Commentary Telling It Like It Is To Those That Might Not Want To Hear It & Links To News Around The Internet
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Planned Parenthood Views Contraceptives As Essential To Hurricane Recovery
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
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
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005
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
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
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
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Friday, August 12, 2005
Tuesday, August 09, 2005
Saturday, August 06, 2005
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
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Saturday, July 30, 2005
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
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
Monday, July 25, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
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.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Monday, July 18, 2005
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
Friday, July 15, 2005
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
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
Sunday, July 10, 2005
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?
Thursday, July 07, 2005
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
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
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
Monday, June 27, 2005
Friday, June 24, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
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
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Monday, June 20, 2005
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
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Monday, June 13, 2005
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
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Is Texas Teen Serving Life Sentence For Fetal Murder Or For Practicing Medicine Without A License?
A Texas teen has been given a life sentence for helping his girlfriend --- who wanted an abortion --- kill their unborn twins.
While this scumbag is where he now belongs, because his tramp can't be prosecuted because of her right to an abortion, one is forced to ask is he being sent up the river for fetalcide or for practicing medicine without a license.
To be consistent, shouldn't this sorry excuse for a man be heralded as a hero by the feminists because of his unwavering obedience and devotion to a wench whose only standard is her own murderous brand of existentialism?
What about the man's right of choice? Radical feminists will claim he had one before the act of copulation.
But what about the woman? Unless she was raped, the same applies to her as well. To say otherwise is to assume the weaker sex is possessed of an ignorance beyond any misconceptions rampant about females even in previous centuries.
Others will insist that stay-at-home abortions are just too dangerous for the "health" of the mother. But frankly, professional baby killers don't exactly have a spotless reputation in protecting the lives of their pregnant accomplices either.
The interest of the state comes down not so much to the protection of innocent human life as it is to monopolize the lucrative tradecraft of this diabolical industry.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Anti-Poverty Bracelets Made By Slave Laborers
Monday, June 06, 2005
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Friday, June 03, 2005
Campaign Finance Reform More About Campaign Than Finances: Additional Thoughts On The On-line Implications Of McCain/Feingold
It has been suggested that certain interpretations of the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform could authorize the government to crackdown on bloggers by equating this new form of expression with contributing to a political campaign. This concern shows that this legislation is more about suppressing the free speech of average Americans than about curtailing the influence of big money on the political process.
Despite causing the powerbrokers of the mainstream media to shake in their $500 suits for fear of losing their stranglehold over the flow of information and thus the minds of the public, a personal blog is nothing whatsoever like a campaign contribution. If anything, this new medium is more the electronic equivalent of a sign posted on your front lawn or a bumper sticker plastered across the rear of your car.
Maybe Darth McCain would like to outlaw those forms of communication also while we are at it. While we are at it, why don’t we also outlaw private telephone conversations and individual e-mails of a political nature; wouldn’t want personal relationships to take precedence over the edicts handed down from on high by our glorious leaders.
Such a proposal would not be too hard to implement. ECHELON already scours electronic communications for threats of terrorism; simply expand the search parameters to include subversive exchanges of a politically persuasive nature as well.
Since the nation can no longer afford to let politics distract from the all-important work of the state and its never-ending expansion, maybe we should just go ahead and abolish elections while we’re at it since we cannot allow unqualified opinions to take precedence over the postulations of credentialed experts.
This is, after all, the destination of which Campaign Finance Reform is a mere first step. In what is nothing less than a display of the Jedi mindtrick that would put Darth Vader to shame, the senior Sith from Arizona has duped the American people into thinking his version of the Enabling Act is essential to the survival of the Old Republic. The measure will in fact turn this nation into an empire.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.” The McCain Finance Law stipulates what kind of political speech can be enunciated and when it is appropriate. Thus by definition this act abridges speech by placing constraints of propriety upon it.
It does not take an Ivy League graduate to see this law violates the Constitution. It appears only those avoiding such dens of sophistry are capable of grasping such a simple truth since those at the highest levels of government indoctrinated in such elitist settings have done little to oppose the statute.
Many in Congress are so enamored by the law it has been nicknamed the “Incumbent Protection Act” since it makes it more difficult for a grassroots uprising to unseat unresponsive representatives. More interested in their own stash of pornography and what the Eurotrash in the Hague thinks of them, the Supreme Court fumbled the gavel by upholding the McCain/Feingold legislation.
Of course, big media has no problem with the law --- nor this interpretation of it --- since the law stifles the primary competition of the outdated dinosaurs of mass communication such as special interest talk radio, direct mail, and now potentially ezines and blogs.
Then there is President Bush; what can we say about him? Typical of the spineless vacillation plaguing many Republicans today, the President initially said he was opposed to the bill but eventually signed it into law anyway.
McCain Campaign Finance Reform has nothing whatsoever with democratizing the political process but rather is a sledgehammer designed to impose an uniformity of thought so the elite to maintain its monopoly of opinion. All curtailments to liberty are a cause for concern, but the logistics necessary to enforce this scheme would be particularly unsettling.
For if government beancounters are going to enforce prohibitions against partisan speech so many days out from an election, doesn’t that mean the government will have to know of the existence of the blogs beforehand. As in the case of political action committees and the like, does this mean opinionated websites will have to register with government, essentially requiring a license to blog?
Eventually, such thought regulation will be extended to all forms of communication and the exchange of ideas. Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute hypothesizes that, combined with the McCain/Leiberman Anti-Gunshow law that requires all vendors at firearm exhibitions to register with the government regardless of whether or not they sell guns, Campaign Finance Reform could make it against the law to sell or dispense unapproved political literature at these gatherings, thus proving once and for all that without a healthy respect of the Second Amendment the First Amendment is soon to follow.
“Big deal. We don’t care about gun nuts and computer geeks.” Maybe so, but the funny thing is that revolutions have a tendency of consuming their own and the very thing you intend to use to squash your opposition can be turned around and used against you.
Certain liberals, progressive, or whatever else the leftist rabble insists on calling themselves this week look favorably upon Campaign Finance Reform as a way to silence conservatives and “elevate the public dialogue” as elitists like to say. However, their celebration should be tempered by the realization that their is nothing keeping the law from being used to censor their own pet causes.
Back during the last election, Citizen’s United accused Michael Moore of violating Campaign Finance Reform because this slovenly Hutt hoped this propaganda would influence the outcome of the election. But do we really want the courts to put an end to the speech we disagree with?
For if we do, it won’t be long until we find ourselves on the other end of a lawsuit trying to do the same thing to us.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Seatbelt Enforcement Used As Excuse To Use Nightvision Goggles To Spy On Motorists
Why should we care if someone is wearing their seatbelt.
What about "Keep your laws off my body"?
Interesting you cannot endanger your own life by not wearing a seatbelt but are perfectly free to snuff out someone else's through abortion.
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Friday, May 27, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
I Pray The Lord My Firearm I Get To Keep
During the American Revolutionary War, the Black Regiment was a unit composed of pastors who defended freedom with a Bible in one hand and a musket in another. Had these patriots lived in our day rather than in a time when liberty was taken a bit more seriously, they would no doubt been defrocked and possibly turned over to police. If a ceremony held at the Hispanic Baptist Church of Laurel is to serve as any kind of template, these actions could all be carried out in a single, sweeping act of casearopapism.
According to the March 24, 2005 edition of the Laurel Leader, Miguel Reymaga stood before the congregation of the Laurel Hispanic Baptist Church to profess his new found faith in Christ. But instead of engaging in a traditional Christian ritual such as baptism or communion as an outward testament, Mr. Reymaga surrendered his shotgun and rifle.
Mr. Reymaga confessed he wanted the guns out of his home because of his tendencies towards temper and booze. While he is to be commended for his dedication to his family, he is ultimately being manipulated by authority figures whose primary interest is not the welfare of this particular individual but rather their own social agenda designed to accrue power unto themselves and to further curtail what few God-given freedoms we have remaining.
The Leader article chronicles that Reymaga went to his pastor to arrange for him to turn the guns over to police. But couldn’t this be done without turning the transaction into a public spectacle with the mayor, chief of police, and the editor of the newspaper himself all there to exploit the situation for the benefit of their own anti-Constitutionalism?
Interesting, isn’t it, how liberals yammer incessantly about the Separation of Church and State but don’t mind conspiring in league with religion and using its powers of persuasion when there is common cause between the politically inept and the theologically confused? This congruence is especially dangerous to life and liberty when this alliance attempts to extend its control into areas over which neither was meant to influence.
At this ritual rendering homage to the omnipotent state, the chief of police said, “You made the right decision...We are very much concerned about gun safety in this community. I think all of you are aware of the danger of drinking...and having a gun somewhere in the house.” Is anyone else concerned about a law enforcement officer in an official capacity at a public function enunciating policy preferences in no way backed by law?
Though the opponents of human liberty constantly labor to alter the statutes, it’s still legal to own guns in America. Are the police going to pressure us into giving up other things we are within the bounds of legal propriety to use or enjoy?
The Chief tried to buttress his position by emphasizing the danger of drinking while there is a firearm in the house. So why not have a service where the convert hands over his liquor instead --- guns are just as legal as booze, after all. But such a suggestion wouldn’t go over to well in an Hispanic church since most of the congregation probably have refrigerators full of Coronas and enough glass in their recycle buckets to make Robert Schuller blush.
Obviously, Reymaga is not the smartest bean in the burrito, yet he is merely parroting a number of misconceptions rampant throughout contemporary Evangelical social theory. Reymaga said, “I don’t need these weapons because I have God in my heart...Take your weapons out of your homes.”
If we are to apply his logic and that of his ecclesiastical overseers that we don’t have to protect ourselves since God will do that for us, then why did he come here from Mexico --- initially as an illegal --- to provide for his family since God is ultimately the one we look to to provide for our needs?
Those more opposed to firearms than they are in favor of commonsense will counter --- if they are not yet totally warped by the welfare mentality --- that the Bible tells us to work to secure provisions but to turn the other cheek when faced with assault.
While that might be the advice of the limp-wristed girlie-man Jesus of pop religion, it is not that of the Jesus of the Bible there in the black and white (or red letter edition) who commanded His disciples in Luke 22:36 to acquire a sword if they did not have one. If we want a complete Christology, don’t we have to incorporate this axiom into our view of Jesus as well?
The right to bear arms also entails its opposite in that one does not have to own a firearm. But this is a personal decision the individual must make for themselves. To borrow and modify a line from the abortionists: if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one.
For if members of the congregation find themselves in a situation where they are forced to protect themselves, will the pastor come riding to the rescue as the masked clergyman? Laurel is not the town it use to be; Islamic extremists, Hispanic gangs, and other run-of-the-mill human debris now crisscross this once respectable middle class neighborhood as they foment destruction and mayhem.
Perhaps these radical pacifists --- instead of promoting proper firearms safety --- would rather stand over a child’s coffin and tell parents they did the right thing surrendering their own better judgment on the church altar and allowing the dregs of society to get away with shedding innocent blood. Unless the pastor is willing to do so, let the parents decide.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Mexican Catholics A Threat To Religious Liberty
According to CompassDirect.org, the Catholic thugs running one Mexican town are threatening to tear down the homes of Protestant residents unless they recant their Evangelical faith.
Gullible American Evangelicals often defend the continuing immigration onslaught by claiming Mexicans are such devout, family-oriented people.
And while the loyality of this demographic to their beliefs might be beyond question, it seems their religion could prove to be a theological cancer if allowed to spread unchecked throughout the American body politic.
Those for open borders will snap, surely the events described in this article cannot happen here.
But I remind you that we are not getting the best Mexico has to offer coming here. America, is in fact, being used as a release valve through which to vent the rabble of our neighbor to the south.
As such, these kinds of Mexicans are exactly the ones clogging our Metropolitan areas. One wonders how long until Americans are going to be forced to curb their own Protestant tendencies so as not to offend the Catholic sensibilities of the new arrivals.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
Family Of Famed Evolutionist Admits Scientists Are Fallible
The family of famed evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould is suing two Boston hospitals and three doctors for misdiagnosing the cancer that ultimately led to his death.
Interestingly, it turns out scientists can be wrong after all. And if they can be this tragically wrong about the evidence right there in front of their highly educated noses, just think how much more so regarding matters not as easily observed such as the origins of the universe.
Though the loss of any human life deserves pity for the loved ones enduring such an unbearable hardship, it is only from the standpoint of the Christian and religious values Dr. Gould spent his life attempting to undermine that we are able to muster any sympathy for the Gould family.
For if Dr. Gould was nothing more than a soulless animal arising from the primordial ooze as the result of pure chance who didn‘t fair too well obviously in the Darwinian struggle for survival, why should anyone care about his passing out of existence? Isn’t his family’s emotional response nothing more than a biological stimuli with their love for him nothing more than some hormone driven impulse?
Furthermore, isn't it ironic these aggrieved individuals are seeking to correct a wrong done against someone who possessed no basis for believing right or wrong actually existed? It is only in considering him as an individual created in the image of God that these doctors should be called in account for their actions.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Thought We Weren't Suppose To Look At Color
For daring to question the choice of Cedreic the Entertainer to star in "The Honeymooners" remake, I was castigated by the Diversity Mafia as a racist and even barred from FreeRepublic.com. Their argument was it did not matter what the ethnic background of a performer happened to be.
I wonder if mass opposition is going to mount for pointing out the new mayor of Los Angeles is Hispanic. Or as is common practice, I suppose we are only to condemn the practice of noticing race when doing so is advantageous to Caucasian Americans.
Would it have been mentioned if the new mayor was the first freckle-faced redhead to win the city's highest elected office? Then why inform of us of this distinction for an occupation where ethnicity ought to play an even lesser role than in the world of cinema?
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, May 14, 2005
One Of The Worst Books I Ever Read: A Review Of Drudge Manifesto
Matt Drudge will be remembered for the role he played in popularizing the revolution brought about by the advent of Internet news. However, when it comes to the world of publishing, he better not quit his day job.
As one of the pioneers of a new form of mass communication, one would expect Drudge Manifesto to be an insightful tome as to his medium’s possibilities and strategies on how others might replicate his success. However, on this count Drudge Manifesto falls as short as the New York Times in fulfilling its civic obligation of supplying useful information.
The reader comes away from Drudge Manifesto with the impression that Mr. Drudge is an individual --- not unlike his nemesis Bill Clinton --- too aware of his own place in history. The extent of Drudge’s own self-awareness is to such a radical degree that it has led him to use a number of McCluhanesque literary devices bordering on the bizarre and that, ultimately, detract from the text.
For example, there are a number of pages scattered throughout the work filled with nothing but oversized “0”’s or a “1”s. On another is nothing but a single declaration in smaller-than-average size type in the center of the page reading “You’re boring”.
The only thing boring is wading through Drudge’s inane gimmicks. However, those with the stamina to meander through will be rewarded for their troubles with a transcript of the Q & A of Drudge’s 1998 address at the National Press Club in which the famed Internet muckraker provides perspective into the nature of this new medium and deflects criticisms of elitist mainstream journalists jealous about sharing the media spotlight with insightful outsiders.
In reading Drudge Manifesto, one is forced to conclude that Matt Drudge has become so intertwined with the medium synonymous with his name that he is nearly unable to rise above its limitations or to provide much of an analytical perspective capable of making the information revolution an even more effective venue for further expanding the freedoms of all mankind.
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
New Honeymooners The Wrong Color
Fans of the antics of Ralph Kramden will be shocked to learn that Cedric the Entertainer will portray the blowhard bus driver in the upcoming theatrical remake.
Those priding themselves on wearing their racial tolerance and sensitivity on their sleeve will claim it does not matter what color the characters are.
Would they be so broadminded if they made a White version of Sanford and Son or a Korean cast as a new Cliff Huxtable?
If the producers weren't out to make some kind of racial statement, wouldn't they have cast actors more in accord with the appearances of the originals filling these roles thus keeping the parts White since --- like it or not --- racial background determines a great deal of appearance?
Critics disparaging America's cultural heritage of which "The Honeymooners" played an important role as an early successful television comedy will muse that, in order to gain the attention of the hip urban youth of today (in other words, the vulgarians occupying our cities), we must alter the original to comply with these new diverse sensibilities.
But if that happens to be the case and minorities will only watch minorities, why should White Americans waste a single penny on this cinematic drivel?
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins
Monday, May 09, 2005
Homeland Security Denies Freedom Of Speech To Editor Connected To Minute Man Project
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Where Is The-Law-Must-Always-Be-Obeyed Crowd Now?
Throughout the Terri Schiavo Crisis, the Necromongers maintained that orders and directives emanating from the judicial branch must be obeyed without regard to how we might feel about them.
Where are they now that Michael Schiavo is refusing to inform Terri's parents where her ashes are being layed to rest as ordered by the court?
Friday, May 06, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Nothing Will Be Restrained From Them
Genesis 11:6 says, “And the Lord said, ‘Behold the people is one and they all have one language; and this they began to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” The Lord was speaking in reference to the Tower of Babel built by the followers of Nimrod a short while after the Deluge so his followers might make a name for themselves in a prideful manner. To prevent this blasphemous arrogance from getting out of hand, God confused the languages so the people would disperse across the face of the earth.
The account does more than chronicle the origins of languages, nations, and races. It, in fact, serves as a warning of the trouble mankind can get into when the species comes together and pools its resources in total unity.
While such an assertion might have been dismissed years ago, today as the world draws together as one here at the conclusion of history as it did nearer to the beginning, we see the warning coming to pass in relation to various technological developments.
Take the issues of human cloning and genetic engineering for example. These new sciences could very well be seen as a modern Tower of Babel.
These techniques are not only being considered to ease the suffering of disease but to also tailor humanity to its own liking. In essence, this is one of modern man’s attempts to lift himself above the heavens in a manner similar to that of our ancient forebears gathered on the plain of Shinar.
Not only can a prospective parent turn to this technology to prevent their children from suffering from debilitating conditions such as epilepsy or Alzheimer's but they can also tinker with traits such as hair color and sex and perhaps even enhance aptitudes such as intelligence and athletic ability. Eventually, parents refusing to utilize such technology beyond the alleviation of illness could come to be seen as negligent or abusive in the eyes of lawmakers and social engineers.
Having imbibed heartily of the spirit of Babel, for some even this is not enough. Throughout much of world history, those seeking to make a name for themselves in the manner described in Genesis 11:6 were content to revel in the wonders and accomplishments of man on an exaggerated scale.
But as technology continues to advance and the world continues to unify, for an emerging worldview known as Transhumanism being human is no longer enough as adherents of this new outlook seek to surpass the limitations of the species through cybernetics or genetic enhancements. Such thinkers will not stop at Hitler’s Ubermensch but will prefer something even far more sinister akin to the Borg from Star Trek or humans crossbred with animal DNA resulting in hybrids similar to The Thundercats of 1980’s cartoon fame.
The skeptical might dismiss such speculation as impossible. But we only need to look back over the history of the twentieth century to see the improbable has had an uncanny way of becoming reality. For example, it was one time thought it was impossible to traveler faster than the speed of sound.
Just imagine what other horrors of his own creation await mankind down the road as this truly seems to be an age where “...nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do.”
Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins