Diaperless Parents Let Chips Fall Where They May

Tolerancemongers Rampage In Ohio

One of the undeniable truths of contemporary sociopolitical reality is that the peace protestors that show up to counter White supremacist groups inevitably cause more damage and violence than the hate groups they claim to be standing against.

I suppose this looting was necessary for survival as we were told in reference to the plasma TV's and designer clothes pilfered following Hurricane Katrina.

UFO Abductees Admit Fondness For Their Probers

As with relationships, nice guys finish last.

Hugo Chavez Sides With Jungle Heathen Over Missionaries

Wonder what the hyper-pious that came out against Pat Robertson's assessment of the Venezuelan tyrant have to say now.

Say No To Crack: Waist Bands Higher Once More

"You Have The Obligation To Remain Silent": Man Beaten For Being Conscientious Citizen

Birds Not Descended From Dinosaurs

More Bombs Found Near Colleges

Seems terrorists might be targetting American colleges. Here are additional incidents apart from the Oklahoma Jihadist that is being swept under the rug:

11Alive.com

DailyBruin

UN Decimates Smurf Village

Pro-Illegal Front Group Backs Famed Communist

In the broadcast version of a Fox News story about the move to put a fence across the Mexican border, the activist promoting the unregulated movement of people across borders was sitting in an office with a collage of Che Guevara prominently placed in the background.

Tells you quite a bit about the values and policies embraced by these radical malcontents.

For once they abolish the borders separating nation from nation, it won't be long until they start to do away with the lines demarcating private property as well.

By Frederick Meekins

Apparently Some Victims More Equal Than Others In Eyes Of Media

It is said that justice is blind meaning since we are all created equal in the eyes of God we should be treated the same when it comes to the application of the law. It, therefore, follows that evil deeds are not made any more heinous when perpetrated by members of one particular ethic group or upon members of a particular ethnic group.

Ashame the mainstream media does not aspire to this standard when it comes to reporting these horrors transpiring on the underside of life. For often crimes inflicted upon minorities by members of majorities receive much more condemnation than crimes inflicted by minorities upon members of the majority in order to adhere to their prewritten script of the American as world oppressor.

News organizations across the nation were quick to report on a horrible incident in Tifton, Georgia where a number of migrant workers were killed and a woman raped by three scumbags that made a career of robbing these day laborers. Why then, has not the mainstream media been as quick to highlight the plight of a woman one state over in Florida gang raped by fourteen Hispanic transients?

Thus far, the only national outlet I have come across getting out the second story is WorldNetDaily.com . Aren't these incidents of similar magnitude?

Not only was this poor woman defiled by this human detritus having only God knows how many horrible diseases since I doubt they are the most virtuous of gentleman, she was also kidnapped from her home, had her nose plugged shut, and alcohol poured down her throat. So much for this demographic consisting solely of wholesome, family oriented people with no purpose in life other than humbly providing for their families. Had this women dispatched these sorry excuses for human beings into Hell as she should have, her face would no doubt be plastered all across newspapers for acts of bias.

The Associated Press account of the Tifton, Georgia atrocity noted that the attack has sent chills through the state’s Hispanic community. Yet the liberal press regularly ignores these fears and violations of the sanctity of home and person when average Americans are on the receiving end of such heinous deeds in the nation’s border areas and paint as racist those rising up to restore the sense of order the state has abandoned that would benefit all lawful residents.

It has often been said that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet. Hopefully, it will not take the wife or daughter of one of these elite journalists being mistreated in such a terrible manner for these communicators to realize that all crimes are equally lamentable without reference to the backgrounds of the parties involved.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Minority Crime Rate Higher Than Whites

Colored Women Attempt To Block Caucasian Counterparts From University Forum

Tom Cruise Impregnates Concubine

Wonder if he'll have the manhood to tell her she does not need medication for postpartum depression.

Lack Of Judgment: Are Some Too Quick To Embrace John Roberts?

From his response to a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, it has been reported Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has pledged to honor established precedent if confirmed as a jurist to the nation’s highest court. While such posturing might be an elaborate rhetorical ploy to throw off the snarling liberal jackals off his trail, it does not bode well for the nation if such sentiments are actually an accurate summation of his legal philosophy.

In defense of his position, Judge Roberts continued, “Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system. A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges...They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems...but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.”

But what precedents are you going to abide by, Mr. Roberts? And if he lacks the courage to step out from behind the judicial shadow, should he be entrusted with a position that requires a backbone beneath the black robe?

While he is correct that it is not the role of judges to solve all of society’s problems, that pony has been out of the gate for quite a while now. One might be able to make an argument that it’s been all downhill since Marbury v. Madison.

When Judge Roberts pledges to uphold precedent, exactly where does his fealty to the rulings of his predecessors end? Should a case come before the Court in need of clarifying the extent of the case allowing municipal authorities to snatch private property on behalf of developers, will Roberts have enough manhood in his gavel to sweep away this appalling ruling or will he stand by the figure he has cut for himself as a wimp and obsequiously adhere to a decision simply because some other judge more confident about asserting themselves ethically handed down the decision whether or not the decision has anything to do with the Constitution as originally envisioned?

In other statements, Judge Roberts contends he has no opinion one way or the other regarding law that has already been decided. Perhaps he should be reminded that history does not look kindly upon men that hide behind skirts, even if the dress in question happens to be a judge’s robe.

Had Judge Roberts lived in other times, one wonders if he would have possessed the courage to break with decisions now considered to be infamous tragedies of American jurisprudence. At one time Dred Scott was precedent; at one time Separate But Equal was precedent. And in this time of war, anyone concerned about the abridgements of liberties that breakout in such turbulent periods such as the curtailment of speech and internment camps should be deeply concerned about any jurist so eager to enunciate a go-with-the-flow-go-along-to-get-along mentality.

Rulings such as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson were not right at the time they were handed down nor did they somehow magically become wrong with the passage of time. They were always wrong because they violated an eternal, transcendent standard and not because of their failure to conform to changing social sensibilities.

Francis Schaeffer observed in A Christian Manifesto of the contemporary judicial climate, “By sociological law we mean law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment; and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41).” Thus it is from within such an intellectual framework that Judge Roberts is capable of claiming a fidelity to legal precedent while lending his legal expertise to the efforts to mainstream sodomy.

The standard in such a legal context is no longer so much right and wrong or good and evil as it is “stability” in Robert’s words or “peace and affluence” as Dr. Schaeffer use to warn. But if these are to serve as the highest legal ideals, would the slaves have ever been freed since the Antebellum world might have remained “stable” if it hadn’t been for those pesky abolitionists and those insisting upon their God given right to live free.

And this is ultimately the crux of the entire debate: do we see rights as coming from God or do we see rights as coming from the state? For if our rights come from God, they cannot be legitimately taken away from those living within His revealed standards since God is perfect, all knowing, and unchanging. But if we see our rights as coming from the state, they are dependent upon alterable conditions and the fluctuating whims of magistrates since government is flawed, dimwitted, and changeable.

Realizing this is the only way to overcome America’s crisis in jurisprudence. Although contemporary establishmentarian conservatives have an inkling something is out of whack, their proposed solutions will do little to halt the ongoing decline of this great Republic.

This disturbing shortcoming was particularly evident in a April 28, 2005 White House press conference when President Bush responded to a question about what he thought about comments by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that Democrats oppose Bush’s judicial nominees on religious grounds. The President responded he did not think his nominees were being opposed on religious grounds but as a matter of judicial philosophy. But where does the President think one’s judicial philosophy comes from exactly?

One is not going to want babykillers to assume the highest legal offices in the land if one truly loves God and strives to keep His commandments. Likewise, if one does not think God exists or merely does as some kind of celestial buffoon for human amusement smiling upon anything and everything that titillates our basest passions, one is going to do everything within one’s power to curb the influence of jurists not seeing such debaucheries as some kind of innate liberty or the effort to curb such an infringement upon those freedoms that are.

Throughout the course of his ministry analyzing Western culture in light of Biblical principles, Francis Schaeffer warned that a conservative Humanism is little better than a liberal Humanism. For whereas liberal ones seek to recast all of society in their own radical image, the conservative ones --- though not as abrupt with their agenda of cultural transformation --- are so sold out to the spirit of the age that they eventually come to endorse positions they would have considered scandalous just a short time ago. And where Justice Roberts decides to stand amidst this grand struggle will determine the future of America for decades to come.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Islamophiles Downplay Jihadist Connections Of University Bomber

Suicide Bomber Strikes At University Football Game

Gay Penguin Goes Straight

Dr. Phil's Son To Wed Playboy Centerfold

Interesting an episode the other day was about the evils of judging by appearance.

As with those that claim they read Playboy for the articles, I suppose he became smitten by this tramp through her personality.

For those charmed by the puny, ditzy model type, be warned. They don't strike me as the kind that will do much housework or happily do as they are told like a proper wife should.

Any satisfaction to be derived from having such a showcase bride based upon contemporary standards of beauty idolizing malnutrition and an emaciated look will no doubt be eaten up by divorce settlement costs a few years down the road.

Glamour wenches seldom make good companions and hardly the best selection as mothers.

As I once read in a Christian book on youth ministry, when it comes to basing a relationship primarily on appearance, fine feathers clothe an expensive bird.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Lunar Voyage Proposed

Teacher Fired For Writing Congressman

Hispanic Supremacists Threaten Genocide Against Whites

Burger King Threatened With Jihad

Tolerancemongers Attack Border Security Watch

Clinton Sees Traditional Religion As Major World Threat: Seeks To Forge Unified Belief System

Statue Of Nude, Pregnant Midget Defiles Trafalgar Square

Once upon a time, the British use to be renowned for their sense of propriety and decorum. Now it seems, however, they are letting it all hang out just like all the other nations of the decadent West.

Trafalgar Square is, to put it most simply, a square in central London commemorating the Battle of Trafalgar. Makes you wonder then why then they have decided to place a statue of a disabled, pregnant naked lady amidst this memorial to great military heroes.

One characteristic of all decaying nations is the rush to distance themselves from the values of their pasts. As such, the Mayor of London, terrorist sympathizer Ken Livingstone, has expressed a desire to have many of the statues of the historical greats taken down and replaced with those of personalities more relevant to the 21st century, this no doubt being a euphemism for the purposes of honoring perverts and deviants.

For yet another characteristic of declining cultures is an unseemly public obsession with the sexual and abnormal. The nude is being justified in part to serve as a balance to "triumphant male statuary" dominating the park, that classification providing a great deal of insight to the deviant creating the sculpture who at one time crafted a replica of his head made of 4.5 liters of his own frozen blood.

But if that was the only reason, why not make a statue of this lady with some cloths on? We are further told of the need of the statue by the model herself because, "There is so much prejudice around sexuality, disability, femininity and pregnancy..."

Maybe so, but shouldn't her naked beauty be something only for her husband to behold and relish? If anything, in light of so many pregnant women thrusting their bear bellies into plain view stretch marks and all (i.e. the Dove Soap hussies), a little more Victorian restraint might do us some good with more being left to the imagination once again.

Monuments such as Trafalgar Square commemorate noble deeds undertaken in honor of God and country. But had these men seen what the future was to hold, you are forced to stop and wonder if they would have even bothered in the first place.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Plague-Infested Mice Missing

FEMA Aide Pays For Strippers

Roberts Admits Affinity For Judicial Activism

Shacking Up Socially Acceptable

Republican Senator Seeks Crown As King Of The Welfare Pimps

Republicans were able to gain power during the mid 90’s in part by promising to abolish welfare as we know it. However, as these reformers once motivated by the idealism of their convictions have grown accustomed to the perks of public office, they are no longer quite so eager to bring about the abolition of these programs as they are to expand entitlement programs to create whole new levels of dependency.

One of the surest ways to maintain one’s hold on power, to extend the scope of government, and to minimize criticism of one’s pet projects is to couch these in terms of defending some venerable institution. Environmentalists have so mastered the technique that now those daring to question this movement are characterized as being in favor of dirty water and bunny massacres.

As a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, most Americans view marriage and family as one of the building blocks of a stable social order. Thus, those brave enough to question a proposal being introduced by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback will no doubt be cast as enemies of children and families. But the things these critics are really standing up for are just as important and perhaps even more fundamental values such as self-reliance and a sense of personal sobriety that one does not always get the things one wants especially if one is not patient enough to follow the proper steps in their own time to acquire them.

The plan promoted by Brownback would give low income residents of the District of Columbia Marriage and Pre-marriage Accounts where the government would match $3.00 for every dollar contributed by the account holder up to $4500. The theory is that encouraging marriage is good for children.

But if we are now considering dishing out what amounts to what could be rightly construed as a marriage subsidy, doesn’t this amount to yet another form of welfare? Furthermore, such handouts would do little to actually strengthen marriage since such funds would most likely go to those that don’t value marriage all that much to begin with.

This was evident with the couple profiled in a July 31, 2005 Washington Post story detailing the Brownback proposal. The couple chronicled has not yet gotten married because the couple is strapped for cash because he is unemployed and disabled with a back injury and to her it’s simply not enough to bask in the joy and pleasure of solemnizing the couple’s love before God and man as this woman already on a number of government assistance programs demands a storybook wedding.

Yet despite claiming to delay matrimony because of economic excuses, this has not stopped them from playing house by shacking up and having a baby on top of the fact she already has another child by another dude. Apparently the baby’s daddy isn’t too disabled; he might not be suffering so much from a bad back as he is a lazy rear-end.

This couple made their own decision to do things out of order after sitting in a tree, skipping the first comes love and then comes marriage stage going straight to the baby carriage. Frankly, why should the rest of us have to dig deeper into our pockets to buffer the consequences of their actions?

If couples such as this are not going to get married and (as most Americans possessed the moral courage to say in eras with a bit more class) “live in sin”, doesn’t it prove they do not value marriage to begin with? Why do some such as Senator Brownback insist throwing more public money at the problem is going to resolve the issue?

This is pretty much the approach that has been taken in regards to public education and look at the sorry state the public schools are in. Do we really want to endanger marriage further through additional government handouts and interference?

Those defending Marriage Saving Accounts insist that the “downtrodden” and “underprivileged” need public assistance in establishing their homes and families. However, according to the specifics of the proposal, beneficiaries can make up to $25,000 if they have no dependents and up to $50,000 if one has dependents and a total net worth of less than $10,000. Thus in plain language, what these programs do is reward those refusing to exercise a little self control or willingness to delay gratification by saving for a rainy day.

Why should others have to have what they have worked for taken and given to someone that could theoretically be making more than they do but lacks character so that the less frugal can enjoy many of the things those with the integrity to lead productive lives apart from the patronage of the state cannot afford and must delay acquiring until later down the road? Why shouldn’t the same be expected of the indolent and licentious?

It’s not like the highlighted couple is living on the streets. According to the Post, they have a roof over their heads. Since this is the case, their living arrangements are no concern of the government or even the church to much of a degree.

In the Washington, DC area where the average house is now pushing between $300,000 and $500,000, if subsidies were dished out to all of those unable to afford real estate prices, just about everybody would be suckling off the government teat.

Marriage and family are indeed a fundamental building block of a stable social order. However, these will falter unless composed of individuals that value these institutions more than any bribe to entice them into them and realize no one is responsible for their success and happiness other than themselves.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Issue Of Implantable Bio-Chips Comes Up At Roberts Hearing

FEMA Debit Cards Used To Purchase Designer Handbags

Is Pat Robertson A FEMA Lackey?

American Legion Calls For Abolition Of First Amendment

FEMA Censors Duly Constituted Radio Station

Teen Dismembers Mother At Behest Of Pedophile

Are Rapes Occurring Inside The Astrodome & Being Covered Up By FEMA?

Has FEMA Turned A Church Retreat Center Into A Detention Camp?

Rescue Workers Morph Into Facist Enforcers

"I Tell You What": Last Season For King Of The Hill

New Orleans Sodomites Shake Fist At God

New Orleans Debauchery Continues: Rescue Workers Demand Sexual Favors For Services Rendered

Drunk Mexicans A Danger To American Motorists

Sodomite Sympathizers Infiltrate Red Cross

Babykillers Seek To Set Up Shop In America's Oldest City

Society Collapses Before Our Eyes Without The Ten Commandments

Wonder how those for the abolition of the Ten Commandments think society is fairing now without these fundamental principles.

According to this story, a nursing home has been raided --- respect for the elderly being thrown out the window and all. In other incidents, vagabonds are now taking shots at rescue copters assisting in the evacuation.

This is now longer about "survival". These scumbags are attempting to establish their own rule as warlords.

In one interesting paragraph, readers will note police ran off looters from an Office Depot while law enforcement officials were themselves helping themselves to "five finger discounts" because in times of emergency officials have the power to "commandeer" buildings and supplies.

Do police plan to keep a tabulation of the goods they have procured for the sake of the COMMUNITY for later reimbursement; if not it's still theft no matter how you gussy it up.

So in essense, at those times when property rights matter the most, they count the least as it seems you are nothing more than a caretaker until the state needs to come along and appropriate these resources from you.

Seems no one is safe from anyone --- be they civilian or government --- in the expadning lawlessness of the New World Order where the strong are being allowed to take what they want from the weak.

Pray hard, America, for the hour of the tyranny may be at hand.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Police Join Looters

Hurricane Halts Gay Orgy

Planned Parenthood Views Contraceptives As Essential To Hurricane Recovery

To bad it wasn't their headquarters and their headquarters alone that was washed away with no one in it.

Apostate Jesters Blaspheme Holy Communion

Given the “so what?” and “You better be quiet or its off to a reeducation camp with you” response I’ve gotten from even a number of so-called “Conservatives” regarding the Harry Potter craze and reports of Lois Lane’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I guess what I am about to describe is considered OK now as well.

I first heard of this listening to an episode of Kevin Swanson’s Generations Radio archived at SermonAudio.com. Doesn’t take a theological genius to realize that the Episcopal Church is a joke, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

On May 22. 2005, a so-called “Clown Mass” was held at Trinity Church in New York City where these buffoons made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. With sodomites infesting the ranks of this harlot denomination, certainly puts the term “assclown” into an entirely different context.

Such antics are not the first plunge of the ranks of Episcopal/Anglican clergy into such lunacy. In the late 60’s or there abouts, a number of Episcopal ministers parachuted off a building in order to “bring the young people back into the church”. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has jokingly remarked of the incident, if God wasn’t dead, maybe He wishes He were.

More traditional Evangelicals stand back and watch, thinking such foolishness could never occur in their denominations and congregations. The sad truth is these once stalwart bastions of theological propriety are well on their way to reveling in such ecclesiastical hijinks.

Since they prefer to do nothing more than mock and ridicule the traditional American way of “doing church”, what’s to prevent the Emergent Church movement from resorting to a Clown Communion of their own? After all, with their baggie, torn pants and bodies proudly defaced with tattoos, many in these religious freak shows are already well on their way to looking like clowns.

With most socioreligious taboos being tossed aside, a vast number of Evangelicals out of a misbegotten perception that since the Blood of Christ covers over a broad array of sins hold that these sins must no longer be construed as sins for fear of running afoul of public constituencies promoting such behaviors. In such a do-your-own-thing environment, the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper dangles by a very thin thread. For if many in the church aren’t even going to bat an eye at literature casting witchcraft in a positive light and consider it a greater impropriety to point out the scandal of procreating outside of marriage than actually breeding like a rabbit without legal blessing, what is to prevent us from getting to the point of viewing this sacrament as little more than midmorning crackers and juice if we are no longer to be shocked by the previously mentioned transgressions in our jaded age?

How much farther are things going to go? If you raise concerns about the influence of witchcraft over the minds of the young or raise an eyebrow as to the propriety of Superman’s main squeeze living a life of sleaze, you’re the one they want to burn at the stake or run out of town. Won’t be long until those insisting the Lord’s Supper be conducted with sobriety and decorum will be castigated as intolerant fuddies out of touch with developing religious sensibilities.

During the French Revolution, violent mobs desecrated a cathedral by sitting a scantily clad woman upon the altar. At least those minions of perdition had the decency to b upfront about their anti-Christian motives. Today, those that would defile holy things have either learned to be more deceptive about their blasphemy or not quite as intelligent about the evil they do since silliness has replaced seriousness throughout much of the modern church.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Libraries Without Books

Punky Brewster Spawns

Terrorists To Pose As Vagrants

Additional Thoughts Concerning The Despair Of Naturalism

In trying to elevate himself by attempting to remove God from His rightful place upon the throne of the universe, man ends up far from elevating himself and instead finds himself ensnared to a form of despair and bondage far worse than anything that could be imagined under the yolk of Biblical Christianity.

To say that an individual possesses free will is to say that he has the ability to make decisions based upon some criteria existing beyond mere physical impulse.

However, materialistic evolutionary theory contends that this arena of the will does not exist as part of a deeper spiritual reality but is rather mere electrochemical response to physical stimuli with no higher reason or purpose.

Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture that evolutionary theory in the form of humanistic thought has reduced everything to the level of a component in a great universal machine.

Of this outlook, Schaeffer writes, “In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different (164).”

To prove such an observation is more than Evangelical hyperbole, Schaeffer quotes Harvard University Chemistry Professor George Wald who said, “Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet (164).”

In order to remain consistent, those holding to such a perspective have to concede such a masterpiece is not so much the result of creative insight as it is a fortuitous case of gas. And to any naturalist offended by my remarks, they cannot very well complain about them since by their own worldview, I had no control over what I wrote.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Church Prostitutes Itself For Whorish Apostacy

Finally Some Recognition: Bookish Males Now Sexy

Respect For The Dead Or Fear Of What Lies Ahead?

My brief comments regarding Stephen Jay Gould’s family suing over his death from cancer at the hands of inept doctors generated a greater response than anticipated, once again proving the role played by evolution as a fault line in the ongoing battle of values dividing much of America. Yet despite the emotional responses Darwin’s theory continues to evoke, those seeking to escape the implications of a universe created and sustained by God continue to formulate arguments in defense of their position that even a Neanderthal could see through.

One response chided me as a soulless individual for supposedly “speaking so ill of the dead” for pointing out the inconsistencies of materialists seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one since by definition that worldview has no objective standard upon which to base right or wrong with human beings ultimately of no more importance than the disease organisms doctors regularly seek to eradicate.

On what grounds does a naturalist accuse someone of having no soul? To the naturalist, the soul does not exist.

If matter is all that exists and is the ultimate foundation of the universe, mind is nothing more than electronic impulses coursing through the brain. Thus, if we are nothing more than the sum of the sum total of our physical parts, one can no more be held accountable for one’s comments than they can be for the need to go to the bathroom if thoughts are to the brain what urine is to the kidneys.

Interestingly, why do those professing belief that this world is all that is with no afterlife even care whatsoever about what I have to say about someone that has ceased to exist? It’s not like the deceased is going to read my comments.

Though Christianity affirms the existence of an afterlife, there is nothing in the Bible saying we are forbidden from discussing the ignoble deeds of the departed. If we were forbidden from doing so, that would also mean we could not discuss the failings of Joseph McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, or any other figure the Left feels the need to criticize incessantly. Why should Stephen Jay Gould be granted an exception?

In all likelihood having now had his faulty thinking corrected through the singeing flames of hellfire if he continued to deny Christ until his last breath, Dr. Gould would probably thank me for taking the time to warn others of the errors and inconsistencies of his previously held views. In Luke 16:27-28, the rich man sent to hell says, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”

In the raising of such a fuss about correcting the fallacies of the errant departed, one is forced to speculate whether such concerns are raised out of a misdirected sense of propriety or more from a desire to avoid contemplating the fate that awaits themselves should they continue to ignore the pangings of their own conscience.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Pentagon Eager To Impose Martial Law

Mass Murderer Set Free

Was Deposed General Plotting A Coup?

Scottish Editorialist Arrested For Column Against Immigration

Planned Parenthood Makes Violence Against Prolifers A Laughing Matter

A Review Of 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch

Regardless of one’s opinion of Tony Campolo, one has to admit Campolo is not afraid to speak his mind.

In 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch, Campolo takes on some of the most difficult issues confronting contemporary Christianity.

Some of the issues addressed from the chapter titles include “Are Evangelicals Too Pro-Israel” and “Where Does A Single Woman Over 30 Go To Get Rid Of Loneliness?”

Some of Campolo’s comments are insightful such as those realizing that singleness is as ordained of God as marriage.

Other comments reveal a serious misunderstanding as to the fundamental nature of human nature.

In the chapter dealing with homosexuality, Campolo suggests that Evangelicals grant a blessing to celibate gays living together.

But humanly speaking, will any relationship between romantically attracted adults living under the same roof remain celibate for long?

Even among Christians, one reason for disinterest in the church is its failure to address the concerns of the day and instead explicate some arcane Old Testament passage week after week with little application to the life of the average Christian.

If nothing else, even despite his errors, Campolo’s text should spark interesting Sunday school debates or riveting rejoinders from the pulpit.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Hispanic Gang Threatens Crime Prevention Rally

New Highlander Trilogy Planned

Zap-Happy Cops Stun Retard For Little Reason

Bush Surrenders American Economy To His Latin American Overlords

Radio Station Caves To Terrorist Sympathizers

Trees Bad For The Environment

Yet Another Celebration Catering To Minorities

In promoting racial equality, it is often harped that on the inside we are all the same regardless of color or background. Apparently that isn't quite the case since we are now being bombarded by yet another celebration pandering to minorities.

Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day (try putting that on a greeting card) seeks to, well, raise awareness of transplant organs and minorities. While one can hardly oppose the quest for good health, like many other causes promoted by the liberals, this one should also be subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought.

For starters, if we are going to have a Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day, shouldn't we also have a Caucasian Transplant Organ Awareness Day? Not every White person that needs a transplant organ gets one.

So why is it inherently more tragic if this tragedy befalls a minority than your run of the mill White person? Furthermore, if there was only a single organ available, can anyone justify why Jesse Jackson would be more deserving of it than Ted Kennedy? Even more importantly, are those White big shots that enjoy imposing minority favoritism on the rest of us in order to show how enlightened and progressive they are going to forego an organ for themselves or a loved one in favor of a minority should they ever find themselves in such a situation or is this merely another burden they expect to pass on to the average White American?

From the way these public campaigns are expressed, you'd think the average White guy was as immortal as Ducan McCloud of the Clan McCloud from the Highlander series.
However, seems to me White folks drop dead from the same afflictions.

In one news story justifying this day of ethnic guilt, one AP story laments that American Indians make up 34& and Hispanics 42% of those awaiting kidney transplants in New Mexico. Maybe if these communities learned to lay off the booze a bit, they could reduce the numbers instead of shifting the blame to Whitey.

Even among conservative circles, it is now popular to claim that racial differences do not exist. While that should be true in the eyes of the law, if it is so in terms of biology, shouldn't organs be interchangeable between various groups if these distictions are nothing more than arbitrary cosmetics?

Seems this issue will force the proponents of radical multiculturalism to make a decision in favor of either their fantasies of absolutist egalitarianism or the system of demographic spoils they have devised to ultimately lavish power on themselves as the administrators of a new ethnic feudalism.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Voltron Movie Planned

Multiculturalism Used By Minority Malcontents To Dupe Stupid Whites

Article Takes On Harry Potter From A Biblical Perspective

Dr. P. Bradley Carey, president of the Institute For Christian Works, has posted a Biblical analysis of Pottermania in an article titled “HARRY POTTER: ENEMY Of GOD“.

He does an excellent of job of martialling the Biblical evidence for his argument and placing the book in the context of these scriptural teachings.

Those concerned about this phenomena but not sure exactly how to put their finger on it will find this to be a vital apologetic resource.

Ragheads Rampage In England

Muslim Lunatic Threatens Carolina Church

"He's Dead, Jim": Star Trek's Scotty Beamed Into The Afterlife

American Concentration Camps In The Works

Will Lois Lane Be An Unwed Mother In New Superman Film?

In DVD's I have of the classic Max Fleischer Superman cartoon's, Lois Lane is depicted as the embodiment of American femininity as she carries herself simultaneously with spunk and lady-like decorum.

As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.

For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.

Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a SciFi.com scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.

If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.

Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?

If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.

If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.

As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing withcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Hispanic Gangs To Administer Conquered America On Behalf Of CFR Crowd & Ragheads

Civic Duty To Read Latest Harry Potter --- At Least Before Sat, the 16th

Normally, I would be reluctant in encouraging someone to read an occult-laced tract like Harry Potter as one has to judge for themselves whether such material might be harmful to their spiritual walk. However, in a case where a Cananadian supermarket inadvertently released the text ahead of its debut date, those getting their hands on it now have a civic duty to read the manuscript in order to take a stand against government intrusion into our minds and homes.

A Justice with the Supreme Court of British, Columbia has ruled that those acquiring the book ahead of time must not speak about the book, copy it, or even read it. Furthermore, the lucky customers must also surrender the book they purchased in good faith to the publisher until 12:01 am, July 16th when the dark lords of the New World Order have decreed their obedient minions among the ranks of mere mortals may finally gaze upon this work of juvenile necromancy.

Apart from its glorification of Satanic rituals, numerous Christian thinkers have warned of the Potter Series because of Harry's tendency to break the rules when it suits his purpose. Since this is the worldview J.K. Rowlings and her publisher wish to promote among the young, shouldn't they applaud those refusing to comply with the ruling?

Since outfits such as the ACLU and the like go into more spasms than a werewolf having its belly rubbed whenever the specter of government threatens to interfere with what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom or when authorites exert control over what one is permitted to read, you'd think this would be a case right up their alley. Furthermore, especially among those that bought the book with cash, how can such a ruling possibly be enforced? Those having the book ahead of schedule should go ahead and read the book anyway before the approved date knowing that in doing so they take a stand for intellectual liberty.

Unless the practicioners of the dark arts have another nefarious purpose in mind such as mass manipulation or fear they might turn into a pumpkin if someone gazes upon their runes before the appointed hour, J.K Rowlings and these gnarled crones in the publishing industry have no right to complain as they will be getting the same amount of money whether these fourteen copies are sold at 12:01 am or a mere week earlier.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Caucasians More Likely To Suffer From Reflux Disease

Does this now mean we are to target prevention and treatment campaigns towards White folks and try to make everybody else feel guilty that White folks suffer from this dreaded affliction --- believe me, as a sufferer it can be rough --- as is the case with other diseases that supposedly afflict minorities in disproportionate number such as diabetes, heart disease, and prostate cancer even though these are the things most White folks keel over from eventually as well?

Two There Always Are: But Who Is A Jedi & Who Is A Sith?

Throughout the Star Wars saga, fans have been led to believe that the Jedi stood for justice and goodness throughout the galaxy. However, the actions of one of the characters renowned as the embodiment of the principles expounded by the sect compels such an assumption to undergo careful reevaluation.

Most no doubt think I am referring to Anakin Skywalker since the final installment of the series details his transformation into Darth Vader. However, I am actually referring to Yoda, the diminutive space troll so hideous he is actually kind of cute.

In a Pepsi commercial, the Jedi master is seen sitting at a lunch counter here on earth. But instead of politely waiting to order his lunch like a good little elf, he instead resorts to a level of trickery that would put Q from Star Trek to shame.

Yoda employs Jedi sorcery by casting a spell on the guy next to him to give Yoda his fries. The victim complies, but when the imp tries to exert his will to acquire a disputed Pepsi, the victim reasserts himself to retain ownership of the coveted soft drink.

While the commercial is somewhat humorous, it also gives us a bit of clairvoyance into the moral worldview of the Jedi. In the final analysis, the Jedi end up not being all that different than the Sith.

For starters, anybody thinking there is nothing unsettling about a psionic adept waving their hands and getting a weak-minded subject to fork over whatever the space swami desires is in for a rude awakening. Some might think it’s a joke, saying those under a Jedi’s sway get exactly what they deserve.

But if Jedi are allowed to roam the cosmos pilfering what they please, what’s to prevent one with more ambitious appetites from using his powers of beguilement to have his way with unsuspecting space damsels? Can’t very well cry rape when you approve of soft drinks being taken from those under psychic manipulation when someone with a bit more force flowing through them uses their powers in a slightly more provocative manner. Just because Yoda’s 800 and some years old doesn’t mean the rest of the Jedi have as much trouble extending their lightsabers.

Those with the power to take advantage of the common people in this kind of manner should be controlled by a strict code of behavior. Though the system proved inadequate, at least on Babylon 5 the earth government had an agency known as the PsiCorps to regulate telepaths from infringing upon the privacy of so-called “mundanes” or normal people.

At least J. Michael Stravinski had the foresight to realize power no matter how well controlled or intentioned is going to end up being abused. Apparently Lucas is naive as Jar Jar Binks in having no similar worries about one person crawling around in the mind of another and seeing it as something to encourage as positive by making it a practice his heroes engage in with shocking regularity.

The principles and aphorisms espoused by the Jedi sound noble upon an initial hearing but end up justifying larcenous behavior. For example, throughout the recent trilogy, Jedi elites such as Yoda remind that fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.

I guess such is taught so --- as with the elites of our own little corner of the universe such as government revenuers and welfare bureaucrats --- the Jedi can take whatever they want and dare anyone to say anything about it. For shouldn’t it be a greater wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you than to not want what is rightfully yours taken away?

One statement from “Revenge Of The Sith” that stands out to the philosophically sensitive is Obi-Wan’s declaration that only a Sith lord deals in absolutes (an absolute itself, by the way). But even if the proclamation is taken at face value, then how can one even say there is any difference between Jedi and Sith since distinctions cannot be made in a moral universe where absolutes are said not to exist?

The last installment of the Star Wars epic is marketed as depicting Anakin Skywalker’s betrayal of the Jedi. But perhaps instead of betraying this sect of mystic galactic warriors, Darth Vader represents that cults ultimate fulfillment.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Burger Flippers To Dress Like Pimps

Is The Government That Naive?

In April, police in Fairfax County, Virginia pulled over a van making an illegal u-turn. The constables soon discovered the illegal u-turn was not the only statutory violation committed by those in the van for twelve inside were illegal aliens.

After being processed by Immigration and Custom Enforcement, all eleven passengers were released and instructed to show up for final review; they were let lose onto our streets for the sake of the children and all. Unless the mother was some kind of tramp and did not know which hombre was the father, can anyone justify why every last one of them should have been allowed to go?

Furthermore, if these parents cared so much for their progeny, wouldn’t they have applied to come to this country in the proper manner? Regular, real Americans have had their own children snatched over less serious infractions of the law.

Needless to say, none of those released with the promise to return did so. But one does not have to be a PhD to figure out that was going to happen. With the drivel filling the minds of the overeducated these days, it’s probably an insight available only to those whose minds have not been corrupted in this manner.

Unfortunately, the poison of such diseased thinking is not confined to the otherwise unemployable in the ranks of media, government, and academia. Many average Americans are more than eager in promoting the surrender of this great nation.

One deluded soul posting on the WJLA.com messageboard commenting on the story posted, “If you ‘processed’ all the ‘illegals’ out of the United States, we would have economic collapse....Who the heck picks your fruit and vegetables? Cleans up your building? Cleans restrooms? Cooks your fast food? Does the dirty work that no one else wants to do? Many Americans have grown too fat and entitled to do the physical and ‘menial’ wok. Selfish people...afraid you won’t be able to afford that big fat SUV and wide-screen television?”

Such comments were probably made by one of those selfish people who has never done any menial work in their life. Usually, those clamoring for unfettered borders are the ones that have “too much” ---- if we are now going to hurl invectives against the blessings of liberty --- and want to ensure that the good life remains the exclusive province of the elite by importing laborers for the purposes of driving down wages and increasing their own wealth and power.

Instead of complaining about the laziness and girth of the average American (as if from appearances the average immigrant has missed too many meals), perhaps we should be asking how many toilets the likes of George Bush, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy have scrubbed over the course of their lifetimes since the only thing they ever did to be entitled to their vast resources was spring from their parents loins. Hillary Clinton acted like it was revelation handed down from on high when she realized janitors are people too.

It’s not so much Americans have grown “too entitled” to do menial labor but rather don’t see why wages should be driven down for the work that they do. For the elites do not allow the invasion of the United States to proceed unabated to elevate the status of lamentable Third World peons but rather to drag down the living standards of all people to make it easy to rule over all of us as subjects of the New World Order.

Maybe if most forms of immigration were abolished and the proper steps taken to interdict transborder vagrancy, perhaps the elites would be forced to take the hit in their own pockets rather than the pockets of the average American. John Kerry and George Bush can afford to alter their lifestyles a lot more than can John Q. Public.

Often delicate economic relationships are thrown out of whack through undue government intervention and involvement. Multinationalists like to remind the American people of the need for an uninhibited free market in terms of eliminating trade barriers and subsidies to maintain global prosperity. Thus, if undue government meddling causes socioeconomic disequilibrium, then why shouldn’t this principle apply to welfare and domestic assistance programs buffeting those suffering from self-inflicted indolence?

If welfare was to be abolished for all but the physically incapacitated, the lazy would be forced to take the jobs currently occupied by immigrant labor. Fear of starvation might prove to be a powerful entrepreneurial motivator.

Meddling do-gooders will gasp, “But what of the children born to the underprivileged?” In much the same manner as a looming specter of malnutrition will inspire those with a rumbling tummy to take jobs they might not want to otherwise, the realization that one won’t be getting an additional check for each new mouth they bring into the world will cause a case of erectile dysfunction even Viagra couldn’t cure.

The United States did not have these out-of-control wedlock births before the advent of out-of-control social programs. “But won’t innocent children starve?” those placing their misguided conceptions of compassion above commonsense ask.

Not necessarily. Generations got by on what most would turn their noses up at today. So long as the “poor” have a can of soup from somewhere like a Save-A-Lot or an Aldi’s and a good set of second-hand clothes from the local thrift-store, they don’t really have too many complaints that the government or even the church should be concerned about. One of the most diabolical things ever done in devising these programs for the able-bodied was naming them “entitlements” since those unwilling to provide for themselves aren’t entitled to as much as they’ve been duped into believing.

Integrity of the nation’s borders is one of government’s few legitimate functions. If those holding public office fail in fulfilling this sacred obligation as a result of their own outright stupidity or blatant intentional neglect, perhaps those addicted to the benefits of authority should no longer be permitted to retain such lofty positions.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Developer Seeks To Teach Renegade Justice A Lesson

Canadian University Honors Babykiller

Acident Caused By Fleeing Cannabalistic Morlocks?

Property Seizure Part Of U.N. Agenda

Will New Starbucks Coffee Taste Like Dirt?: To Promote Eco-Friendly Cultivation

Outcome Based Baseball

Communist Judges Hammer Additional Nail In The Coffin Of Property Rights For The Sake Of Community

Despite their vast wisdom, one of the errors the Founding Fathers allowed to creep into the Constitution was the principle of eminent domain. According to this concept, government is allowed to step in and snatch your property if it can justify doing so in the public interest.

Often this form of despotism is invoked for the completion of projects claimed to be in the public interest such as the expansion of highways or the renovation of properties the owners have allowed to deteriorate. However, the Dishonorable Court has ruled the town of New London, Connecticut is allowed to seize and destroy a number of homes in the name of community betterment to placate a rapacious developer in league with a pharmaceutical company.

The typical Communist-wing of the Supreme Court consisting of Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer sided with the further amalgamation of power into the hands of the elite by noting local officials, not federal judges, know better which projects will benefit the COMMUNITY (the new god in the contemporary civic religion). And speaking of God and community, interesting, isn't it, how the reasoning of these jurists that local officials know better does not apply when it comes to determining whether or not the Ten Commandments have a place in public (but then again I suppose "Thou shalt not steal" would interfere with taking homes away from people that do not want to sell them) and in the administration of neighborhood schools.

In a moment of rare insight for the aging hag, Sandra Day O'Conor noted in her dissent to the ruling, "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random...The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms." Needless to say it won't be the Bushes, Kennedys, of the Trumps getting kicked out of their palatial estates but rather the common man whose sole purpose is coming more and more to be to serve the needs of his masters in the New World Order.

And where will those no longer fit to be seen in public be warehoused once these beautification projects are complete since the average worker can no longer afford real estate in these areas and is increasingly being chastised by these same bureaucracies for reliance upon the automobile? In FEMA administered work and relocation camps no doubt.

The courts have all but abolished the right to own firearms and now the right to retain one's home unmolested. How much longer until they require us to relinquish our very lives and families as well?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Child Snatched From Grandparents In Favor Of Non-related Lesbian

Eco-Terror On The Rise

Not That Much Different Here: Microsoft Positions Itself As Global Censor

Concern has been expressed regarding Microsoft's willingness to censor blogs originating in China.

While the news is disturbing to anyone disposed to innate liberties, the policy is not all that different than the one employed here in the United States though in less aggressive form.

Towards the end of 2004 when they released their blogging interface, I briefly signed up for one of the Microsoft sites. Not caring for the overall look of the site, I did not keep it very long.

However, even more unattractive than the sites aesthetic limitations were its linguistic parameters that did not permit words such as "Nazi" and even "pornography" or "slut" if memory serves me correctly. Whether this policy has changed since then, I do not know.

Who is Microsft to be the ones to determine the propriety of these non-profane terms in a nation that prides itself on freedom of expression? Are his untold billions no longer enough to satisfy Bill Gates?

Often the rise of the Internet is heralded as a technological development that will unshackle the individual from the oppression of being told what to think and what ideas are fit for public exchange. However, in those regimes where freedom does not exist, this technology can be used to maintain the control of the elite or, in nation's where the people have a bit for latitude in how they are permitted to live their lives, allow for a more subtle form of social manipulation by fostering a culture of intellectual boredom and mental tedium.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Terri's Brain Not As "Useless" As Public Led To Believe

Tupac Worshipper Beheads Child

Sunscreens Cause Cancer

The President & The Whore

Reaction To Saddam Centerfold Exposes Moral Bankruptcy Of Islamist Sympathizers

Media leftists are decrying pictures of Saddam in his BVD’s. They insist such treatment is a testament to the lechery of the West and supposedly brutal tactics used by his captors.

But in reality, the response tells us more about those doing the complaining than about the incarceration policies of the U.S. military.

While most of us would be embarrassed if pictures of ourselves in our knickers made it into the local paper, we need to remember for just a second who Saddam Hussein is and the lifestyle that he has led.

American-hating liberals and their pet savages in the Middle East expect us to have sympathy for this hemorrhoid on the rear-end of humanity that hacked apart his enemies, shipped them back in little bags to their families, and expected to be paid for doing them the favor. To prisoners under his regime, having their pictures taken in their undies would have been a good day.

If anything, Saddam’s calendar layout should be seen as proof as to the beneficence of his caretakers. The cameras are --- as we are told of those cataloging our every move --- there for his own good.

If the devotees of tyranny and terror prefer, we can always have the cameras removed. Then if we’re lucky, Saddam will do us a favor and pull a Heinrich Himmler or Herman Goerring.

At the end of World War II, Adolf Hitler committed suicide in part out of fear of being put on public display. Today it seems the gullibility of the viewing public could be the caged dictator’s best friend.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins