Commentary Telling It Like It Is To Those That Might Not Want To Hear It & Links To News Around The Internet
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Monday, January 28, 2019
Sunday, January 27, 2019
Hit & Run Commentary #120
Now that no other man really wants her, Monica thinks that President Clinton should want to apologize to her. But if Monica liked it at the time by not crying rape and apparently came back for multiple helpings, why should Bill feel that he is obligated to?
Headlines are shocked that a Texas school board might cut Helen Keller but keep Moses as part of the curriculum. But while the story of Helen Keller is an interesting historical and medical curiosity, beyond its Lifetime movie of the week appeal, her labors aren’t exactly of the sort upon which an entire civilization is based. Maybe if a school district wants to keep Helen Keller, they can always cut out some of the drivel that gets harped upon from mid January until the end of February.
At the end of a Triscuit commercial, the pitch woman assures with a wink that she is also not genetically modified. Wonder how long until articulating pride in that is castigated as a form of noninclusive hate speech.
In his defense of the mainstream media against castigation by the Trump Administration, Mitt Romney effused, “The free press dispelled the false conspiracies about the 9/11 attacks.” If Romney is referring to the lapdog press of entrenched elites, did these mouthpieces conduct their own investigations? Or, instead, did such propagandists merely reinforce what they were told by their bureaucratic or secret society handlers?
Will Democrats deploring Trump’s rhetoric as stoking the possibility of nuclear war articulate criticism of their colleague insinuating the mass murder of actual Americans in a similar manner for failure to comply with an anti-Second Amendment agenda?
In the sci fi drama “The Colony”, a New World Order-style dictatorship with the assistance of extraterrestrial overlords would eliminate entire metropolitan areas perceived as hindering the implementation the planetary authority’s policy directives. Skeptics might dismiss such a plot as highly unlikely. But is it in light of one Democratic legislator threatening mass murder for failure to comply with any draconian firearms confiscation proposals?
Instructive and revealing. Radical Democrats are comparing border enforcement personnel to the KKK while letting it slip that they have no problem murdering in the most horrifying way imaginable Americans that refuse to comply with totalitarian plans to eliminate the Bill of Rights and infringe upon liberties endowed by the Creator.
Amy Powler in a commercial for some Google contraption says she only wanted women at her Thanksgiving Dinner this year. Would a commercial saying no women or minorities allowed be deemed acceptable for prime network viewing time?
In a commercial for one of its gadgets, Google has Amy Powler vocalize a line about not wanting any men at her Thanksgiving meal this year. Shouldn’t the writer of this remark receive the same punishment as the Google functionary stating in a company memo that the alleged discrepancies in technology fields are the result of inherent gender differences?
In an analysis of the Star Wars worldview, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson criticized the franchise in part from the political theory he perceived the series as espousing. According to Swanson, the films are ungodly because the plot focuses upon two ideologies jockeying for power in order to implement their particular vision of large interstellar government. Mind you, in his analysis of The Hunger Games, Swanson condemned characters in that movie for resisting the prerogatives of empire. It is doubtful a film about a two hour prayer meeting is going to sell many tickets. Likewise, there isn’t going to be much of a story if both sides of a conflict are already comporting themselves by Christian standards. The films are, after all, called “Star Wars” not “Star Hallmark Channel”.
If intruders bursting into Nancy Pelosi’s office would justifiably be tasered or sprayed, why not migrant swarms pouring over the border without authorization?
Parents not wanting their children pepper sprayed shouldn’t cross delineated borders without authorization.
Those condemning the use of tear gas to repel border violators interestingly probably have no issue with the heathen savages that murdered an interloping missionary.
If one is obligated to ascent to the principle that men and women are equal in all things, why all of a sudden is it an outrage to douse a woman threatening law enforcement personnel and international border integrity with pepper spray?
If women are such delicate creatures that they cannot endure U.S. border protection officers deploying pepper spray as a deterrent, why ought we to think that they can handle the full wrath of the Russian, Chinese, or assorted Islamist militariess on the battlefield?
Analysts from both the left and the right are pretty much in agreement that the missionary murdered by the heathen savages on a remote Indian island pretty much got what was coming to him. So what then is so wrong with radical Muslims killing Christians or the Red Chinese harvesting Christian organs? One insisting that one is acceptable but the other inappropriate has, perhaps unwittingly, embraced Rousseau’s foolishness about the so-called “noble savage”. Will Democrats jacked out of shape that Roy Moore dated young women still over the age of consent or that Brett Kavanaugh laughed at a flatulence joke while in high school get as discombobulated over Mike Espy rendering services on behalf of an African dictator accused of slavery and mass murder? But those outrages pale in comparison to the Charlie Brown Christmas special.
On Fox News, Rep Jim Hines said that there is no way to know who in the caravan threatening to violate the nation’s borders is criminal or not. As such, the Congressman seems to admonish, the President should not speak or or treat these individuals as if they are. If that is the case, perhaps he should allow the general public to ramble the halls of Congress unscrutinized without having to stop at assorted checkpoints.
Greater fuss seems to be made that James Hodgkinson published anti-Trump letters to the editor and remarks on social media than that he actually shot people. So how are these literary undertakings different than those of the New York Times, MSNBC, or increasingly CNN? We are constantly beaten over the head about the necessity of voluntarism and on giving back to the COMMUNITY. So why does it sound like this variety of civic engagement will land you on the do not fly list?
In a sermon, Independent Baptist Stephen J. Anderson claimed that atheism is often the result of having watched too many science fiction movies and television programs. How about a number of science fiction authors pushed towards atheism as a result of churches too legalistic in terms of their application of the Bible?
President George H.W. Bush passed away at his home in a Texas gated community. Yet the Bush family stands among the foremost of establishmentarian Republicans that would deny the nation a similar degree of protection through their ongoing opposition to the construction of a border wall.
Contrary to George H.W. Bush, “community” is not a beautiful word. It usual becomes nothing more than whatever group you are required to belong to for the purposes of survival getting in your business not because of some distinct moral reason but because those in charge of the group wish to perpetuate their own power by justifying the existence of the group as an end in itself.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Friday, January 25, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Vatican Functionaries Side With Anti-American Subversives Over Own Spiritual Charges
Will Universal Genetic Surveillance Be The Next Systematic Civil Liberties Abridgement?
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Megachurch Laments Results When Skimping On Sunday School Teachers
But isn't that for two basic reasons?
Number one, if teachers stick to the curriculum, they have at least that to defend themselves with when the pastor comes to pepper them with a battering of Scripture references should a doctrinal or even a merely an interpretative difference arises in class.
Second, even if they love both God and pupils, the Sunday school teacher --- unlike the pastor in most circumstances ---- is just a volunteer.
For, to put it bluntly, the Sunday School teacher has other things in life that they also need to attend to and you get what you pay for.
If asked to do the other workaday work of the Sunday school teacher, it is doubtful the pastor could do that job without the book or operational manual either.
If these pastors want Sunday school teachers as absorbed in the nuances of Scripture and doctrine as professional clergy, pay the Sunday School teachers the wages of a pastor or staff member at a church that already has at least a half dozen pastors and compensated assistants already on the payroll.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, January 18, 2019
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Sunday, January 13, 2019
Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu
The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.
This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.
It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.
However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.
For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.
However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?
An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.
However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.
By Frederick Meekins