterus?

UFO's Scoping Out American Defenses For Pending Attack?

Sex Slaves Of The New World Order

Pentagon Declares War On The Boy Scouts

Impromptu Barbecue Held At White House

Seventh Day Adventists Retain Fidelity To Creation Science

Iraqis Ordered To Spill Their Seed Upon The Ground

College Republicans Attacked By Terrorist Sympathizers

Bush Screws Over Conservatives Days After Elections

Air Force Considers Teleportation: Psychokinesis Among Options Studied

Migrant Workers Swilling With Disease

F.E.M.A. Prepares American Gulag

Olympic Swimmer Drinks Like A Fish

One Less Democrat To Worry About: Kook Shoots Himself Over Election Outcome

There is one less Democrat to worry about. A kook from Georgia is believed to have shot and killed himself at the World Trade Center Site in despair over President Bush's reelection victory.

While sympathies natural go out to his family, frankly, this nut got what he deserved. Is any election in this country worth taking to such an extreme?

Life here is not yet that onerous. Nor should it have been for this self-inflicted victim, who is reported to have had a decent job in a university computer lab and was engaged to be married.

Sounds to me like he had a lot to live for. Hope he thinks George Bush was worth it.

In a system such as ours, political suicide would seem to be such a pointless, wasteful act with other outlets of expression readily available to the activist citizen. Hadn't this nitwit ever heard the adage "He who fights and runs away lives to fight another day?"

Starting a blog would have been a lot less painful and possibly more persuasive.

Frankly, killing oneself over politics is about as pointless as one of Jesse Jackson or Mitch Synder's hunger strikes. Don't you want your opposition do themselves in and if done so by their own hand, they have no one to blame but themselves.

One of the dangers of liberalism has been to elevate politics to a place of centrality at the expense of other areas of life. Sometimes it's just to hard for sane, balanced people to see just how far the disturbed are willing to take it.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Van Gogh Assasination Forces Europeans To Take Second Look At Islam

Hispano-Nazi Front Groups Plan Conquest Of The United States

Support For Specter Over Toomey Comes Back To Bite President

Back during the primary season, President Bush backed incumbent Arlen Specter over popular Pennsylvania Representative Pat Toomey.

Now it seems this decision might come back to haunt the President as Specter is giving Bush a bunch of lip about appointing pro-life judges.

Guess Bush is now getting what he deserves and a lesson in why principle has to be more important than party.

Copyright 2004 By Frederick Meekins

Christmas Hymns Deemed To Religious For "Holiday Bazaar"

Neither Party Adequately Addresses Issue Of Moral Decline

Yet another election season is upon us, and through it, Americans hope to play a part in influencing the course of this great nation. But despite the solemnity of the decision facing the country, neither of the two main parties will do much in stemming the downward moral spiral griping the United States.

In enunciating his position on gay marriage, Vice President Dick Cheney has said people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want.

Really? Does that mean, if I can find a dozen women amicable to the arrangement, that I can form a harem that caters to my every whim, allowing me to lead a life of luxury since such a situation would allow me to sit back and send a number out to work, a number to tend house, and a number to shower affection on when in the mood.

If our base desires now constitute the basis of our connubial ethics, whose to say such an arrangement is illegitimate so long as no parties are coerced into it? After all, Cheney did say “any kind of relationship they want.” Seems polygamy makes much more sense than homosexuality from an evolutionary standpoint if we are going to descend to the level of common beasts.

But we are not common beasts. Though a part of creation, we have also been set apart and above it by being made in the image of God. As such, He is the one --- not our individual libidos --- that determines the moral parameters in which humans are suppose to live.

Both Scripture and common sense reveal that the well being of the greatest number of human beings is maximized when marriage is limited between one man and one woman rather than allowing helter skelter to take place at the marriage altar between any combination in any number. When we refuse to acknowledge these limits, we literally invite all hell to break lose.

The end result goes beyond social confusion and emotionally shattered lives. In fact, innocent people end up losing their rights and even their lives.

In addressing the issue of abortion brought up during the debates, John Kerry --- in a classic display of his famed forked tongue --- in effect said that, while he thought abortion was wrong, it would be unconscionable to impose his own views upon anyone else. But what is law but the codification of someone else’s morality we are forced to live by?

Attempting to delude Catholic and Evangelical voters, Kerry admits the unborn are alive but refuses to lift a finger on their behalf since such a belief is religious in origin. Thus, since even the safety and well being of innocent human beings are not sufficient grounds to impose your morals on someone else, on what grounds can you then bring the sanction of law against a restaurateur for refusing to serve Black customers? After all, this also comes down to a matter of belief: whether or not all men are created equal. Besides, the customer discriminated against certainly isn’t suffering to the same extent as the hacked-apart fetus.

Abraham Lincoln did not win his place in America’s pantheon of historical greats by enunciating, “I believe slavery is wrong, but who am I to impose my conception of emancipation on those not sharing it?” It would be interesting to see if someone as vacillating as John Kerry would handle the greatest moral quandary of another era in the same manner as he does that of our own.

It would be unreasonable to expect any candidate to single handedly reverse America’s ongoing moral decline since the origins of the crisis go beyond anything the political process is able of resolving completely. However, it does not bode well for this great nation when those seeking to serve as its foremost custodians lack the will to do the simplest things within the scope of legitimate governmental authority to stand against the tide of desolation sweeping across this great land.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick B. Meekins

Rioters Take To Boston Streets

NAACP = National Association For The Advancement Of Crack Peddlers?

Historians Minds Down The Sewer: Exhibit Undue Fascination With Luther's Toilet

Nader Urges Candidates To Come Clean About Secret Society Links

Edwards Ashamed Of Old Glory

Heinz Hag Thinks She’s Superior To Average American: Rules She Advocates Do Not Apply To Her

Often libertarians and conservatives studying the decline of liberty throughout the West speak of an elite that rules over the masses with an iron hand while ignoring the regulations they impose upon the rest of us lower down the social ladder that they hold in contempt. This conclusion is usually drawn by comparing what the snobs in positions of leadership expect from the rest of us and the lax manner in which they themselves live.

Usually, analysts of our contemporary situation have to wait awhile from the time a member of the overclass makes a proclamation and the evidence of their hypocrisy bubbles up to the light of day. However, it seems this election season political observers won’t have to travel far or wait long to see this social dynamic in operation in relation to Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Possibly even more so than Hillary Clinton, Teresa Heinz Kerry is coming to epitomize the contempt those in the highest positions of power exhibit towards Americans and the American way of life. At least with this harpy coming to the forefront of the news cycle, quasi-apathetic Americans have no excuse about not knowing what’s in store for them should Teresa’s attitude continue to prevail throughout policy and government in terms of curtailing the way in which Americans will be allowed to express themselves and in the very way in which they will be allowed to live their lives.

In addressing the Pennsylvania delegation to the the Democratic Convention , Teresa called for a return of civility to American politics by pointing out the “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” tendencies creeping into the nation’s electoral process. Usually when a liberal brings up civility it is little more than a warning that conservatives had better stop daring to criticize and question what the overclass has in store for American society.

For if Teresa was really concerned about propriety and decorum, she would not have stood up for war protestors as noble patriots. When she did, I don’t imagine she was referring to principled conservatives and libertarians opposed to the current foreign policy undertakings but rather to the grubby street agitators that threatened to disrupt the Republican Convention and even plotted to toss marbles onto the path of police horses in an attempt to injure both riders and mounts.

But perhaps of greater significance were her comments following the speech clarifying her conception of civility and the role it is to play in public life. When pressed by a reporter as to what she meant by “un-Pennsylvanian” and “un-American” she responded, “Now shove it.”

Such a statement is a perfect example of the new civility called for by the likes of Teresa and others of the “don’t do as I do, do as I say” mindset. Apparently these standards are to be imposed upon journalists who have forgotten their place but not the ruling elite or its henchmen.

Not surprisingly, many of Teresa’s compatriots have expressed similar sentiments in even more robust words, serving as shining examples of postmodernist civility to lesser minds such as ourselves incapable of such lofty forms of ratiocination. Colin McNickle, the journalist who brought this brouhaha to light in the August 1, 2004 edition of the Pittsburgh Tribune, catalogued many of the civil and uplifting comments that have been made about him and directed at him.

According to McNickle, coming to the aide of Her Royal Heinzness, Patti Labelle said McNickle should be “pimp-slapped”. That pinnacle of good taste and even better grooming, Michael Moore called McNickle “rude”.

As equally rotund Jack Germond said McNickle was not a legitimate newspaperman; since when do the canons of good journalism stifle curiosity and promote timidity? I think Germond’s chronically tight collars have finally cut off circulation to his brain.

Liberals that feign concern over the diminishing levels of propriety and manners allegedly characterizing contemporary political exchange go out of their way to publicize and wallow in incidents where alleged “Conservatives” comported themselves in a less than reputable manner. One only hopes they will put as much effort into condemning their own ideological kinsman for making lewd calls to the McNickle home and even logging death threats against this champion of journalistic integrity.

The double standard through which the elite imposes their will upon the rest of us extends beyond the lofty concerns of public discussion to the more mundane ones of everyday existence; that’s why there’s “total” in “totalitarianism”. For in expressing her position regarding SUV’s, the Ketchup Queen reveals that her life is considerably more important than cretins like you and me.

Groups funded by her foundation lament the American fascination with reliable, quality automobiles as epitomized by sport utility vehicles and go on about the evils of this mode of transportation as well as why good citizens ought to give them up. Unless, of course, you happen to number among the idle rich paying to impose such nonsense upon the masses.

The rest of us are to endanger our lives driving shoddy automobiles or be herded around like livestock in cattle cars on public transportation, Teresa thinks her life is so much more valuable, noting her safety comes first since she lost four family members in traffic accidents. So since I lost an uncle in a car wreck, does that mean I am entitled to an SUV? Probably not. Those buying into Teresa’s worldview see such tragedies befalling the lower orders of man as merely a trimming of the excess population.

Interestingly, Heinz uses her SUV for more than trips to Bloomingdale’s or wherever else the opulently wealthy like to spend their money these days. She also uses this environmental despoiler to drive in snow and sand at her multiple homes.

For you, on the other hand, Heinz’s elites are planning a so-called “sustainable” future where, unlike the Kerrys with their multiple estates, it’s doubtful you’ll even be allowed to own what we now know as a single-family house with a yard. Instead, those of us in the lower to middle echelons of society will be corralled into planned, high density communal dormitories. And forget about driving on sand: in all likelihood, you won’t even be allowed to set foot on a beach or any other part of nature where they plan to tear out the roads and designate as protected natural areas.

Most of the time, as in the case of the Clintons, evil seduces through subtle charm and beguiling doubletalk; however, in the case of the Heinz Hag and her henpecked hubby, this witch does little to hide her true intentions. If voters fall for this duo, those exercising their suffrage in such a manner will be getting exactly what they deserve.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Schwarzenegger Beholden To Influence Peddler: Maria The One Wearing The Pants In That Marriage

The Crossfire/Daily Show War: Foul Mouthed Comedian Mocks Bowtied Commentator

ACLU Stands Behind Thong Throng

Democrats A Bunch Of Girlie Men: Policy Not Only Area Where They Come Up Short

Happy Pills Induce Suicidal Thoughts

Ghetto Trash Rapper Endorses 9/11 Attack

International Conference Held To Study The Godzilla Threat

Iraqi Subversives Threaten To Blow Up American Homes

Let this happen to the homes of liberals and see if they still think Muslims make cute pets.

Much "Aboo" About Nothing

Often the sincere piety and religious devotion of Southerners is worthy of admiration, but methinks too much stink is being made down south about Halloween falling on a Sunday.

On the one hand you have spook-day purists insisting what an affront it would be to move the celebration back to Saturday evening, which has often been the tradition when Halloween fell on a Sunday.

However, even those wanting the festival moved back to the 30th are enough to strain my sympathies for my fellow coreligionists.

Contrary to the tone of the Christians interviewed in the article, the Seals of the Apocalypse are not going to be broken just because a few kids go Trick-Or-Treating on a Sunday evening.

One distraught woman over exaggerated in the story, "You just don't do it on Sunday. That's Christ's day. You go to church on Sunday, you don't go out and celebrate the devil. That'll confuse a child."

Lady, you are not in church all day long. Bet these same hayseeds making such a big deal about the "Sabbath", which is technically Saturday anyway, don't have much of a problem going to Wal-Mart or watching football on the day under consideration here.

If your kid is thrown off the straight and narrow that easily, you have more serious problems on your hand. As Gretchin Passantino of Answers In Action said on a recent Bible Answer Man broadcast tackling the Halloween controversy, Trick-Or-Treating won't make you a Satanist anymore than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian. Like many other of life's activities, this one merely takes on the meaning we put into it.

The article detailing the Saturday vs. Sunday dispute went on to offer a very pro-market solution that allows everyone to win without having to call upon government for a solution. Those who want to, can go out on Saturday night. Those who prefer Sunday, can go out on Sunday. And to those enterprising young capitalists who don't have a preference, the can easily go out on both.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Now Lazy Foreigners Don't Even Have To Sneak Into The United States For Handouts

Iran Cracksdowns On Bloggers

FDA Approves Mark Of The Beast

What Flag First?

Chuck Pardee, editor of Newsbull.com, offers an interesting solution for those Christians and Churches torn between their sense of patriotism and Biblical obligation of putting God first in their lives as embodied by the debate as to whether an American flag belongs in our houses of worship.

The issue arises over a little known law requiring the U.S. flag be given the place of superiority over that of the Christian flag, thus potentially making the line of authority being country then God. His proposal would correct this potentially troubling oversite by rectifying the chain of authority back to God, then country.

His suggestion is worth consideration since it would satisfy both those Christians who don't have a problem with placing an American flag in their respective houses of worship while addressing the concerns of appearing to place the authority of government over God, something Christians will no doubt have to cotend with more and more as our society continues its downward spiral from its Judeo-Christian foundations.

Wimpy Churhes Bow To IRS Prayer Police

Brent Spiner "Enterprise" Arc To Focus On Eugenics Wars

Superman Dead

Thoughts On "Amish In The City"

Star Wars TV Series Rumored

Frederick Meekins Proves He Is A Thinker Ahead Of The Curve

It seems my warning about a massacre occurring here similar to the one at the school in Russia is not that of a raving madman (as some no doubt contest).

Saw this link on the Drudge Report that the Department of Education and the FBI has issued a warning about this potential danger.

Thus stay tuned here for the latest developments threatening Western Civilization.

Parental Revolt Simmering In Southern Maryland Over School Supply Distribution Policies

Over the past several years at the start of each new school year, I have written columns detailing the policies of a number of school systems where educators confiscate the school supplies of students in order to redistribute them along more communal lines as classroom administrators see fit.

Noting fewer and fewer signs of the practice in school supply lists at Wal-Mart, I figured either school officials had come to their senses by returning to a more individualistic approach to scholastic resource management, had grown tired of parents spurred on in part by my columns griping about this glorified form of socialism, or even worse, not informed parents of the crime before hand and quietly pilfered the goods from unsuspecting children unprepared to muster the courage necessary to defy teachers overstepping the bounds of their authority.

An email from my cousin confirmed my fears, prompting me to address this issue yet again and to bring to the attention of the reading public disturbing developments regarding this issue.

In her communication, my cousin notified me of the customary confiscation decree and of her frustration at being told its her responsibility to provide for everyone else’s offspring as well as her own. But beyond the tragedy of the common workingman being browbeaten and shamed into alleviating the plight of the willfully indolent and just plain lazy was her revelation that funds raised in relation to this nonsense might not be being spent in the most prudent of manners.

Instead of having to endure hectic back to school sales in pursuit of classroom paraphernalia, parents could have surrendered $30.00 per child to endow educators to acquire the needed supplies. Instead of falling for this wily plea, my cousin decided to obtain the scholastic accoutrements on her own.

Much to her surprise, her grand total came to $35.00. The shock did not stem from the total exceeding the figure tabulated by the school system but from the fact she was buying for three children.

According to school system documentation, her shopping excursion should have cost her $90.00. It doesn’t take an Ivy League PhD or Philadelphia lawyer to see that these degreed, credentialed, and certified educators apparently can’t do simple arithmetic.

Those not having their skills of critical analysis dulled through over-exposure to public schools are left asking that, if parents can outfit their children for around twelve bucks apiece, what in the name of John Dewey is being done with the rest of the money? Either schools are getting hosed on school supply prices or its going for purposes other than those spelled out for parents in the memo to parents such as caviar (or at least pizza) in the teachers’ lounge.

Usually soliciting money for one reason and using it for another is called fraud. In reference to the private sector, this constitutes criminal activity; when committed by certain government agencies venerated by social engineers such as public schools, it becomes a civic duty to turn our heads the other way and keep our mouths shut.

This farce is buttressed through the invocation of a number of arguments designed to titillate the seeds of collectivism strategically planted in the modern psyche. Those still bold enough to think for themselves in such matters daring to voice misgivings about such compulsory altruism are shamed by the powers that be with sob stories of how little school children will be denied an education should greedy citizens refuse to fulfill their civic obligation of outfitting every single whelp in their own child’s class.

Such a claim in support of redistribution is about as faulty as the philosophical assumptions upon which these policies rest. Those snatching paper and pencils from one student to put in the hands of another in order to bask in the ecstasy that results from exercising arbitrary power over others assert these confiscatory policies are necessary since the so-called “underprivileged” can’t afford classroom necessities.

Is that so? Of Black ghetto culture, Bill Cosby remarked how the same parents complaining about the price of Hooked On Phonics have little problem with buying $200 basketball shows for their rugrats. Likewise, if those living in welfare apartments and trailer parks can afford tattoos, gold teeth, and Nintendo sets, surely they can afford a pack of notebook paper for under a dollar and a pack of pencils for around the same price if they shop at Wal-Mart.

If things are that bad financially around the house, kids can scrounge around for secondhand stationary or freebies foraged from county fairs, fire department open houses, and other assorted municipal festivals. Contrary to the propaganda of the classroom Communists, children will not be irrevocably stunted if forced to use last year’s notebook or pencil box; their development will be, however, if they come away with the impression it is their right to have the nicest possessions whether they have earned them or not.

The discrepancies between what my cousin paid and the amount demanded by Calvert County school officials speaks to one of those fundamental socioeconomic truths radical educators simply refuse to learn: that, of course, being that individuals and families are eminently more qualified to determine the proper distribution and allocation of resources than any petty bureaucrat or dimwitted schoolmarm. This is because, unlike the professional educator, the parent not only loves the child but must provide for the offspring from the family’s own limited income. Educrats, on the other hand, have access to what these misguided statists misperceive as the inexhaustible revenue source of public tax funds, which they do not have much compunction to spend with the same care and prudence as the average mother.

Obviously, my cousin isn’t the only one disturbed by these blatantly socialistic policies even if they cannot put their finger on these as such since such outright theft is an affront to commonsense and the natural order. When my cousin enunciated her surprise at the disparity in costs and the manner in which the supplies were to be divied up, the cashier was nearly as disgusted as my cousin. Perhaps it’s about time parents and concerned citizens taught educators just who the students belong to and who it is that really supplies the needs of these pupils.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Helen Passes Some Gas

Intoxicated Mexicans Demand Right To Drive Drunk

Brokaw Likens Bloggers To Terrorists

Bob Novak Breaks Hip

It was reported on CNN's "Crossfire" that correspondent Bob Novak broke his hip and would need to have it replaced.

According to Broadcasting & Cable, he did this in the shower in his hotel room in Miami. He was there in Florida to cover the Presidential debate.

His leftist counterpart, Clinton stooge Paul Begala, made a snide comment that instead of flowers donations could be made to alleviate capital gains taxes. Too bad it wasn't Begala who injured himself instead.

Congressman Seeks To Censor Mike Savage & Rush Limbaugh

On his program, Mike Savage has urged bloggers to post the following on their sites a letter from a Congressman calling upon a radio station to remove his program from the airwaves. I hope you will take the time to read of this dangerous threat to frees speech.

September 29, 2004

Mr. Ken Charles
Director of Operations/Programming
Clear Channel Communications
510 Lovett Blvd.
Houston, Texas 77006

Dear Mr. Charles:

I was shocked to learn of your actions and read your comments in an Associated Press article "KPRC Gives Rather's Radio Show the Boot" filed September 28, 2004. Apparently, KPRC makes programming decisions based on a political agenda, rather than on ratings or broadcasting standards.

The CBS television news organization and Dan Rather made a huge mistake by airing a story based on faulty documents from an unreliable source. The CBS story was wrong, it was presented wrongly, and the network took too long to set the record straight. However, CBS has spent a considerable amount of airtime correcting that mistake and apologizing for their error, which apparently resulted from the sloppy work and the competitive nature of the news business, rather than by a political agenda.

Removing one radio show for one acknowledge mistake by its host while continuing to run shows of commentators who often make inaccurate and unverified statements reveals a double standard. I believe KPRC should hold Mr. Rather and all others to the same standards. The failure to do so strongly suggests KPRC has no broadcasting standards of accuracy and only a political agenda. Here is a sampling of just a few inaccurate, uncorrected statements from other KPRC commentators to illustrate my point.

From Michael Savage's "Savage Nation":

1. Sen. John Kerry has given "some intelligence to Osama bin Laden." 9/17/04.

2. The Democratic Party is "ethnic minorities and women and immigrants." 7/28/04

From Rush Limbaugh's "The Rush Limbaugh Show"

1. "[W]e spend over two times on education already, what we spend on defense." 6/30/04
2."There aren't families living on the minimum wage" 4/29/04

I strongly support the free speech rights of Mr. Savage, Mr. Limbaugh, and your station as a whole, but the above statements are completely inaccurate. Sen. Kerry has never given intelligence to Bin Laden. As a white, native Texan male, I can testify that the Democratic Party is diverse and open to all Americans, and is not based on race or gender. Furthermore, the federal government spends fully 14 times less on education than we do on defense, and millions of American families do, in fact, live off the minimum wage. How does KPRC justify Mr. Rather's punishment, while ignoring repeated inaccuracies by other hosts?

Please make a commitment to your listeners that KPRC has standards of accuracy and they are enforced for all broadcasters. If KPRC can make such a commitment, then there is no justification for removing Mr. Rather's radio show. However, if KPRC makes no such commitment, then at least listeners should be forewarned.

Sincerely,
Gene Green
Member of Congress

Doctor Savage points out that, in typical Democrat fashion, the above statements are incorrect as they have to taken out of context.

Ragheads Taking Over Europe

Harvard Ufologist Dies In Accident

Is TD Jakes Soft On Crime?: New Movie Depicts Death Row Inmate As A Victim

Was Ron Brown Assasinated?

Son Claims To Have Seen Ghost Of Dale Earnhardt

Leno Being Forced Out At Tonight Show

Is Rush Limbaugh Trying To Bag Fourth Wife?

Some British Heads Up Their Rears Over Hot Cross Buns

According to Ken Ham in the September 2004 edition the Answers In Genesis Newsletter, hot cross buns won’t be quite so cross anymore in merry ole England because a number of local governments there have banned them because the shape of the pastries offends Muslims. Ham’s article does an excellent job explicating how such asinine policies are the result of an unbridled form of pluralism that goes beyond allowing different ideas to exist within one’s borders to actively undermine the foundations upon which Western civilization rests, thus allowing those alien beliefs the upper hand in determining how society is to be ultimately run.

If the politically correct are now going to get this jacked out of shape over the shape of a desert, maybe Christians should reciprocate the protest with one of our own by organizing a boycott of croissants. Croissants, you ask, the flaky moon-shaped masteries?

That’s right. Croissants are shaped like crescent moons, which are in turn the traditional symbol for Islam.

Such a boycott would show the multiculturalists and the Islamophants just how stupid this game really is.

The world over, radical Muslims are killing off Westerners and our allies left and right and the most important thing some limp-wristed tolerance monger can find to have a hissy fit about is some filthy heathen’s hurt feelings. If this is the extent to which our civilization has declined, perhaps it deserves to be taken over or to fall into the garbage can of history.

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

Gov. Ehrlich Panders To Jewish Interests: Why Aren't Gentile Children As Precious?

Can you imagine the stink that would erupt if a similar donation went to a Christian school?

Ironic thing is, Jews --- especially the liberal ones that support any form of "spirituality" so long as it is not Christian or Conservative --- would be whining the loudest.

Ehrlich is trying to justify the expenditure with the tired "we are in a new post-9/11 world" excuse.

The last time I checked, Bin Ladin despises Christians, whom he refers to as "Crusaders", almost as much as he does Jews; so why is it more important to safeguard the lives of Jewish children than Christian ones? Could it be the parents of the Jewish ones are more capable of lining his campaign coffers?

Copyright 2004 by Frederick Meekins

American "Poor" Live High On The Hog: Most Have Automobiles, Satellite TV, & More Living Space Than Average European