Commentary Telling It Like It Is To Those That Might Not Want To Hear It & Links To News Around The Internet
Saturday, March 03, 2012
One of those truths pounded into our heads incessantly by television over the years is that woman suffer higher rates of constipation than do men. So in the name of WWWWWWWomennnnnn's health will Obamacare provide laxatives and stool softeners for free or are they just not as glamorous as birth control pills?
Most Respect Needs To Be Earned
An associate is insinuating that Rush Limbaugh’s remarks regarding the testimony of Sandra Fluke before a congressional Democratic committee coupled with the broadcaster’s three divorces indicates a lack of respect for women.
Rush has given this woman all the respect she deserves.
He has neither laid hands on her or forced himself upon her though she's so easy that I doubt she'd refuse anyone.
Limbaugh's divorces don't really have any relevance to this issue.
He is not the one demanding public subsidy to finance his debauchery.
At least one of Limbaugh's divorces was the result that the little woman didn't like it he was not much for going out and partying.
So if one’s wife one day leaves you for being of a studious retiring nature, should we conclude that you "don't respect women"?
Conversely, are those making the assertion that Limbaugh’s divorces indicated a lack of respect for women going to make as big of a fuss that Limbaugh's former wives insufficiently respected men?
Women that want the level of respect where they are not called sluts should earn that honor.
One shouldn't be fawned over with a degree of deference just because of how their reproductive tract is hooked up.
Should a wife beater still be considered a gentleman and all manner of condemnation heaped upon those refusing to publicly recognize him in such a lofty manner?
Had this woman been a 500 pound diabetic demanding free insulin while confessing to Congress of consuming extravagant amounts of chocolate, wouldn’t she have been called a "glutton"?
If she was complaining to Congress about a Catholic university refusing to pay for her multiple abortions shouldn’t she be considered an accessory to murder?
Had Sandra Fluke confessed to the national legislature that she had embezzled millions of dollars wouldn’t one have called her a thief?
So why shouldn't someone that proudly testifies to the wanton escapades of herself and her classmates expect to be called exactly what they are?
by Frederick Meekins
Rush has given this woman all the respect she deserves.
He has neither laid hands on her or forced himself upon her though she's so easy that I doubt she'd refuse anyone.
Limbaugh's divorces don't really have any relevance to this issue.
He is not the one demanding public subsidy to finance his debauchery.
At least one of Limbaugh's divorces was the result that the little woman didn't like it he was not much for going out and partying.
So if one’s wife one day leaves you for being of a studious retiring nature, should we conclude that you "don't respect women"?
Conversely, are those making the assertion that Limbaugh’s divorces indicated a lack of respect for women going to make as big of a fuss that Limbaugh's former wives insufficiently respected men?
Women that want the level of respect where they are not called sluts should earn that honor.
One shouldn't be fawned over with a degree of deference just because of how their reproductive tract is hooked up.
Should a wife beater still be considered a gentleman and all manner of condemnation heaped upon those refusing to publicly recognize him in such a lofty manner?
Had this woman been a 500 pound diabetic demanding free insulin while confessing to Congress of consuming extravagant amounts of chocolate, wouldn’t she have been called a "glutton"?
If she was complaining to Congress about a Catholic university refusing to pay for her multiple abortions shouldn’t she be considered an accessory to murder?
Had Sandra Fluke confessed to the national legislature that she had embezzled millions of dollars wouldn’t one have called her a thief?
So why shouldn't someone that proudly testifies to the wanton escapades of herself and her classmates expect to be called exactly what they are?
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 02, 2012
Straight Out Of Central Casting
A screenwriter couldn’t pick a better name for a new Bond girl.
It seems sex addict Sandra Fluke’s name might correctly be pronounced “Fluk”?
So does make her mom “Mother Fluk”? Since she has such loose morals, does that make her a “cheap Fluk”?
If she really does go bankrupt from her acute promiscuity, would that make her a “worthless Fluk”?
If she falls down in the mud does that make her a “dirty Fluk”?
And most importantly, should she find herself alone in the dorm by herself, does that imply “Fluk herself”?
So if Sandra Fluke and Anthony Weiner ever got together, would the wedding invitation be pronounced "Fluk Weiner"? Maybe infamous AIDS activist Luke Sissyfag could serve as flower girl.
It seems sex addict Sandra Fluke’s name might correctly be pronounced “Fluk”?
So does make her mom “Mother Fluk”? Since she has such loose morals, does that make her a “cheap Fluk”?
If she really does go bankrupt from her acute promiscuity, would that make her a “worthless Fluk”?
If she falls down in the mud does that make her a “dirty Fluk”?
And most importantly, should she find herself alone in the dorm by herself, does that imply “Fluk herself”?
So if Sandra Fluke and Anthony Weiner ever got together, would the wedding invitation be pronounced "Fluk Weiner"? Maybe infamous AIDS activist Luke Sissyfag could serve as flower girl.
Sandra Fluke insists Rush Limbaugh's response to her consists of the kind of language men have traditionally used to silence women. Will she also heap condemnation on the kinds of things women say to control men such as threatening to call the police over nothing more than a raised voice or harsh tone?
Thursday, March 01, 2012
The cover of the March 2012 issue of Christianity Today examines the state of Christian colleges. One of the headlines reads, “The Browning Of Campuses Catering To White Elites”. This is a euphemism claiming that these schools don’t pander enough to racial minorities by failing to brainwash students as to how they should feel guilty for being White and for holding all students irrespective of pigmentation to the same academic standard.
It’s not that Pat Buchanan is obsessed with race. He is merely advocating the survival of his own ethnicity or genetic kinsmen. That is the very same thing done by the leftist Jews wanting the commentator banned from the airwaves advocate for themselves but seek to deny to others. And what areas without White majorities are worth living in? Given the opportunity, usually even racial minorities rather live around White folks. So what will it be? Will you rather survive or rather be applauded as open-minded by liberal elites?
The God advocated by the Calvinist is an inherently schizophrenic deity. On the one hand, He commands sinners to repent and be saved. Yet despite supposedly being omniscient, God has apparently forgotten that He is the one pre-selecting whom will accept this salvation and whom will be tossed into Hell.
In announcing his death, ABC News Radio insinuated that Andrew Breitbart pulled news out of context. In announcing the death of Walter Cronkite, did the network emphasize how he was often a dupe of the Soviet Union and a shill for the establishment of world government? And when Dan Rather passes, will it be pointed out how his bias against Republicans ran so deep that he failed to corroborate allegations against George W. Bush?
Virginia Representative Jim Moran is outraged that children might be exposed to an advertisement posted a Washington, DC subway station telling President Obama to go to Hell. Did the Congressman raise objections when advertisements for female condemns were plastered all over the nation capital’s bus fleet under the auspices of the “DC’s Doin It” campaign since he is so concerned for the purity of innocent eyes?
If from criticism of Rick Santorum we are taught by our benighted archons that Satan does not exist, why is it wrong for an advertisement posted in a DC subway station to tell Obama to go to Hell? Because if Satan doesn't exist, shouldn't we also conclude that the clammy region of he netherworld is imaginary as well?
The cover of the March 2012 issue of Christianity Today examines the state of Christian colleges. One of the headlines reads, “The Browning Of Campuses Catering To White Elites”. This is a euphemism claiming that these schools don’t pander enough to racial minorities by failing to brainwash students as to how they should feel guilty for being White and for holding all students irrespective of pigmentation to the same academic standard.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Critics of Act of Valor, a film reportedly featuring actual Navy SEALS, claim those starring in the film should stick with what they know, calling into question the quality of the cinematic thespianism. Perhaps we citizens should remember to vocalize that same suggestion when actors proceed to lecture us on nearly every topic under the sun.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Hillary Sides With Rabble Killing American Soldiers Instead Of Republican Candidates
If the Muslims take over, at least someone will likely put a bag over the head of Hillary Clinton and we will never again have to gaze upon the visage of that contemporary Medusa.
Terrorist Sympathizers Disrupting Noonie Darwish Portrayed As Victims
Why shouldn't those disrupting a speech expect to get the snot knocked out of them?
Maybe a judge will recognize this as an inherent component of "Red Neck" culture if tantrums are to be legally applauded as an inherent component of an Islamic mindset?
Maybe a judge will recognize this as an inherent component of "Red Neck" culture if tantrums are to be legally applauded as an inherent component of an Islamic mindset?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Joe Scarborough remarked that transvaginal sonograms weren't the way to win swing voters (in other words those wanting to hack their unborn babies to pieces without a smeared conscience). Neither was desegregating lunch counters and water fountains. But don't some human rights need to take precedence over others?
If Obama apologized to Karzi over the burning of the Korans with Jihadist crib notes scribbled all over them, do the likes of the Taliban and the Afghan government intend to apologize over outrages perpetrated upon Christians. The only thing that Obama should have said in the letters is that, if the Afghan mobs didn't stop their rampaging, more than a few texts are going to be set aflame.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
If good is epitomized by the supernatural personality referred to as "God", why should there not be a literal supernatural entity personifying evil? And if one is going to claim that actual evil does not exist, on what grounds does one insist it is wrong to mention the personification of evil in the consciousness known as "Satan"?
If a White philanthropist donates significant sums of money to a museum commemorating the achievements and struggles of the White race but not a similar museum memorializing the history of all American people, wouldn't the philanthropist be considered racist? Then shouldn't Oprah Winfrey be considered as such?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Will Summer Youth Program Teach Students To Rampage In The Streets?
Will lessons include how to defecate on police cruisers, how to defile church buildings, and how to toss condoms at private school pupils?
School Lad Blacklisted As Racist For Expressing Cross Cultural Curiousity
Interesting we can't ask those that look different from us where they are from, but are we are suppose to fawn all over their cultures as superior to our own or have hand outs dug out our rear ends to lavish all over them.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Some Mormons Less Cultic Than Others?
For obvious and justifiable reasons, a number of Evangelical leaders often cast a suspicious gaze at Mormon figures in American public life. After all, though the two systems of belief share a similar vocabulary at certain points and often both hold to traditionalist assumptions regarding social morality, these perspectives differ considerably regarding the nature of God as well as the origins and destiny of man.
However, the least that the orthodox Christian commenting on public affairs ought to do is to try and maintain some kind of consistent policy towards those advocating what could be considered a doctrinally questionable religious viewpoint. It seems that instead of basing such characterizations solely upon the beliefs such voices claim must take precedence above all other considerations, such analysis is often skewered in favor of those most likely to ensure that the particular pundit in question can retain a position as the water carrier of the entrenched political establishment.
For example, in his 9/16/11 commentary transcript, Cal Thomas mentions Rick Perry presenting his testimony before an audience at Liberty University. Thomas closes his brief analysis by concluding Perry's testimony isn't all that important beyond its existential value as it is more important how one's faith works itself out in a President's policies. Thomas astutely observers that believers have had the wool pulled over our eyes numerous times in terms of politicians saying one thing and doing another.
Thomas concludes, "But if Mitt Romney, a Mormon turns out to be better to defeat the President and advance policies with which most Evangelicals agree, then he should be the one the President's opponents get behind."
From the standpoint of an objective political calculation, Thomas is correct. However, since the publication of "Blinded By Might: Why The Religious Right Can't Save America" in which he and co-author Ed Dobson heaped criticism upon the Religious Right by exposing the shortcomings of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (an organization both men saw from the inside), Thomas has gone out of his way to downplay the role conservative Christians ought to play in politics.
Since Thomas's coauthor went from a standpoint of being apolitical to losing his marbles by taking on the less than kept grooming habits of an Old Testament prophet insisting that the Scriptures insist that the only properly cast ballot had to be for Barack Obama, you'd think Thomas might have realized he might have been duped into castigating conservative Christians into a state of hyperpious quietism. However, it seems Thomas continues advocating this perspective selectively whenever he thinks doing so might win him a few scraps of dwindling recognition from media and Republican elites.
For whereas we are suppose to gleefully march behind Romney (Thomas no doubt in part so he can ask the former Massachusetts governor who does the candidate's cranial dye job), his tone regarding Glenn Beck, another prominent Mormon, is markedly different.
In the transcript of the 4/11/11 Cal Thomas commentary, the columnist warns, "Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism." Writing in particular to the news of Beck's ouster from Fox News, Thomas muses, "They come and they go in this business...and eventually flame out..Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too."
This from the very same media figure that just a few paragraphs back was getting all aboard the Romney express.
Evangelicals do need to be cautious regarding Mormon theology. For example, in his book "The Real America: Early Writings From The Heart & Heartland", Beck said a number of things that would make a true believer's hair stand on with goosebumps had it come from the lips of anyone else.
In one passage, Beck said that he thought the Trinity, the idea that the Godhead is composed of the three distinct personages of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was laughable and that there was no such thing as Hell.
Which brings us to another point. It is interesting how Beck can ridicule the most profound belied and mystery of the greatest number of Christians in the world (that being those that grant assent to the ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene) but the entire Republican Party stands ready to burn at the stake a single pastor that dared enunciate as to why he would not be endorsing Mitt Romney for the nomination.
What the pastor said was technically correct. If Americans inclined themselves a bit more towards religious reflection, they would know that the word "cult" does not necessarily denote a sect that ultimately meets with a violent end as a result of authoritarian leadership as in the cases of Johnstown, Heaven's Gate, and the Branch Davidians.
A cult can be any group that splits off from one of the larger world religions and is distinct from the parental creed it has separated itself from by either renouncing the more orthodox formulations of a doctrine or by promulgating a new dogma or revelation that the more orthodox adherents of the larger faith cannot embrace in good conscience.
For example, Mormonism holds that God was once a man not all that different than the rest of us who worked his way up to that status and that we too can also one day become deities over our own little planets as well. Traditional Christianity holds to the idea, that Beck snidely derided, that God exists externally from everlasting to everlasting in the form of three distinct unified persons. God is complete in Himself and does not grow or learn over time as claimed by the Later Day Saints.
The prominence played by Mormonism in the 2012 election cycle has presented American Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular with a unique set of challenges. On the one hand, believers are obligated by Scripture to speak in a firm but loving manner in defense of their own beliefs while pointing out distinctively where that faith is incompatible with Mormonism. And on the other, in a constitutional republic recognizing the freedom of religion we each posses as individuals created in the image of God, Mormon citizens have every right to engage in the same forms of civic participation that all Americans enjoy and sense a profound duty towards.
by Frederick Meekins
However, the least that the orthodox Christian commenting on public affairs ought to do is to try and maintain some kind of consistent policy towards those advocating what could be considered a doctrinally questionable religious viewpoint. It seems that instead of basing such characterizations solely upon the beliefs such voices claim must take precedence above all other considerations, such analysis is often skewered in favor of those most likely to ensure that the particular pundit in question can retain a position as the water carrier of the entrenched political establishment.
For example, in his 9/16/11 commentary transcript, Cal Thomas mentions Rick Perry presenting his testimony before an audience at Liberty University. Thomas closes his brief analysis by concluding Perry's testimony isn't all that important beyond its existential value as it is more important how one's faith works itself out in a President's policies. Thomas astutely observers that believers have had the wool pulled over our eyes numerous times in terms of politicians saying one thing and doing another.
Thomas concludes, "But if Mitt Romney, a Mormon turns out to be better to defeat the President and advance policies with which most Evangelicals agree, then he should be the one the President's opponents get behind."
From the standpoint of an objective political calculation, Thomas is correct. However, since the publication of "Blinded By Might: Why The Religious Right Can't Save America" in which he and co-author Ed Dobson heaped criticism upon the Religious Right by exposing the shortcomings of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority (an organization both men saw from the inside), Thomas has gone out of his way to downplay the role conservative Christians ought to play in politics.
Since Thomas's coauthor went from a standpoint of being apolitical to losing his marbles by taking on the less than kept grooming habits of an Old Testament prophet insisting that the Scriptures insist that the only properly cast ballot had to be for Barack Obama, you'd think Thomas might have realized he might have been duped into castigating conservative Christians into a state of hyperpious quietism. However, it seems Thomas continues advocating this perspective selectively whenever he thinks doing so might win him a few scraps of dwindling recognition from media and Republican elites.
For whereas we are suppose to gleefully march behind Romney (Thomas no doubt in part so he can ask the former Massachusetts governor who does the candidate's cranial dye job), his tone regarding Glenn Beck, another prominent Mormon, is markedly different.
In the transcript of the 4/11/11 Cal Thomas commentary, the columnist warns, "Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism." Writing in particular to the news of Beck's ouster from Fox News, Thomas muses, "They come and they go in this business...and eventually flame out..Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too."
This from the very same media figure that just a few paragraphs back was getting all aboard the Romney express.
Evangelicals do need to be cautious regarding Mormon theology. For example, in his book "The Real America: Early Writings From The Heart & Heartland", Beck said a number of things that would make a true believer's hair stand on with goosebumps had it come from the lips of anyone else.
In one passage, Beck said that he thought the Trinity, the idea that the Godhead is composed of the three distinct personages of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, was laughable and that there was no such thing as Hell.
Which brings us to another point. It is interesting how Beck can ridicule the most profound belied and mystery of the greatest number of Christians in the world (that being those that grant assent to the ecumenical creeds such as the Nicene) but the entire Republican Party stands ready to burn at the stake a single pastor that dared enunciate as to why he would not be endorsing Mitt Romney for the nomination.
What the pastor said was technically correct. If Americans inclined themselves a bit more towards religious reflection, they would know that the word "cult" does not necessarily denote a sect that ultimately meets with a violent end as a result of authoritarian leadership as in the cases of Johnstown, Heaven's Gate, and the Branch Davidians.
A cult can be any group that splits off from one of the larger world religions and is distinct from the parental creed it has separated itself from by either renouncing the more orthodox formulations of a doctrine or by promulgating a new dogma or revelation that the more orthodox adherents of the larger faith cannot embrace in good conscience.
For example, Mormonism holds that God was once a man not all that different than the rest of us who worked his way up to that status and that we too can also one day become deities over our own little planets as well. Traditional Christianity holds to the idea, that Beck snidely derided, that God exists externally from everlasting to everlasting in the form of three distinct unified persons. God is complete in Himself and does not grow or learn over time as claimed by the Later Day Saints.
The prominence played by Mormonism in the 2012 election cycle has presented American Christians in general and Evangelicals in particular with a unique set of challenges. On the one hand, believers are obligated by Scripture to speak in a firm but loving manner in defense of their own beliefs while pointing out distinctively where that faith is incompatible with Mormonism. And on the other, in a constitutional republic recognizing the freedom of religion we each posses as individuals created in the image of God, Mormon citizens have every right to engage in the same forms of civic participation that all Americans enjoy and sense a profound duty towards.
by Frederick Meekins
Friday, February 17, 2012
Insightful Santorum Policy Tome Dismissed As "Mysterious"
To paraphrase Chesterton, in these times "common sense" is viewed as anything but common.
Judeosupremacists Oust Pat Buchanan From MSNBC
Certainly lays to rest the notion about the "you-know-whos" controlling the media.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Public School Chorus Sings Song In Praise Of Allah
Even if "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for God, we speak English in America.
Can we sing a German tune with the word "Fuehrer" in it when we simply mean a leader?
Can we sing a German tune with the word "Fuehrer" in it when we simply mean a leader?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Food Gestapo Deems Chicken Nuggets Healthier Than Ham & Cheese
Is this about nutrition or about manipulating us into Shariah law without even realizing it?
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Monday, February 13, 2012
In a CSPAN interview, leftwing commentator Bill Press jumped down the throat of a caller for saying "Democrat Party" rather than "Democratic Party". Press snapped that proper English be spoken. Is he going to be as vehement about English being made the official language and that concessions to bilingualism be abolished?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)