Corporations Seek To Control Employees Off The Job

Apology Over Lynchings A Bit Of Overkill

MTV Honors Bill Clinton For His Values

Ice Cream Man Lacks Good Humor: Suspected Of Terrorist Links

Hispanic Hate Group Targets Student Columnist

Hispanics Gradually Taking Over

Scientists Speculate You Only As Old As You Feel

Brits Debate Letting Preemies Die

Grief Counseling A Waste Of Time

Smut Peddlers Press The Flesh In Washington

Is Texas Teen Serving Life Sentence For Fetal Murder Or For Practicing Medicine Without A License?

A Texas teen has been given a life sentence for helping his girlfriend --- who wanted an abortion --- kill their unborn twins.

While this scumbag is where he now belongs, because his tramp can't be prosecuted because of her right to an abortion, one is forced to ask is he being sent up the river for fetalcide or for practicing medicine without a license.

To be consistent, shouldn't this sorry excuse for a man be heralded as a hero by the feminists because of his unwavering obedience and devotion to a wench whose only standard is her own murderous brand of existentialism?

What about the man's right of choice? Radical feminists will claim he had one before the act of copulation.

But what about the woman? Unless she was raped, the same applies to her as well. To say otherwise is to assume the weaker sex is possessed of an ignorance beyond any misconceptions rampant about females even in previous centuries.

Others will insist that stay-at-home abortions are just too dangerous for the "health" of the mother. But frankly, professional baby killers don't exactly have a spotless reputation in protecting the lives of their pregnant accomplices either.

The interest of the state comes down not so much to the protection of innocent human life as it is to monopolize the lucrative tradecraft of this diabolical industry.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Anti-Poverty Bracelets Made By Slave Laborers

Thus, the most sensitive people are really those that refuse to wear these shackles of mass conformity.

Anorexia Becomes A Cult

African Immigrants Abuse Children In The Name Of Indigenous Beliefs

Christian Comics Blast Onto The Scene

Campaign Finance Reform More About Campaign Than Finances: Additional Thoughts On The On-line Implications Of McCain/Feingold

It has been suggested that certain interpretations of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform could authorize the government to crackdown on bloggers by equating this new form of expression with contributing to a political campaign. This concern shows that this legislation is more about suppressing the free speech of average Americans than about curtailing the influence of big money on the political process.

Despite causing the powerbrokers of the mainstream media to shake in their $500 suits for fear of losing their stranglehold over the flow of information and thus the minds of the public, a personal blog is nothing whatsoever like a campaign contribution. If anything, this new medium is more the electronic equivalent of a sign posted on your front lawn or a bumper sticker plastered across the rear of your car.

Maybe Darth McCain would like to outlaw those forms of communication also while we are at it. While we are at it, why don’t we also outlaw private telephone conversations and individual e-mails of a political nature; wouldn’t want personal relationships to take precedence over the edicts handed down from on high by our glorious leaders.

Such a proposal would not be too hard to implement. ECHELON already scours electronic communications for threats of terrorism; simply expand the search parameters to include subversive exchanges of a politically persuasive nature as well.

Since the nation can no longer afford to let politics distract from the all-important work of the state and its never-ending expansion, maybe we should just go ahead and abolish elections while we’re at it since we cannot allow unqualified opinions to take precedence over the postulations of credentialed experts.

This is, after all, the destination of which Campaign Finance Reform is a mere first step. In what is nothing less than a display of the Jedi mindtrick that would put Darth Vader to shame, the senior Sith from Arizona has duped the American people into thinking his version of the Enabling Act is essential to the survival of the Old Republic. The measure will in fact turn this nation into an empire.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” The McCain Finance Law stipulates what kind of political speech can be enunciated and when it is appropriate. Thus by definition this act abridges speech by placing constraints of propriety upon it.

It does not take an Ivy League graduate to see this law violates the Constitution. It appears only those avoiding such dens of sophistry are capable of grasping such a simple truth since those at the highest levels of government indoctrinated in such elitist settings have done little to oppose the statute.

Many in Congress are so enamored by the law it has been nicknamed the “Incumbent Protection Act” since it makes it more difficult for a grassroots uprising to unseat unresponsive representatives. More interested in their own stash of pornography and what the Eurotrash in the Hague thinks of them, the Supreme Court fumbled the gavel by upholding the McCain/Feingold legislation.

Of course, big media has no problem with the law --- nor this interpretation of it --- since the law stifles the primary competition of the outdated dinosaurs of mass communication such as special interest talk radio, direct mail, and now potentially ezines and blogs.

Then there is President Bush; what can we say about him? Typical of the spineless vacillation plaguing many Republicans today, the President initially said he was opposed to the bill but eventually signed it into law anyway.

McCain Campaign Finance Reform has nothing whatsoever with democratizing the political process but rather is a sledgehammer designed to impose an uniformity of thought so the elite to maintain its monopoly of opinion. All curtailments to liberty are a cause for concern, but the logistics necessary to enforce this scheme would be particularly unsettling.

For if government beancounters are going to enforce prohibitions against partisan speech so many days out from an election, doesn’t that mean the government will have to know of the existence of the blogs beforehand. As in the case of political action committees and the like, does this mean opinionated websites will have to register with government, essentially requiring a license to blog?

Eventually, such thought regulation will be extended to all forms of communication and the exchange of ideas. Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute hypothesizes that, combined with the McCain/Leiberman Anti-Gunshow law that requires all vendors at firearm exhibitions to register with the government regardless of whether or not they sell guns, Campaign Finance Reform could make it against the law to sell or dispense unapproved political literature at these gatherings, thus proving once and for all that without a healthy respect of the Second Amendment the First Amendment is soon to follow.

“Big deal. We don’t care about gun nuts and computer geeks.” Maybe so, but the funny thing is that revolutions have a tendency of consuming their own and the very thing you intend to use to squash your opposition can be turned around and used against you.

Certain liberals, progressive, or whatever else the leftist rabble insists on calling themselves this week look favorably upon Campaign Finance Reform as a way to silence conservatives and “elevate the public dialogue” as elitists like to say. However, their celebration should be tempered by the realization that their is nothing keeping the law from being used to censor their own pet causes.

Back during the last election, Citizen’s United accused Michael Moore of violating Campaign Finance Reform because this slovenly Hutt hoped this propaganda would influence the outcome of the election. But do we really want the courts to put an end to the speech we disagree with?

For if we do, it won’t be long until we find ourselves on the other end of a lawsuit trying to do the same thing to us.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Creator Of Babylon 5 Takes On Social Welfare Establishment

Seatbelt Enforcement Used As Excuse To Use Nightvision Goggles To Spy On Motorists

Why should we care if someone is wearing their seatbelt.

What about "Keep your laws off my body"?

Interesting you cannot endanger your own life by not wearing a seatbelt but are perfectly free to snuff out someone else's through abortion.

Republicans & Smut Peddlers Form Alliance

Robotech Fomenting UN Propaganda

L.A. Mayor A Mexican Stooge

I Pray The Lord My Firearm I Get To Keep

During the American Revolutionary War, the Black Regiment was a unit composed of pastors who defended freedom with a Bible in one hand and a musket in another. Had these patriots lived in our day rather than in a time when liberty was taken a bit more seriously, they would no doubt been defrocked and possibly turned over to police. If a ceremony held at the Hispanic Baptist Church of Laurel is to serve as any kind of template, these actions could all be carried out in a single, sweeping act of casearopapism.

According to the March 24, 2005 edition of the Laurel Leader, Miguel Reymaga stood before the congregation of the Laurel Hispanic Baptist Church to profess his new found faith in Christ. But instead of engaging in a traditional Christian ritual such as baptism or communion as an outward testament, Mr. Reymaga surrendered his shotgun and rifle.

Mr. Reymaga confessed he wanted the guns out of his home because of his tendencies towards temper and booze. While he is to be commended for his dedication to his family, he is ultimately being manipulated by authority figures whose primary interest is not the welfare of this particular individual but rather their own social agenda designed to accrue power unto themselves and to further curtail what few God-given freedoms we have remaining.

The Leader article chronicles that Reymaga went to his pastor to arrange for him to turn the guns over to police. But couldn’t this be done without turning the transaction into a public spectacle with the mayor, chief of police, and the editor of the newspaper himself all there to exploit the situation for the benefit of their own anti-Constitutionalism?

Interesting, isn’t it, how liberals yammer incessantly about the Separation of Church and State but don’t mind conspiring in league with religion and using its powers of persuasion when there is common cause between the politically inept and the theologically confused? This congruence is especially dangerous to life and liberty when this alliance attempts to extend its control into areas over which neither was meant to influence.

At this ritual rendering homage to the omnipotent state, the chief of police said, “You made the right decision...We are very much concerned about gun safety in this community. I think all of you are aware of the danger of drinking...and having a gun somewhere in the house.” Is anyone else concerned about a law enforcement officer in an official capacity at a public function enunciating policy preferences in no way backed by law?

Though the opponents of human liberty constantly labor to alter the statutes, it’s still legal to own guns in America. Are the police going to pressure us into giving up other things we are within the bounds of legal propriety to use or enjoy?

The Chief tried to buttress his position by emphasizing the danger of drinking while there is a firearm in the house. So why not have a service where the convert hands over his liquor instead --- guns are just as legal as booze, after all. But such a suggestion wouldn’t go over to well in an Hispanic church since most of the congregation probably have refrigerators full of Coronas and enough glass in their recycle buckets to make Robert Schuller blush.

Obviously, Reymaga is not the smartest bean in the burrito, yet he is merely parroting a number of misconceptions rampant throughout contemporary Evangelical social theory. Reymaga said, “I don’t need these weapons because I have God in my heart...Take your weapons out of your homes.”

If we are to apply his logic and that of his ecclesiastical overseers that we don’t have to protect ourselves since God will do that for us, then why did he come here from Mexico --- initially as an illegal --- to provide for his family since God is ultimately the one we look to to provide for our needs?

Those more opposed to firearms than they are in favor of commonsense will counter --- if they are not yet totally warped by the welfare mentality --- that the Bible tells us to work to secure provisions but to turn the other cheek when faced with assault.

While that might be the advice of the limp-wristed girlie-man Jesus of pop religion, it is not that of the Jesus of the Bible there in the black and white (or red letter edition) who commanded His disciples in Luke 22:36 to acquire a sword if they did not have one. If we want a complete Christology, don’t we have to incorporate this axiom into our view of Jesus as well?

The right to bear arms also entails its opposite in that one does not have to own a firearm. But this is a personal decision the individual must make for themselves. To borrow and modify a line from the abortionists: if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one.

For if members of the congregation find themselves in a situation where they are forced to protect themselves, will the pastor come riding to the rescue as the masked clergyman? Laurel is not the town it use to be; Islamic extremists, Hispanic gangs, and other run-of-the-mill human debris now crisscross this once respectable middle class neighborhood as they foment destruction and mayhem.

Perhaps these radical pacifists --- instead of promoting proper firearms safety --- would rather stand over a child’s coffin and tell parents they did the right thing surrendering their own better judgment on the church altar and allowing the dregs of society to get away with shedding innocent blood. Unless the pastor is willing to do so, let the parents decide.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Mexican Catholics A Threat To Religious Liberty

According to CompassDirect.org, the Catholic thugs running one Mexican town are threatening to tear down the homes of Protestant residents unless they recant their Evangelical faith.

Gullible American Evangelicals often defend the continuing immigration onslaught by claiming Mexicans are such devout, family-oriented people.

And while the loyality of this demographic to their beliefs might be beyond question, it seems their religion could prove to be a theological cancer if allowed to spread unchecked throughout the American body politic.

Those for open borders will snap, surely the events described in this article cannot happen here.

But I remind you that we are not getting the best Mexico has to offer coming here. America, is in fact, being used as a release valve through which to vent the rabble of our neighbor to the south.

As such, these kinds of Mexicans are exactly the ones clogging our Metropolitan areas. One wonders how long until Americans are going to be forced to curb their own Protestant tendencies so as not to offend the Catholic sensibilities of the new arrivals.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Staging Ground For Illegals Funded WIth Public Money To Be Named After Mother Theresa

Methodists Take Up Boozing

Has-Been Grapplers Take To The Mat On Christian Wrestling Circuit

Foreigners Spreading Leprosy

Pedophiles & Rapists Supplied With Taxpayer-Subsidized Viagra

Female Molestors Get Off Easy

Family Of Famed Evolutionist Admits Scientists Are Fallible

The family of famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould is suing two Boston hospitals and three doctors for misdiagnosing the cancer that ultimately led to his death.

Interestingly, it turns out scientists can be wrong after all. And if they can be this tragically wrong about the evidence right there in front of their highly educated noses, just think how much more so regarding matters not as easily observed such as the origins of the universe.

Though the loss of any human life deserves pity for the loved ones enduring such an unbearable hardship, it is only from the standpoint of the Christian and religious values Dr. Gould spent his life attempting to undermine that we are able to muster any sympathy for the Gould family.

For if Dr. Gould was nothing more than a soulless animal arising from the primordial ooze as the result of pure chance who didn‘t fair too well obviously in the Darwinian struggle for survival, why should anyone care about his passing out of existence? Isn’t his family’s emotional response nothing more than a biological stimuli with their love for him nothing more than some hormone driven impulse?

Furthermore, isn't it ironic these aggrieved individuals are seeking to correct a wrong done against someone who possessed no basis for believing right or wrong actually existed? It is only in considering him as an individual created in the image of God that these doctors should be called in account for their actions.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Ragheads Desecrate Bibles

NYPD Denies Bias Assault Against Whites Constitutes Hate Crime

Anglicans Hint At Willingness To Accept Popish Mariolatry

Thought We Weren't Suppose To Look At Color

For daring to question the choice of Cedreic the Entertainer to star in "The Honeymooners" remake, I was castigated by the Diversity Mafia as a racist and even barred from FreeRepublic.com. Their argument was it did not matter what the ethnic background of a performer happened to be.

I wonder if mass opposition is going to mount for pointing out the new mayor of Los Angeles is Hispanic. Or as is common practice, I suppose we are only to condemn the practice of noticing race when doing so is advantageous to Caucasian Americans.

Would it have been mentioned if the new mayor was the first freckle-faced redhead to win the city's highest elected office? Then why inform of us of this distinction for an occupation where ethnicity ought to play an even lesser role than in the world of cinema?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

One Of The Worst Books I Ever Read: A Review Of Drudge Manifesto

Matt Drudge will be remembered for the role he played in popularizing the revolution brought about by the advent of Internet news. However, when it comes to the world of publishing, he better not quit his day job.

As one of the pioneers of a new form of mass communication, one would expect Drudge Manifesto to be an insightful tome as to his medium’s possibilities and strategies on how others might replicate his success. However, on this count Drudge Manifesto falls as short as the New York Times in fulfilling its civic obligation of supplying useful information.

The reader comes away from Drudge Manifesto with the impression that Mr. Drudge is an individual --- not unlike his nemesis Bill Clinton --- too aware of his own place in history. The extent of Drudge’s own self-awareness is to such a radical degree that it has led him to use a number of McCluhanesque literary devices bordering on the bizarre and that, ultimately, detract from the text.

For example, there are a number of pages scattered throughout the work filled with nothing but oversized “0”’s or a “1”s. On another is nothing but a single declaration in smaller-than-average size type in the center of the page reading “You’re boring”.

The only thing boring is wading through Drudge’s inane gimmicks. However, those with the stamina to meander through will be rewarded for their troubles with a transcript of the Q & A of Drudge’s 1998 address at the National Press Club in which the famed Internet muckraker provides perspective into the nature of this new medium and deflects criticisms of elitist mainstream journalists jealous about sharing the media spotlight with insightful outsiders.

In reading Drudge Manifesto, one is forced to conclude that Matt Drudge has become so intertwined with the medium synonymous with his name that he is nearly unable to rise above its limitations or to provide much of an analytical perspective capable of making the information revolution an even more effective venue for further expanding the freedoms of all mankind.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Conservatives Seduced By Big Government

"Non-violence never solved anything! ", Monty Burns (The Simpsons)

Airport Renamed For Lackluster Colored Jusrist

Illegals Get Free Healthcare

Nothing Like A Good, Old-Fashioned Church Split

New Honeymooners The Wrong Color

Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the upcoming theatrical remake.

Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color the characters are.

Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?

If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement, wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since --- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of appearance?

Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of the hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse sensibilities.

But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this cinematic drivel?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Homeland Security Denies Freedom Of Speech To Editor Connected To Minute Man Project

Maybe he would have gotten in if he had been a gay prositute and Internet porn star.

Where Is The-Law-Must-Always-Be-Obeyed Crowd Now?

Throughout the Terri Schiavo Crisis, the Necromongers maintained that orders and directives emanating from the judicial branch must be obeyed without regard to how we might feel about them.

Where are they now that Michael Schiavo is refusing to inform Terri's parents where her ashes are being layed to rest as ordered by the court?

MIT Student Holds Party For Temporal Pilgrims

There's Something About Vader: Why Star Wars Fans Adore The Dark Lord

Nothing Will Be Restrained From Them

Genesis 11:6 says, “And the Lord said, ‘Behold the people is one and they all have one language; and this they began to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” The Lord was speaking in reference to the Tower of Babel built by the followers of Nimrod a short while after the Deluge so his followers might make a name for themselves in a prideful manner. To prevent this blasphemous arrogance from getting out of hand, God confused the languages so the people would disperse across the face of the earth.

The account does more than chronicle the origins of languages, nations, and races. It, in fact, serves as a warning of the trouble mankind can get into when the species comes together and pools its resources in total unity.

While such an assertion might have been dismissed years ago, today as the world draws together as one here at the conclusion of history as it did nearer to the beginning, we see the warning coming to pass in relation to various technological developments.

Take the issues of human cloning and genetic engineering for example. These new sciences could very well be seen as a modern Tower of Babel.

These techniques are not only being considered to ease the suffering of disease but to also tailor humanity to its own liking. In essence, this is one of modern man’s attempts to lift himself above the heavens in a manner similar to that of our ancient forebears gathered on the plain of Shinar.

Not only can a prospective parent turn to this technology to prevent their children from suffering from debilitating conditions such as epilepsy or Alzheimer's but they can also tinker with traits such as hair color and sex and perhaps even enhance aptitudes such as intelligence and athletic ability. Eventually, parents refusing to utilize such technology beyond the alleviation of illness could come to be seen as negligent or abusive in the eyes of lawmakers and social engineers.

Having imbibed heartily of the spirit of Babel, for some even this is not enough. Throughout much of world history, those seeking to make a name for themselves in the manner described in Genesis 11:6 were content to revel in the wonders and accomplishments of man on an exaggerated scale.

But as technology continues to advance and the world continues to unify, for an emerging worldview known as Transhumanism being human is no longer enough as adherents of this new outlook seek to surpass the limitations of the species through cybernetics or genetic enhancements. Such thinkers will not stop at Hitler’s Ubermensch but will prefer something even far more sinister akin to the Borg from Star Trek or humans crossbred with animal DNA resulting in hybrids similar to The Thundercats of 1980’s cartoon fame.

The skeptical might dismiss such speculation as impossible. But we only need to look back over the history of the twentieth century to see the improbable has had an uncanny way of becoming reality. For example, it was one time thought it was impossible to traveler faster than the speed of sound.

Just imagine what other horrors of his own creation await mankind down the road as this truly seems to be an age where “...nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do.”

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Farrakhan Seeks Alliance With Sodmoties

Jeff Gannon Still Won't Say Whether Or Not He's Gay

Methodists Open Door To Sodomite Clerics

Movement To License Parents Gains Credibility

Arnold Backs Minutemen

Is The New Pope A Herald Of The Apocalypse?

Schauungtown Chronicles Part 2: The Home Visit

“She’ll be here any minute.”

“I know. I know,” Cal responded. “Don’t worry too much, Betty.”

“But it’s the first home visit since little Sally’s dedication at the Toleration Fellowship.”

“Betty, we’ve had social coordinators over before.”

“I know, Cal, but they’re bound to be more thorough with families that have agreed to raise their children.....”

“You’d better watch those personal possessive pronouns,” Cal interrupted, “We’ve got to remember she’s just not ours alone anymore.”

“....in compliance with the wisdom of the Community, “ Betty finally got in edgewise.

“What are you so nervous about? It was your idea to join the Fellowship and to give the Community greater say over our domestic union.”

“I know. I know, Cal. It’s just that we had to join. You know that children not dedicated to the Fellowship can’t get into the better schools or qualify later on for jobs deemed essential to the Community interest.”

Cal thought she was overreacting. Sally was just a few months old. There was no rush to plan the baby’s life out for her at this very moment. There would be time for that later on, with the help and oversight of the Community of course.

The couple heard a knock at the door. Cal responded, “I’ll get it.” He figured his wife would be too much of a nervous wreck.

He opened the door. “Oh, hello,” Cal smiled, “Nice to see you again.” He figured this wouldn’t be too bad after all. “Catherine, isn’t it?” he asked, “Your Sibling Cecilia’s partner. We met at the Toleration Fellowship.”

Catherine looked up from her file folder and clipboard. “Yes, Mr. Witherspoon.” She studied her checklist. “I noticed the door was locked, so I knocked. So tell me, do you keep the doors locked all the time?”

“Uh, no. No. Old habit, I suppose.”

“Can be, sometimes.” Catherine marked her list. “Some people still have a tendency to do things as they did in the Before. But if you keep your doors locked too much, the Community might assume you have something to hide. Besides, now that you are overseeing a child, wouldn’t want to the little one to come to the conclusion that there is sometime or someplace where they are separate from the Community.”

Corrected, Cal politely nodded in compliance. “Your right. Won’t you please come in?”

The social coordinator stepped into the dwelling. Of their partnership, Cal thought Catherine must be the more serious of the two since Cecilia was more affable at least until that visitor left some old book on the pew at the Toleration Hall a few weeks ago. He had never seen someone usually as evenhanded as Cecilia get so angry in public.

But then again, Cal did not know her too well privately. He and Betty had only been attending the local Toleration Fellowship since being granted permission to move to Schauungtown about a year ago.

“Betty, the social coordinator is here.”

Betty came back into the room, having gone to get little Sally.

“Oh, hello, Catherine. Nice to see you.”

“You too, Betty.”

Cal noticed the exchange between Catherine and Betty had been a bit more amicable than his initial greeting with the social functionary. Cal guessed maybe because Betty had been spending more time at the Toleration Fellowship at a women’s group, he thought. Something about the indivisible goddess within or whatnot. He wasn’t really sure.

Most of the time, Cal didn’t get as involved with Fellowship activities as Betty usually did. He liked the services well enough. He enjoyed the sense of community they inspired and such, but he just didn’t have that much time free to dedicate to Fellowship activities.

Catherine fumbled through the papers stacked on her clipboard. “Ok. We can begin with an inspection of the offspring’s rejuvenation compartment.”

The awkwardness of the phraseology sent a shiver down Cal’s spine. Couldn’t she have called it “the baby’s room”? Cal supposed that would have denoted a degree of individuality and ownership a number thought enlightened minds had progressed beyond since the days of Before.

Of their domestic union, it was clear Catherine was by far the more clinical partner. Despite psychologically progressing beyond the perceptual confines of gender to obtain the recognition of “Sibling” within the Toleration Fellowship, at least Cecilia displayed a bit of warmth and emotion on occasion.

Betty clung to “the offspring” and said to Catherine, “This way, please.”

Catherine followed Betty and Cal in turn followed Catherine. They made their way through the dwelling to the baby’s room, er, rather the offspring’s rejuvenation compartment.

“Here we are,” Better beamed.

Catherine did not seem quite as enthusiastic. “This is unacceptable. It will simply have to be changed.”

“What?” Cal inquired.

Catherine repeated herself, “It will have to be changed.”

“Why?” Betty whined. “We worked so hard on the baby’s room. Cal spent hours panting the room and it took me weeks to finish the lace curtains.”

“Hmph.” Catherine snapped. “Sorry to inconvenience you, but this compartment is in violation of Developmental Cognition Neutrality Standards.”

“What?” Cal questioned. Betty just looked on with a confused expression across her face.

“Developmental Cognition Neutrality Standards. The room will have to be altered to comply with the aesthetic provisions of those guidelines.”

“Redecorate? Why?” Betty asked.

Catherine removed a citation from her clipboard and handed copies to Cal and Betty. “It’s a violation of Developmental Cognition Neutrality Standards to decorate an offspring’s rejuvenation compartment in any way so as to influence gender perceptions. It is stipulated in the Concord Of Universal Community that each sentient must determine the conceptual state best suited for its own existence without interference or influence without reference to sufficient community oversight.”

“And that means.....?” Cal inquired.

The rejuvenation compartment will have to be repainted in a neutral color such as gray and the drapes replaced with a non-gender suggestive fabric without the lace. Furthermore, the stuffed animals are going to have to be removed also.”

Betty and Cal just looked at each other.

Catherine continued reading from and scribbling on her clipboard. “We might think the stuffed animals are cute, especially since we all grew up in the time of Before. But we have no way of knowing how these representations impact the esteem of fellow organisms unable to express themselves in the same manner as we do. We each have a duty to prevent anthropocentrist bias. These seemingly innocent depictions may actually cause the cognitively impressionable to come to the conclusion that animals exist for humyn benefit. In the time of Before, such ideas scarred countless generations and led to unmitigated ecological disaster. Praise be to the All and the Earth Mother that the Community helped us realize this.”

“Praise be to the Earth Mother.” Cal and Betty dutifully replied.

“Now.” Catherine looked down at her list. “I need to see inside your food preservation unit.”

Betty led Catherine to the kitchen. Cal remembered in the days of Before that such devices like Catherine wanted to see had been called “refrigerators” but thought they operated somewhat differently. Instead of placing the food in a temporal suppression field, lowered temperature had been used to deter decay.

Betty opened the unit. “Here we go.”

Catherine peeked inside, carefully noting the contents. “Where is it exactly do you procure your nutritional allotment?”

“Down at the market, just outside the Schauungtown boundary.”

“Yes, I imagine so.” Catherine replied, “I don’t know how much longer that place is going to be allowed to remain open. It is an affront to everything espoused by this community and others like it. The way some people go in there and buy whatever they want off the shelves as if they were living in the days of Before. Frankly, as upstanding members of the Community and the Toleration Fellowship, I am surprised either of you would allow such gastric pollutants in your nutritional preparation area. Do you realize how close you are to violating Community Dietary Guidelines? As a signatory association to the Concord of Universal Community, Schauungtown pledges to maximize the health of its residents. Having agreed to the Schauungtown Codicils each of you as residents freely recognize that those designated as qualified social coordinators posses expertise superior to that of the individual and that residents desiring to fulfill their communal obligations must comply with directives promulgated in all matters. Do I make myself clear?”

Betty and Cal simply nodded in agreement.

“Good,” Catherine beamed, “Then we shouldn’t have any troubles.” The bureaucrat flipped through her stack of papers once more, making checkmarks and scribbling down observations.

Betty and Cal looked on.

Catherine continued, “These are your copies.” She handed Betty a copy of the report. “Just be sure to implement these guidelines by the time of my next scheduled visit and everything should be satisfactory.”

Betty and Cal looked over the stack of papers. The domestic collective escorted Catherine towards the door.

The three of them stood at the entrance of the domicile. An awkward silence came over them as none wanted to yield to the other by being the first to enunciate the desire to be excused.

As they all looked up, down, and every which way to avoid making eye contact, someone walking down the street caught each their attention. The concern the individual evoked transcended any tension that had developed between the domestic collective and intrusive social coordinator.

Betty strained her neck to get a closer look. “Hey, is that....?”

Cal quickly responded to her inquiry, “Yes, I believe it is that guy who left that book behind at the Toleration Fellowship? I think it was called a Bibl.....”

Catherine interrupted Cal’s thought before he could finish it, “It’s that intolerant malcontent that spreads discord through divisive publications.”

The three looked on as the stranger rambled by and waved.

Catherine turned to the couple. “Remember what I said about not locking your doors?”

The couple nodded in response.

“Forget I ever said it.”

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Take A Whiff Of Jesus Funk

Scientists Claim Telepathy A Natural Human Ability

Missing Bar-Hopping Student Found Dead Floating In River

JAG Shotdown For Appealling To The Elderly

According to this Seattle Times article, JAG is being kicked off the air in part because much of its viewer ranks is pulled from the over 50 crowd.

Could that be because it is one of the few programs available that provides consistently quality narratives without resorting to outright sex or unnescessary violence? Even the show's cousin, NCIS, is a bit more bawdy in its presentation with having no qualms about flaying open a corpse for an autopsy and gratuitous potty dialouge between the characters.

Opposition to JAG is not so much about demographics as it is values and taste.

Radical Professors Impose Idiosyncratic Bibliographic Procurement Proclivities Upon Students

One of the accepted realities of college life is that students often have to shell out a significant wad of cash on nearly useless textbooks. This unpleasant reality is tempered by the hope that, if all goes well, students can sell the texts back to the campus bookstore for a pittance at the end of the semester.

However, a number of professors at the University of Maryland have disrupted what little market beauty remains in this transaction by erecting additional artificial barriers to free exchange by imposing their economic sensibilities onto where assigned texts can be acquired instead of leaving the decision up to the student.

At the University, students are usually able to purchase books at the Book Center conveniently located in the Student Union at the center of campus or at the Maryland Book Exchange prominently located among the businesses surrounding the college. Yet another establishment from which books can be procured is Vertigo Books.

Unlike the Book Center or Exchange, Vertigo is a small independent store. Thus, since it is metaphorically thumbing its nose at big business, according to the February 7, 2005 edition of the Diamondback, a number of liberal arts professors favor it over the competition by manipulating the book selection process so that the texts for their specific classes are only available at Vertigo.

Such a decision is more about the egos of the professors and stroking them than about the needs of the students. For even though the professors get that intangible buzz that usually accompanies giving the system the finger, this does little for the student and actually imposes a bit of a burden on students since Vertigo does not buy back books and the larger stores are able to sell at a lower price.

If students are going to get stuck with a book they’ll never use again at the end of the semester, they might as well take a gamble and try to find the book in the library and end up paying a fine if the semester lasts longer than their renewal privileges or try to find the book on Amazon.com. If buying books is now going to become a competition of values, students might as well actually show their support of those who actually keep the economy moving.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Terrorists Plot Electromagnetic Attack

A Review Of Winning The Future: A 21st Century Contract With America

Over a decade has elapsed since The Contract With America catapulted Newt Gingrich to the forefront of American political discussion and the Republican Party into control of both houses of Congress. No longer confined by the restraints of public office, the former Speaker of the House now seeks to update and expand on this set of ideas in Winning The Future: A 21st Century Contract With America.

Unlike the original Contract With America which dealt primarily with political and legislative issues, Winning The Future applies the outlook inspiring the book’s antecedent to a wider array of social and cultural concerns. Reflective of the personality of the author of both documents, Winning The Future is an eclectic synthesis of conservative commonsense, futuristic policy blather, and a reluctance to accept certain shortcomings inherent to human nature.

Winning The Future does a suburb job in examining the religious foundations of the United States. Gingrich uses his skill as an historian to trace recognition of this heritage from the Founding Fathers, through Abraham Lincoln, up to contemporary thinkers such as Samuel Huntington.

From there, Gingrich uses the issue of the role of religion in the United States as a springboard to discuss the need for judicial reform. Gingrich views the attack on religious freedom as evidence of how the judiciary has gotten out of control. Newt does this by pointing out a number of rulings from the infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the activist legal philosophies of radical jurists such as Europhile Sandra Day O’Connor. He also offers suggestions on how the courts might be reigned in such as by impeaching judges going beyond the scope of the Constitution on the grounds of violating the Good Behavior Clause or by simply abolishing rogue judgeships all together.

While a number of the proposals contained within the pages of Winning The Future are steeped in conservative commonsense realism, some of those characterized by futuristic speculation are just plain goofy. For example, Gingrich is under the impression that centralizing and computerizing all health records will lead to some kind of twenty-first century medical Renaissance.

But doesn’t technology merely take on the characteristics and shortcomings of those employing it? A quack will always be a quack.

And this is to say nothing of the dangers and abuses that will result from further centralizing the most sensitive of information in a single place that will probably be administered by the government or as callous healthcare administrators. If my rights and well being are to be violated, those doing so should at least have to work to earn the opportunity.

Despite his many insights, at various points Gingrich exhibits a flawed understanding of human nature that will cause his well-intentioned proposals to flounder in a manner similar to the Great Society programs the former Congressman has spent much of his political career claiming to stand against. For example, Gingrich touts a program called Earning By Learning he established that paid to $2.00 to children in public housing for every book they read.

While the costs of the program initially came out of Gringrich’s own pocket, who’s going to pick up the tab should the program go nationwide? Furthermore, why should such an entitlement be for the so-called underprivileged who already have access to the same reading material as everyone else but simply refuse to avail themselves of it?

Spending much of his time hobnobbing in elite government and media circles, Dr. Gingrich is also as mistaken about the nature of the immigrant hordes sweeping across America. Mired by his training as an historian, Gingrich assumes a model of immigration more fitting for the nineteenth century than the twenty-first.

Gingrich writes, “Nor am I concerned that a substantial number of new Americans are Hispanic. America has a long history of absorbing and blending people of many languages and backgrounds.” But for the most part, the vast majority of immigrants at that time were already steeped in a common Northern European (primarily Protestant) culture upon which American institutions were based.

Even more importantly, immigrants of that period wanted to be Americans and not to merely suckle off the supple federal teat while expressing nothing but contempt for the host nation gracious enough to even allow them into our midsts. If Gingrich finds Hispanics so charming, maybe they can pile into the house next door to his like they have in many middle class neighborhoods where they cram thirty of their kinsman and associates into a single family dwelling and have no qualms about guzzling booze on the public sidewalk.

Regardless of one’s opinion of Newt Gingrich as either a conservative visionary seeking to plot America’s course to the future, an egotistical fraud concerned for nothing but his own fame and fortune, or someone between the two extremes, Winning The Future will most definitely spark thought and discussion of the issues that will impact the nation in the coming years.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Being Overweight Good For Your Health

America To Be Transformed Into A Hispanic Slum

Christian Radio Station Fires Pastor For Proclaiming The Gospel

Gay Bishop Backs Infanticide

Pelosi: People Shouldn't Have To Repay Debts

Government Unleashed Over A Million Aliens On The American People

Emergent Error: Pastor Seeking “With It” Reputation Ventures Close To Heresy

A recent issue of Time magazine profiled a number of America’s most influential Evangelicals. Among those with acceptable conservative credentials included historian David Barton, constitutional attorney Jay Sekulow, and author Tim LaHaye.

However, one professional religionist quietly slipped onto the list promotes a severely watered down brand of Christianity more about accommodating the faith to trendy progressive causes rather than applying a Biblical perspective to the issues of the day. For whereas those profiled such as Barton, Sekulow, and LaHaye earned their places on the roster for their strong positions they have taken in regards to their respective areas of expertise, Brian McLaren’s claim to fame happens to be his spineless vacillation when confronted with matters requiring a distinctively Christian response proverbially separating the wheat from the chaff.

McLaren’s Time profile starts out detailing McLaren’s response to what this renowned cogitator thinks of gay marriage. To the inquiry he replied, “You know what, the thing that breaks my heart is there’s no way I can answer it without hurting someone on either side.”

What does that have to do with anything? For the true man of God, there is nothing to agonize over when formulating a response to such a clear cut issue.

The Bible is quite plain; marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. What does a pastor have to apologize for? A church committee did not invent marriage.

Should we sugarcoat those passages and doctrines others don’t like? I’m not too fond of taxes. Does that mean I should throw a fit until the preacher gives up on expounding the passages of Scripture extolling us to pay our taxes?

Better yet, does this mean we should downplay the monogamous nature of marriage for fear of alienating the practitioners of polygamy? More importantly, should pastors gloss over texts explicating the divinity of Jesus for fear of upsetting Jews or Muslims with their competing versions of monotheism? Just how far is the neutered church willing to take this new sacrament of hypertolerance?

Maybe we ought to toss out orthodox doctrine, traditional values, and good old common sense to replace them with a catechism and liturgy making community the highest arbiter of standards and values. For whereas Rev. McLaren laments the obligation of upholding the clearly delineated injunctions of the Bible, he certainly has few qualms about promulgating a religious creed bearing a startling resemblance to contemporary postmodern communitarianism.

A number of McLaren’s underlying beliefs are expounded in an article in the Summer 2003 edition of Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal titled “Emerging Values: The Next Generation Is Redefining Spiritual Formation, Community, And Mission”. McLaren suggests, instead of a traditional apologetic and systematic theology emphasizing the rational truths of the Christian faith, an approach focusing on feelings and outcomes.

McLaren predicts, “Christians in the emerging culture may look back to our doctrinal structures...as we look back on medieval cathedrals: possessing real beauty that should be preserved, but now largely vacant, not inhabited anymore or used much anymore, more tourist attraction than holy place.” He continues, “If Christianity isn’t the quest for (or defense of) the perfect belief system (‘the church of the last detail’) then what’s left? In the emerging culture, I believe it will be ‘Christianity as a way of life’ or ‘Christianity as a path of spiritual formation’.”

In other words, clearly defined beliefs are a crock and a waste of time. McLaren says as much in the following: “I was giving, thanks to C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and Josh McDowell, my best apologetics informed replies, and I wasn’t getting through. My Liar-Lunatic-Or-Lord arguments...and water tight belief system didn’t enhance the credibility of the Gospel...rather, they made the Gospel seem less credible, maybe even a little cheap and shallow.”

Interesting how Pastor McLaren enunciates his disapproval for propositional truth in the form of propositions. Note he did not relay the impression through extrasensory emotional transference or through some rambling narrative where the only conclusions are those the listeners draw for themselves in the finest traditions of the postmodernism McLaren has enthusiastically embraced.

While the fruits of the Christian faith are important as they are signs of a life well led in Jesus Christ, given the choice between feelings and proper beliefs, proper beliefs must take precedence over good feelings since feelings must arise from beliefs since proper beliefs won’t necessarily arise from good feelings.

McLaren’s tendency to elevate the ends of Christianity over the means is evident in regards to his attitude towards two popular movies --- “Hotel Rwanda” and “The Passion of Christ” ---- he reviewed in Sojourner’s Magazine. The review --- appearing in the rag renowned as a mouthpiece of the Religious Left --- hopes to convince readers as to which film is the more spiritually efficacious.

In a move reminiscent of the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth and the like, McLaren aesthetically as well as ethically places ephemeral existential considerations over the concrete reality of historic fact. According to McLaren, “Hotel Rwanda” is actually a “more Christian” movie than “The Passion Of Christ”.

From what I have been able to gather since I have seen neither film, “Hotel Rwanda” is about an individual who tries to save lives during the African Massacres of the 1990’s whereas “The Passion Of Christ” is an attempt to cinematically depict the sufferings of the Messiah as He died upon the cross for the sins of those who would accept Him as Savior.

How can one movie possibly depicting Christian values be “more Christian” than another that actually --- despite legitimate criticisms raised by sensitive Protestants to certain Catholic elements within the picture --- is a reenactment of the events that brought Christianity into existence? For if Jesus did not die and rise from the dead, why should we even bother with good deeds to begin with?

As John Warwick Montgomery often jokes, who’s heard of a Unitarian leper colony? I Corinthians 5:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.” But then I don’t think the words of Scripture carry all that much weight with McLaren and his sect since emotions seem to take precedence.

Without fidelity to these fundamental events and creeds of the Christian faith as expressions of history as actual as the signing of Declaration of Independence or the Allies landing at Normandy, this world religion under consideration degenerates into an amorphous psychobabble that ends up lavishing undue power upon those in positions of authority and imbuing this world with a kingdom of God quality once reserved for heaven itself.

As beings existing amidst the flow of history, events such as the Crucifixion, the Resurrection and their depiction in the words of the Bible connect the individual directly with the Almighty. But when the temporal emphasis of the faith is altered from its primary concern of the individual and salvation to that of the group and its propagation, adherents are forced to placate a constantly expanding intermediary body standing between themselves and God if they desire to continue their status as upstanding members of the fellowship in question.

Usually, this new loyalty is placed in the community and the pastor as the personification of this abstract authority that is not to be questioned and existing beyond many of the rules the remainder of us regular clods are expected to adhere to as less advanced members of the spiritual hierarchy.

It is not enough to live by the principles of the Bible by loving the Lord, taking care of one’s family, and otherwise staying out of trouble. Rather, one must confess the darkest recesses of one’s soul to the encounter group as it meanders about in ethical confusion as the facilitator guides them to a predetermined outcome not necessarily having anything whatsoever to do with the Bible or traditional Christian concerns.

Rev. McLaren shows his true colors regarding these matters in relation to environmental policy and philosophy as it serves as an excellent example of how McLaren’s aberrant theology will disrupt the life of the individual if his ideas gain influence among Christians and the broader culture.

Since the highest ethical good in McLaren’s worldview is the community, individual prerogatives and aspirations are seen as the bane and downfall of the natural world. McLaren in a Match 2004 Sojourner’s article titled “Consider the Turtles of the Field” chides that as a society we must move beyond concepts such as private ownership and free enterprise. Instead, those espousing so-called “kingdom values” must embrace the communal, hold property in common, and forsake the notion of “mine”.

Such revolutionary postures go beyond a concern about the greed and corruption endemic to the super rich such as multinational corporations, political figures, media personalities, and (dare we say) megachurch potentates. McLaren is far more interested in destroying the traditional American way of life.

Interestingly, this ecclesiastical milksop who won’t even take a stand one way or the other regarding sodomite matrimony characterizes the American nuclear family as a “waste of resources” and unworthy of the attention it receives in popular Evangelical thought. McLaren hopes extended families and “intentional households” (think glorified communes) will be the wave of the future.

One wonders if Pastor McLaren’s will be as keen on the share and share alike and the what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine outlook when the additional men he invites to reside at his compound have intentions on his wife? Or as most experiments in communalized domesticity end up, will Rev. McLaren be the only one permitted to relish the benefits of the community property if you catch my drift? Jonestown or Waco, anyone?

Refusing to confine his religious perceptions to the parameters of the texts and doctrines he finds stifling, Pastor McLaren refuses to realize that notions of property, privacy, and “mine” are not so much necessarily about greed as about establishing some kind of system that provides some degree of protection against the sin nature while allowing mankind the opportunity to enjoy what good remains in him as a creature made in God’s image. Rev. McLaren might not like the notion of private property, but it’s the only thing that prevents someone else from moving into his house when he is not there or permits him to seek legal recourse if someone bashes him in the head and snatches his car when stopped at a traffic light.

Through an examination of his environmental philosophy, one gets the impression that Rev. McLaren is not so much for nature as he is against the individual finding joy and purpose apart form considerable social control. It seems Rev. McLaren gets a bit of a kick getting into the business of others over which there is no Biblical mandate for doing so.

McLaren’s antipathy towards individual liberty is particularly evident in his opinion of the automobile and contemporary living arrangements. Of these foundational components of our material existence, McLaren writes, “The effects of caring will have to change our systems that depend on fossil fuels and...housing systems that maximize human impact through suburban sprawl [and] farming systems that violate rather than steward land.” Somehow I don’t imagine a bigshot like Rev. McLaren bicycles wherever he goes, lives in a thatched hut or in an inner city slum as most urban planners suggest, or nibbles on pine bark.

One wonders what this naive preacher is willing to give up. Apparently not quite as much as the rest of us not having reached his pinnacle of spiritual advancement must for the cause as has been characteristic of leftist revolutionary movements throughout history. For while the rest of us are to be ashamed for owning an automobile, dwelling in the suburbs, and having back decks instead of front porches (since these shelter the individual from the prying eyes of nosey neighbors operating under the mandate of “authentic community”), McLaren and his disciples have built their own little ecclesiastical fiefdom that can only be accessed by the very technologies this Luddite cleric rails against.

Living in the same “watershed” --- this being McLaren’s primary geographical identity --- as this theological crackpot, I have personally seen McLaren’s ivory tower (Cedar Ridge Community Church) and I can assure you it is sufficiently out in what use to be the countryside that he’s not going to draw the crowds he longs to fawn over him without considerable automobiling to this neighborhood of half-million dollar homes many sufficiently spaced far enough away from each other to prevent unwanted interaction between the occupants. But I guess gathering at the feet of this guru might qualify as one of those rare instances where use of the automobile might still be justified.

Nor does it seem to have stopped McLaren from trotting around the globe to spread his views and to indoctrinate others. But then again, when you think you are the best thing to hit religion since Jesus Christ, why should you let a little thing like a consistent environmental philosophy stand in your way?

One suspects what McLaren and his cronies really suffer from is good old-fashioned liberal guilt of a similar strain that wracked Phil Donahue when he’d ring his hands in despair that he had been fortunate enough to have been born an American. Yet instead of allowing such a realization to inspire a life of humility and non-ostentatiousness, when those of this attitude come to power they seek to assuage their own burdened souls by extracting the penance from the hides over whom they exercise authority.

The goal of the Emergent Church movement is liberation from what it classifies as the antiquated dogmas and traditions of Christianity. And while the church must always remain vigilant to ensure certain ecclesiastical accretions are not elevated to the level of revelation handed down from on high, what this movement under consideration seeks to replace accepted orthodoxy with is a religious paradigm that undermines individuality and imposes a reliance on community that conditions churchgoers to pliantly take their place in the emerging global order.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Is Alex Trebek A Dirty-Rotten Horse Thief?

Graphic Novel Depicts Jesus As Pot-Smoking Nudist

Was Benny Hinn's Mentor A Practicing Witch?

Conditions of Disrepair Pervade Washington DC Area Cemetery

In going on to his eternal reward, the last profundity Pope John Paul II conveyed to the world was no matter how good we might be as individuals death will eventually come to embrace us all. And as we all stop for a moment to ponder our earthly demises, it is only natural to consider the ultimate disposition of our physical remains. But whereas those of the Pope’s will always be properly honored as befitting someone of his stature, often the remainder of us don’t get even the minimal respect we deserve as human beings having once walked this earth as creatures made in the image of God.

My family went to the Fort Lincoln Cemetery in suburban Maryland on Easter Sunday to pay respects to my mother’s brother interned there. It would be an understatement to say we were in for an “Easter surprise” we would never forget.

Traditionally, cemeteries are noted for their meticulous upkeep in order to facilitate reflection and put the visitor’s mind at ease. However, from the conditions prevailing at this memorial garden, one would be safe to say local junkyards, garbage dumps, and sewage treatment plants receive more conscientious care.

We were first unsettled by the unsightly mud tracks left behind from the grass being torn up from having been driven over by a heavy piece of equipment. However, the extent of the damage went much further.

Grave markers were bent, indicating they had been carelessly run over by the same mechanical behemoth that had trod the grass asunder. Some memorial plaques were torn out of the ground and a number of headstones knocked over. Vases were either damaged and or missing from their respective sites. Other graves were obstructed by caked on mud, obscuring the record of their occupants ever having walked the earth.

This damage was not confined to one block of the premises but was rather endemic throughout the property. Do cemetery administrators plan to contact the families of those whose graves they have defiled, apologize for their shoddy workmanship, and make repairs or restitution as the honorable would? Or are they gambling their transgressions will go unnoticed since cemetery visitation is itself a dying tradition with the upcoming generation preferring those gaudy roadside cross displays and stuffed animal shrines.

Though the souls of the departed resting at this site do not reside there, their resting places should be respected just the same. This cemetery is named after the 16th President of the United States. His spirit does not reside at the memorial erected a few short miles away in Washington in his honor, but the structure is respected nonetheless. If death is the great equalizer, ought not the resting places of each person be treated with the same kind of dignity?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Necromongers Contiune To Prey Upon The Weak

Where is the outcry from the-man's law-must-be-obeyed-at-all-costs crowd in this case of an 81-year-old being starved to death against her expressed wishes?

Must be part of the same crowd I had a run in with at Free Republic.

If you value life and don't think celebrities are more important than the rest of, maybe you ought to take a look at the chilling responses to my post about an elderly women being kicked out of a trauma ward to make room for Michael Jackson.

Cookie Monster Becomes Healthfood Nut

Is Jeb Bush A Scientologist Puppet?

Charge Michael Jackson As An Accessory To Homicide

For the past decade or so, celebrity watchers have speculated whether Michael Jackson is simply a freak or something significantly more dangerous such as a pedophile. However, it now seems the judicial stakes have gotten higher as Jackson’s shenanigans may have contributed to the death of an unsuspecting bystander.

Upon admitting the king of pop to the hospital for allegedly exhibiting symptoms of the flu, hospital officials at the Marian Medical Center in Santa Monica, California bumped a 74 year old grandmother on a ventilator suffering cardiac arrest from the trauma ward to make room for Michael Jackson.

Mrs. Ruiz had to be rolled out of the room assisted by a hand-pumped ventilator. Michael Jackson was able to walk in under his own power with a tummy ache and the chills. One does not have to be Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman or Bones McCoy to diagnose which case was the actual medical emergency.

From the sound of it, all Michael had --- if he was sick at all --- was a case of the nerves. Normally, one might tell him to take it like a man, but in Jackson’s case the sentiment really wouldn’t apply.

It is pretty safe to conclude that Mrs. Ruiz was a victim of the pernicious disease of celebrity favoritism. Those blinded by glitz, glamour, or even large wads of money will respond someone as important as Michael Jackson deserves preferential treatment.

But more importantly, more important on whose scale? If anything, Jackson’s social utility might actually be less than the average patient.

Mrs. Ruiz was the mother of eight children, the grandmother of twenty-four, and the great-grandmother of twenty-six. According to her daughter, she “was the heart of the family.” Apart from grabbing his crotch and now apparently those of underage minors, what has Michael Jackson accomplished of similar lasting value? When you come down to it, hasn’t the average janitor or sanitation engineer contributed more to the upkeep of society than this sicko?

Anyone who has had a loved one in dire need of medical attention does not want this precious resource allocated in such an ephemeral manner as to whom is more subjectively impressive in the eyes of medical personnel. Unless Michael Jackson needed a plastic tube shoved down his throat in order to breath, he should have been forced to wait four or five hours in the emergency room like everyone else.

Those with a level of compassion below that of even Mr. Spock will calculate in a disturbingly dispassionate manner that Mrs. Ruiz was passing away anyway and should not have been made a priority. Even so, Mrs. Ruiz should not have been forced to endure Michael Jackson’s histrionics and compelled to take on a supporting role in his neverending drama.

The Ruiz family should have been made a priority at the hospital and allowed to concentrate on comforting their matriarch and emotionally preparing themselves for her pending departure from this world. Instead, they were made to feel lower than the medical waste dropped on the operating room floor as those gathered around this ailing woman were crowded into a cramped room and others barred from being at the side of their loved one so that Michael Jackson might have his tizzy in luxurious privacy.

Throughout much of his adult life, Michael Jackson has lived in a bizarre fantasy world that has lately gone beyond private amusement rides and an undue attraction to chimpanzees. Now, because of his refusal to live in the real word and his insatiable need for attention, a woman has died and one of life’s most grievous events has been made all the more unbearable for a family that before now had nothing whatsoever to do with this lamentable saga.

It is about time Michael Jackson was held accountable for his actions. Perhaps the courts should be used to punish him for something he’s actually done rather than for shadowy allegations that cannot be proven one way or the other, and, even if true, are as much the fault of the parents allowing such violations to take place as one does not have to be a practicing psychologist to see that Michael Jackson is not right in the head.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Patriot Act Squelches Legitimate Political Organization

Will Hispanics Seize The Papacy As Well?

Globalists in the Vatican often lecture U.S. policymakers why it is America's moral obligation to accept unbridled immigration. Let's see how these European elitists like it when their own institutions are overrun by these Third World revolutionary types and told they must alter their cultures to accomodate these interlopers.

Orphans Used In Medical Experiments

Buchanan Attacked By Tolerance Monger

Ditzy Women Prefer Scumbags

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Scott Peterson was hardly in the Big House for an hour before he received his first marriage proposal --- and no, it was not from his cellmate. Rather, it came from prison groupies on the outside romantically attracted to the dregs of humanity.

So basically, the moral of the story is that nice guys really do finish last and all the whining about the need for men to be more sensitive is a crock. Seems what many women want deep down is to be treated like a piece of trash.

Perhaps the incarcerated would no longer be quite so attractive if we established the social expectation that women gravitating to these kinds of men get what they deserve in terms of abuse and maltreatment since at this point in the criminal justice process it's not like they do not know what these animals are capable of.

All joking aside, these women are free to throw their lives away if the want; but worthy of more concentrated policy reflection are those prisons that allow inmates to wed and those that allow conjugal visits.

Why should these convicts be allowed to enjoy the privileges of human companionship and family life? Their victims no longer can.

And speaking of family life, what happens when one of these women end up in the family way? Since the fathers are unable to provide for their progeny, does this mean the offspring will end up on the public dole just like dear daddy?

Thus, those who of us who can barely afford to get married and have children end up paying for those refusing to pull their own weight and don't deserve to have a wife and family. And if you are Christian you have to put up with Chuck Colson haranguing you why it's somehow your fault these children are without proper fatherly guidance.

Prison is not suppose to be enjoyable. If those guilty of the most heinous deeds wanted to enjoy romance and family, they should have considered that before shooting or hacking someone to death.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Skinheads Seek Alliance With Bin Ladin

Drunken Kennedy Found Passed Out In Gutter

Jerry Falwell In Critical Condition

A Review Of Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From The Scriptures By John R. Rice

II Peter 2:1 warns of false teachers introducing destructive heresies. Like an intelligence agency, the Church must gather information on its opponents in order to protect its members and to devise strategies on how to extricate those held hostage to these competing systems. Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From The Scriptures By John R. Rice serves as an excellent briefing.

Garnished from Dr. Rice’s decades of ministry, False Doctrines is an introduction to many of the heresies and aberrant beliefs plaguing the modern religious scene ranging from the esoteric such as spiritualists and fortunetellers, to the obscure such as Anglo-Israelism, to the downright socially dangerous such as Socialism/Communism. In an era characterized by an overemphasis on tolerance, some Evangelicals might object to Rice’s stance criticizing Catholicism, Seventh Day Adventism, and the Church of Christ.

Yet despite Rice’s confrontational brand of militant Fundamentalism, this work is written in a spirit of kindness, love, and understanding as portions of the book are responses to actual letters received by Dr. Rice from adherents of the various doctrines under consideration.

False Doctrines also provides insight into the Fundamentalist position on issues debated within the broader Evangelical community such as Calvinistic predestination and the legitimacy of tongues.

Rice served as founder and editor of the Sword of The Lord, which is still published to this day as a primary source of news and views within the Fundamentalist movement, until his passing in 1980. Some Serious, Popular False Doctrines Answered From The Scriptures remains an excellent guidebook through which to survey the vibrant American religious landscape from a conservative Christian perspective.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Bush Abets Hispanic Takeover Of The United States

School Shooter Also A Radical Environmentalist

While you will incessantly hear that the shooter at the Indian reservation in Minnesota frequented a Neo-Nazi website and even went so far as to oppose interracial dating (an aspect of his belief system irrelevant to this horrible deed), apart from the CNSNews.com story bet you won't hear much of this group's ties to radical environmentalism.

Will be interesting to see if this will be enough to resuscitate his reputation in the eyes of liberals.

Interestingly, its not often pointed out that apart from its racist propensities, Nazism was also characterized by deep ecological underpinnings as well with one of its key slogans being “Blood & Soil” denoting the alleged superiority of the German people and their almost mystical connection to the Fatherland.

Is Terri's Ball & Chain A Wife Beater?

Medical Professional Claim's Terri Schiavo Capable Of Taking Nourishment

Like Father, Like Son: Will The President Embrace His Heritage As A Wimp?

It is assumed that a president in his second term has less to lose since he is not eligible for reelection and as such possesses a greater opportunity to assert himself in terms of policy than many consider prudent for a Commander-And-Chief in the first term. In a time of war, one would assume this would mean the President would come down harder upon the enemies of the nation vowing to wipe the United States from the face of the earth.

Regardless of one’s opinion of President Bush, one has to admit at certain moments in the war on terror he has spoken with refreshing bluntness uncharacteristic of a politician holding public office. However, as the President prepared to commence upon his second term he backpedaled and seemed to say some things that could be construed as embracing the Kerryite doctrine of waging a “more sensitive war”.

According to President Bush in his pre-inaugural Barbara Walters interview, he regretted having said in reference to the Iraqi insurgents “to bring it on” and that he wanted Osama Bin Ladin “Dead or alive”. While his feelings regarding the Iraqi insurgents are understandable in light of the tragic deaths of American servicemen serving as a testament that these savages were not as easy to neutralize as originally assessed, why in the world should anyone feel bad about wanting Osama Bin Ladin brought in dead or alive?

Perhaps we need to be reminded what this homicidal fanatic is accused of doing. Encase everyone has forgotten, Bin Ladin is responsible for killing over 3000 Americans.

Why in the name of Hades should we care if Bin Ladin and his groupies get their feelings hurt? From the impression given by the President, he might be more afraid of his old lady than international terrorism.

Thus the Commander-And-Chief feared as a cowboy in the Bolshevist press is actually henpecked and beholden to the Mrs. in a manner different only in degree and not necessarily in kind to that of the Oval Office’s previous occupant. For as with the previous administration, this one also is tempted to pursue a foreign policy characterized by the female characteristics of timidity and weak-mindedness.

After receiving a verbal smack down from Laura, the spanked President said with his head down, “So I have to be cautious about...conveying thoughts in a way maybe that doesn’t send wrong impressions about our country.” And what “improved” image does this apology convey: that in America the President’s wife is the spouse wearing the pants in the First Family?

That will certainly go a long way in striking fear in the hearts of our enemies. The only thing it will do is serve as evidence that, like the sisssified nations of Europe, the United States is decayed and ripe for conquest.

Apparently, in apologizing the President would rather America be perceived on par with France or Spain rather than as a cowboy. But whom would you rather call on in a crisis: John Wayne or Peppi La Phew?

When some scumbag breaks into your home, are you going to prattle on about the brotherhood of man and the equitable distribution of resources or are you going to do whatever it takes to get the brigand --- dead or alive --- off your property and away from your loved ones? The decision usually isn’t difficult for real men; however, it is in all likelihood, more ponderous for European ones or those seeking their approval.

Equally naive is the President’s belief that tsunami relief will improve the image of the U.S. abroad, especially among Islamic nations. For while President Bush is to be commended for realizing the threat posed by world terrorism, he fails to grasp Islam’s inherent hatred of Judeo-Christian values and civilization as well as hostility to U.S. strategic interests.

In an expression of heartwarming gratitude, the Indonesian government intimated they wanted relief forces out of the country and went so far as to forbid the Marines from carrying firearms in their backwards nation swarming with terrorists and assorted malcontents. But no guns, no Marines.

The Indonesians are the ones needing the aide. It makes no difference to America what happens to such an insignificant country if that’s going to be that nation’s attitude.

Indonesia needs America a lot more than America needs Indonesia. They ought to be grateful for every penny we send them and should welcome with open arms military assistance as first rate and magnanimous as ours.

As a result of a desire for approval, the perceived indecisiveness of the elder Bush led him to be derided as a wimp. We can only hope the current President Bush’s desire for acceptance does not compromise the need to stand up for American liberty’s in this precarious age.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Hold Judge In Schiavo Case In Contempt Of Congress

Maybe those appearing before this renegade magistrate should thumb their noses at his rulings.

Where are all the liberals that insist Judge Moore must obey the rulings of higher governing bodies whether he agrees with them or not? Guess they had to get rid of "Thou shalt not kill" so they could get by with what they are doing now.

One of the sad truths of this life is that most of us leave it under less than wonderful circumstances. One can only hope that those seeking to speed up the departure of Terri Schiavo from this world will be so gripped with guilt in the time of their own physical delcine that they are constantly looking over their shoulders in fear of who might be lurking in the shadows to inflict the same social evils upon them they now seek to unleash upon us all.

Copyright 2005 By Frederick Meekins

George Kenan Dead

Giant Squid Washes Ashore In California

Pennsylvania Court Rules The Politically Incorrect To Be Psychiatrically Detained

John Walsh Takes On Mexican Kidnapping Rings

This was a very informative story about an issue you don't hear much about in the mainstream press.

According to the report, Mexican drug cartels --- some composed of former military personnel or in league with sympathetic police --- are kidnapping individuals they suspect possessing access to financial resources.

Thus far from the report, it seems they have primarily struck south of the border, but are extending operations into the United States. But as Mexican cultural influence continues to spread into the United States this could very well become a threat to all Americans. For if these desparados will do this to American citizens of a similar Hispanic background as their own, just think what horrors they would be willing to inflict upon Americans of Caucasian extraction.

In this era of sweeping the state of things to the south under the rug, John Walsh is to be commended for brining this issue to the attention of the mainstream media.

Easter Bunny An Endangered Species

Bibliophile Jailed Over Overdue Library Books

Cronkite Reams Rather

Simpsons Episode On Gay Marriage Not As A Flaming An Outrage As It Could Have Been

Regardless of one’s opinion of “The Simpsons”, one has to admit the show has no problem tackling controversial material most would rather sweep under the rug. And even though it would have been better had producers left the issue of gay marriage alone, the show was able to inject a degree of its classic subversive wit into what could have been an approach characterized by nothing but a doctrinaire political correctness.

When most heard sodomite matrimony was coming to the quintessential American town of Springfield, most assumed the abomination would be heralded with typical Hollywood applause and accolades. And though I would be uncomfortable with letting younger children view the episode, it was not without humorous aspects exposing the hypocrisy inherent to this social outrage.

For gay nuptials were not ultimately sanctioned in this fictional municipality out of a warped interpretation of love or equity but rather in an attempt to bring back lost tourist dollars after Bart and Milhaus create a bad impression of the town in the mind of a roving travel correspondent. Homer gets into the money making racket by getting ordained and opening a wedding chapel in his garage.

“The Simpsons” is often characterized by a degree of philosophical reflection beneath all of its silliness uncommon to television sitcoms. This episode also sparked additional thought by touching on the point that, if same sex marriage is allowed, on what grounds do we continue to forbid other reprehensible couplings? This point was comically made when brother and sister hillbillies wanted to get married and Homer fantasized about marrying himself (“Homersexual” marriage, eh) with a house full of little Homers.

The most penetrating point of the show centered around the ambivalence exhibited by Marge Simpson. Throughout the early part of the episode, Marge is an enthusiastic supporter of this social perversion.

However, overthrowing the established moral order loses a bit of its appeal when she learns one of her own sisters is a lesbian. Reminds one of the adage that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet, her revulsion at the prospects of her sister falling into this lifestyle serving as a testament to the disgust many experience to the practice despite their best efforts at being good little radicals and harping the party line.

Though most would be reluctant to admit it, the world depicted on “The Simpsons” is probably one of the most realistic reflections of the American moral climate on television today. If the episode meant to proclaim the joys and beauty of gay marriage to the nation is wracked by as much reluctance to the practice as was able to wiggle its way into the plot, it means --- though tottering on the edge of the abyss --- there is still a sliver of hope provided Americans of principle don’t cower before these boisterous libertines.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Abelard & Heloise Affair Continues To Ignite Passions 900 Years Later

Government To Crackdown On Bloggers

Often evidence presented of Iran's abysmal human rights record is that nation's treatment of the cybercritics blogging away under that oppressive regime. However, with regulations being considered by the Federal Election Commission, there will soon be very little in principle distinguishing the Internet speech policies of the United States and one of the nations purported to be one of our most intractable enemies.

According to an interpretation of one ruling, bloggers could be charged with violating provisions of the campaign finance reform law for as little as linking to the website of a candidate they happen to favor.

I guess the best thing to do to keep what little speech rights we have remaining alive is to add pictures of dancing girls to our websites since the judiciary is reluctant to curtail salacious material (unlike political speech) and to assume anyone running for public office is by definition a scumbag and not worthy of a scintilla of support either virtual or actual.

Those sufficiently brainwashed by their overlords in the media/governmental complex might argue that the United States does not treat its dissidents in the same manner as an outlaw nation such as Iran. But in the light of overwhelming fines and court costs that will no doubt ruin the critics of the state, execution might actually be the more merciful alternative.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins