Wednesday, February 05, 2014
In a Facebook update in reference to a blizzard, Glenn Beck writes, “In the middle of the country we don't complain, we shovel.” Technically, that is a veiled complaint. First, it is complaining about complaining. Secondly, it is vocalizing in a roundabout way how dissatisfied one is with the conditions one is referencing.
What About Male Heart Disease?
As one must do repeatedly in this politically correct culture, one must ask are men that die less dead than WOMENNNNNN that do so?
And if, statistically, women live longer than men and men are having fewer years of life, then why aren’t those deaths just as deserving of a targeted propaganda campaign?
Furthermore, shouldn’t WOMENNNNN so wrapped up in what is between their legs so as to ignore health warnings that do not directly address individuals on the basis of what is between their legs be condemned for failing to embrace the comprehensive range of gender identities displayed by the human species?
Does Southern Baptist Functionary Limit Reasons Over Which One May Leave A Church?
That is the idea, to phrase it bluntly, often referred to as “Name It, Claim It” where it is believed the Christian can through the power of God in general and the Holy Spirit in particular speak into existence physical health and material prosperity.
Mohler’s position was in the end correct, assuring the caller that this doctrinal aberration was sufficient grounds to leave a church.
However, a few of the assumptions used along his chain of ratiocination ought to give one pause.
According to Mohler, one may only leave a church over explicit violations Biblical doctrine.
One may never depart over secondary matters or more intangible concerns where if not addressed won’t result in overwhelming physical or spiritual harm but would very well prevent an individual from living life to the fullest.
So why then is a pastor permitted to pull up stakes and head for pastures where he can obtain a fatter salary or more satisfying opportunities?
Why shouldn’t they be stuck there like the saps in the seats?
If There Is Nothing Wrong With Pot, Why Can't It Be Consumed Openly?
But if there is nothing inherently questionable about this pharmacological compound and its preferred form of combustible vaporized conveyance, why shouldn't one be able to use it out in the open?
Should a diabetic be fined if they need to use an insulin pen on a public street?
Should an asthmatic be detained by police if they need a puff from their inhaler while walking down the sidewalk?
WMAL morning host Brian Wilson astutely remarked that this issue focuses around what kind of image Washington, DC wants to project to the world.
But if marijuana is to be considered as no different than anything else an individual wants to take into their body, what is to prevent legislation from being enacted forbidding the consumption of junk food in a public picnic area or even in front of children as part of a campaign to encourage healthy eating and nutrition?
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, February 04, 2014
Preach Even If They Won't Let You
Right off the bat, the Presbyterian pastor delivering the message concluded from Matthew 10:1-16 that one should not attempt to do so unless called to do so by Christ.
That is all well and good because nothing without Jesus at the center will endure.
The thing of it is is that Jesus is not exactly here right now in the physical, objective sense to tap the individual on the shoulder to convey these intentions.
This pastor warned that the believer must not pronounce religious or doctrinal exhortation without permission granted by established ecclesiastical authorities.
But what if one lives in an era or milieu where one is not likely to be extended such a blessing by nearly any organized authority? Does that mean we are to remain silent?
If we are to dig around in the New Testament for examples upon which to model our actions, it seems to me many of the founding Evangelists continued to speak out despite the overwhelming opposition of religious elites.
When commanded to stop the proclamation of the Gospel, Peter and the other Apostles responded in Acts 5:29, “We are to obey God rather than man.”
You might not be welcomed in a church building, but these days the electronic pulpit is nearly everywhere and available to anyone willing to step forward.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, February 03, 2014
Saturday, February 01, 2014
Friday, January 31, 2014
By excluding the Anti-Christ from the remake of Left Behind starring Nicholas Cage, are producers intentionally soft pedaling the Apocalypse or setting viewers up for a drawn out series. And you thought the books were too long to make it to the end of the saga about the End. (I don't think I made it much past the volume Assassin).
Katy Perry Renounced By Pastor Father
Click On The Headline
The Afrosupremacist website RollingOut.com has posted a list of 10 Black child geniuses. Do those making a fuss over these prodigies intend to put out a similar list exclusively celebrating White child geniuses? And by establishing a separate list for Black child geniuses, isn’t one thus admitting the inferiority of the Black mind to that of the White? Interesting how we are obligated to look on the inside rather than the outside when it comes to lavishing honors and accolades with the exception of those specifically targeted for those that fly into homicidal, property destroying rampages when the mistake is made in regards to other demographics.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Archbishop Of Canterbury Recognizes Gay Civil Unions As Based Upon Profound Love
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
For bluntly addressing the pro-infanticide policies of Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis, Greta van Sustern categorized pundit Eric Erickson as a creep and a jerk. Bristol Palin also lambasted Davis for a lack of parenting skills. Does Sustern intend to categorize the young unwed Palin mother in the same manner? Or will the Fox News broadcaster refrain from doing so as a friend of the family since Greta’s husband was at one time on the Palin payroll?
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
How To Use Pinterest To Sell Your Art
Crossfire Targeted For Sparking Interest In Civic Affairs
In the August 28, 2013 edition of USA Today, Rem Rieder doesn't hold back in his disappointment at the news of this classic program's return and his overall contempt for the argumentative debate format.
Rieder laments, “Crossfire, which features a conservative and a liberal predictably and tiresomely bickering with each other, mirrors perfectly what is so wrong with today's hopelessly polarized and paralyzed politics.”
Rieder goes on to conclude that these days that there is no real attempt to solve problems or get outside of the Beltway.
Reider attempts to cast himself in the role of the kind of dispassionate analyst he claims that he longs to see heading into public affairs programing. However, his words betray blatantly leftist sympathies.
For example, in listing the identities of Crossfire's new hosts, Newt Gingrich is the only one held up for ridicule. Van Jones confessing to be a self-avowed Communist is glossed over as if such an admission is something normal and healthy.
Gingrich might daydream about space colonies. But in the ideal world of Van Jones where he identifies so enthusiastically with that particular form of tyranny, authorities would seize nearly everything you have worked for (with the exception of Van Jones' lavish CNN salary) and violently eliminate those that continue to speak out against a dictatorial regime despite extensive efforts at reeducation and social manipulation.
One might respond that an observation pointing out a failure to expose Van Jones as a leftwing subversive is reading too much into it. After all, with Kardashian bastards and Miley Cyrus stage humping, the average American no doubt finds it difficult to retain this constant barrage of information at the forefront of their cognitive awareness.
Rem Rieder, however, drops another comment that reveals that there is more to his agenda than a dispassionate pursuit of just the facts.
Apart from the incident where Robert Novak (likely suffering from the early stages of a brain tumor) stormed off the set no longer capable of handling James Carville's banshee-like shrieking, one of most recalled moments of the original Crossfire occurred with the visit of Comedy Central's John Stewart of the Daily Show. During the interview, Stewart lamented how the debate program and especially Tucker Carlson was hurting the country.
The thing of it is, the likes of John Stewart has done more to hurt this country than the number of interchangeable hosts and even greater number of guests exchanging wonky barbs at one another ever could.
Personally, I can probably count on both hands the number of times I have seen the Daily Show. The only segment that sticks out in my mind was of some bozo walking around in a giant penis costume promoting safe sex or some similar propaganda.
If that represents the kind of public affairs programming Rem Rieder thinks is needed to either elevate or save the Republic, we are worse off than most of us realize. It is likely not John Stewart's wisdom as a statesman that Reider is praising but something else entirely.
In the waning days of the Roman Empire, lavish entertainment spectacles were put on for the purposes of distracting the population from the public scandals and disasters that confronted the world superpower of that day.
Granted, in much the same way that politics is said to be a form of show business for the unattractive, programs such as Crossfire, Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor tend to be a form of pugilism or professional wrestling for the physically puny but verbally inclined. But despite any shortcomings that these programs might posses, it cannot be denied that they at least get across the point that there is something rotten in Denmark (or more accurately, the United States of America in this instance).
That's why the likes of Rem Rieder are more enthused about a perambulating giant penis costume. And the reason behind that might not be quite so obvious as one might assume by that shocking verbal formulation.
Elites talk up the delights and wonders of deliberative democracy. But the last thing they really want are those in the servile classes to passionately hold to any fixed standard or belief that would impede this human capital from being reshaped, deployed, and even eliminated in accordance with the most convenient timetable possible.
This is the sentiment spoken of euphemistically when talking heads, academics, bureaucrats, and elected officials express a nostalgia for a bygone era when legislators would get together at the end of the day to hash out compromises over cocktails or, in the case of Ted Kennedy, cocaine and lapdances. That approach might have been OK when the kinds of things discussed were the equivalent of whether a tax rate would be 9% or 10%.
But these kinds of backroom compromises have gone on for so long and the line of acceptability moved back so far that, for the go-along to get-along to continue, those of good conscience are being pressured into betraying the fundamental values and morals without which a ordered yet free society will surely collapse.
For example, if one the ethical building blocks upon which a just and free society rests is the assumption thou shalt not murder, meaning that it is beyond the limits of acceptability to deliberately take the life of an individual that has committed no crime, where is the moral wiggle room for an abortion of convenience or preference? On what grounds do you kill a life form, that will be no more genetically complete than it would be at the time of birth, without the consent of that individual for the purposes of harvesting that individual's stem cells or other biomolecular components?
Most believe that marriage is a sacred covenant instituted by God Himself predating the codification of organized religion in a time when man's relationship with our Creator did not require the medium of the written word. So on what grounds can that definition be changed on the whims of a jurist or plebiscite and on what basis do those making such a claim complain when these fickle procedures decide to change the arrangement back?
Just where does one compromise on these kinds of issues? For if one does, isn't doing so the equivalent of saying it is allowable to slap your spouse one time across the face but twice is going too far?
As these kinds of social developments continue to unfold, it is becoming more apparent that recognition of gay marriage is not so much about these individuals confessing unending love for one another which they are pretty much able to do so already in parts of the country where most mind their own business and where laws prohibiting illegitimate carnal knowledge haven't been enforced for years. Rather, it is about bringing the destructive power of the state crushing down upon those that do not stand around applauding the new world we are being thrust into.
Don't believe me? Perhaps you ought to ask the bakers and wedding photographers whose businesses have been ruined for failing to embrace diversity to this radical extent. What about their ability to express their preferences without fear of retaliation?
Only time will tell whether or not there is a place for a revived Crossfire in a media landscape where the clash of opinions is more the norm than an entertaining novelty, However, even if this particular program falls by the wayside as a result of attention being grabbed by flashier versions of this classic debate format, Crossfire deserves a place at least in the pages of journalistic and mass communications history for admitting that legitimate opinion worthy of national consideration exists beyond the narrowly defined parameters of the mainstream establishment.
By Frederick Meekins