According to a number of ministers such as the one speaking above, Christians should not participate in Trick-Or-Treat since to do so would be to engage in witchcraft.
If one wants to take things to that degree, then are we to take it to the next logical conclusion and say that anyone participating in these festivities should receive capital punishment since that is the Scriptural end of those found guilty of such abominable allegations?
As apologist Gretchen Passantino has quipped, trick-or-treating no more makes you a witch or a Satanist than accepting a Christian present makes you a Christian.
For opposing Rush Limbaugh's attempts to purchase the Rams, one might be inclined to call such voices pansies or dandilions, but that would be an insult to flowers everywhere.
For pansies are hearty on their own amidst freezing winter temperatures and dandilions stand tall and firm no matter how much they are despised.
No wonder Pat Tillman resigned from the NFL in favor of the US military. The cowardice is appalling.
Interesting, isn't it, how an entire nation is suppose to cave to the demands of a few disgruntled Blacks.
In a society where no viewpoint or culture is to be heralded as better than or superior to any other, why are a few Blacks automatically considered to be more right than any White.
The contemporary Caucasian has got to be the most spineless and gullible variety of human being to ever walk this planet.
Since the obese are also subject to derision will they be getting their own police unit as well. But since the only elicit holes that interest them belong to donuts, I guess not.
Frankly, if you can't afford to pay for your pet, you have no business owning a pet.
Why should the rest of us have to pick up the tab for this and unlike children, other than deliberately not running over it, I have no grand moral obligation to your pets.
This is going to end up causing crazy cat people who hardly pay any taxes anyway because of their near unemployability to end up not paying any taxes at all.
Travelers often grumble about security measures at airports requiring them to remove belts and shoes as precautions to detect explosives. Such inconveniences may seem like something from the quaint past in light of a new strategy developed by Al Qaeda. An attack was carried out against the Saudi head of counterterrorism operations by concealing nearly a pound of explosives inside a bomber's rectum. The device was detonated by cell phone. It is believed instructions on how to carry out such an attack will soon be posted online.
Representative Joe Wilson was right after all. Obama is a liar. The healthcare legislation being considered in Congress will not require immigrants to produce legitimate photo identification to qualify for benefits. But I bet you, American citizens will have to lay bare all their documents (including birth certificates like those Il Duce refuses to show anyone) to qualify for even the most basic of medical care.
The stage at U2’s Washington concert cost nearly $40 million. By what right has Bono then to lecture the rest of us about poverty and Westerners having too much? During the concert, the Irish crooner declared that his quartet had transcended band status and are more akin to a global force like a nation states. Apparently he’s every bit the arrogant piece of human dreck South Park made him out to be.
Hollywood and secular elites around the world have endorsed child molestation. The likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen, and the French government have gone on the record that Roman Polanski should be set free since his drugging of a thirteen year old girl and the carnal knowledge he gained of her while in such a state was so long ago and really wasn’t rape anyway. One wonders if they’ll go as easy on Catholic priests accused of such things often on the grounds of nothing more than the word of the alleged victim.
Don’t expect children to be better protected under the Obama Administration. The Presidents special advisor on school safety is alleged to have done nothing other than advise the youngster to use a condemn when a fifteen confided in the then-teacher that he was having an affair with an older man.
Scripture informs the reader that in God’s eyes there is neither Greek nor Jew. Apparently those at Oxon Hill Baptist Church failed to heed this passage. According to the October 2009 edition of the Maryland Baptist Convention's Baptist Life newsletter, a Filipino open house was held for new Prince George’s county teachers of that particular extraction where they were provided with warm clothing, linens, and kitchen items. Perhaps members of less-than favored ethnicities should consider withholding their tithes until all educators are appreciated for their minds rather than their skin colors.
Gingrich now shills for Hispanosupremacits through TheAmericano.com. Would so-called "conservatives" put up with a website extolling how much "Germanic Heritage" has contributed to the United States? Another article titled “Language Is Not A Family Value” on the site downplayed English as an indispensable component of the American identity.
President Obama is threatening to lengthen the school day and year. Maybe if time wasn't wasted on propaganda orations and singing hymns to Il Duce's august name, teachers would have sufficient time to teach actual subjects. This plan to extend both the school year and day is no doubt to pay back one of Obama's core constituencies that can't get enough of the motions necessary to have a child but don't want any of the responsibilities that follow afterwards.
Those who have bent their knee in homage to our nation's magnanimous liege will no doubt one day denounce me in a People’s Court (not the TV show but rather a Soviet-style show trial) for daring to nitpick the Chosen One to this extent. However, it is their beloved leader, ladies and gentleman, that insists that the COMMUNITY play a prominent role in your every life decision.
In a campaign speech, Barack Obama lamented that, during the Dark Ages before his ascent to the throne, Americans were able to drive around in SUV’s, eat what they wanted, and kept their homes climate controlled at 70 degrees. Liberals, Communitarians, and other related socialist types who think that only those agreeing with them should be permitted to open our mouths will shriek, “You’ve already made this point in previous commentaries.” And I am going to keep making it whenever Comrade Obama violates these key tenets of leftwing dietary policy.
On 5/6/09, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden motorcaded to an eatery in Northern Virginia where our wondrous benefactor and one of his foremost disciples supped upon the finest of ground bullock for their midday meal. When average Americans engage in these kinds of activities, few give it second thought and pretty much the same response would be elicited if other occupants of the Oval Office such as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush engaged in this gastronomic act. However, seldom did these Chief Executives blatantly declare their enmity to the minutest details of the American way of life and vowed to remake the nation along new lines.
For starters, while you are suppose to sit glum-faced and ashamed that Americans enjoy a standard of living above that of a Third World slum, Obama can fire up the limo, which with its protective reinforced armor no doubt makes it as much of a gas guzzler as and SUV, as well as the Secret Service vehicles that need to accompany the President. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to send someone to get the burgers?
Better yet, doesn’t the White House have its own gourmet kitchen capable of feeding nearly 150 people? Catered now to by two chefs, his Highness is of such sophisticated tastes that he had to bring his own personal chef with him from Chicago (which also raises the question that, if Michelle is not the one preparing the family meals, is she really the ideal wife and mother propagandists have made her out to be).
If these chefs are supposed to be able to prepare the most succulent of culinary delights, shouldn’t they be able to replicate any rotgut swill the President might develop a hankering for? Which brings up another glaring hypocrisy.
Obama’s kitchen scullion was not granted his commission because of his acumen around a saucepan. Rather, he also spouts the Communitarian line that the individual is not bright enough to figure out on their own the “socially responsible” thing to eat.
Thus, to Obama, eating is not a personal activity. Instead, it is one where the COMMUNITY ought to have considerable say in determining what you get to ingest.
But perhaps just as disturbing and even more dangerous than a President thinking he is exempt from the expectations he mandates for the remainder of us is the response the brainwashed dupes express in regards to this man. Some happening to be in the eatery observed that Obama stood in line just like everybody else.
Being impressed by this reveals the extent to which America has declined. For in a democratic republic, where no one is suppose to be perceived as better than anyone else in terms of ontology, a President waiting in line should raise no more eyebrows and be lavished with no more accolades than the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker required to wait their turn in line like any other person.
In itself, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a hamburger. However, if the one enjoying the hamburger is the very same person intending to use his very considerable influence to prevent you from enjoying the same simple pleasure, the act of mastication goes from being one of little consequence to one of considerable public importance.
To what extent does a school's authority extend beyond the school yard?
A Saratoga Springs, NY seventh grader may help formalize these boundaries.
According to TimesUnion.com, a state trooper interdicted the lad at Maple Avenue Middle school, informing that biking and even walking to school were against the rules.
A school might discourage biking to school by refusing to provide accommodations such as storage facilities and might even prevent pupils from perambulating away from the premises in the evening unaccompanied by an adult.
But on what legal ground can they decree by which mode of locomotion students arrive for instruction unless there is a formalized legislative statute banning those of a certain age from utilizing public sidewalks irrespective of destination?
Perhaps the greatest issue of concern here is law enforcement being summoned to enforce the policy whim of bureaucrats in jurisdictions beyond their stipulated purview.
For if this is not stopped now, what is to prevent educators by threatening through the barrel of the gun upon which police decisions ultimately rely from deciding what else goes on while your children are in your own care such as what they eat, what they watch on TV, and even what you as a parent are permitted to believe in terms of politics and religion?
Immigrants will not be required to show a photo ID to get healthcare benefits.
But I bet you, American citizen will have to lay bare all your documents (including birth certificates like those Il Duce refuses to show anyone) to qualify for even the most basic of medical care.
By what right has Bono to lecture the rest of us about poverty and Westerners having too much? He's the arrogant piece of dreck South Park made him out to be.
Though in fairness, I must reserve judgment as to whether or not those assenting to the excessively leftwing prayer were saying "God" or "Obama". The audio is not clear enough.
Maybe if time wasn't wasted on propaganda orations and singing hymns to Il Duce's august name, teachers would have sufficient time to teach actual subjects.
This plan to extend both the school year and day is no doubt to pay back one of Obama's core constituencies that can't get enough of the motions necessary to have a child but don't want any of the responsibility that comes afterwards.
With the Obama agenda, the New Age mindset shares the perspective that you are not so much a distinct individual worthy as such but rather a mere component emanating outward into larger and larger groups. For example, at the lowest level you are part of the COMMUNITY.
Note that the family has been skipped over entirely as the prerogatives of the reactionary fecund union between a monogamous man and woman must be overridden by the preferences of the bureaucracy administering the larger group. At the highest level, all identity is subsumed into an absolutist holism. Obama prophesizes, “...the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.”
Chesterton, or someone nearly as wise, once remarked that one shouldn’t take down a fence unless you know why it was put up. Ladies and gentlemen (especially ladies), if we are to live as one common humanity, do you really want a Pakistani tribesman with Taliban sympathies to have a say over how you live your life in terms of whether or not you can go outside without a bag over you head, be permitted to drive a car, or even have windows in your home not painted over so that you can look outside.
A world without distinctions was also a dream shared by Communists. And as has happened in all regimes that sought to obliterate all distinctions save those imposed by the all powerful state such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Red China, the attempt here will result in a wide-scale abridgement of basic human rights.
For example, throughout his inaugural address, Obama made the attempt to depict himself as no respecter of persons on the basis of race or ethnicity by denouncing segregation and the like as a “dark chapter” of our nation’s history. However, from an examination of the other rhetoric employed by the new President, like the pigs in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, it is quite evident that Obama views some racial groups as being more equal than others.
For example, in his inaugural address, Obama dropped lines such as “from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born” and “why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath”. From the sound of it, you’d come away from Obama’s speech thinking the President’s father was a very honorable man.
Obama’s father was anything but as he was little more than a drunken bigamist scoundrel hardly worthy of being immortalized as part of the annals of Inauguration rhetoric. Obama’s grandparents, who actually raised and provided for Barack even when his own mother abandoned him in favor of the wonders of Indonesian blacksmithing, were not even worthy of a single mention.
After carefully cogitating over the differences that might make an alcoholic bigamist morally superior to an elderly couple that would take in their grandson and raise him as their own, in the eyes of Obama it must be that his father happens to be a Black African whereas Obama’s maternal grandparents were just in their grandson’s own words “typical White people”. And just as Communists in the past set up a more stringent class system in their alleged attempt to eliminate this particular social distinction, in the name of racial equality Barack Obama will likely do everything in his power to expand minority set asides and favoritism.
This underlying contempt for White people was evident throughout the remainder of the inaugural oration. For example, following in the grand tradition of Democrats picking poets that barely make sense such as Maya Angelou at Bill Clinton’s, not to be outdone Obama also felt compelled to feature a poetess few had the bravery to admit publicly just how lousy she was. And in keeping with the theme of these shenanigans, Obama commissioned an ode in the spirit of his own brand of inanity.
Mixed between banalities such as “patching a tire” and a few worthy insights such as the centrality of words in the human processing of sensory experience, “Praise Song For The Day” was lit with a number of code words one can find without too much trouble if schooled in the kinds of imagery leftists peddle in as they foment revolution. For example, the poem reads “Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would keep clean and work inside of.”
Ladies and gentleman, those names of the dead to be sung are not those of the servicemen who died on behalf of the United States as it is not the nature of Obama’s malcontent colleagues to enunciate respectfully about our armed forces. The only uniforms they will speak favorably of are those of the civilian security forces that will no doubt over the course of the next few years be authorized to break into our homes to see if we are eating government proscribed meals, what our thermostats are set to, and what kinds of light bulbs we have screwed in. Rather, even though most Americans are publicly willing to treat those of other races cordially, such lines are designed to yet one more time rub America’s nose in the issue of slavery.
Some will claim that only the mentally and socially unstable would dare read between the lines and point something out like that. However, research points out that the woman that presented the poem is the one subverting American institutions and Obama should be embarrassed for having made her part of the inaugural festivities.
Frankly, Obama’s inaugural poet is such a literary pervert that in comparison Bill Clinton’s Oval Office trysts could be included as an addendum to the next edition of Bill Bennett’s “Book Of Virtues”. According to a Brent Bozell piece titled “No Poetry Controversy?”, Elizabeth Alexander exhibits a disturbing interested in mutilated geneatalia throughout her published work and postulates that Black athletes being paid millions of dollars per year are as mistreated as Rodney King (who probably wasn’t as mistreated by police as media would always have us believe) and even the innocent tragically lynched in decades past.
Those endorsing her lyrical undertakings will snap, “Dr. Alexander is a respected Yale professor”. If that is the case, this nation is even worse off if such mental swill is what parents are paying and arm and a leg for for their children to be intellectually poisoned in the name of education. I’ve known smarter and wiser high school dropouts than this.
Up until that point, most of the anti-American and anti-Anglo sentiment had been hidden in euphemism that the unsuspecting could not openly identify though manipulated by in terms of their perceptions nonetheless. By the end of this national folly, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama hopes to take the country over the course of his presidency.
To close the ceremony, Rev. Joseph Lowery offered the following benediction: “Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask that you help us work for that day when blacks will not be asked to get in the back, when brown can stick around...when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.”
Some might chuckle at this, as Obama no doubt did since on a number of occasions such as his “60 Minutes” interview and when Wanda Sykes longed for the death of Rush Limbaugh, displaying his inability to stifle jocularity when propriety would have him do so. However, there are dangerous misconceptions in that prayer if these sentiments uplifted to the Almighty are permitted to become the foundation of policy.
For starters, Blacks are no longer required to get in the back, and neither should they. Since these radicals have opened the door for the slingers of racial slights, if anything, Whites these days are the ones metaphorically being asked to get in the back of the bus in terms of Affirmative Action and related ethnic set asides.
For there is still no White History Month. From what I am able to gather, Whites are about the only ethnic group that does not have their own museum explicitly named after them on the Mall in Washington (and the Museum of American History does not count as the last time I was there about a decade ago displays depicting Hispanic culture enjoyed top billing with an exhibit of a sombrero-wearing, trumpet-blowing skeleton being prominent in my memory). Furthermore, an associate of mine who has a college degree and a considerable amount of work experience is unable to advance beyond an entry level position whereas blatantly incompetent Blacks are moved into higher levels of management whose only qualification happens to be that they are Black.
In the comment, “when brown can stick around”, what this apostate either playing at being a minister of God or one so mentally deficient as to have bought into the revolutionary swill eroding America’s foundations is calling for is blanket amnesty to all illegals. Maybe this preacher should have added a witty line about “the browns” obeying the law and coming here in compliance with duly constituted procedures and then only if they want their first earthly political loyalty to be the United States of America.
In another offensive line of the poem, Lowery expressed a longing for the day "when White will embrace what is right". Utilizing his previous lines as a guide as to how to interpret this one, one could conclude that he does not believe Whites have overall embraced what is right.
Oh really? Is he not allowed to stand before the country and be as much of a national embarrassment as he wants to be? How about a line how these groups should stop blaming Whitey when most of their problems these days stem from their own refusal to behave themselves?
But in perhaps the most disturbing line of the benediction, Lowery intoned, “That all those who do justice and love mercy say ‘amen’.” Such an imperative implied that, if one does justice and loves mercy, one must add one’s spiritual ascent to this inane babbling and, that if one does not, one approves of injustice and oppression.
Yet did not Obama in the very same address drone on with platitudes about tolerating other viewpoints? Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.”
Not a single Muslim or Hindu had anything to do with the founding of this nation and George Washington remarked it was impossible to be a good American and not believe in God. One should not have to grant verbal consent to the warped multiculturalist conceptions of justice and mercy if one professes to cherish what these values originally meant.
In his few short months in office, Barack Obama has set more ruination of this country into motion than most presidents do over the course of their entire administrations. And unless Americans come to understand the kind of worldview enunciated by the President and his allies at the Inauguration, this nation stands little chance of remaining that shining city on a hill that at one time gave hope to oppressed people around the world.
Pluralists will yammer that this organization should have the liberty to invite anyone they want to address their convention. Quite true. However, I am not among these tolerancemongers who are picketing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce for daring to invite Glenn Beck. It must be remembered that, unlike those at 9/12 rallies and Tea Parties, leftists usually destroy property at their protests.
Interesting how Google can commeorate an obscure celebration such as the birthday of Fabian Socialist H.G. Wells but totally forget Christian and patrioric holidays.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, should government extend bailout funds to the nation's newspapers, the end result will be the state dictating media content.
For did not Obama determine the minutest aspects of GM and bank operations when these institutions fell for government wiles such as where conferences would be held and what models of automobiles would continue to roll off the assembly line.
This has to happen by definition.
The Newspaper Revitalization Act being considered by Congress would pemit papers to reorganize as Non-profit 501(C)(3) organizations.
This is the same part of the tax code that churches have fallen for granting them formalized tax-exempt status.
In exchange for this favor from Leviathan, churches are forbidden from participating in political activity such as the endorsing of candidates for office.
However, the power to tax is the power to destroy and even the most devout of pastors on fire for the Lord have grown circumspect in how they address issues of public concern from the pulpit as they dig for phraseology that honors God's revelation without plunging their congregations into financial ruination simply because some unrepentnant reprobate in the pew gets in a huff.
This will mean one of two things.
Either America's newspapers will become increasingly bland as they strive to avoid stepping on the taxman's toes or that there is an even more sinsiter thing going on in the form of a religious persecition that will overlook newspapers saying whatever they want but maintaining theological and ideological shackles around the churches of America.
So the moral of the story is, under almost no circumstances should a family seek social assistance. For once you accept one government dime, you become the property of the state for it to do with as it sees fit.
Those on this form of welfare are so characteristically lazy that next they will be rampaging in the streets on the need for a bureaucrat to come around and cook the fresh produce for them.
Eastern Europeans estatic about the cancellation of a U.S. sponsored missle defense shield have expressed pleasure that American soldiers will not be stationed there. Perhaps they'd rather herald the arrival of Russian conqueorers instead.
Every four years, the inauguration of the President sets the tone for the direction in which those in the highest executive office hope to steer the nation. Since that is the case, the American people should be very concerned about the lunacy put on display at the swearing in of Barack Obama from beginning to end.
With the gays going into the theatrical hysterics those of that proclivity are renowned for over the invocation delivered by Rick Warren, one would have hoped for something more theologically profound. However, many have no doubt heard sounder sentiments emanating from four year olds saying grace over crackers and juice.
Billy Graham in his heyday Warren is not. From Warren’s words, one could have easily come away assuming God did not know Obama was Black. Warren said, “...we celebrate a hinge point of history with the inauguration of the first African American president of the United States...We know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.”
These things didn’t even need to be mentioned. For decades now, we have been repeatedly told that it is not the color of skin but rather the content of character that counts.
So then why should we be grateful to have a president whose only characteristic that set him above his peers was his mulatoo pigmentation? Would Warren and the other adherents of the outstretched hand of the Social Gospel been as fawning if the likes of Allan Keyes, Walter Williams, or Thomas Sowell had been elected to high office?
Furthermore, one might in the course of a speech rhetorically intonate that “Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven” and not be too far out of line. However, doesn’t it smack of the utmost hubris to tell the Lord in a prayer what we know the inhabitants of Heaven are doing? As mortals not having crossed over yet to the other side, how in the world (since those mentioned are no longer in it), can we have any certain idea about what those on the other side think of a development here we are all a flutter over?
Dr. King, if even there since as a Modernist he disbelieved a number of fundamental Christian doctrines, might have no idea whatsoever what is going on back here. Or if he does, perhaps in that ethereal realm human perception would be so unencumbered by the concept of phenotype variation that they would not even notice what color Barack Obama might happen to be (something his temporal supporters can’t seem to get beyond).
Another irritant regarding Warren's prayer was it's bow to political correctness. While one might make a case for pronouncing the name of Jesus in Hebrew as that was likely what He went by while walking this earth, since this is an English speaking nation, there is no reason whatsoever to pronounce the name of the Lord in Spanish during a government-sanctioned prayer unless Warren wants to translate the remainder of his petition as well. Since God speaks all languages, the English pronunciation would have proven sufficient if his intentions were to speak into the ear of God.
In his closing line, Warren petitioned "Help us to remember that we are united not by race or religion or blood, but over our commitment to freedom and justice for all." And though there can be a unity among and between human beings that transcend the genetic categories of race or ethnicity, that is only possible on the basis of some shared religious commonality that Warren thumbed his nose at the Almighty about that our unity is not based upon.
Some will claim but what about our commitment to freedom and justice as Warren mentions. Those would be good foundations to build upon, but in this day where the nation's leaders stand upon the steps of the nation's Capitol and lecture us as to how no set of ideas or beliefs are better than any other, just whose version of freedom and justice then are we going to live by?
One would think Warren would be more aware of these implications, technical sounding as they might be. After all, it was in the name of freedom, not so much in the sense of doing what they want to to each other but rather from the standpoint of you having to stand around and applaud them as good people for doing it, that the sissies flew into conniptions saying that Warren was unacceptable to play a part in the inauguration because of his refusal to embrace sodomite nuptials.
Even some of the parts of Warren’s prayer innocuous upon initially hearing them needed to be examined further in light of the nature and character of the President for whom such petitions were being invoked. For example, for the most part, there is nothing wrong in calling for “civilizing our attitudes, even when we differ” as Warren invoked. However, when this is invoked by liberals it is usually a warning that conservatives will not be permitted to speak out in opposition to their ideological opponents without being battered by the usual refrain of “bigot, sexist, homophobe” and that protestor types will be pretty much permitted to smash property and loot as they see fit with those in authority applauding such rabble rousers for raising awareness and such.
From the highpoint of Warren’s prayer, the Inaugural ceremonies pretty much went down hill from there.
One might be able to shield Obama from the criticism of the bit players brought onto the stage by claiming that these individuals represent their own voices and were not necessarily endorsed by the President in their entirety. However, one cannot explain away the words and tone spewed fourth from his own lips during what should have been the most deliberate enunciation of his worldview and beliefs he is likely ever to make before the American people.
As with most politicians, Obama has tried to be all things to all men so that he might hoodwink the greatest number. Peppered throughout the address were a number of rhetorical concessions designed to lull the critical thinking of those living by conservative principles but who have not really given them considerable reflection.
For example, President Obama said, “For as much as government...must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies.” And towards the end of this portion of his address, the President said, “But these values upon which our success depends...These things are true...What is demanded then is a return to these truths.”
More conservative and Christian words could not be spoken. However, much of the address undermined these very words and the venerable aforementioned philosophies indispensable to a strong nation.
Obama said, “Our economy is badly weakened, and consequences of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also out of our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” In other words, the ruined economy is not the fault of crooked financiers and welfare leeches thinking they are entitled to own a house whether they can afford one or not, but also the fault of those that go to work and mind their own business.
For you see, in the dawning era, you are at fault --- especially if you work your own way through life and mind your own business. This is evidenced in the rhetoric sprinkled throughout Obama's address.
The first phrase already noted is "our collective failure". For in the "new age" Obama repeatedly mentions, one is not judged or held accountable primarily as an individual but rather as a component of a particular group or class.
The traditional rights and protections Americans have called upon in the past to defend against encroachments by government or to correct injustices will no longer necessarily apply. Our new lord has said as such himself when he intoned, "...the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply". Elsewhere in the same address Obama declared, "On this day, we proclaim an end to the...worn out dogmas that for too long strangled our politics."
And what might these worn out "dogmas" and "political arguments" be, ladies and gentleman? That all men are created equal? That Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech? That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That the government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away?
Millions around the world have died for these principles over the course of the 20th and now into the 21st centuries. But to Barack Obama, they are inconveniences to be set aside by the wave of his mighty hand if they get in the way of his interpretation of bipartisanship, which means a uniformity of opinion.
The Protobeast intoned, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." So in other words, so long as Mussolini keeps the trains running on time, we have no right to voice our concerns as to how much the government might be prying into our lives and into areas over which no healthy state is capable of exerting a balanced influence.
Those that have coasted by not paying much attention to the extent to which conditions have deteriorated will respond that truth, justice, and the American way will prevent Obama from doing too much damage. However, as a master deceiver having dutifully learned at the feet of his socialist handlers who have groomed him for the role he now holds, Obama will not blatantly set aside these cherished notions but instead recast them in an image useful for achieving his own ends.
Obama admonished, "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America." While the country may have a few issues and problems that need to be addressed, are things really so bad that we need to "remake America"?
For does not that invocation imply that everything this nation was built upon and made it great has to be scrapped in its entirety? And that is exactly what Obama intends to do.
For example, in the inaugural address, Obama promised, “We will restore science to its rightful place.” From this, one would assume that doctors were still using leeches to bleed patients. However, what Obama is calling for here is a fanatic round of baby harvesting in pursuit of stem cells and having evolution crammed down the throats of American school children as the sole explanation as to the origins of life on earth.
Parents thinking otherwise might not have any say in the matter unless they are willing to pay the price as homeschool fugitives if Obama continues his pattern of modeling the U.S. along the lines of the European Union. Obama promised, “And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”
Did you just notice that, dear reader: “the demands of a NEW AGE.” Having heard it now for nearly 40 years along with related variants such as the Age of Aquarius, the term has come to jokingly characterize long-haired beatniks that might have taken one too many hits on the bong but who are otherwise mellow and good-natured. However, the concept of the New Age is to the realms of spirituality, philosophy, and religion what the term New World Order is to politics and essentially serves as the foundational worldview of this proposed geo-political social system.
Will probably get wider and more positive coverage than the 9/12 rallies even though a percentage of this crowd will likely have actual ties to terrorism.
Obama wants to defame September 11th by highlighting the occasion as a day of service and downplaying the attack upon America. So if one questions compulsory voluntarism, one will be anathematized as a contingency operation instigator. We’re not suppose to use the word “terrorist” anymore.
Sean Hannity said he wouldn’t go down the road of criticizing Ted Kennedy so soon after the Senator’s death. I recall reading of Ted Kennedy driving off one of the roads he went down.
It has been reported that the healthcare reform legislation being considered will order the IRS to hand your tax records over to health commissioners. It was observed that apparently it’s OK to collect information in the name of universal healthcare but not to prevent terrorism. If it’s wrong to ascertain the legal status of immigrants as to whether or not they should be here, then on what grounds do government agencies have to be passing this information back and forth regarding actual citizens? There are already concerns about disparities of treatment among various groups and classes. Just think how much worse it will be when your chart reads, “Middle class. Do not resuscitate.”
The Healthcare reform bill also plans to spend over a billion dollars for jungle gyms, bike trails, and farmers markets. Guess the Chinese want fit slaves for when they take over after the United States defaults on the loans from the Maoists.
In embracing the Lockerbie bomber, Qaddaffi proves he is still human scum. Makes you wish for the good old days of the Bush Doctrine where, if you sided with America’s enemies, you were considered one of America’s enemies.
A public service announcement on Fox News was broadcast in Spanish. This is more about conditioning actual Americans into accepting bilingualism since any Spanish-speakers watching an American cable news channel already likely comprehends or knows a considerable amount of English.
Geraldo Rivera has published a book titled “The Great Progression: How Hispanics Will Lead America to a New Era of Prosperity”. Thought we weren’t suppose to consider matters of race or ethnicity. Can you imagine the outrage if Pat Buchanan or David Duke published a book on how Whites are indispensable to the country’s welfare. Quite telling how Geraldo publicically sides with his Hispanic heritage over his Jewish background.
An article in the leftwing propaganda rag "Sojourners Magazine" titled "Sex Without Shame" fails to mention that the only shameless sex is to be found in marriage between a man and a woman. The closest the article gets is a tepid "In our churches we need to help younger people...say 'yes' to some shared bodily interactions. As we need to help each other not only just say no, but understand why 'no' or 'not yet' is an appropriate life-giving response to some other options we encounter along our sexual journeys." That's so romantic and sensual that it makes Allan Greenspan sound like Conway Twitty.
A series of meetings were held to discuss "perseverance of the native Hawaiian people, challenges facing the Native Hawaiian community, and ways in which the White House might work with the community to find common solutions to our common challenges." I wonder if similar concerns will be taken into consideration to ensure the continuation of Euro-American people or will steps continue to be taken in the form of Obama's healthcare proposals to finally eliminate White folks once and for all.
Ted Kennedy sought an alliance between the KGB and the Democratic Party. Many will denounce this pointing out of the shortcomings of the dead. However, at least Ted Kennedy got to die from a natural causes at a respectable age. That was more of an opportunity than given to the victims of this murderous regime that Ted sought to buddy-buddy around with. I guess father like son as apparently Ted saw the Soviets in much the same way as his own father saw the Nazis.
One wonders what Rep. Joe Wilson was threatened with in order to get him to denounce his own denouncing of Obama by issuing an apology to Rahm Emanuel.
He shouldn't back down at all. The President is no god.
If it is improper to shout out during an address before Congress that the President lies, then why is all the incessant fawning applause proper?
I ask all of those now in a tizzy, will your manners keep you warm when your freedom has been taken away and you find yourself either in financial ruin at best or in a reeducation camp at worst?
If Obama can threaten to call out those critical of his healthcare plan, why can't we do the same to him?
Contrary to his most diehard fanatics, Obama is no God and it is suppose to be the Constitution and not the President that reigns supreme in the land of liberty.
Viewers wanting to see "Knowing" staring Nicholas Cage might expect a film not all that different from his "National Treasure" series or even perhaps "The Da Vinci Code" as from advertisements the story appears to center around an aged parchment with a series of numbers scribbled across it that seemingly predicts a series of disasters. However, by the film's conclusion, the apocalyptic symbolism alluded to is much more complex and potentially confusing than one might initially suspect.
After a series of catastrophes Cage’s astrophysicist character witnesses as a result of deciphering the cryptic document, one begins to get the impression that the transcendent presence guiding events is more of a tangible one rather than a force in the background. Hints of this are introduced when mysterious figures reminiscent of less than normal looking versions of Men In Black begin to stalk Cage’s son as well as the granddaughter of the character who wrote down the prophetic string of numbers in a flashback set fifty years in the past.
In most films one usually gets a distinct impression as to the forces overseeing mankind’s eschatological destiny. Usually they are traditionally supernatural or more in the vein of what moviegoers would consider extraterrestrial or interplanetary. Seldom do I remember a film where the distinctions were blurred or melded to such a degree as in "Knowing".
For example, viewers were first given a hint of this as Cage and one of the adolescents come across an illustration depicting Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel. The overt supernatural overtones continued to increase with interactions with the Men In Black, especially when a blinding lights emanates from one of their mouths when confronted by Cage and as Cage's partially deaf son picks up a message over his hearing aide from the "whispering people".
By the time of the movie's climactic act, Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel has descended to the rendezvous point where it has arrived to whisk the children under Cage’s care to safety away from the earth endangered by a gigantic solar flare. Not even at this point did screenwriters clarify where they came down theologically. For example, as Cage proceeded to board the craft, he was informed that only the chosen could enter.
Did this mean only those professing belief in God (about the best you can hope for from Hollywood as a positive ascent to the need for a relationship with Christ would be out of the question) since earlier in the film Cage's character hinted at lacking faith in a conscious divine power. Or more likely, were these tots suppose to be Indigo Children, a new classification of adolescent hypothesized to be the next step in human evolution as a way to explain a myriad of phenomena from such as why these children have IQ's higher than their parents to bratty teen behavior.
The distinction between garden variety extraterrestrial and angel is further blurred when these entities drop their humanoid facades to reveal themselves to be energy beings reminiscent of the Taelons from the early seasons of “Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict”. The obfuscation continues until the end of the film.
As the craft carrying the two children away from the earth lifts into space, the viewer realizes that these two youngsters were not the only two saved as they join a convoy of similar vehicles. Once more, while the average viewer might be sitting there dumbfounded as to what is being depicted, the viewer peripherally in the know will wonder if they have just seen a space age interpretation of the Rapture where it is believed that the saved will be whisked away by God to safety before destruction comes upon the world or rather, as non-dispensationalists have hypothesized, or how the masses will be duped into a pseudo-rapture orchestrated by so-called “flying saucers”.
Even after all of this, "Knowing" at its end dumps even deeper metaphysical symbolism upon the viewer to wade through. For after the earth is destroyed with the elements burning up with a fervent heat as foretold in II Peter 3:12, we see the children running through a field towards a very distinct looking tree that could very well be the Tree of Life. But as with other moments in this film, we are not given any definitive answer as to whether the children are in Heaven or merely on another planet.
Those that go into “Knowing” expecting a supernatural thriller will not be disappointed. However, what they may not know about is the symbolic dialogue regarding some of the most profound spiritual issues facing the world today.
A series of meetings were held to discuss "perseverance of the native Hawaiian people, challenges facing the Native Hawaiian community, and ways in which the White House might work with the community to find common solutions to our common challenges."
I wonder if similar concerns will be taken to ensure the continuation of Euro-American people or will steps continue to be taken in the form of Obama's healthcare proposals to finally eliminate White folks once and for all.
Don't endorse the content. The link is provided to educate the reader as to the perspectives in the world today. It does, however, show how the contemporary UFO contact movement is linked to older forms of spirtualism.
I am reminded of the scene in "Torchwood: Children Of Earth" where the military went in guns blazing to round up students and snatch them from their parents in the name of vaccinations. They were actually being handed over to be used as extraterrestrial narcotics.
Try as the atheist might to manipulate objective data to fit their hypothesis with some evolutionists going so far as to invoke the law in order to suppress perspectives conflicting with their origins account, the assumptions of atheism fail to square with the facts of nature and with the revelation of nature's God. At one time earlier in the modern era, it was quite common for the atheist to portray himself as the true friend and ally of science. However, as impartial observational science has probed deeper onto the macroscopic realm of cosmic space as well as the microscopic world of the subatomic particle, this relationship once prided by the atheist turned out not to be as solid as originally thought.
The scientific establishment and the philosophical elites once derided the so-called "theistic proofs" for the existence of God as the outdated wisdom of a less-enlightened era. It turns out, however, that these time-honored arguments may be as relevant as the latest academic journals.
The cosmological argument, perhaps the best known, states that all finite realities and structures have a cause. Therefore, ultimately there must be an uncaused cause complete in itself in order to get the proverbial billiard ball rolling; this the theist declared to be God.
Naturalistic cosmologists steeped in atheism such as Carl Sagan once tried to dance around the issue by saying that the cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be. But it seems that the laws of physics don't exactly have a record of contributing to their local PBS station.
The Laws of Thermodynamics declare that, left to themselves, systems degrade to the maximum level of entropy; or in laymen's terms, things wear out. Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.
It has been noted that the theistic proofs do not necessarily reveal the God of Judeo-Christian adoration but at best point the seeker in His direction. Likewise, the findings of science point the individual in the direction of a yet more definitive source of knowledge standing in opposition to the claims of atheism.
Scripture strikes the decisive blow against those daring to spit cognitively in the face of God. Psalms 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
Until the scientist can replicate life on his own from nothing whatsoever, that verse settles the issue of whether the universe sings the praises of an omnipotent Creator or testifies to the cruel fact of an arbitrary universe devoid of plan or purpose. Some will no doubt continue to insist upon their own path of stubbornness despite what the very molecules they are breathing might be telling them.
Of those failing to be persuaded by the evidence, Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Webster’s defines fool as “a person devoid of reason or intelligence.” Either the educated person assents to the reality of God or his so-called “education” is not worth the value of the parchment the big-shot degree is printed upon.
If the skeptic still refuses to abandon atheism in light of the objective evidence, one is left with no alternative but to drag out the rotten fruits produced by this faulty system in terms of ruined lived and fallen nations. For instead of establishing a set of moral values resting upon a foundation apart from divine revelation as originally postulated by the adherents of early atheistic modernism, one ends up with an ethical system based upon the absolutist relativism of postmodernism where almost anything goes except daring to set forth some kind of behavioral standard binding upon all.
According to Chuck Colson in Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages, in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God, there is no legitimate ground in which one can exclude the arguments and proposals of Nazis, serial killers, and pedophiles (47). From today's headlines, the nation is coming to realize in the most brutal of ways that these ideas do not confine themselves to academic journals or newspaper opinion pages. And in the case of school shootings such as Columbine High, this radical antipathy towards God can in fact turn deadly.
If the lawlessness of atheism can wreak havoc upon individual lives, just imagine its affects magnified across entire societies. The major dictatorships of the twentieth century testify to this blood-soaked historical truth. Founded upon assorted atheistic ideologies, these totalitarian regimes promised secular heavens on earth but instead dragged their nations down to the very borders of hell.
Unfettered by eternal external standards, those holding the reins of power in such societies had nothing to hamper the implementation of their most extreme policy whims, not even the value of innocent human lives. For example, Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China slaughtered five million of his own countrymen in pursuit of his Cultural Revolution and related kinds of Communist nonsense.
While the United States has not yet eliminated that many (at least among those fortunate enough to escape the womb alive), the Orwellian day is here when good will be called evil and evil called good. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett aptly noted on an appearance on "Meet The Press" that, had the Columbine killers greeted one another with "Hail the King of Kings" rather than their trademark "Heil Hitler", school officials would have intervened since an affirmation of theism --- especially of a Christian variety --- is the one thing an atheistic educational system cannot tolerate. School officials did not intervene and the rest is history, with organized unbelief claiming yet a few more in its unrelenting war upon God and humanity.
As public rhetoricians are fond of pointing out, mankind stands at a crossroads. The choice, however, goes to a level deeper than the choice between Democrats and Republicans that Americans must make on election day.
The decision to be made transcends the limited purposes of institutionalized politics to embrace fundamental issues of worldview and belief. The nature of this conflict can be discovered in a comparison and contrast between atheism and Christianity.
From the fundamental postulate regarding the nonexistence of God, atheism attempts to formulate a comprehensive framework upon which to hang its understanding of mankind and the universe. Without God to account for the cosmos in which they find themselves, atheists argue that the complexity of nature arose through a process of gradual evolution governed by the rules of chance.
This process of evolution, to the atheist, serves as the dynamic against which man strives to find and determine his role upon the earth. As such, everything is thus in a state of flux and nothing is fixed as man struggles to figure things out against the backdrop of a cold and purposeless void.
Not even fundamental issues such as individual rights, personal ethics, or social institutions can afford to remain fixed and stagnant. And if innocent human lives are ruined or destroyed, that may seem regrettable at this moment along the long evolutionary chain, but mankind will ultimately get things worked out and the piles of corpses littering history’s ditches will not seem so nauseous upon further enlightenment.
Of these ideas, Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Any history book objective enough to attest to the horrors of the twentieth century testifies to this startling truth.
Standing in contrast to the lonely pointlessness of atheism is Judeo-Christian theism recognizing God as the fundamental proposition of the universe. Like atheism, the Judeo-Christian tradition builds its system around its conceptual foundation as well. But since its basis is drastically different from that of atheism, the conclusions drawn by Christianity are considerably different.
Christianity holds that, since the universe was created from nothing through the Word of God, all creation is dependent upon Him at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “...by him all things consist.”
Since man is God’s creation, it is therefore God’s right to determine the standards by which man shall conduct his own affairs. And since God loves His creation, it follows that His standards are for the benefit of His children. These standards are communicated to mankind in a number of ways.
One such way is through individual conscience. Romans 2:14 says, “For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” While God has written the Law across the heart of man, man has suppressed this truth through sin.
God has overcome this development by making Himself known in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and through the direct propositional revelation of His Word and the Holy Bible of which II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” It is within this framework of Law and Grace that the balance between the individual and society is found as this system and the objective standards established by it protect the individual since it recognizes the worth and fallen character of each. That is why Psalms 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”
Atheism remains one of the most serious intellectual challenges faced by the contemporary Christian. Despite its obvious scientific and sociological shortcomings, the powerful adherents of this system positioned in influential sectors of society such as government and academia have enshrined this worldview as the official dogma of civilization nearly as stifling as anything allegedly imposed by the medieval Catholic Church.
Yet despite considerable efforts to enforce this system as an orthodoxy that goes so far as to jail students daring to pray around a flagpole, like its sister system in the former Soviet Union, Western atheism is a decaying ideology. It is amid this decay often resulting in social and individual ruin that the Christian is able to proclaim the superiority of the theistic alternative and the God of its adoration.
An article in the leftwing propaganda rag "Sojourners Magazine" titled "Sex Without Shame" fails to mention that the only shameless sex is to be found in marriage between a man and a woman.
The closest the article gets is a tepid "In our churches we need to help younger people...say 'yes' to some shared bodily interactions. As we need to help each other not only just say no, but understand why 'no' or 'not yet' is an appopriate life-giving response to some other options we encounter along our sexual journeys".
Will be interesting to hear additional research on this. At this time, I neither confirm or deny its allegations put merely post to inform readers as to what is perculating out there.
For the unfamiliar, Wallis is one of the subversives manipulating Evangelicalism into embracing a COMMUNITY emphasis which is little more than sugar-coated socialism.
If guns are legal in Arizona, why is this even a story?
If liberals are going to tell us that we cannot criticize the most barbaric practices of the jungle savage because we are not a part of that culture, who are the metropolitican East coast elites to criticize Western frontier values which seem to work a whole lot better than the Big City pro-government mentality?
A study finds that shorter students are "no less popular" than taller ones.
Frankly, from my own experience --- even in a Christian school --- the shorter ones were actually the snottiest brats in the class and were the actual bullies rather than the stouter pupils.
But since chubbier students don't fit in with the plans of New World Order types such as environmentalists, I guess we got what we deserved.
Is Obama going to condemn his allies convetioning in Vegas as he did America's corporate titans. Your not going to tell me Clinton in Sin City is as trustworthy as Billy Graham at a booze factory.
Will the royal family be subject to the same policy or will they require to continue their high meat diet so they can continue their whoremongering debuacheries?
If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.
As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way.
As stated elsewhere within these introductory comments, atheism did not suddenly appear on the doorstep of the twentieth and twenty-first century fully formed demanding things like the removal of school prayer and the enshrinement of evolution as biological dogma. Rather like a weed strangling the other plants around it, today's culture of unbelief sprang from the soil in which it was planted. While atheism can trace its pedigree back throughout much of human history, a number of modern thinkers have ensured this system a place of prominence within the cultural consciousness.
One pivotal intellect laying a foundation for atheism was Ludwig Feuerbach. In "The Essence Of Christianity", Feuerbach set out to undermine the claims of the supernatural by providing religious belief with a naturalistic basis postulating that the idea of God is merely a mental projection of the goodness and nobility residing within man's own bosom (McGrath, 95). Once mankind realizes that there is no transcendent deity to rely on, Feuerbach argued, his sense of alienation could be overcome by reembracing the notions of perfectibility once reserved for God as an integral component of human nature (Lawhead, 399).
Attempting to solidify these claims regarding man's position atop a materialistic universe through a veneer of science was Charles Darwin. According to "The Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy", Darwin was among the first to popularize theories of materialistic gradualism or evolution with a naturalistic mechanism, namely the process of natural selection where adaptations are accumulated in surviving organisms and passed on to succeeding generations (177-179). According to Darwin in "The Origin Of Species", it is through the accumulation of these adaptations in response to varying environmental conditions that biologists find the diverse plethora of organisms that inhabit the earth today. Alister McGrath points out in "Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths" that "The Origin Of Species" and its ensuing theory of evolution was not accepted as much for its scientific insight than for its justification of passionately believed ideological assumptions such as the free trade policies of the English Whig Party, various strands of socialism, and assorted theories regarding the perceived hierarchy of human races and ethnic groups (161).
Standing upon thinkers such as Feuerbach and Darwin who provided atheism with theoretical and allegedly scientific justifications were other formidable intellects pursuing the implications of a social order divorced from the influence of God. One such figure drawing upon the fonts of atheism for such a purpose was Karl Marx.
Marx served as a kind of intellectual middleman between the theoretically-inclined such as Feuerbach and Darwin and the later activists such as Lenin and Mao who would adapt Marx's own writings for the actual political arena. Borrowing from the materialism of Feuerbach, Marx believed that religion and the notion of God were devised by bourgeois elites in order to subjugate the proletarian masses. Borrowing from Darwin's theory of growth through conflict, Marx believed these religious notions would have to be swept away along side with most forms of private property in order to make a way for the pending socialist utopia. Marx's call for action and summary for analysis were sounded in "The Communist Manifesto"; his beliefs received further exposition through the massive "Das Kapital", much of which was compiled by Friedrich Engels after the death of his comrade.
Another prominent twentieth century thinker dedicated to the cause of atheism was Bertrand Russell. Though best remembered in academia as a foremost philosopher of mathematics, it could be argued that Russell's most widespread contribution remains as an influential proponent of applied atheism.
The core of Russell's objections to Christianity can be found in his "Why I Am Not A Christian", which seeks to justify his religious stance as well as highlight the ramifications of such beliefs as epitomized by Russell's sexual ethics sanctioning arrangements such as trial marriages and recreational promiscuity. Russell's views regarding family life were further elaborated upon in "Marriage & Morals", a publication whose radicalism contributed to costing Russell a professorship at the City College Of New York.
Russell's primary intellectual motivation was a burning contempt for God and His divine order for man. This conclusion can be drawn from Russell's social views, which were an eclectic mixture of totalitarian and anarchistic impulses.
On the one hand, Russell supported the establishment of a world government so intrusive it would decree who would be permitted to have children. Yet Russell participated in acts of outright civil disobedience in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, thinking that the modern state had grown too powerful and destructive for mankind's own good.
In most Christian investigations into atheism, it is common to highlight the affinity between contemporary sociopolitical leftism and religious atheism. However, the increasing popularity of intellectual iconoclast Ayn Rand proves that atheism can also serve as a temptation for those more prone to classify themselves as conservatives and libertarians as well.
Calling her philosophy Objectivism, Ayn Rand argued for the primacy of reason and the individual over all other human faculties and institutions, prompting some to characterize Star Trek's Mr. Spock as the embodiment of her worldview. However, in her quest to emancipate humanity from the dangers of totalitarianism, Rand went too far in elevating reason at the expense of faith and by characterizing the living God of the universe as just another dogma bent on enslaving the minds of men not all that unlike Marxist Communism.
Ayn Rand's thoughts find expression in a number of novels and polemical discourses. "Atlas Shrugged" is remembered as Ayn's signature work extolling the virtues of nonconformity and radical individualism in the guise of a novel about an architect bending to no standard but his own. In the novel "We The Living", Rand warns of the dangers posed by collectivism to the well-being of the individual. Rand's nonfiction works include "Philosophy: Who Needs It", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and "The Virtue Of Selfishness".
Of Ayn Rand, it says in "Christianity For The Tough Minded", "her attempt to formulate a philosophy of creative selfishness will make no great impact (227)." Yet her impact cannot be denied be denied as her portrait adorns the walls of the Cato Institute and key national leaders such as former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas count themselves among her admirers.
Looking at the matter from a certain perspective, the beauty and appeal of atheism can be found in its ability to adapt to the needs of those building systems of thought and seeking to justify individual behavioral practices. Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky realized that, if there is no God, anything is possible.
The diminished guilt available through atheism may serve as a greater incentive to those flocking under its banner than any of the answers the system might provide to the universal questions asked by thinking individuals. D. James Kenendy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that Bertrand Russell may have been an atheist as much to ease his conscience regarding his numerous affairs and seductions as out of a desire for alleged rational consistency (173). The idea of God posits the notion that the right to order the moral structure of reality resides in a power beyond the level of the finite individual's control.
And control is the one thing the individual atheist is loathe to relinquish. Though one can't fault her, Ayn Rand was fifty-eight years old before stepping aboard an airplane for fear of giving up control over her own destiny to the pilots and mechanics she claimed possessed a faulty "modern psycho-epistemology" (Branden, "The Passion Of Ayn Rand, 318).
Anarchist Segei Nechayev wrote in "Catechism Of A Revolutionist", "The revolutionist knows only one science, the science of destruction which does not stop at lying, robbery, betrayal and torture of friends, murder of his own family." How much easier it is to topple the tower of morality once its foundation of concrete theism has been removed.
A classic truism teaches that if wishes were horses beggars would ride, and another piece of cherished wisdom reveals wishing for something does not make it so. These same principles apply to the longing for a deity-free universe as expressed by the thinkers profiled throughout this exposition. For even though atheists have gone to considerable lengths to implement their systems, Communists going so far as to slaughter millions of innocent individuals, atheism fails to standup to closer scrutiny on a number of grounds.
If liberals are going to counter that Benjamin Cardoza is not the first "Latin American" justice of the Supreme Court because the Portugese do not count, I hope they will boldly stand up and deny Brazilians coming here Affirmative Action benefits and set asides since they do not qualify then for Hispanic exemptions and set-asides.
As much as he rides this issue, it causes me to wonder if there is some kind of profound unhappiness in the Albert Mohler household.
Has been my experience that the ones that nag single people the most about getting married themselves come from the worst of marriages.
It is like for some reason they have to hound you into their own state of misery.
Interesting how the argument is made to heep condemnation upon the docile and behaved not likely to leave the church rather than those that can't keep their pants on parenting the tidal wave of bastard births sweeping across the landcape.
How about a little more of minding one's own business, Dr. Mohler?
The Mohlerites and Dobsonians lift up as some kind of ideal the past where people married in their early 20's.
Perhaps they would also care to address how many unhappy marriages where formed where the partners would have been better off had they remained single simply because the parties no longer wanted to be snickered at as a fagot or a lesbian even though they were neither of these perversities.
Though it no doubt pains some of the uberpuritanical who crave to control every last detail of those around them, the Bible is remarkably silent as to by what age one MUST be married.
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors have authorized the expansion of the Saudi Islamic Academy.
Shysters on the school's payroll claim the matter was about land use and not curriculum.
Critics of the school claim the institution advocates violence against Jews and Christians, so much so that one valedictorian has been convicted of part of a conspiracy to assasinate George W. Bush.
Though one may believe whatever one wants under the First Amendment, I wonder if the fanatic multiculturalists assenting to this vote would have easily glossed over what this school teaches if the school was run by White folks from the Ku Klux Klan.
Since both the Klan and this school are both alleged to teach violence against Jews, I don't really see all that much difference between then.
More importantly, since it is not a matter of "philosophy", I wonder if the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will be as eager to grant requests made on the part of church groups, or does Christianity just happen to be the wrong religon.
Barack Obama has taken on the role of chief booze peddler. Hoping to smooth over the controversy that has erupted over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, the President has invited the professor and the arresting office to the White House for a beer. Given the professor's temper, is it really a good idea to get him all liquored up?
Henry Louis Gates is hardly the harmless professor the media is making him out to be. Frankly, Gates is to the Ivy League what Jeremiah Wright is to ecclesiastical circles.
At Harvard, Gates is the director of the W.E.B Du Bois Institute for African & African American Research, named after a known Communist. According to a WorldNetDaily profile of this academic subversive, Gates has lured other leftist rabble rousers to campus such as Cornel West and advocates Afrosupremacist positions such as Affirmative Action, reparations, and liberation theology. If one is known for the company one keeps, Americans should be very concerned about what they have let into the White House.
Michael Jackson wanted to be cloned by a UFO cult. According to Jackson's chauffer, the King of Pop became obsessed with creating a duplicate of himself after attending with Uri Geller a conference hosted by Clonaid. Clonaid is the research arm of the Raelians, a sect that believes human beings are the result of extraterrestrial genetic experimentation.
Life is apparently no circus for Ringling Brothers elephants. PETA operatives have obtained footage of handlers allegedly beating their pachyderms as a matter of course rather than when simply out of line.
Hopefully, some as intrepid videographer will capture footage of the mistreatment of animals known to go on at the hands of this animal welfare front group. It has been conjectured that PETA would rather see animals dead than in human hands.
Freedom of thought and descent have been dealt another blow during these days of the Obama regime. According to Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, search engines such as Google are quietly dropping or downplaying links to articles questioning the validity of Obama’s birth certificate.
Some will respond that, as private enterprises, search engines should be able to establish criteria as to what information they will present as legitimate. However, should such a perspective continue to expand, what makes these tactics any more moral than those employed in Communist China were access to certain viewpoints is blocked in the name of the good of the social order?
More importantly, how long will it be until not only access to websites questioning the government disappear but people as well? Certainly an awful lot of trouble to go to if our exalted Caliph has nothing to hide.
Many no doubt think that I have gone too far by insinuating that things may get to the point where those criticizing the government in general and Obama in particular might meet with, shall we say, expedited ends. However, the foundation is now being set to neutralize in an efficiently permanent manner one segment of the population no doubt seen as being an impediment to the kind of policies Obama represents.
Tucked away within the chapters of the Obama Healthcare Bill is a provision for “end of life counseling” referred to as “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. This clause requires the elderly to meet every five years with medical authorities to determine whether or not the individual’s life is worthy of continuation.
Supporters will insist that such an assessment is simply to clarify the patient’s preferences regarding these complicated matters. However, in light of statements made by Obama and a number of his closest advisors, one must ask will medical professionals simply implement the wishes of the patient or rather pressure the patient into complying with the prerogatives of social engineers.
For example, White House Healthcare Policy Advisor Ezekial Emanuel is said to believe that public resources would be better directed towards arts spending than extending the lives of the elderly. Likewise, Obama has suggested the elderly might be just as well off simply given pain medication rather than treatments that might actually improve their conditions.
At the heart of each position is a philosophy known as utilitarianism, which determines an individual’s worth based upon what they contribute or give back to the COMMUNITY. For example, illegal aliens are valuable and deserving of healthcare for their labor as near slaves. Sodomites are valuable to the state because of their deep pockets and for eroding traditional morality and religion.
Conversely, under such a system, it is in the state’s interest to quickly shuttle the elderly out of this life. This is for the following reasons.
For starters, since they are infirm, the elderly are unable to tangibly contribute to society’s perceived economic needs. However, more importantly, the radical statist feels an overwhelming need to eliminate the elderly since, for the most part, as a bloc they represent the greatest opposition to the totalitarian agenda.
Even though I am still a relatively young man, I remember several years back receiving a comment over something I had written where the commenter remarked that they were glad people like me were eventually dying out. Before it is all over with, don’t be surprised if the healthcare you end up receiving is proportionally linked to your support of an Obamaist agenda.
