Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Blacks Riot To Avoid Going To School With Other Blacks
Yet we Whites are expected to have a smile plastered across our faces over such a scholastic prospect.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Glenn Beck Announces He Might Be Going Blind
No doubt the same liberals who insist that you undermine the Republic and promote racism if you consider Obama anything other than lord and savior will no doubt ridicule this they way they mocked Tony Snow's cancer.
Obama Spends Tax Dollars To Establish Abortion & Islamic Law In Kenya
And bet you the abortions aren't targetting the Muslims.
Monday, July 19, 2010
If Glenn Beck correctly points out the similarities between Obama's policies and Communism and Nazism, then why is it wrong for a group of Tea Party activists to do so with a billboard? Guess Tea Party luminaries don't think you should be permitted to exercise your own free thought and speech until you are a Fox News millionaire as well.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Just learned from a Christian Reconstructionist how we are never to go through an emotionally down period about anything. So, if their ilk ever siezed power, not only will we have to hold membership in their Calvinistic churches in order to enjoy the rights of citizenship, I guess they will send "happy police" around ...to ascertain if the smiles plastered across our faces are irritatingly broad enough.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Congress Threatens To Raise Retirement Age
Yet their own lavish retirement benefits will no doubt remain uncut even though most are already millionaires to begin with.
A percentage of hardcore fundamentalists condemn Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" as a graven image because the actor portraying the title role isn't really Jesus. If so, wouldn't it also be idolatry to have a dramatic reading of the words of Jesus or to even read the text aloud in the privacy of one's own home because the voice enunciating the words isn't really the voice of Christ?
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Boycott The Boycotters
Most Americans are no doubt aware of the tragedy of the oil slick coating the Gulf Coast from the damaged petroleum rig. What they might not be aware of is the attitude among elites of how we as citizens and consumers are simply to go along with whatever position they craft as a response regarding the matter.
A headline from the 5/25/10 online edition of the Washington Post bemoans "For Some Washington Drivers, Convenience Outweighs Calls For BP Gas Boycott”. The story laments the tendency of certain consumers who “...prioritize convenience over taking a moral or political stand.”
For starters, in this day where it is constantly pounded into our heads that no one is to impose their views on any one else or to even dare to suggest that certain values might be superior to others, on what grounds are we expected to do something because someone with no real binding authority over us tells us to?
Many of the rabblerousers behind the BP boycott are some of the same nags behind the boycott of the state of Arizona regarding the immigration law. Yet these crusaders would turn around and become moral libertines if some pro-family coalition organized a boycott of states such as Vermont authorizing sodomite matrimony.
In all fairness, busybody progressives are not the only ones to use boycotts not so much in pursuit of a policy objective but rather to exert power and control over their respective constituencies.
I remember in the early 90’s in some Christian circles how an edict was handed down how the truly spiritual wouldn’t shop at K-Mart because at the time its B. Dalton Booksellers subsidiary was selling a line of erotic novels. From the vehemence behind the pronouncement, one almost feared the possibility of expulsion from the more doctrinally rigorous Christian schools if it was discovered that was where one’s parents shopped every once in a while.
It is a good thing to have as much information as possible as to the implications of one’s socioeconomic decisions. However, when an interest group advances beyond the function of conveying information regarding a perfectly legal and acceptable product to demanding that a certain action be taken in response to the purveyors of the product for reasons tangential rather than inherent to the particular product in question and threaten with sanction or approbation those deciding not to go along with the particular campaign, the group presenting the overly enthusiastic warning may also require additional scrutiny as a threat to our liberty.
by Frederick Meekins
A headline from the 5/25/10 online edition of the Washington Post bemoans "For Some Washington Drivers, Convenience Outweighs Calls For BP Gas Boycott”. The story laments the tendency of certain consumers who “...prioritize convenience over taking a moral or political stand.”
For starters, in this day where it is constantly pounded into our heads that no one is to impose their views on any one else or to even dare to suggest that certain values might be superior to others, on what grounds are we expected to do something because someone with no real binding authority over us tells us to?
Many of the rabblerousers behind the BP boycott are some of the same nags behind the boycott of the state of Arizona regarding the immigration law. Yet these crusaders would turn around and become moral libertines if some pro-family coalition organized a boycott of states such as Vermont authorizing sodomite matrimony.
In all fairness, busybody progressives are not the only ones to use boycotts not so much in pursuit of a policy objective but rather to exert power and control over their respective constituencies.
I remember in the early 90’s in some Christian circles how an edict was handed down how the truly spiritual wouldn’t shop at K-Mart because at the time its B. Dalton Booksellers subsidiary was selling a line of erotic novels. From the vehemence behind the pronouncement, one almost feared the possibility of expulsion from the more doctrinally rigorous Christian schools if it was discovered that was where one’s parents shopped every once in a while.
It is a good thing to have as much information as possible as to the implications of one’s socioeconomic decisions. However, when an interest group advances beyond the function of conveying information regarding a perfectly legal and acceptable product to demanding that a certain action be taken in response to the purveyors of the product for reasons tangential rather than inherent to the particular product in question and threaten with sanction or approbation those deciding not to go along with the particular campaign, the group presenting the overly enthusiastic warning may also require additional scrutiny as a threat to our liberty.
by Frederick Meekins
Before denouncing the Tea Party movement as racist, shouldn't the NAACP expunge this epistemological tendency within itself. Is its "One Nation" counter rally going to renounce minority set asides and the denigration of White folks as epitomized by the Black Panther terrorists that Eric Holder let off scott free?
Monday, July 12, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Friday, July 09, 2010
Illegal Boatpeople Now Referred To As "Seafaring Immigrants"
Makes them sound like the Phonecian mariners of the ancient Mediterranean
Many Disability Pensions Faked
If they want to be treated like everybody else, why shouldn't cripples pay taxes as well?
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
The Bronx Turned Into A Mexican Ghetto
Though the word "decline" would make for a more dramatic headline, that part of the city was never much to begin with.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Because the California State Legislature has failed to pass a budget, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has reduced the salaries of state employee’s to minimum wage levels. In turn, will the mandatory employee contributions to their assorted benefit programs be reduced accordingly? Furthermore, if an employee is to have their salary reduced to minimal levels, they should in turn put in the minimal effort.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Lessons In Apologetics #2: Rationalism & Fideism
The next epistemological methodology is rationalism. Of rationalism, Geisler writes, "Rationalism is characterized by its stress on the innate a priori ability of human reason to know truth. Basically, rationalists hold that what is knowable or demonstrable by human reason is true (29)." To the rationalist, the mind takes precedence over experience and the information acquired through the senses as a foundation for truth and knowledge.
In a rationalist methodology, there exists in the mind a number of innate ideas or principles that allow the individual to arrive at an understanding of the universe. These include principles of logic such as the law of noncontradiction. It is from contemplation upon ideas generated through reflection upon such foundational principles that the thinker is able to postulate systems of truth in a manner reminiscent of mathematics and geometry.
For example, in his system, Descartes started from his "cogito, ergo, sum (I think, therefore I am)" as his ability to doubt was the one thing he could not doubt. From here, Descartes built a theistic proof.
Descartes begins this with the admission that, since he lacks knowledge, he is imperfect. However, to realize one is imperfect, one must have knowledge that perfection exists. Yet perfection cannot arise from within the imperfect. Therefore, there must be a perfect mind from which perfection originates and this is God (31).
An apologetic utilizing the rationalist approach possesses a number of strengths as well as drawbacks. As to its strengths, the rationalist method stresses a consistency of reality.
It follows that a rational God would create a universe that regularly operates in accord with verifiable laws that we as His creations would be able to arrive at through deliberative contemplation. As rationalists posit, the mind to an extent must possess some kind of mental architecture to process the jumble of sense experiences the individual is bombarded with almost constantly. Even Scripture indicates that part of man's knowledge regarding God and His character is innate as Romans says that even the Gentiles, who were not formally given the Law in the same direct manner as their Hebrew counterparts, still had many aspects of the Law written upon their hearts.
Despite the strengths of the rationalist approach to apologetics, the methodology is not without drawbacks. The foremost is the acknowledgement that it can be argued that the rationally consistent does not always translate into the realm of necessarily actual and does not provide the bedrock certainty its advocates claim. For example, regarding the ontological argument, Geisler notes, "But it is not logically necessary for a necessary Being to exist anymore than it is for a triangle to exist...But the point here is that there is no purely logical way to eliminate the 'if' (43)."
Of the next religious epistemology, fideism, Geisler writes, "In view of the fact that empiricism led to skepticism...and that rationalism cannot rationally demonstrate its first principles, fideism becomes a more reliable option in religious epistemology. Perhaps there is no rational or evidential way to establish Christianity (47)." Thus fideism holds that truth in religious matters rests on an accepting faith rather than a critical scrutiny.
As with the other methodologies, fideism comes in a variety shades. On its more moderate side, one finds Blaise Pascal. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, one would find the likes of Karl Barth.
As a fideist, one might find Pascal a bit subdued. Though one would assume reason had no place in fideism, Pascal did not dismiss rational appeals outright. He just did not build his foundation or case upon them. Of Pascal's position, Geisler writes, "A proof at best may be the instrument by which God places faith in one's heart (49)."
Thus, the real difference between Pascal and the rationalist was basically a differing estimation in what each thought reason could achieve. To the rationalist, the thinker is able to deduce their way to a logically irrefutable foundation for a belief in God. To Pascal, such proofs were not absolutely conclusive and the chasm separating doubt and certainty had to be crossed by a bridge of faith.
Since at best, in the mind of Pascal, the individual is left with a fifty/fifty chance regarding the existence of God, the matter did not come down to a dispassionate calculation but rather to a matter of personal existential destiny best summarized by his famous wager (49). According to this wager, if the odds as to whether or not God exists are about even, one is better off believing God exists and then be proven wrong since upon death you would merely pass out of existence than to say God does not exist and then be proven wrong upon death as then one would end up in Hell.
At the other end of fideism's spectrum stands the Neo-Orthodox such as Karl Barth. According to Barth, God is "wholly other" in that God can only be known through faith in revelation. Geisler summarizes Barth's position as such: "We do not know the Bible is God's Word by any objective evidence. It is a self-attesting truth (54)." Thus to the Barthian, the accounts contained in the Bible transpired on a plane beyond the parameters of objective, investigative history. One either accepts them by faith or one does not. Therefore, the believer does not have to answer and is immune from those such as the Higher Critics claiming to apply the rigors of scholarship to the scriptural texts in the hopes of either authenticating or discrediting these documents.
As with rationalism, fideism has both strengths and drawbacks. Fideists are to be commended for holding that the God of the Bible is much more than the God of mathematics. Though there is merit in the attempt to prove that belief in God does not violate reason and logic, there is a great danger in reducing God to the level of a distant first cause not all that interested in how human beings live their daily lives. Fidesits are also correct that ultimately, no matter how much evidence one might collect or how many syllogisms one might be able to deduce, one has to make a leap of faith over those gaps of doubt that remain no matter how small they might be.
Yet despite the strength of their methodology, it has shortcomings as well. Foremostly, fideism makes it very difficult to engage in a debate or discussion with someone holding to another worldview if one must accept a comprehensive system of faith solely by faith without evaluating between them with some agreed upon criteria. Geisler writes, "...either a fideist offers a justification for his belief or else he does not. If he does not, then as unjustified belief it has no rightful claim to knowledge (63)."
Source:
Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
by Frederick Meekins
In a rationalist methodology, there exists in the mind a number of innate ideas or principles that allow the individual to arrive at an understanding of the universe. These include principles of logic such as the law of noncontradiction. It is from contemplation upon ideas generated through reflection upon such foundational principles that the thinker is able to postulate systems of truth in a manner reminiscent of mathematics and geometry.
For example, in his system, Descartes started from his "cogito, ergo, sum (I think, therefore I am)" as his ability to doubt was the one thing he could not doubt. From here, Descartes built a theistic proof.
Descartes begins this with the admission that, since he lacks knowledge, he is imperfect. However, to realize one is imperfect, one must have knowledge that perfection exists. Yet perfection cannot arise from within the imperfect. Therefore, there must be a perfect mind from which perfection originates and this is God (31).
An apologetic utilizing the rationalist approach possesses a number of strengths as well as drawbacks. As to its strengths, the rationalist method stresses a consistency of reality.
It follows that a rational God would create a universe that regularly operates in accord with verifiable laws that we as His creations would be able to arrive at through deliberative contemplation. As rationalists posit, the mind to an extent must possess some kind of mental architecture to process the jumble of sense experiences the individual is bombarded with almost constantly. Even Scripture indicates that part of man's knowledge regarding God and His character is innate as Romans says that even the Gentiles, who were not formally given the Law in the same direct manner as their Hebrew counterparts, still had many aspects of the Law written upon their hearts.
Despite the strengths of the rationalist approach to apologetics, the methodology is not without drawbacks. The foremost is the acknowledgement that it can be argued that the rationally consistent does not always translate into the realm of necessarily actual and does not provide the bedrock certainty its advocates claim. For example, regarding the ontological argument, Geisler notes, "But it is not logically necessary for a necessary Being to exist anymore than it is for a triangle to exist...But the point here is that there is no purely logical way to eliminate the 'if' (43)."
Of the next religious epistemology, fideism, Geisler writes, "In view of the fact that empiricism led to skepticism...and that rationalism cannot rationally demonstrate its first principles, fideism becomes a more reliable option in religious epistemology. Perhaps there is no rational or evidential way to establish Christianity (47)." Thus fideism holds that truth in religious matters rests on an accepting faith rather than a critical scrutiny.
As with the other methodologies, fideism comes in a variety shades. On its more moderate side, one finds Blaise Pascal. At the more extreme end of the spectrum, one would find the likes of Karl Barth.
As a fideist, one might find Pascal a bit subdued. Though one would assume reason had no place in fideism, Pascal did not dismiss rational appeals outright. He just did not build his foundation or case upon them. Of Pascal's position, Geisler writes, "A proof at best may be the instrument by which God places faith in one's heart (49)."
Thus, the real difference between Pascal and the rationalist was basically a differing estimation in what each thought reason could achieve. To the rationalist, the thinker is able to deduce their way to a logically irrefutable foundation for a belief in God. To Pascal, such proofs were not absolutely conclusive and the chasm separating doubt and certainty had to be crossed by a bridge of faith.
Since at best, in the mind of Pascal, the individual is left with a fifty/fifty chance regarding the existence of God, the matter did not come down to a dispassionate calculation but rather to a matter of personal existential destiny best summarized by his famous wager (49). According to this wager, if the odds as to whether or not God exists are about even, one is better off believing God exists and then be proven wrong since upon death you would merely pass out of existence than to say God does not exist and then be proven wrong upon death as then one would end up in Hell.
At the other end of fideism's spectrum stands the Neo-Orthodox such as Karl Barth. According to Barth, God is "wholly other" in that God can only be known through faith in revelation. Geisler summarizes Barth's position as such: "We do not know the Bible is God's Word by any objective evidence. It is a self-attesting truth (54)." Thus to the Barthian, the accounts contained in the Bible transpired on a plane beyond the parameters of objective, investigative history. One either accepts them by faith or one does not. Therefore, the believer does not have to answer and is immune from those such as the Higher Critics claiming to apply the rigors of scholarship to the scriptural texts in the hopes of either authenticating or discrediting these documents.
As with rationalism, fideism has both strengths and drawbacks. Fideists are to be commended for holding that the God of the Bible is much more than the God of mathematics. Though there is merit in the attempt to prove that belief in God does not violate reason and logic, there is a great danger in reducing God to the level of a distant first cause not all that interested in how human beings live their daily lives. Fidesits are also correct that ultimately, no matter how much evidence one might collect or how many syllogisms one might be able to deduce, one has to make a leap of faith over those gaps of doubt that remain no matter how small they might be.
Yet despite the strength of their methodology, it has shortcomings as well. Foremostly, fideism makes it very difficult to engage in a debate or discussion with someone holding to another worldview if one must accept a comprehensive system of faith solely by faith without evaluating between them with some agreed upon criteria. Geisler writes, "...either a fideist offers a justification for his belief or else he does not. If he does not, then as unjustified belief it has no rightful claim to knowledge (63)."
Source:
Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Was pointed out on this week's MacLaughlin Group that eventually Social Security cards will be required to contain finger prints and retinal scan. Why not include an anal smear as well? Interesting how Americans will be forced to comply with this but the nation is on the verge of a civil war simply because one state has enacted a law requiring those apprehended by police produce documentation proving they are in the country legally.
Was a hardbutt vet on NatGeoWild's "Swamp Men". Didn't tell the wildlife refuge rescuer that the owl was put down until after the fact without consulting them. Since the government, especially the Obama Administration, doesn't see you as much above an animal, once his healthcare reform kicks into high gear, that's the way doctors and medical bureaucrats are going to treat our loved-ones and elderly.
Friday, July 02, 2010
The American Bar Association has denounced the Arizona Immigration Law as "racist". Isn't it logically inconsistent for this group of lawyers to come out in opposition to a statute saying who is allowed to be in America and what documentation validates that status while that guild promulgates regulations saying who can practice law and the paperwork governing such?
The American Bar Association has denounced the Arizona Immigration Law as "racist". Isn't it logically inconsistent for this group of lawyers to come out in opposition to a statute saying who is allowed to be in America and what documentation validates that status while that guild promulgates regulations saying who can practice law and the paperwork governing such?
McLaren is a nut. In his interview on Issues Etc, he characterized purchasing food in a grocerry store as being complicit in cultural accomodation. Though his Burtonsville compound is in what was once the more rural suburbs of the DC area, it doesn't exactly look to be self sustainining nor McLaren a burly agricultural type.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 2
In "Into The Heart Of Darkness, Part 1", I examined the Black liberation theology of Jeremiah Wright and how the leftist radicalism at the heart of this worldview serves as the foundation of the belief system of President Barack Obama and forms the basis of many of his policies. And even though Obama claims to have renounced his connections to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, since Obama sat under this pastor for nearly 20 years and continues to advocate these kinds of policies, it is obvious Obama has not distanced himself from sociopolitical radicalism to the extent he claims he has.
Even if Obama is successful in tossing under the rug the insinuations of having embraced Afrosupremacist theology, he has gone out of his way repeatedly to let the world know he spent the early years of his career as a community organizer. Obama supporters would have average Americans believe that this position involved little more than getting the plumbing fixed in rundown apartments or organizing senior citizens outings to the local supermarket for the elderly without their own transportation.
While these are laudable undertakings, these tasks do not encapsulate the true purposes and intents of community organizing. These are just the bait to lure the needy yet unsuspecting into deeper levels of manipulation.
Though Barack Obama looked to Jeremiah Wright to provide a theological foundation for his ambitions and life's work, the danger the President represents goes beyond even the vile message propagated by his religious mentor. For despite his egregious faults, one has to hand it to Jeremiah Wright that at least he is upfront about what he believes and speaks his mind.
Obama's apostles have tried to place their liege's hallowed past beyond the realm of critical scrutiny by insinuating it is now racist to look into what exactly community organizing is and that Jesus Himself was one. However, it is anything but holy and norhing whatsoever to do with race.
At its heart, community organizing is about Communist agitation. In a National Review article titled "What Did Obama Do As A Community Organizer", Byron York defines community organizing as "the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population...and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem often by giving the affected group money."
It sounds like such an approach is morally neutral as it doesn't differ on the surface all that much from the tactics employed by any group along the political spectrum. However, in the case of Barack Obama, this strategy would be used to implement the kinds of things he learned from Jeremiah Wright and the other acolytes of perdictious revolution.
The school of activism with which Obama aligned himself employed such tactics in pursuits of obviously radical leftist ends. Obama's employer the Calumet Community Religious Conference embraced the doctrines of Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky's magnum opus Rules For Radicals is dedicated to none other than Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness. Thus, if Obama was mentored by those who in turn took their inspiration from the devil, by definition, doesn't that make Obama none other than Satan's intellectual grandchild?
The original purpose of the Church was to use its resources to assist the individual to get their lives straightened out in the name and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, under the rubric of social organizing, we are to no longer view ourselves as responsible for ourselves but instead as part of a COMMUNITY and with docility take commands and instructions from those that have set themselves up as the vanguard of the proletariat who are not bound by the restrictions placed upon we lower breeds of humanity.
This is seen in terms of the denigration of American icon John Wayne. In most of his films, John Wayne portrayed characters that looked to their own moral wherewithal or their families to solve their own problems. Such thinking that is nowadays mocked used to be admired as self-reliance. In the worldview of Barack Obama, we are to have both our guns and our God wrest from us and are instead to look to the state for purpose and to solve our problems as epitomized by his remark that he wanted to “make government cool again”.
Though he may not say it directly, but by examining what Obama says and in analyzing it in light of its implications and how he himself lives, one can legitimately conclude that this would-be messiah thinks that you exist for the benefit of the state and those like himself better than you. For example, at the cornerstone of Obama’s social philosophy is the plan to reduce the standard and quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. In May 2008 in a speech in Oregon, Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”
Does the average American really comprehend the level of control being proposed here? Why in the name of perdition does anyone want a president that thinks it is his place to tell you what to drive, what you can eat, and how warm you can keep your house? For any government that can tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home to that extent will eventually no longer permit you to live in your own home for reasons of national security, environmental sustainability, or whatever other bogus excuse will be bandied about the day the mass roundups start.
Even worse, Obama does not live by the standard he thinks out to be imposed upon you. For while you are not to eat anything not on a government approved menu or go anywhere beyond the radius one can travel by unicycle or pogostick, Obama does not sit home in the dark, shivering with a blanket draped over his shoulders, munching on saltines.
The environment is no where near the point of collapse that he wants you to be duped into believing. One of the places Obama vacations is the U.S. Virgin Islands. Though some esteem Obama with an almost messianic aura and he has come close to applying such rhetoric to himself in prattle about turning back the seas and such, I some how doubt he walked to that particular destination.
Yet it is not enough for Obama that your life comes to a screeching halt to assuage the environmental consciences of big shot liberals such as himself and Al Gore (who has obviously been eating whatever he wants since leaving the Vice Presidency). Obama also wants your life regimented and under close government scrutiny.
According to the sacred Barack, it is not enough for the average citizen to mind their own business and take care of one’s own family. Rather, one must surrender oneself to the will of the group or the COMMUNITY.
As the next stage of the liberation theology he sat under for nearly 20 years in the church overseen by Jeremiah Wright, Obama postulated in a commencement address at Wesleyan University in June 2008 that “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” This is quite revealing as to the underlying religious orientation of this particular president.
In traditional Biblical theology, salvation is a state of grace or unmerited favor imputed to the INDIVIDUAL pardoning one from the penalty for sin because it the individual that must believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who lived the perfect life we could not, died, and shed His blood as the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead that we have eternal life. However, to Barack Obama, salvation is not about an eternal reward for loving Jesus with one’s mind, body, and soul; rather salvation to Barack Obama is about conformity to the group. You, as a distinct consciousness, do not matter all that much.
This is evident in both Obama's policy proposals as well as in his disdain for the behavioral principles underlying the moral code based in Scripture that prevents some of man's tendencies from degenerating into tyrannical anarchy or collectivism if these desires become unshackled from the realist perspective that man is a sinner and still hears sin’s siren call even when forgiven and redeemed through the shed blood of Christ.
To prevent the masses of the Biblically illiterate from being swept away by Obama’s rhetorical manipulations, Dr. James Dobson spoke out against some of the secular messiah’s misinterpretations of the Good Book. Falling for some of the hype that he’s the best thing since Jesus Christ and actually the Lord’s replacement in the hearts of many, Obama has proceeded to inform the rest of us which parts of his “predecessor’s” Word may apply in the new “AB” era, as some have suggested all of history now be divided between before and after Obama.
Without a more careful exegesis into and research of the Biblical text, the holy Obama concluded that, if one thinks that prohibitions against homosexuality still apply today, than those against the consumption of shellfish still apply as well. In response, according to a 6/24/08 Associated Press article titled “Obama: Dobson Is Making Stuff Up With Bible Criticism”, Dobson dared to say of Obama’s assertion, “I think he’s [Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”
Dobson’s opinion is actually closer to the historic Christian position. Most denominations and theologians claim that the majority of Israelite dietary guidelines do not apply to the Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles because these restrictions were not reiterated in the New Testament and in fact were set aside in various passages.
For example, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus Himself assures that that one is not defiled by what goes into one’s mouth but rather by what comes out of it. And in Acts 10, the Apostle Peter is told in a vision to deliberately eat of an animal said to be ceremonially unclean. If the act of eating a particular kind of animal was in and of itself immoral and sinful, would the God of the universe have given instructions to have done so?
The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Nowhere are the Old Testament injunctions labeling the practice as wrong rescinded in the New and in fact they are reemphasized in passages such as Romans 1 and included in a list of offences barring their perpetrators from entering Heaven if one does not seek forgiveness for them through the shed blood of Christ.
And contrary to all the sissies in a hissy over Rick Warren offering the inauguration prayer because Warren did not endorse the notion of gay marriage, insisting that this lifestyle is wrong does not mean that those falling into this temptation will be rounded up and sent to prison (though a percentage would probably enjoy that) or be put to death. It could be argued that Jesus softened the penalty for the transgressions of the lustful flesh.
Though Jesus was merciful He nevertheless retained the position that what the women at the well did was sin by telling her to sin no more. Today, those wanting to air their dirty laundry with pride rather than keeping it between only God and themselves as those with a tender conscience would prefer, vociferously insist that what they have done isn’t even sin.
And in the eyes of mystical humanists such as Obama and his ministerial supporters in the Order of the Scarlet Woman, this is the area in which Dobson has done something unforgivable. Dobson has held on to the notion that sin, in its most basic form, is an individual act.
According to Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who basically endorsed Obama for no other reason than that Obama is Black as before Caldwell supported George W. Bush, said Dobson was “a bit over the top”, and “crossed the line”. More importantly, Caldwell admonished, “There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking. So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable.”
Ladies and gentlemen, what is being called for here is an abridgement of the fundamental constitutional liberties of anyone daring to disagree with or even question the new messiah. For while Dr. Dobson has been told to essentially sit down and shut up, a cabal of leftwing clerics of which Cadwell has been numbered established a website called JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. Examining the groups fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding the new social gospel that elevates the group above the individual.
For example, the website proclaimed regarding Dobson, “He doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide.” Let’s look at this for a moment.
Aren’t Obama, his false prophet Jeremiah Wight, and lesser luminaries such as Rev. Caldwell each riding the coattails of each using religion to divide? For crying out loud, the Black liberation theology expounded by Jeremiah Wright thinks God doesn’t even love you if you are White.
Furthermore, who says religion is not meant to divide? While Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, there are just as many other passages informing us that Christ came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff.
Also, interesting, isn’t it, how in the coming together in unity that it is those holding to a traditional understanding of Biblical morality that are to compromise their standards rather than those who fall short of these principles and from then on strive to elevate their conduct?
As the declaration points out, “What does speak for me is David’s Psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity.” That is true, but in order to unite, there must be considerable agreement as to what principles one is going to unite around. Of those with whom one disagrees considerably, the Bible commands, “Come from out among them and be ye separate.”
The declaration continues, “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack; He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his neighbors’ views when they don’t line up with his.”
As noted earlier, by criticizing Dobson’s criticizing, aren’t they themselves guilty of criticizing? Did not the holy Barack partake of the same act?
What if Dobson's neighbor was a vile skinhead that plucked the eyes out of newborn kittens? Is Dobson just suppose to sit their and not say anything about this ethical transgression as well if we are to take the mutated uncontextualized version of judge not to its ultimate conclusion?
Contrary to the Obamaist declaration, Dobson does not confine the values of faith to two or three issues. First off, Focus on the Family is not a church.
Thus, the organization does not necessarily have the same spiritual mandate to address to the same extent the totality of existence of life that God's sacred assembly has been called to. Yet that said, Focus on the Family addresses a wider array of issues and concerns than these liberal Black churches that have for the most part confined their message to propagating the blame Whitey mentality of whom Republicans and Conservatives rank their primary targets.
From the tone of the declaration, Dobson stands accused of not seeking justice, encouraging the oppressed, or defending the cause of the vulnerable. Yet when Dobson rises to do so, these collared hypocrites accuse him of reducing the faith to two or three issues and not working to restore what is broken in our communities. If the efforts of Focus on the Family have been reduced to two or three issues, it is only because that apostates like Obama and his supporters have focused their war against Christ and the Bible towards a few central cultural pillars in the hopes of causing the entire edifice of our heritage of liberty to implode in upon itself.
Unable to speak or act on their own behalf, who is more than the unborn that the babykillers can’t wait to hack apart with their meat cleavers? What institution is more vulnerable than the contemporary family with the assorted threats out to achieve its abolition through easy divorce, its dilution through its alleged recognized extension to homosexuals, and through the proliferation of government programs that make parents of both sexes feel either redundant in the case of men as providers or obsolete in the case of work at home mothers.
Leftist clergy drone on and on about the beauty of religious unity and cooperation. However, if they are going to embrace practices such as infanticide and sodomite nuptials as good and positive things, one might as well toss the Bible in the paper shredder and sleep in Sunday morning. Under such a worldview, nothing is wrong anymore and you might as well do whatever the Sheol you please.
Under the Obama regime, while your obligation to God might be diminished, don’t think you are going to slide by on easy street in terms of guilt being toned down. Rather a whole new litany of demands will be placed upon an otherwise productive citizen.
In commencement addresses given in both 2008 and 2009, Obama repeatedly called for a renewed spirit of national service. To most Americans accustomed to working for what they have, on the surface this may sound like little more than what they are already doing. However, the plans go much shockingly further.
In the free market economy of the United States, the individual offers some kind of commodity --- be it labor, a tangible good produced, brainpower, or time --- in exchange for monetary compensation. And though the system is not perfect, the higher the participant rises in the system, the greater the rewarding compensation one is able to accrue.
However, that may come to a screeching halt if our Seigneur and Chief gets to have his way. For in his worldview, no longer will it be enough to strive within the rules to get the things one wants. Rather in a manner not unlike a medieval manor, if the New World Order advocated by a succession of presidents each in their own way with distinctive emphases comes to pass, you will be bound to the same occupational station and residential area not until you as a free person decides to change it but rather until those higher up the system decide to amend such biographical characteristics.
In his 2008 commencement address, Obama said, “There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things our money, culture says, you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”
Obama cites as precedent his own case where he took a position as a community organizer making $12,000 per year while driving a $2,000 car. But whereas you are suppose to remain content at a life of minimal toil, since Obama has always been in his own mind the man who would be king, he was always entitled to possess so much more.
According to an Investor’s Business Daily article posted at Yahoo News on 6/2/2008 titled “Living On Obama’s Collective Farm", Obama made over $4 million that year. But I guess that’s what it takes to keep a ball-and-chain like Michelle in $500 athletic shoes far uglier than my $20 K-Mart ones and $5000 handbags (a good used automobile doesn’t cost much more than that).
From comparing these dichotomies, one can conclude that Obama does not really care so much about the poor. Rather, in true Alinskyite fashion, he sees those in such circumstances as pawns to agitate into a froth through which to seize power and advance his own status. If it had meant a life of toil and anonymity as it does for most dedicating their lives to uplifting the poverty-stricken, would Obama have even pursued this path in his early career?
As to whether or not Obama will allow participation in national service to remain an individual choice is open to interpretation. In the 2008 address, Obama went on to say, “On the big issues that our nation faces, difficult choices await. We’ll have to face some hard truths, and some sacrifice will be required --- not only from you individually, but from the nation as a whole.” But in light of $5000 handbags, weekend jaunts onboard Air Force I to Broadway plays, and pizza chefs flown in from the Midwest to appease a gastronomical hankering, that call does not apply to his highness of course.
Often, those without an inclination towards politics shrug their shoulders at these grandiose pronouncements and go about their business thinking that those in authority won't go much beyond the stage of public elocution. However, this time around such disengaged citizens might not be so insightful.
The President's ball-and-chain Michelle said in a campaign speech, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone...Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Listen up, you battle ax, I'll be as cynical as I want to be. Your hubby might have been a Professor of Constitutional Law, but apparently he was as dedicated to that occupational station as he was to his seat in the Illinois State House, where he regularly and decisively voted “present, and to the U.S. Senate, where his attendance was shoddy at best as he merely used that office to campaign for the presidency and to pull down a hefty paycheck while doing it.
The First Amendment protects the rights of the individual to believe whatever they want and to enunciate their opinion as to the actions and motivations of the nation’s leaders. This includes saying that these politicians are little more than frauds. Any legislation or executive order to the contrary is an infringement of this Constitutional protection.
And as to being isolated and in one’s “comfort zone”, so long as one pays their bills and stays to themselves, they have the right to be every bit of a hermit as they want to be. Until any President can lock down the border and prevent illegal aliens from violating the territorial integrity of the United States, the Chief Executive has so failed in his fundamental responsibility that he ant those that work beneath him should have no spare time whatsoever to be concerned with how I spend my own time.
Though the discerning might have to weave the disparate fragments together into a complete tapestry, the minions of despotism and iniquity are so full of themselves that they cannot resist scattering crumbs and often wholesale cognitive meals detailing their intentions to destroy liberty and reduce the population to the level of modern day serfs. Shame is, the election of Barack Obama is proof how a significant percentage of the American people would rather ignore the harsh realties staring them right in the face.
by Frederick Meekins
Even if Obama is successful in tossing under the rug the insinuations of having embraced Afrosupremacist theology, he has gone out of his way repeatedly to let the world know he spent the early years of his career as a community organizer. Obama supporters would have average Americans believe that this position involved little more than getting the plumbing fixed in rundown apartments or organizing senior citizens outings to the local supermarket for the elderly without their own transportation.
While these are laudable undertakings, these tasks do not encapsulate the true purposes and intents of community organizing. These are just the bait to lure the needy yet unsuspecting into deeper levels of manipulation.
Though Barack Obama looked to Jeremiah Wright to provide a theological foundation for his ambitions and life's work, the danger the President represents goes beyond even the vile message propagated by his religious mentor. For despite his egregious faults, one has to hand it to Jeremiah Wright that at least he is upfront about what he believes and speaks his mind.
Obama's apostles have tried to place their liege's hallowed past beyond the realm of critical scrutiny by insinuating it is now racist to look into what exactly community organizing is and that Jesus Himself was one. However, it is anything but holy and norhing whatsoever to do with race.
At its heart, community organizing is about Communist agitation. In a National Review article titled "What Did Obama Do As A Community Organizer", Byron York defines community organizing as "the practice of identifying a specific aggrieved population...and agitating them until they become so upset about their condition that they take collective action to put pressure on local, state, or federal officials to fix the problem often by giving the affected group money."
It sounds like such an approach is morally neutral as it doesn't differ on the surface all that much from the tactics employed by any group along the political spectrum. However, in the case of Barack Obama, this strategy would be used to implement the kinds of things he learned from Jeremiah Wright and the other acolytes of perdictious revolution.
The school of activism with which Obama aligned himself employed such tactics in pursuits of obviously radical leftist ends. Obama's employer the Calumet Community Religious Conference embraced the doctrines of Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky's magnum opus Rules For Radicals is dedicated to none other than Lucifer, the Prince of Darkness. Thus, if Obama was mentored by those who in turn took their inspiration from the devil, by definition, doesn't that make Obama none other than Satan's intellectual grandchild?
The original purpose of the Church was to use its resources to assist the individual to get their lives straightened out in the name and power of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, under the rubric of social organizing, we are to no longer view ourselves as responsible for ourselves but instead as part of a COMMUNITY and with docility take commands and instructions from those that have set themselves up as the vanguard of the proletariat who are not bound by the restrictions placed upon we lower breeds of humanity.
This is seen in terms of the denigration of American icon John Wayne. In most of his films, John Wayne portrayed characters that looked to their own moral wherewithal or their families to solve their own problems. Such thinking that is nowadays mocked used to be admired as self-reliance. In the worldview of Barack Obama, we are to have both our guns and our God wrest from us and are instead to look to the state for purpose and to solve our problems as epitomized by his remark that he wanted to “make government cool again”.
Though he may not say it directly, but by examining what Obama says and in analyzing it in light of its implications and how he himself lives, one can legitimately conclude that this would-be messiah thinks that you exist for the benefit of the state and those like himself better than you. For example, at the cornerstone of Obama’s social philosophy is the plan to reduce the standard and quality of life for the vast majority of Americans. In May 2008 in a speech in Oregon, Obama said, “We can’t drive our SUV’s and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times.”
Does the average American really comprehend the level of control being proposed here? Why in the name of perdition does anyone want a president that thinks it is his place to tell you what to drive, what you can eat, and how warm you can keep your house? For any government that can tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home to that extent will eventually no longer permit you to live in your own home for reasons of national security, environmental sustainability, or whatever other bogus excuse will be bandied about the day the mass roundups start.
Even worse, Obama does not live by the standard he thinks out to be imposed upon you. For while you are not to eat anything not on a government approved menu or go anywhere beyond the radius one can travel by unicycle or pogostick, Obama does not sit home in the dark, shivering with a blanket draped over his shoulders, munching on saltines.
The environment is no where near the point of collapse that he wants you to be duped into believing. One of the places Obama vacations is the U.S. Virgin Islands. Though some esteem Obama with an almost messianic aura and he has come close to applying such rhetoric to himself in prattle about turning back the seas and such, I some how doubt he walked to that particular destination.
Yet it is not enough for Obama that your life comes to a screeching halt to assuage the environmental consciences of big shot liberals such as himself and Al Gore (who has obviously been eating whatever he wants since leaving the Vice Presidency). Obama also wants your life regimented and under close government scrutiny.
According to the sacred Barack, it is not enough for the average citizen to mind their own business and take care of one’s own family. Rather, one must surrender oneself to the will of the group or the COMMUNITY.
As the next stage of the liberation theology he sat under for nearly 20 years in the church overseen by Jeremiah Wright, Obama postulated in a commencement address at Wesleyan University in June 2008 that “our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” This is quite revealing as to the underlying religious orientation of this particular president.
In traditional Biblical theology, salvation is a state of grace or unmerited favor imputed to the INDIVIDUAL pardoning one from the penalty for sin because it the individual that must believe in Jesus as the only begotten Son of God who lived the perfect life we could not, died, and shed His blood as the penalty for our sins and rose from the dead that we have eternal life. However, to Barack Obama, salvation is not about an eternal reward for loving Jesus with one’s mind, body, and soul; rather salvation to Barack Obama is about conformity to the group. You, as a distinct consciousness, do not matter all that much.
This is evident in both Obama's policy proposals as well as in his disdain for the behavioral principles underlying the moral code based in Scripture that prevents some of man's tendencies from degenerating into tyrannical anarchy or collectivism if these desires become unshackled from the realist perspective that man is a sinner and still hears sin’s siren call even when forgiven and redeemed through the shed blood of Christ.
To prevent the masses of the Biblically illiterate from being swept away by Obama’s rhetorical manipulations, Dr. James Dobson spoke out against some of the secular messiah’s misinterpretations of the Good Book. Falling for some of the hype that he’s the best thing since Jesus Christ and actually the Lord’s replacement in the hearts of many, Obama has proceeded to inform the rest of us which parts of his “predecessor’s” Word may apply in the new “AB” era, as some have suggested all of history now be divided between before and after Obama.
Without a more careful exegesis into and research of the Biblical text, the holy Obama concluded that, if one thinks that prohibitions against homosexuality still apply today, than those against the consumption of shellfish still apply as well. In response, according to a 6/24/08 Associated Press article titled “Obama: Dobson Is Making Stuff Up With Bible Criticism”, Dobson dared to say of Obama’s assertion, “I think he’s [Obama] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology.”
Dobson’s opinion is actually closer to the historic Christian position. Most denominations and theologians claim that the majority of Israelite dietary guidelines do not apply to the Church composed of both Jews and Gentiles because these restrictions were not reiterated in the New Testament and in fact were set aside in various passages.
For example, in Matthew 15:11, Jesus Himself assures that that one is not defiled by what goes into one’s mouth but rather by what comes out of it. And in Acts 10, the Apostle Peter is told in a vision to deliberately eat of an animal said to be ceremonially unclean. If the act of eating a particular kind of animal was in and of itself immoral and sinful, would the God of the universe have given instructions to have done so?
The same cannot be said of homosexuality. Nowhere are the Old Testament injunctions labeling the practice as wrong rescinded in the New and in fact they are reemphasized in passages such as Romans 1 and included in a list of offences barring their perpetrators from entering Heaven if one does not seek forgiveness for them through the shed blood of Christ.
And contrary to all the sissies in a hissy over Rick Warren offering the inauguration prayer because Warren did not endorse the notion of gay marriage, insisting that this lifestyle is wrong does not mean that those falling into this temptation will be rounded up and sent to prison (though a percentage would probably enjoy that) or be put to death. It could be argued that Jesus softened the penalty for the transgressions of the lustful flesh.
Though Jesus was merciful He nevertheless retained the position that what the women at the well did was sin by telling her to sin no more. Today, those wanting to air their dirty laundry with pride rather than keeping it between only God and themselves as those with a tender conscience would prefer, vociferously insist that what they have done isn’t even sin.
And in the eyes of mystical humanists such as Obama and his ministerial supporters in the Order of the Scarlet Woman, this is the area in which Dobson has done something unforgivable. Dobson has held on to the notion that sin, in its most basic form, is an individual act.
According to Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, who basically endorsed Obama for no other reason than that Obama is Black as before Caldwell supported George W. Bush, said Dobson was “a bit over the top”, and “crossed the line”. More importantly, Caldwell admonished, “There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking. So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable.”
Ladies and gentlemen, what is being called for here is an abridgement of the fundamental constitutional liberties of anyone daring to disagree with or even question the new messiah. For while Dr. Dobson has been told to essentially sit down and shut up, a cabal of leftwing clerics of which Cadwell has been numbered established a website called JamesDobsonDoesntSpeakForMe.com. Examining the groups fundamental principles is quite instructive regarding the new social gospel that elevates the group above the individual.
For example, the website proclaimed regarding Dobson, “He doesn’t speak for me when he uses religion as a wedge to divide.” Let’s look at this for a moment.
Aren’t Obama, his false prophet Jeremiah Wight, and lesser luminaries such as Rev. Caldwell each riding the coattails of each using religion to divide? For crying out loud, the Black liberation theology expounded by Jeremiah Wright thinks God doesn’t even love you if you are White.
Furthermore, who says religion is not meant to divide? While Scripture tells us that God is not willing that any should perish, there are just as many other passages informing us that Christ came to separate the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the chaff.
Also, interesting, isn’t it, how in the coming together in unity that it is those holding to a traditional understanding of Biblical morality that are to compromise their standards rather than those who fall short of these principles and from then on strive to elevate their conduct?
As the declaration points out, “What does speak for me is David’s Psalm celebrating how good and pleasant it is when we come together in unity.” That is true, but in order to unite, there must be considerable agreement as to what principles one is going to unite around. Of those with whom one disagrees considerably, the Bible commands, “Come from out among them and be ye separate.”
The declaration continues, “James Dobson doesn’t speak for me when he uses the beliefs of others as a line of attack; He doesn’t speak for me when he denigrates his neighbors’ views when they don’t line up with his.”
As noted earlier, by criticizing Dobson’s criticizing, aren’t they themselves guilty of criticizing? Did not the holy Barack partake of the same act?
What if Dobson's neighbor was a vile skinhead that plucked the eyes out of newborn kittens? Is Dobson just suppose to sit their and not say anything about this ethical transgression as well if we are to take the mutated uncontextualized version of judge not to its ultimate conclusion?
Contrary to the Obamaist declaration, Dobson does not confine the values of faith to two or three issues. First off, Focus on the Family is not a church.
Thus, the organization does not necessarily have the same spiritual mandate to address to the same extent the totality of existence of life that God's sacred assembly has been called to. Yet that said, Focus on the Family addresses a wider array of issues and concerns than these liberal Black churches that have for the most part confined their message to propagating the blame Whitey mentality of whom Republicans and Conservatives rank their primary targets.
From the tone of the declaration, Dobson stands accused of not seeking justice, encouraging the oppressed, or defending the cause of the vulnerable. Yet when Dobson rises to do so, these collared hypocrites accuse him of reducing the faith to two or three issues and not working to restore what is broken in our communities. If the efforts of Focus on the Family have been reduced to two or three issues, it is only because that apostates like Obama and his supporters have focused their war against Christ and the Bible towards a few central cultural pillars in the hopes of causing the entire edifice of our heritage of liberty to implode in upon itself.
Unable to speak or act on their own behalf, who is more than the unborn that the babykillers can’t wait to hack apart with their meat cleavers? What institution is more vulnerable than the contemporary family with the assorted threats out to achieve its abolition through easy divorce, its dilution through its alleged recognized extension to homosexuals, and through the proliferation of government programs that make parents of both sexes feel either redundant in the case of men as providers or obsolete in the case of work at home mothers.
Leftist clergy drone on and on about the beauty of religious unity and cooperation. However, if they are going to embrace practices such as infanticide and sodomite nuptials as good and positive things, one might as well toss the Bible in the paper shredder and sleep in Sunday morning. Under such a worldview, nothing is wrong anymore and you might as well do whatever the Sheol you please.
Under the Obama regime, while your obligation to God might be diminished, don’t think you are going to slide by on easy street in terms of guilt being toned down. Rather a whole new litany of demands will be placed upon an otherwise productive citizen.
In commencement addresses given in both 2008 and 2009, Obama repeatedly called for a renewed spirit of national service. To most Americans accustomed to working for what they have, on the surface this may sound like little more than what they are already doing. However, the plans go much shockingly further.
In the free market economy of the United States, the individual offers some kind of commodity --- be it labor, a tangible good produced, brainpower, or time --- in exchange for monetary compensation. And though the system is not perfect, the higher the participant rises in the system, the greater the rewarding compensation one is able to accrue.
However, that may come to a screeching halt if our Seigneur and Chief gets to have his way. For in his worldview, no longer will it be enough to strive within the rules to get the things one wants. Rather in a manner not unlike a medieval manor, if the New World Order advocated by a succession of presidents each in their own way with distinctive emphases comes to pass, you will be bound to the same occupational station and residential area not until you as a free person decides to change it but rather until those higher up the system decide to amend such biographical characteristics.
In his 2008 commencement address, Obama said, “There’s no community service requirement in the real world; no one is forcing you to care. You can take your diploma, walk off stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things our money, culture says, you should buy. You can choose to narrow your concerns and live your life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”
Obama cites as precedent his own case where he took a position as a community organizer making $12,000 per year while driving a $2,000 car. But whereas you are suppose to remain content at a life of minimal toil, since Obama has always been in his own mind the man who would be king, he was always entitled to possess so much more.
According to an Investor’s Business Daily article posted at Yahoo News on 6/2/2008 titled “Living On Obama’s Collective Farm", Obama made over $4 million that year. But I guess that’s what it takes to keep a ball-and-chain like Michelle in $500 athletic shoes far uglier than my $20 K-Mart ones and $5000 handbags (a good used automobile doesn’t cost much more than that).
From comparing these dichotomies, one can conclude that Obama does not really care so much about the poor. Rather, in true Alinskyite fashion, he sees those in such circumstances as pawns to agitate into a froth through which to seize power and advance his own status. If it had meant a life of toil and anonymity as it does for most dedicating their lives to uplifting the poverty-stricken, would Obama have even pursued this path in his early career?
As to whether or not Obama will allow participation in national service to remain an individual choice is open to interpretation. In the 2008 address, Obama went on to say, “On the big issues that our nation faces, difficult choices await. We’ll have to face some hard truths, and some sacrifice will be required --- not only from you individually, but from the nation as a whole.” But in light of $5000 handbags, weekend jaunts onboard Air Force I to Broadway plays, and pizza chefs flown in from the Midwest to appease a gastronomical hankering, that call does not apply to his highness of course.
Often, those without an inclination towards politics shrug their shoulders at these grandiose pronouncements and go about their business thinking that those in authority won't go much beyond the stage of public elocution. However, this time around such disengaged citizens might not be so insightful.
The President's ball-and-chain Michelle said in a campaign speech, "Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone...Barack Obama will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."
Listen up, you battle ax, I'll be as cynical as I want to be. Your hubby might have been a Professor of Constitutional Law, but apparently he was as dedicated to that occupational station as he was to his seat in the Illinois State House, where he regularly and decisively voted “present, and to the U.S. Senate, where his attendance was shoddy at best as he merely used that office to campaign for the presidency and to pull down a hefty paycheck while doing it.
The First Amendment protects the rights of the individual to believe whatever they want and to enunciate their opinion as to the actions and motivations of the nation’s leaders. This includes saying that these politicians are little more than frauds. Any legislation or executive order to the contrary is an infringement of this Constitutional protection.
And as to being isolated and in one’s “comfort zone”, so long as one pays their bills and stays to themselves, they have the right to be every bit of a hermit as they want to be. Until any President can lock down the border and prevent illegal aliens from violating the territorial integrity of the United States, the Chief Executive has so failed in his fundamental responsibility that he ant those that work beneath him should have no spare time whatsoever to be concerned with how I spend my own time.
Though the discerning might have to weave the disparate fragments together into a complete tapestry, the minions of despotism and iniquity are so full of themselves that they cannot resist scattering crumbs and often wholesale cognitive meals detailing their intentions to destroy liberty and reduce the population to the level of modern day serfs. Shame is, the election of Barack Obama is proof how a significant percentage of the American people would rather ignore the harsh realties staring them right in the face.
by Frederick Meekins
If an organization is going to promote the notion that Lincoln was a tyrant for holding the Union together because it is believed that each state is a distinct legal and political entity, on what grounds does a spokesman for that organization then deem it proper to advocate that a hardline Puritanism be imposed on all the states when not all states trace their founding directly to that particular interpretation of Christianity?
Bureaucracy Prevents World Largest Oil Skimmer From Getting To Work
Seems more and more that the Coast Guard is the most sissifed of the armed services.
Is Ergun Caner A Fraud?
One sermon of his I remember listening to seemed devoid of any serious content whatsoever.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Though they profess to stand for the U.S. Constitution, Christian Reconstructionists could actually undermine the United States if not watched with discernment. For if they ever ascended to power, they would likely undermine the basic liberties of those not agreeing with their particular brand of Calvinism.
If they ever ascended to power, wonder how long until the Christian Reconstructionists implemented their dictatorship and began their persecution of those of us they’d classify as “Arminian devils”. As postmillenialists, most Reconstructionists believe that the Church (not Christ) will implement the Millennial Kingdom. Any human movement promising to establish Heaven on Earth or a near perfect society always ends inflicting mass bloodshed.
If it is wrong to “twist Jesus into a middle class image” according to David Platt on the 6/10/10 Boundless podcast, wouldn’t it be just as wrong to warp the Messiah into a “proletarian social justice Jesus” as well? Dr. Dobson needs to get a grip on the young Emergent Church Marxist-types infiltrating Focus On The Family.
Now Fully Clothed, Will As Many Fantacize About Being Tied Up By Wonder Woman?
Niether does she seem as alluringly shapely as in the past.
John Boehner wants Social Security age raised & means tested. If we regular Americans are to have our retirements snatched from us, lets abolish benefits for elected leaders at the same time. It is argued that most Americans are working longer anyway; however, unlike most of us, these Congressmen aren't stuck in positions that drain the life out of them & make them feel like Alzheimers is setting in prematurely.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
If Bin Ladin really wants to toss a wrench into things, the moment he gets caught, he ought to shout into the news camera there to record his surrender that he's accepted Jesus. Then wouldn't the all sins are equal crowd among Christians have to argue that he be pardoned and how it is an act of self-righteousness to insist that he pay for his crimes?
Dobsonians Need To Focus Less On Existential Nonessentials
Contrary to the Dobsonian propaganda on the 3/26/10 Boundless podcast, providing that they behave themselves and that they work, there is nothing in the Bible about what age a young person is to leave home.
Interesting how the hosts enunciated a double standard that it's OK for young women to remain at home but not acceptable for young men.
Any woman that holds to such a position is basically a gold-digger.
These standards were justified as holdovers of Jewish culture.
However, unless I'm allowed to carry an Uzi down the street, our society is not a Jewish culture to that extent.
What about Isaac remaining at home until his 40's or do we only invoke those aspects of the Old Testament that fit the preconceived notions the psychologist paying the weekly check?
By Frederick Meekins
Interesting how the hosts enunciated a double standard that it's OK for young women to remain at home but not acceptable for young men.
Any woman that holds to such a position is basically a gold-digger.
These standards were justified as holdovers of Jewish culture.
However, unless I'm allowed to carry an Uzi down the street, our society is not a Jewish culture to that extent.
What about Isaac remaining at home until his 40's or do we only invoke those aspects of the Old Testament that fit the preconceived notions the psychologist paying the weekly check?
By Frederick Meekins
Minority Students Bribed To Read Over Summer
Bet if the majority of the students in the county in question were White, they wouldn't get a single penny.
If all sins are supposedly equal with none worse than any other, don't turn around and heep additional accolades and attention on those that have committed the "biggies" in the past. Force them to remain nothing more than pewsitting collection plate fillers like everyone else that didn't necessarily lead the lives of carnal debauchery that most of the extended testimonies seem to be filled with.
Interesting how Focus On The Family minions are silent about Bristol Palin milking notoriety as an unwed parent. Where is Dobson operative J. Budziszewski with whom I clashed years back over his appalling insistence that mothers not wedding the sirers of their illegitimate offspring be compelled to put their children up for adoption?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Leftist Suburbs Surrender To Urban Livestock Movement
If so many towns weren't being overrun by foreigners refusing to comport themselves according to American standards of sanitation and hygiene, no urbanites would be allowed to propagate these creatures.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Saw an academic journal with the words "Black Heritage" printed on it. Since the "B" was capitalized, are the tolerancemongers on the social bookmarking sites going to ask if there is a racial chip on the shoulder of whoever wrote that, call into question the quality of the person's scholastic credentials, and insinuate that the author's First Amendment rights should be revoked?
Friday, June 25, 2010
Airline Forces Girls To Ditch Turtle
The claim is that reptiles can't be allowed onboard because they potentially spread salmonella. The creature is no filthier than the foreigners and sodomites on the flight or the street vermin and illegals we all come in contact with day to day.
Parks To Eliminate Outhouses
And then the enviromentalists will wonder why folks will be downloading in the bushes. One imbecile couldn't even aim his strafing run with a provided target, his bombing deliberately going off course onto the restroom floor.
Welfare Spent In California Casinos
Theoretically, one should track back who was given what card and cut their benefits since it is obvious they do not need the assistance for necesities such as food, shelter and utility bills.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Contrary to what Albert Mohler insinuates, why is it the fault of men these days that uppity women are so materialistic that they won't marry someone that they look down their noses at along the occupational hierarchy? Interesting he never has any guilt to load upon women thinking they are too good to work within the home.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Val Kilmer Loses Spines & Apologizes For Failing To Enunciate Communally Enforced Delusions
He should have told them all to go to Hades.
These anal retentive Internet commenters that find it logical to invalidate an essay based on a handful of spelling errors overlooked by a chronically tired eye are the same ones that celebrate the mush-mouthed grunts of Black ghetto youth as a beautiful dialect or insist that Hispanic illegals be allowed to fill out welfare applications in their native Spanish.
Mexico Joins Lawsuit Insisting Arizona Immigration Law Is Unconstitutional
Third Word slum regimes have no business dictating to the United States what our own constitution means, especially when Mexico's own record on human rights is less than exemplary.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Maybe what I write is riddled with typographic errors. Maybe if these grammar fetishists had only a single, partially functioning eye strained by the end of the day, perhaps their own columns wouldn't be quite so pristine. O, wait, they don't write any. They only nitpick the technicalities of others.
I guess for not enthusiastically embracing polytheism, I have been accused of talking like a toaster. I suppose that was a Battlestar Galactica reference since toaster was slang for a Cylon. For the record, I think I am more a Gauis Baltar. He said, "Just because I might be crazy doesn't mean I'm not right."
Interesting how Blacks and Hispanics can capitalize the first letter of their respective racial designation but I have been labelled as “a stupid racist asshole” for extending the same respect towards the word “White”. Don’t like my use of a mild profanity? I am just letting you know the disdain out there for WHITE Americans.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Lessons In Apologetics, Part 1: Introduction & Agnosticism
For anyone pursuing a degree in Apologetics that was given a dollar for every time they were asked "What is that, learning how to say you are sorry" upon answering the question of what it is that they study so many times, many would have financed a considerable portion of their academic pursuits. Unfortunately, such ignorance as to what exactly this theological discipline entails symbolizes the neglect the defense of the faith has fallen into in the contemporary church and is one of the reasons that everywhere the believer and student of religion turns today they find Christianity losing considerable ground both within and without its boundaries to a wide variety of opponents and adversaries. To the serious student of this field of study, one of the best tools around which to build a fundamental understanding of the discipline's ins and outs is "Christian Apologetics" by Norman Geisler, one of the field's foremost living practitioners.
Basic to any academic discipline is the approach or methodology which scholars and researchers apply to the subject matter. The field of Apologetics is no different. Geisler lists the methodologies to knowledge in general and about God in particular as agnosticism, rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, pragmatism, and combinationalism. In the course of his analysis, Geisler evaluates each in terms of their epistemology regarding religious matters and how these approaches stack up under the weight of being scrutinized by their own criteria.
The first approach to knowledge of God is agnosticism. Coined by T.H. Huxley, the term agnosticism means "no knowledge" and thus contends one is unable to know anything about God (13).
Agnosticism is itself divided into two branches. The one holds that not yet enough conclusive evidence pointing in one direction or the other regarding the existence of God has been gathered. The other holds that God is not knowable.
Of the agnostics that claim God is not knowable, this claim is based upon their understanding of the nature of knowledge. Drawing upon David Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and A.J. Ayers' Language, Truth, & Logic, these agnostics have divided the tree of actual knowledge into two branches.
The first variety of valid statements are analytic statements meaning they are valid by the terms of their definitions. For example, all bachelors are unmarried. The second type of valid statements are known as synthetic and are what we would refer to as matters of fact as they are about empirically gathered data (17).
Geisler writes of the agnostic views regarding talk about God, "For the term 'God' is neither analytic nor synthetic; that is, it is neither offered by the theist as an empty contentless definition corresponding to nothing in reality nor is it filled with empirical content since 'God' is allegedly a supraempirical being. Hence, it is literally nonsense to talk about God (18)."
To the aspiring apologist hoping to present an objective case for the Christian faith beyond how warm and fuzzy Jesus makes their innards, it may seem that the agnostic methodology has struck an early and potentially crippling blow to this noble effort. However, a bit of careful reflection may even the scales once more between the agnostic and the Christian.
The lofty sounding name given to this epistemology of language is the Verification Principle. If the Christian turns the Verification Principle back on itself, one sees it is self-referentially incoherent as the concept cannot live up to its own criteria as the Verification Principle is neither purely definitional or merely a statement of fact.
Thus to remain consistent, the agnostic must admit that, since our knowledge of the empirical and metaphysical realms is limited, by definition of man's own finitude, this understanding cannot be totally comprehensive. Of those unwilling to admit God may exist in those reaches man cannot fully fathom, Geisler writes, "And there is simply no way short of omniscience that one can make such sweeping and categorical statements about reality...Hence total agnosticism is only self-defeating. Only an omniscient mind could be totally agnostic and finite men do not possess omniscience (27)."
By Frederick Meekins
Source:
Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.
Clinton Pimp Out Chelsea's Wedding Reception
She's been shacked-up so long that the wedding pretty much has no meaning anyway.
Life Jacket Regulations Deemed More Vital Than Saving Animals & Livelihoods
Yet more proof that the New Lord does not want to resolve the crisis.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Though the armed forces need to be respected for the role they play in defending the people of the United States, that does not mean that individual members of those respective services exist in a metaphysical realm beyond the propriety of civilian analysis and criticism especially in regards to matters not directly related to the military.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Deadbeats Rampage In California Streets
Every last one of them should lose whatever government assistance they are on and kicked out of public housing.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Lieberman Wants To Abolish The Internet
As a Jew, doesn't Lieberman realize he will be among the first the dictatorship will come for?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Is Bristol Palin Back As Her Baby Daddy's Concubine?
Sounds like they went crawling back to each other like the trailer park trash on episodes of Cops where the woman wails how much she loves him to police about hauling the wifebeater off to jail.
Wonder if she mentions in her $10,000 speeches on abstinence how they are shacking up some nights now.
Wonder if she mentions in her $10,000 speeches on abstinence how they are shacking up some nights now.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Olympics Subtly Lure Tots Into Paganism's Embrace
Over the past decade and a half or thereabouts, I have published occasional columns pointing out that there is more going on in terms of worldview at the Olympic games than good sportsmanship and keeping a stoic outlook no matter how disappointed one might be at the outcome of a particular event. These worldviews often come closest to public light in commemorations surrounding the games such as the opening or closing ceremonies.
For example, in an audio commentary I noted the blatant paganism at the 2006 games in Greece where the ancient gods were not so much depicted as curiosities of mankind’s religious history with the possibility of a few moral axioms derivable occasionally from these myths when approached as literature. Rather, adoration of these entities was approached as a viable system of belief around which humanity could draw ongoing sustain inspiration moving the world towards cultural unification.
For the most part, such ideological manipulation was aimed largely at a generalized audience irrespective of age. Now it seems Olympic organizers may have more carefully targeted their indoctrination efforts towards children.
During each Olympiad, mascots are created as appealing embodiments of each unique set of games. For example, the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles were represented by Sam the Olympian, a bald eagle clad in red, white, and blue which alluded to Uncle Same and the highest ideals of the American people.
It has been a quarter of a century since then and the practice continues. It is doubtful, though, parents with a lick of sense about them will be as enthusiastic about what is being pushed now as adorable imaginative companions.
The first outrage is really more economic than anything else. Though cluttered over with all the nauseating sentiments about international cooperation and competition being the focal point of the games, ultimately under the banner of these spectacles, significant amounts of money changes hands.
No doubt, nice checks went to the firms and/or artists creating the mascots of the Vancouver games. What the artists this time deserve are gold metals for the least amount work possible going into the artistic rendering of an Olympiad’s mascots.
For example, Sam the Olympian was rendered with the skill, precision, and appeal for which 20th century Disney characters were noted and adored for by the public. One does not need to go into a lengthy backstory to figure out what Sam the Eagle is and what he stands for.
This is not the case of the mascots of the Vancouver winter Olympics. In fact, the firm that designed the characters should have been paid no more for these rendering than one would a doodler in a high school art class. In the high school art class I was enrolled in, one would have received a grade not much above passing had one handed in something looking as ridiculous and simplistic.
What becomes really questionable, however, is in regards to what the mascots represent. The following comes not from conservative or even Christian fundamentalist conspiracy theorists, but rather from the Wikipedia entry for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paraolympic Games mascots.
Of the trio, the most realistic is a Sasquatch named “Quatchi”. That isn’t too bad as for decades as the Sasquatch or Bigfoot has been a cryptozoological celebrity of the Pacific Northwest.
However, it today’s world, it’s never enough to let characters be huggable and adorable in and of themselves. Why waste an opportunity to manipulate young minds away from the values decent parents are trying to inoculate into their children?
Those that look closer at Quatchi will notice that there is a tattoo on his bicep. With over a third of the population mutilated and defaced in this fashion, do children of the world really need additional peer pressure as to this questionable form of bodily ornamentation?
The free spirit who are of a live-and-let-live mindset regarding every questionable practice with the exception of questioning the live-and-let-live mindset will respond, "Why are you fuddiduddies making such a production out of a simple tattoo that no one is going to notice?"
Oh really? If the bio-graffiti was not going to be noticed by spectators, the why did the artist take the time to add this particular design element? It takes so long to produce a finished artistic work that has to go through multiple editorial reviews that it is doubtful that any detail would be overlooked. And if the marking is not there for any particular reason, then why does it need to be there at all?
However, a tattoo strategically placed upon a mascot is not the only aspect about these characters designed to subconsciously lead Western children away from the values of their forefathers. For even though the games are presented as belonging to the world, only Westerners of a multiculturalist inclination would be deluded into thinking that Westerners wouldn’t be the only ones with enough leisure time to soak up the ambiance of the games as well as enough disposable income for all of the assorted trinkets pushed at spectators. After all, though they might excel at warm weather sports such as running, sub-Saharan Africans aren't exactly renowned for their alacrity to ice and snow.
The other mascot of the Olympics Proper is Miga, a mystical sea bear that is part orca and part kermode bear. In other words, unless the poor creature is languishing in a laboratory somewhere, which one shouldn't put past some deranged geneticist just for the Sheol of it these days, it doesn't exist.
Perhaps the most questionable mascot is Sumi. According to Wikipedia, Sumi is "an animal guardian spirit with the wins of a Thunderbird and the legs of a black bear who wears the hat of an orca whale." In other words, it is a mishmashed critter that likes to cross dress.
Though there are numerous jokes that could be made about these two, the important issue is the role guardian spirits and orcas that transform into white bears play in American Indian mythology and belief systems. From as much hoopla that is being made about so-called "native populations" of the Pacific Northwest, one would assume that not Whites lived there or at least ones that did not go around with their shoulders slouched and their heads hunched for simply being White. Since Whites pay taxes too and are less likely to be on the public dole, shouldn't they get some kind of honorable mention for contributing to the culture or at least the economy of the area?
Olympic organizers are no doubt playing up the animistic belief of the area's history for the very same reason that the Athens Olympiad played up that culture's pagan past. For the thing with the amorphous religiosity of the New Age movement under which both Greco-Roman paganism and American Indian shamanism both find acceptance is the idea that the realm of the spirit is coterminous with the physical world. As such, in this system, there can be no authority higher than the earthly institutions that embrace such a mindset.
As an antithetical perspective, monotheism cannot be countenanced since its God exists transcendent to the socio-physical order. God decrees what is and is not right and good. He does not take the findings of committees into consideration and as such the authority of any committee is circumscribed by Him.
This column should not be construed as a blanket condemnation of the imagination. For as a fan of speculative fiction myself, I don’t even hop on the anti-Harry Potter bandwagon with the unreserved enthusiasm demanded by many rigorous theologians and Bible scholars.
Rather, what is being called for here is a notion of epistemological equality. It is quite obvious that a mascot with a Christian or even Hebraic background or origins would not be put up with.
At the Copenhagen Global Warming Summitt, though the God of the Bible had the last laugh as He socked the proceedings with a blizzard, theophobes complained about evergreens planted in front of the conference center because some kook might misconstrue them as Christmas trees. The trees had to be removed in order to prevent any appearance of an endorsement of any particular religion at a UN function. Yet these very same environmental bureaucrats would support multiple layers of laws and regulations ranging all the way from international treaties down to the minutest municipal statutes that would prevent you from removing trees from your very own property.
Proponents of the Olympic games might claim the festival is all about friendly competition and the pursuit of athletic excellence. Realists will point out that it has just as much or even more to do with money and power.
At the global level, the boundaries between government and big business grow increasingly blurred. Thus, at some point in terms of either direct sponsorship or roundabout subsidies, taxpayers around the world are at some level financing the Olympic games out of their own pockets.
Often, even if there is minimal public money flowing into a government agency or even a private organization, these administrative entities must go out of their way to guarantee that they in no way exhibit any kind of preference for one religious system or spiritual belief over another. This standard is especially applied to Christianity.
Though initially founded as a celebration in adoration of heathen idols, theoretically the contemporary Olympic games could be held strictly as a secular competition in terms of philosophical neutrality if its administrators distanced the celebration from its questionable past and stuck to officiating races. Whatever path is decided upon, it will be a deliberate choice.
If those trusted with overseeing this event insist upon pursuing a manipulative mysticism, those redeemed by the one true God should first and foremost boldly warn what is rally going on beneath all the pageantry and excitement. Only then is the individual able to make a truly informed decision in keeping with their conscience.
by Frederick Meekins
For example, in an audio commentary I noted the blatant paganism at the 2006 games in Greece where the ancient gods were not so much depicted as curiosities of mankind’s religious history with the possibility of a few moral axioms derivable occasionally from these myths when approached as literature. Rather, adoration of these entities was approached as a viable system of belief around which humanity could draw ongoing sustain inspiration moving the world towards cultural unification.
For the most part, such ideological manipulation was aimed largely at a generalized audience irrespective of age. Now it seems Olympic organizers may have more carefully targeted their indoctrination efforts towards children.
During each Olympiad, mascots are created as appealing embodiments of each unique set of games. For example, the 1984 Olympics held in Los Angeles were represented by Sam the Olympian, a bald eagle clad in red, white, and blue which alluded to Uncle Same and the highest ideals of the American people.
It has been a quarter of a century since then and the practice continues. It is doubtful, though, parents with a lick of sense about them will be as enthusiastic about what is being pushed now as adorable imaginative companions.
The first outrage is really more economic than anything else. Though cluttered over with all the nauseating sentiments about international cooperation and competition being the focal point of the games, ultimately under the banner of these spectacles, significant amounts of money changes hands.
No doubt, nice checks went to the firms and/or artists creating the mascots of the Vancouver games. What the artists this time deserve are gold metals for the least amount work possible going into the artistic rendering of an Olympiad’s mascots.
For example, Sam the Olympian was rendered with the skill, precision, and appeal for which 20th century Disney characters were noted and adored for by the public. One does not need to go into a lengthy backstory to figure out what Sam the Eagle is and what he stands for.
This is not the case of the mascots of the Vancouver winter Olympics. In fact, the firm that designed the characters should have been paid no more for these rendering than one would a doodler in a high school art class. In the high school art class I was enrolled in, one would have received a grade not much above passing had one handed in something looking as ridiculous and simplistic.
What becomes really questionable, however, is in regards to what the mascots represent. The following comes not from conservative or even Christian fundamentalist conspiracy theorists, but rather from the Wikipedia entry for the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paraolympic Games mascots.
Of the trio, the most realistic is a Sasquatch named “Quatchi”. That isn’t too bad as for decades as the Sasquatch or Bigfoot has been a cryptozoological celebrity of the Pacific Northwest.
However, it today’s world, it’s never enough to let characters be huggable and adorable in and of themselves. Why waste an opportunity to manipulate young minds away from the values decent parents are trying to inoculate into their children?
Those that look closer at Quatchi will notice that there is a tattoo on his bicep. With over a third of the population mutilated and defaced in this fashion, do children of the world really need additional peer pressure as to this questionable form of bodily ornamentation?
The free spirit who are of a live-and-let-live mindset regarding every questionable practice with the exception of questioning the live-and-let-live mindset will respond, "Why are you fuddiduddies making such a production out of a simple tattoo that no one is going to notice?"
Oh really? If the bio-graffiti was not going to be noticed by spectators, the why did the artist take the time to add this particular design element? It takes so long to produce a finished artistic work that has to go through multiple editorial reviews that it is doubtful that any detail would be overlooked. And if the marking is not there for any particular reason, then why does it need to be there at all?
However, a tattoo strategically placed upon a mascot is not the only aspect about these characters designed to subconsciously lead Western children away from the values of their forefathers. For even though the games are presented as belonging to the world, only Westerners of a multiculturalist inclination would be deluded into thinking that Westerners wouldn’t be the only ones with enough leisure time to soak up the ambiance of the games as well as enough disposable income for all of the assorted trinkets pushed at spectators. After all, though they might excel at warm weather sports such as running, sub-Saharan Africans aren't exactly renowned for their alacrity to ice and snow.
The other mascot of the Olympics Proper is Miga, a mystical sea bear that is part orca and part kermode bear. In other words, unless the poor creature is languishing in a laboratory somewhere, which one shouldn't put past some deranged geneticist just for the Sheol of it these days, it doesn't exist.
Perhaps the most questionable mascot is Sumi. According to Wikipedia, Sumi is "an animal guardian spirit with the wins of a Thunderbird and the legs of a black bear who wears the hat of an orca whale." In other words, it is a mishmashed critter that likes to cross dress.
Though there are numerous jokes that could be made about these two, the important issue is the role guardian spirits and orcas that transform into white bears play in American Indian mythology and belief systems. From as much hoopla that is being made about so-called "native populations" of the Pacific Northwest, one would assume that not Whites lived there or at least ones that did not go around with their shoulders slouched and their heads hunched for simply being White. Since Whites pay taxes too and are less likely to be on the public dole, shouldn't they get some kind of honorable mention for contributing to the culture or at least the economy of the area?
Olympic organizers are no doubt playing up the animistic belief of the area's history for the very same reason that the Athens Olympiad played up that culture's pagan past. For the thing with the amorphous religiosity of the New Age movement under which both Greco-Roman paganism and American Indian shamanism both find acceptance is the idea that the realm of the spirit is coterminous with the physical world. As such, in this system, there can be no authority higher than the earthly institutions that embrace such a mindset.
As an antithetical perspective, monotheism cannot be countenanced since its God exists transcendent to the socio-physical order. God decrees what is and is not right and good. He does not take the findings of committees into consideration and as such the authority of any committee is circumscribed by Him.
This column should not be construed as a blanket condemnation of the imagination. For as a fan of speculative fiction myself, I don’t even hop on the anti-Harry Potter bandwagon with the unreserved enthusiasm demanded by many rigorous theologians and Bible scholars.
Rather, what is being called for here is a notion of epistemological equality. It is quite obvious that a mascot with a Christian or even Hebraic background or origins would not be put up with.
At the Copenhagen Global Warming Summitt, though the God of the Bible had the last laugh as He socked the proceedings with a blizzard, theophobes complained about evergreens planted in front of the conference center because some kook might misconstrue them as Christmas trees. The trees had to be removed in order to prevent any appearance of an endorsement of any particular religion at a UN function. Yet these very same environmental bureaucrats would support multiple layers of laws and regulations ranging all the way from international treaties down to the minutest municipal statutes that would prevent you from removing trees from your very own property.
Proponents of the Olympic games might claim the festival is all about friendly competition and the pursuit of athletic excellence. Realists will point out that it has just as much or even more to do with money and power.
At the global level, the boundaries between government and big business grow increasingly blurred. Thus, at some point in terms of either direct sponsorship or roundabout subsidies, taxpayers around the world are at some level financing the Olympic games out of their own pockets.
Often, even if there is minimal public money flowing into a government agency or even a private organization, these administrative entities must go out of their way to guarantee that they in no way exhibit any kind of preference for one religious system or spiritual belief over another. This standard is especially applied to Christianity.
Though initially founded as a celebration in adoration of heathen idols, theoretically the contemporary Olympic games could be held strictly as a secular competition in terms of philosophical neutrality if its administrators distanced the celebration from its questionable past and stuck to officiating races. Whatever path is decided upon, it will be a deliberate choice.
If those trusted with overseeing this event insist upon pursuing a manipulative mysticism, those redeemed by the one true God should first and foremost boldly warn what is rally going on beneath all the pageantry and excitement. Only then is the individual able to make a truly informed decision in keeping with their conscience.
by Frederick Meekins
Concept Of One-Man-One-Vote Abolished To Pander To Hispanosupremacists
If this is justified by the Voting Rights Act, isn't what that legislation is essentially saying is that one is obligated to vote for a candidate on the basis of skin color rather than the validity of the ideas or policies a candidate advocates?
Will Nickelodeon Become A Smutt Peddler
Back in my day, the network showed programs like "What Will They Think Of Next" (a show about advanced in science), "The Mysterious Cities Of Gold", "The Tomorrow People" and "Mr. Wizard". At night, they'd show "Mr. Ed" and "My Three Sons".
Monday, June 14, 2010
Human Notions Of Perfection Threaten Canine Gene Pools
Gives one pause when one considers this being inflicted on human beings by scientists thinking they no more than the divine creator.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
The Washington Post is dismissing South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley as a "small time agitator". How is that position markedly different than "community organizer"? By definition, she's not only qualified to be governor but also president if Il Duce is to serve as the inspiration for all Americans.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Leftist public service announcement remarks how the pills to keep Africans with AIDS alive cost 40 cents per day. Shouldn't Americans with all kinds of diseases and not just those acquired often through morally questionable pursuits get our medications for a similar price or are we not adorably exotic enough?
Friday, June 11, 2010
Detained Illegals To Enjoy Cooking Classes, Movie Nights & Free Telecommunications
It's doubtful those languishing in Veterans' Homes get to enjoy these luxuries. With accommodations like these, aliens will flock here just for the free vacation.
How come it is inappropriate to ascertain the immigration status of a detained criminal alien but appropriate to get all tied up in legal knots as to the identity of a foreign ship wanting to assist in the oil spill clean up? Perhaps Obama wants the environment destroyed so America as a whole will be compelled to bend a a knee before his image.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Prince Charles Endorses Islamic Practices
Guess even he thinks Camilla needs to put a bag over her face.
Is The Rider Of The Red Horse Ascendant?
It seems that the slyest way to undermine the Constitution is to claim to be defending it.
General Paul Vallely, through his front group StandUpAmericaus.com, is calling for Barack Obama to step down from the Presidency over allegations of deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty, and for violating the oath of office and the U.S. Constitution.
But while all of these are valid charges, the solution presented indicates that the retired general may himself be an aspiring despot waiting in the wings.
For instead of allowing the constitutional procedures established by the Founding Fathers to guide the nation through turbulent periods in its history, Vallely is insisting that new elections must be held this very instant that are to be authorized as a result of citizen petition.
The General claims “We can wait no longer for a traditional transfer of power and a new government.”
Such a proposal causes the discerning to wonder what other provisions of the Constitution he would like to hack to pieces with a bayonet. Because unless the nation goes through an amendment process, there are no legal provisions there for the kind of procedure he is calling for.
In the Book of Revelation, chapter 6, the text describes those who are popularly referred to as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
In this passage, the student of Scripture is shown a rider on a White Horse who is believed to conquer peacefully through guile rather than bloodshed; he is then followed by a Red Horse who brings war.
Though we are not yet in that period of history where the events foretold in the pages of prophecy are being ultimately fulfilled, with the ascension of Barack Obama, I will continue to insist that what we are likely seeing is some kind of dress rehearsal with stand-ins as Satan strategizes and postures as to how he would like to see the narrative unfold.
If at this time Barack Obama is a placeholder for the one that conquers through rhetoric and charisma, General Vallely could very well be at this phase of the game one that rallies to his cause the disaffected preferring deeds to words, resulting in an outcome that is no more desirable that the liberty eroding socialism of the Obama regime.
As a West Point graduate and career officer in the U.S. military, General Vallely can be respected for his contributions to the defense of this nation. However, history gives good reason as to why ultimate control of the military must rest in civilian hands, and no matter how noble their service and their advice considered as a result, veterans should have no more ultimate say than any other citizen that claims to love America.
by Frederick Meekins
General Paul Vallely, through his front group StandUpAmericaus.com, is calling for Barack Obama to step down from the Presidency over allegations of deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty, and for violating the oath of office and the U.S. Constitution.
But while all of these are valid charges, the solution presented indicates that the retired general may himself be an aspiring despot waiting in the wings.
For instead of allowing the constitutional procedures established by the Founding Fathers to guide the nation through turbulent periods in its history, Vallely is insisting that new elections must be held this very instant that are to be authorized as a result of citizen petition.
The General claims “We can wait no longer for a traditional transfer of power and a new government.”
Such a proposal causes the discerning to wonder what other provisions of the Constitution he would like to hack to pieces with a bayonet. Because unless the nation goes through an amendment process, there are no legal provisions there for the kind of procedure he is calling for.
In the Book of Revelation, chapter 6, the text describes those who are popularly referred to as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
In this passage, the student of Scripture is shown a rider on a White Horse who is believed to conquer peacefully through guile rather than bloodshed; he is then followed by a Red Horse who brings war.
Though we are not yet in that period of history where the events foretold in the pages of prophecy are being ultimately fulfilled, with the ascension of Barack Obama, I will continue to insist that what we are likely seeing is some kind of dress rehearsal with stand-ins as Satan strategizes and postures as to how he would like to see the narrative unfold.
If at this time Barack Obama is a placeholder for the one that conquers through rhetoric and charisma, General Vallely could very well be at this phase of the game one that rallies to his cause the disaffected preferring deeds to words, resulting in an outcome that is no more desirable that the liberty eroding socialism of the Obama regime.
As a West Point graduate and career officer in the U.S. military, General Vallely can be respected for his contributions to the defense of this nation. However, history gives good reason as to why ultimate control of the military must rest in civilian hands, and no matter how noble their service and their advice considered as a result, veterans should have no more ultimate say than any other citizen that claims to love America.
by Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Christian School Sued For Firing Fornicating Teacher
I guess these days some think she deserves the teacher of the year award just because one of her students isn't the father.
Thing is here, so many fall for the notion these days that one is obligated to reveal everything to everybody simply because one is asked.
Given how close she had fallen into sin to her scheduled kickoff date, she should have insisted that the party began as originally scheduled.
Also have to ask if the school is internested primarily in morals or trying to find a way to weasel out of paying benefits.
What's next; will teachers that wed be required to publically display a bloody honeymoon sheet as is the practice in some backwards cultures for the pastor or principal to inspect?
Thing is here, so many fall for the notion these days that one is obligated to reveal everything to everybody simply because one is asked.
Given how close she had fallen into sin to her scheduled kickoff date, she should have insisted that the party began as originally scheduled.
Also have to ask if the school is internested primarily in morals or trying to find a way to weasel out of paying benefits.
What's next; will teachers that wed be required to publically display a bloody honeymoon sheet as is the practice in some backwards cultures for the pastor or principal to inspect?
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Obama Teaches You Are Not As Important As Him
President Barack Obama addressed the graduating class of Kalamazoo Central High School and personally greeted each of the seniors to congratulate them for their academic achievements.
This honor was extended, for the most part, because of the class patting itself on the back for its lack of racial and ethnic discord, which in today's scholastic environment translates largely into the White students taking with a smile plastered across their faces denouncement for and the accepting of blame for the lion's share of the world's problems as elaborated by leftist textbooks, multiculturalist educators, and the discontented minorities that get worked up into a froth as a result of such indoctrination.
Though a scathing column could be written on that in and of itself, that isn't even the most glaring hypocrisy surrounding this event.
As part of the security procedures surrounding the President's visit, each of the seniors to be personally greeted by the President had to submit to a Secret Service background check.
What's wrong with that those conditioned to submissively accept what they are told to do without a second thought will reply. Nothing whatsoever, as in this day of rampant violence, numerous precautions must be taken to protect the life of the President.
It is just a shame that the President doesn't think that your life is as valuable as his.
The first part of any background check consists of verifying that the person is whom they claim to be by examining their official documentation. Yet President Obama and his law lad Eric Holder are among the foremost critics of the state of Arizona for taking this most basic of steps to protect its citizens and the residents legitimately having the right to reside there from those that do not.
The Constitution expressly forbids in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 the granting of titles that would establish the creation of a nobility setting one class of citizen above another as a matter of statutory formality. This means that, as a matter of legal ontology, all Americans are equal at the core of their being.
The President of the United States has every reasonable expectation that those intending him harm will be kept away from himself and his family. Is there any reason as to why every other American should expect anything less from our government for ourselves as well?
by Frederick Meekins
This honor was extended, for the most part, because of the class patting itself on the back for its lack of racial and ethnic discord, which in today's scholastic environment translates largely into the White students taking with a smile plastered across their faces denouncement for and the accepting of blame for the lion's share of the world's problems as elaborated by leftist textbooks, multiculturalist educators, and the discontented minorities that get worked up into a froth as a result of such indoctrination.
Though a scathing column could be written on that in and of itself, that isn't even the most glaring hypocrisy surrounding this event.
As part of the security procedures surrounding the President's visit, each of the seniors to be personally greeted by the President had to submit to a Secret Service background check.
What's wrong with that those conditioned to submissively accept what they are told to do without a second thought will reply. Nothing whatsoever, as in this day of rampant violence, numerous precautions must be taken to protect the life of the President.
It is just a shame that the President doesn't think that your life is as valuable as his.
The first part of any background check consists of verifying that the person is whom they claim to be by examining their official documentation. Yet President Obama and his law lad Eric Holder are among the foremost critics of the state of Arizona for taking this most basic of steps to protect its citizens and the residents legitimately having the right to reside there from those that do not.
The Constitution expressly forbids in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 the granting of titles that would establish the creation of a nobility setting one class of citizen above another as a matter of statutory formality. This means that, as a matter of legal ontology, all Americans are equal at the core of their being.
The President of the United States has every reasonable expectation that those intending him harm will be kept away from himself and his family. Is there any reason as to why every other American should expect anything less from our government for ourselves as well?
by Frederick Meekins
On D-Day (which Obama did not commemorate) at a ceremony attended by the President, Anglican apostate Desmond Tutu insisted security is not obtained through the barrel of a gun. Some of his closest South African allies such as the Mandelas would, through their actions, assume it comes through sticking a tire around the neck of your political opponents, filling it with gasoline, and setting the tire on fire.
Monday, June 07, 2010
Limbaugh Gets Hitched
Wonder how long this will last given his track record; this is his fourth marriage.
On a humorous note, the headline on most websites reads, "Rush Limbaugh Weds, Elton John Sings".
The proofreaders certainly earned their keep with that carefully placed comma.
If Rush can afford $1 million for the frivolty of Elton John singing at the ceremony, there is no way Limbaugh can comprehend the struggles we mere peons go through as he almost acts like the oil slick is a laughing matter.
On a humorous note, the headline on most websites reads, "Rush Limbaugh Weds, Elton John Sings".
The proofreaders certainly earned their keep with that carefully placed comma.
If Rush can afford $1 million for the frivolty of Elton John singing at the ceremony, there is no way Limbaugh can comprehend the struggles we mere peons go through as he almost acts like the oil slick is a laughing matter.
Cyborgs Demand Civil Rights
It is all well and good to defend the rights of those that may need a prosthesis here or there. But will regular humans not wanting comrehensive enhancements they don't need or now wanting to join a collective consciouness that eradicates even the privacy of one's own thoughts have their rights protected as well?
Sunday, June 06, 2010
Can Celebrities Aiding In Oil Spill Disaster Be Trusted?
A deadly blob of oil and gunk edges ever closer to a delicate shoreline with each passing wave. Fear not, Hollywood celebrities will save the day.
The boundary between entertainment and reality is growing more clouded every day. Because of their respective expertise with complex aquatic equipment, James Cameron and Kevin Costner have stepped forward as potential heroes to resolve the BP oil spill disaster. I guess most have forgotten what a flop "Waterworld" was at the box office.
However since the films for which these celebrities are best known, "Avatar" and "Dances With Wolves", are quite distinct in regards to the worldviews through which they hope to persuade audiences, can these personalities be trusted to assist in the preservation of our technologically dependent civilization or will they manipulate the crisis to impose cultural primitivism upon broad swaths of humanity?
Running around half-naked riding psychedelically-colored dinosaurs might look fun during an innovative three hour fantasy. But if it was real, after awhile one would realize that it’s not as glamorous as it looks up on the big screen with no Preparation H in sight for the relief of the chaffed hemorrhoidal tissues that would no doubt result.
by Frederick Meekins
The boundary between entertainment and reality is growing more clouded every day. Because of their respective expertise with complex aquatic equipment, James Cameron and Kevin Costner have stepped forward as potential heroes to resolve the BP oil spill disaster. I guess most have forgotten what a flop "Waterworld" was at the box office.
However since the films for which these celebrities are best known, "Avatar" and "Dances With Wolves", are quite distinct in regards to the worldviews through which they hope to persuade audiences, can these personalities be trusted to assist in the preservation of our technologically dependent civilization or will they manipulate the crisis to impose cultural primitivism upon broad swaths of humanity?
Running around half-naked riding psychedelically-colored dinosaurs might look fun during an innovative three hour fantasy. But if it was real, after awhile one would realize that it’s not as glamorous as it looks up on the big screen with no Preparation H in sight for the relief of the chaffed hemorrhoidal tissues that would no doubt result.
by Frederick Meekins
Saturday, June 05, 2010
The Los Angeles school system plans to teach students that the Arizona immigration law is "un-American". But since communalist liberals despise the United States, if this is the rhetoric they intend to use to describe the legislation, aren't they logically forced to admit that the statute is a good thing? Are students also to be taught the comprehensive legal codes of all the other states as well?
Friday, June 04, 2010
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Greedy Indigent Seek Birth Control Subsidies
Frankly, if you can't afford to pay for your own birth control even if you are married, frankly you don't need to be having carnal relations to begin with.
Evangelist Hugh Pyle
His column on current events in the Sword of the Lord was entertaining and informative.
Pelosi Claims Fidelity To Scriputure
Too bad she is totally ignorant as to its contents as evidenced by her positions on abortion, sodomite union, and illegal immigration.
Grandy on WMAL talks in British accent to lampoon BP head wishing he could go back to his life following the oil rig disaster. Will be the first to admit that a feigned accent can be humorous, but will Mexican, Chinese, or a ghetto resident on welfare with 15 children telling everyone what a strong, proud Black woman she is also be attempted on the morning airwaves?
The Anarcho-Totalitarian Nature Of Radical Environmentalism
To most Americans, environmentalism is perceived as a benevolent cultural force charged with preserving the earth's endangered natural treasures and resources. After all, who could possibly oppose freshwater, clean air, and efforts to save fury creatures. Yet few realize there is also a dark underbelly to the growing body of thought that motivates this enthusiastic social movement, causing it to often stand in opposition to fundamental Christian assumptions regarding God, man, and the relation of each to the broader Creation. These faulty assumptions in turn end up posing a major threat to both the liberties we enjoy as Americans and the standard of living possessed by industrialized nations resulting from technological advancement.
There is more to radical brands of environmental ethics --- also know as "Deep Ecology" --- than the perennial dilemma between paper or plastic. To a number of the movement's followers, such rigorous devotion to nature serves the function of a comprehensive worldview. This perspective molds understandings of theology, anthropology, and forms of cultural engagement.
Fundamental, therefore, becomes this outlook's interpretation of ultimate reality. In one sense, Deep Ecology can be seen as an eclectic philosophical movement finding its well of inspiration from the confluence of several streams of thought.
Sociology Professor Bill Devall, who helped coin the movement's name, is quoted in "Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization" by Christopher Manes as saying, "We are arguing that you can start from Buddhism, you can start from Darwinism, you can work your way from Native American tradition and work your way to a Deep Ecology position....(140)." What draws these disparate starting points together is the common assumption of interconnectedness where all components of the environment are dependent upon one another and comprise a totality greater than themselves known as the ecosphere.
The systemic interconnectedness promoted by Deep Ecology exhibits considerable similarity to the religious concept of pantheism, the idea that the sum of the universe constitutes God itself. This no doubt accounts for the considerable crossover between the ranks of the New Age and radical environmentalist movements.
Deep Ecology's affinity towards pantheistic spirituality bears much of the responsibility for the hostility that has developed between orthodox Christian belief and the more exacting brands of environmentalist thought. Though adherents are somewhat mistaken as to the philosophical justification for the ecological degradation found in the world, dedicated environmentalists are astute in recognizing the divergences between these competing conceptions of morality.
On the one hand, Deep Ecology perceives the world and its contents as a singular undifferentiated reality. Christianity, on the other hand, acknowledges the shared attributes of the created order while recognizing separate points and shades of ontological valuation along the continuum of being. In the essay "The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis", Lynn White, Jr. argues that Christianity's distinction between man and nature serves as the root excuse justifying the despoilment of the planet's ecology. While White's hypothesis may be a bit fanciful in its interpretation, his contention does highlight the stark contrast in the epistemological frameworks presented by each of these systems.
Deep Ecology descends from its pinnacle of philosophical monism to address the matters of existence in the world through the vehicle of ecocentrism, the ethical position that everything in nature possesses the same degree of intrinsic worth. Rik Scarce writes in Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement, "Deep Ecologists argue that human-centered , or 'anthropocentric' worldviews grant people a privileged status... Ecology teaches that no individual or species warrants such a special status. For ethical purposes ecocentrism places humans on par with trees, blades of grass, mountain lions, and roaches (36)."
Such thinking ought to send chills down the spines of rational people everywhere. It also no doubt explains the reluctance of local governments to spray for burgeoning mosquito populations despite the increasing threat posed by the potentially deadly West Nile virus. We certainly wouldn't want to harm those darling mosquitoes.
It is through ecocentrism that the abstractions of environmental philosophy begin to take concrete shape in the form of policies and political positions. Deep Ecology's social outlook is centered around bioregionalism, a form of socio-political organization whereby boundaries of a territory are delineated according to an area's ecological characteristics (Scare, 38). This is done in the hopes of bringing about the advent of a new revolutionary society.
The purpose of bioregionalism is to establish sustainable communities integrated wholly into the ecosystem in an attempt to halt the expanse of industrial society. Christopher Manes points out in Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization that thinkers such as Heidegger and Marcuse claim that attempts by technology to totalize all aspects of existence ultimately cut the individual off from the fabric of the universe (226).
While such rhetoric may make one want to belt out Coca-Cola jingles atop a lush mountain, these words mean much more than planting a garden or ordering cloths from the L.L. Bean catalogue. And even though there are slightly different paths to the same goal, all of them seek to drastically alter the cultural foundations upon which Western civilization rests.
The first trail to ecotopia winds its way through the dark grove of anarchism. A number of Deep Ecologists think of the ideal form of political organization in terms of Ghandi's adage that "The ideally nonviolent state will be ordered anarchy (Scarce, 38)." Movement leader Dave Foreman endeavors to downplay anarchism's shady connotations by clarifying, "I consider myself a tribalist, not an anarchist (Scare, 38)."
Foreman claims that such social arrangements provide considerable individual freedom within the context of an ethical and cultural framework. But as we shall see, neither Foreman nor those following in his path have done much to dispell the perception of anarchy as a justification for violence or done much to promote traditional conceptions of freedom.
The archetype upon which most subsequent activism has been modeled is no doubt Earth First!. Earth First! was established by a group of environmentally conscientious acquaintances led by Dave Foreman, a former staff member of the Washington, DC office of the Wilderness Society who grew disenchanted with the increasingly establishmentarian postures of the more prominent environmental groups. For whereas organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society were marked by their efforts to work within the American political system to achieve some degree of environmental compromise, organizations and activists following in the Earth First! mold would be characterized by a more confrontational and direct course of action.
The tactics pursued by groups such as Earth First! are known as environmental terrorism or ecotage. These acts are also referred to as "monkey wrenching" in honor of the inspiration for them drawn from the novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" by Edward Abbey published in 1975.
In the novel, the protagonists set out to save the environment from developers by engaging in acts of vandalism against the implements of ecological degradation. The characters accomplish their mission by burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, blowing up railroad tracks, and by pulling up survey stakes (Scarce, 240).
Such fiction would inspire more practical treatments of the subject that would translate these ideas from the realm of literature to the world of action. Foremost among such treatises ranks “Ecodefense: A Handbook On The Militant Defense Of The Earth” by none other than Earth First!’s own Dave Foreman.
Modeled after but perhaps a bit more subdued than the infamous terrorism manual “The Anarchist’s Cookbook“, “Ecodefense” provides the aspiring eco-saboteur with helpful hints on how to destroy construction equipment, how to pull up power and seismographic lines, how to make smoke bombs, and how to elude detection by authorities (Manes, 82). This manifesto would inspire numerous acts of defiance, the best known form being tree spiking which consisted of driving large nails into trees in the hopes of destroying any saw bent on defacing the woody masterpieces of the forest.
Earth First! was most active during the mid 1980's. Dave Foreman has since moved back to "mainstream" environmental activities as he now campaigns to reintroduce wolves into the wilds of the eastern United States. Apart from the serious danger of saw blades ricocheting off an implanted spike, most of the antics perpetrated by these groups promoting an anti-civilization/back to nature mentality at that time were more examples of silliness than actual security risks.
For instance, in December 1989 a faction of Earth First! calling itself the "Gross Action Group" staged a "puke-in" at a Seattle shopping mall in the hopes that self-induced acts of regurgitation would persuade Christmas shoppers as to the putrid nature of their consumerist ways (Scarce, 89). Despite the seeming silliness, the Heritage Foundation in its 1990 report "Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringe Of The Environmental Movement" warned, "...radical environmentalists' extremist philosophy is leading to a guerilla movement that is destroying property...and one day will kill innocent workers or park employees (Scarce, 265)."
In a sense, Earth First! was undone by its own success in promoting its rigorous environmental crusade as its own brand of radical activism would become overshadowed by an even more intensive form of interventionism. Capitalizing upon innovations in communications technology such as the Internet, Mother Nature's avant-garde enjoys a degree of technological sophistication and aptitude for mobilization that early Earth First! could have never hoped to possess. These advantages make such a network of like-minded fanatics an even greater threat to both the public's safety as well as the nation's way of life.
Walter Laqueur writes in The Age Of Terrorism, "If terrorism is propaganda by deed, the success of a terrorist campaign depends decisively on the amount of publicity it receives (121)." It is precisely this opportunity for increased visibility that has spurred radical environmentalism onwards to greater and greater levels of destructive mayhem.
One such group making the most of increasing levels of technological sophistication is the Earth Liberation Front. With the proliferation of the Internet, such groups have become increasingly difficult to track.
The Special Agent In Charge of the FBI's Seattle Field Office told that city's Post Intelligencer in an article titled "Elusive Radicals Escalate Attacks In Nature's Name" published 6/18/2001, "We don't have an organizational structure to attack --- no finances, no membership lists, no meetings." In other words, the leaders of these cells enjoy the anonymity provided by cyberspace while issuing directives and encouragement via webpages to decentralized vigilantes acting alone of their own accord as they carry out such deeds.
Such mischief has included the smashing of sports utility vehicles, the torching of houses under construction, and the theft of laboratory animals. Others preferring street theater to guerilla raids use the same technologies to disseminate their ideas via email, message boards, and webzines summoning unscrubbed revelers to mass demonstrations where the zealous besiege and destroy any symbol of global consumer culture befalling their path as evidenced at noted rallies in Seattle, Quebec, and Genoa.
Having abandoned a Biblical understanding as to the nature of the universe and man's relation to it in favor of a more pantheistic model, radical environmentalist policies are fraught with a number of inconsistencies harboring serious social implications. The first glaring hypocrisy that no doubt leaps out at even the most casual observer of current events is how a movement claiming to be dedicated to the integrity of all forms of life and the principles of nonviolence and so willfully engage in such blatant acts of sabotage.
Unencumbered by Biblical injunctions upholding the propriety of the individualized ownership of resources, covert ecoteurs and raucous protestors alike do not view their acts of mischief as violence but rather as minor acts of vandalism. This is because such deeds are directed at inanimate technological objects or structures of economic development rather than at manifestations of the natural world such as life forms and landscapes.
Yet that does not mean residents of the industrialized world can breathe a sigh of relief that these campaigns have reached the pinnacle of their destructive onslaught. One of the movement's operatives subdued by authorities warnedin the Seattle Post Intelligencer warned that, if the federal government were ever to carry through on plans to increase the role of nuclear power in America's energy policy, the stakes would be so high that it would not be out of the question for activists to target the homes of nuclear executives or even the executives themselves. The American people, however, should not think of themselves or their possessions as beyond the scope of this disruptive brand of political participation.
Many of the most radical environmentalists, and thus the most likely to act, long for a day when society will no longer be dependent upon modern technology. Such a goal seems at present unattainable as gadgets, gears, and gizmos seem to proliferate at every turn.
But according to the September 2001 issue of Popular Mechanics, there is a new device on the horizon called an “e-bomb” that could make these utopian aspirations a reality. The e-bomb would emit an electromagnetic pulse with the potential to destroy nearly every computer, electrical appliance, and motor in the civilized world without technically taking a single life in the attack itself. Casualties would no doubt mount afterwards, but environmental terrorists would dance around this by pinning that blame on the victims themselves for losing touch with the land and growing too dependent on mechanical conveniences.
Such a scenario is no doubt already being mulled over in the minds of those who craft the popular imagination. This very development served as part of the back story for the sci-fi drama “Dark Angel” set amidst an America struggling to rebuild after just such an ambush by ardent technophobes.
Chaos and mayhem are not the only dangers posed by those caught in Deep Ecology’s web. Despite the movement’s tendency’s seemingly towards anarchy, it also displays a frightening streak towards authoritarian elitism.
For example, while often claiming to represent the interests of the so-called “indigenous peoples” of the world, these activists would think nothing of preempting the rights of self-determination these natives should enjoy as human beings. Science correspondent Ronald Bailey points out in the July 2001 issue of Reason Magazine in the article “Rage Against The Machines: Witnessing The Birth Of The Neo-Luddite Movement” that certain green intellectuals propose that traditional tribal cultures be prevented from acquiring the technologies that would disrupt their established ways of life.
Often this complaint has little to do with the well-being of the rainforest; one author thought it was just terrible that one ethnic group in India no longer sat around the campfire singing songs but now instead listens to the radio. Bailey points out that one particular article on the website Primitivism.com questioned whether or not mass ownership of computers should even be permitted, the use of such devices no doubt restricted to those agreeing with the editorial slant of that particular website.
A number of Deep Ecologists --- despite all of their hemming and hawing against the inequities perpetrated by globalist institutuons --- do not themselves believe in inalienable rights or some form of constitutional representative democracy as given absolutes. Kirkpatrick Sale writes in Mother Of All, “Bioregional diversity....does not mean every region...will build upon the values of democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, justice or other suchlike desiderata.” Such a statement leaves the room for numerous human rights abuses perpetrated by a cadre of Platonic philosopher-kings operating on behalf of the environment.
Those taking solace in the fact that the rulers of such an ecotopia will suffer along with us in this Spartan existence devoid of automobiles, air conditioning, and microwave ovens are in for a rude awakening. For the leaders of such a regime will likely continue to enjoy a reasonably luxurious existence. Responding to comments made by Barbara Streisand on her webpage that Californians ought to turn off their lights and hang their laundry on a clothesline to conserve energy, columnist Dave Berry in a July 8, 2001 Miami Herald column titled "California Should Conserve On Car Chases" remarked how uplifting it is to be lectured to by someone whose residence consumes more electricity than many Third World countries and questioned if Streisand even did her own laundry.
These hypocritical conservation tips are not the only example of environmentalism run amok that the rich and famous would impose upon the remainder of society in earth's holy name. This threat is epitomized by a trend referred to as the "slow food movement".
The slow food movement seeks to replace agriculturally intensive but economic foods with higher-quality, less-efficient traditional varieties utilizing organic methods. While the elite should be free to procure whatever delicacy titillates their palates or assuages their consciences, what are the rest of us going to eat when decreased food supplies and more labor-intensive production techniques result in astronomical prices?
Addressing the reluctance of Christians to tackle this delicate area of scientific and social inquiry, in Moral Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives On Contemporary Ethical Issues, Kerby Anderson writes, “Christians fear the prevailing pantheistic influence on the environmental movement. But New Age influence ... may be due to the...withdrawal of Christians from this arena. When Christianity did not fill this void, pantheism and other wordlviews filled it instead (195).” The result has been absolute ethical confusion and the inversion of the moral pyramid.
Peter Huber notes in "Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists” that certain environmentalists consider Unabomber Ted Kacyznski a more pristine example of the moral ideal they are crusading for than even environmental theoretician Al Gore since, unlike the former Vice President, this homicidal hermit lived in a rundown shack and fathered no children. Never mind the fact that Kacyznski maimed and killed fellow human beings with makeshift pyrotechnics.
It would seem these warped sensibilities are gaining a more widespread acceptance throughout Western culture. Kacyznski's own rambling tractate, published by the Washington Post and New York Times under duress of further bombings, is now assigned at Harvard not as part of a course on criminal psychology or the ideological motivations behind acts of terrorism but as part of a literature course exploring more accomplished intellects. Amidst such bewilderment, Christians must step forward to provide a degree of balance acknowledging the need to preserve God's handiwork as well as our right to enjoy it now not as slaves but rather as its free stewards.
by Frederick Meekins
There is more to radical brands of environmental ethics --- also know as "Deep Ecology" --- than the perennial dilemma between paper or plastic. To a number of the movement's followers, such rigorous devotion to nature serves the function of a comprehensive worldview. This perspective molds understandings of theology, anthropology, and forms of cultural engagement.
Fundamental, therefore, becomes this outlook's interpretation of ultimate reality. In one sense, Deep Ecology can be seen as an eclectic philosophical movement finding its well of inspiration from the confluence of several streams of thought.
Sociology Professor Bill Devall, who helped coin the movement's name, is quoted in "Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization" by Christopher Manes as saying, "We are arguing that you can start from Buddhism, you can start from Darwinism, you can work your way from Native American tradition and work your way to a Deep Ecology position....(140)." What draws these disparate starting points together is the common assumption of interconnectedness where all components of the environment are dependent upon one another and comprise a totality greater than themselves known as the ecosphere.
The systemic interconnectedness promoted by Deep Ecology exhibits considerable similarity to the religious concept of pantheism, the idea that the sum of the universe constitutes God itself. This no doubt accounts for the considerable crossover between the ranks of the New Age and radical environmentalist movements.
Deep Ecology's affinity towards pantheistic spirituality bears much of the responsibility for the hostility that has developed between orthodox Christian belief and the more exacting brands of environmentalist thought. Though adherents are somewhat mistaken as to the philosophical justification for the ecological degradation found in the world, dedicated environmentalists are astute in recognizing the divergences between these competing conceptions of morality.
On the one hand, Deep Ecology perceives the world and its contents as a singular undifferentiated reality. Christianity, on the other hand, acknowledges the shared attributes of the created order while recognizing separate points and shades of ontological valuation along the continuum of being. In the essay "The Historical Roots Of Our Ecological Crisis", Lynn White, Jr. argues that Christianity's distinction between man and nature serves as the root excuse justifying the despoilment of the planet's ecology. While White's hypothesis may be a bit fanciful in its interpretation, his contention does highlight the stark contrast in the epistemological frameworks presented by each of these systems.
Deep Ecology descends from its pinnacle of philosophical monism to address the matters of existence in the world through the vehicle of ecocentrism, the ethical position that everything in nature possesses the same degree of intrinsic worth. Rik Scarce writes in Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement, "Deep Ecologists argue that human-centered , or 'anthropocentric' worldviews grant people a privileged status... Ecology teaches that no individual or species warrants such a special status. For ethical purposes ecocentrism places humans on par with trees, blades of grass, mountain lions, and roaches (36)."
Such thinking ought to send chills down the spines of rational people everywhere. It also no doubt explains the reluctance of local governments to spray for burgeoning mosquito populations despite the increasing threat posed by the potentially deadly West Nile virus. We certainly wouldn't want to harm those darling mosquitoes.
It is through ecocentrism that the abstractions of environmental philosophy begin to take concrete shape in the form of policies and political positions. Deep Ecology's social outlook is centered around bioregionalism, a form of socio-political organization whereby boundaries of a territory are delineated according to an area's ecological characteristics (Scare, 38). This is done in the hopes of bringing about the advent of a new revolutionary society.
The purpose of bioregionalism is to establish sustainable communities integrated wholly into the ecosystem in an attempt to halt the expanse of industrial society. Christopher Manes points out in Green Rage: Radical Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization that thinkers such as Heidegger and Marcuse claim that attempts by technology to totalize all aspects of existence ultimately cut the individual off from the fabric of the universe (226).
While such rhetoric may make one want to belt out Coca-Cola jingles atop a lush mountain, these words mean much more than planting a garden or ordering cloths from the L.L. Bean catalogue. And even though there are slightly different paths to the same goal, all of them seek to drastically alter the cultural foundations upon which Western civilization rests.
The first trail to ecotopia winds its way through the dark grove of anarchism. A number of Deep Ecologists think of the ideal form of political organization in terms of Ghandi's adage that "The ideally nonviolent state will be ordered anarchy (Scarce, 38)." Movement leader Dave Foreman endeavors to downplay anarchism's shady connotations by clarifying, "I consider myself a tribalist, not an anarchist (Scare, 38)."
Foreman claims that such social arrangements provide considerable individual freedom within the context of an ethical and cultural framework. But as we shall see, neither Foreman nor those following in his path have done much to dispell the perception of anarchy as a justification for violence or done much to promote traditional conceptions of freedom.
The archetype upon which most subsequent activism has been modeled is no doubt Earth First!. Earth First! was established by a group of environmentally conscientious acquaintances led by Dave Foreman, a former staff member of the Washington, DC office of the Wilderness Society who grew disenchanted with the increasingly establishmentarian postures of the more prominent environmental groups. For whereas organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society were marked by their efforts to work within the American political system to achieve some degree of environmental compromise, organizations and activists following in the Earth First! mold would be characterized by a more confrontational and direct course of action.
The tactics pursued by groups such as Earth First! are known as environmental terrorism or ecotage. These acts are also referred to as "monkey wrenching" in honor of the inspiration for them drawn from the novel "The Monkey Wrench Gang" by Edward Abbey published in 1975.
In the novel, the protagonists set out to save the environment from developers by engaging in acts of vandalism against the implements of ecological degradation. The characters accomplish their mission by burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, blowing up railroad tracks, and by pulling up survey stakes (Scarce, 240).
Such fiction would inspire more practical treatments of the subject that would translate these ideas from the realm of literature to the world of action. Foremost among such treatises ranks “Ecodefense: A Handbook On The Militant Defense Of The Earth” by none other than Earth First!’s own Dave Foreman.
Modeled after but perhaps a bit more subdued than the infamous terrorism manual “The Anarchist’s Cookbook“, “Ecodefense” provides the aspiring eco-saboteur with helpful hints on how to destroy construction equipment, how to pull up power and seismographic lines, how to make smoke bombs, and how to elude detection by authorities (Manes, 82). This manifesto would inspire numerous acts of defiance, the best known form being tree spiking which consisted of driving large nails into trees in the hopes of destroying any saw bent on defacing the woody masterpieces of the forest.
Earth First! was most active during the mid 1980's. Dave Foreman has since moved back to "mainstream" environmental activities as he now campaigns to reintroduce wolves into the wilds of the eastern United States. Apart from the serious danger of saw blades ricocheting off an implanted spike, most of the antics perpetrated by these groups promoting an anti-civilization/back to nature mentality at that time were more examples of silliness than actual security risks.
For instance, in December 1989 a faction of Earth First! calling itself the "Gross Action Group" staged a "puke-in" at a Seattle shopping mall in the hopes that self-induced acts of regurgitation would persuade Christmas shoppers as to the putrid nature of their consumerist ways (Scarce, 89). Despite the seeming silliness, the Heritage Foundation in its 1990 report "Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringe Of The Environmental Movement" warned, "...radical environmentalists' extremist philosophy is leading to a guerilla movement that is destroying property...and one day will kill innocent workers or park employees (Scarce, 265)."
In a sense, Earth First! was undone by its own success in promoting its rigorous environmental crusade as its own brand of radical activism would become overshadowed by an even more intensive form of interventionism. Capitalizing upon innovations in communications technology such as the Internet, Mother Nature's avant-garde enjoys a degree of technological sophistication and aptitude for mobilization that early Earth First! could have never hoped to possess. These advantages make such a network of like-minded fanatics an even greater threat to both the public's safety as well as the nation's way of life.
Walter Laqueur writes in The Age Of Terrorism, "If terrorism is propaganda by deed, the success of a terrorist campaign depends decisively on the amount of publicity it receives (121)." It is precisely this opportunity for increased visibility that has spurred radical environmentalism onwards to greater and greater levels of destructive mayhem.
One such group making the most of increasing levels of technological sophistication is the Earth Liberation Front. With the proliferation of the Internet, such groups have become increasingly difficult to track.
The Special Agent In Charge of the FBI's Seattle Field Office told that city's Post Intelligencer in an article titled "Elusive Radicals Escalate Attacks In Nature's Name" published 6/18/2001, "We don't have an organizational structure to attack --- no finances, no membership lists, no meetings." In other words, the leaders of these cells enjoy the anonymity provided by cyberspace while issuing directives and encouragement via webpages to decentralized vigilantes acting alone of their own accord as they carry out such deeds.
Such mischief has included the smashing of sports utility vehicles, the torching of houses under construction, and the theft of laboratory animals. Others preferring street theater to guerilla raids use the same technologies to disseminate their ideas via email, message boards, and webzines summoning unscrubbed revelers to mass demonstrations where the zealous besiege and destroy any symbol of global consumer culture befalling their path as evidenced at noted rallies in Seattle, Quebec, and Genoa.
Having abandoned a Biblical understanding as to the nature of the universe and man's relation to it in favor of a more pantheistic model, radical environmentalist policies are fraught with a number of inconsistencies harboring serious social implications. The first glaring hypocrisy that no doubt leaps out at even the most casual observer of current events is how a movement claiming to be dedicated to the integrity of all forms of life and the principles of nonviolence and so willfully engage in such blatant acts of sabotage.
Unencumbered by Biblical injunctions upholding the propriety of the individualized ownership of resources, covert ecoteurs and raucous protestors alike do not view their acts of mischief as violence but rather as minor acts of vandalism. This is because such deeds are directed at inanimate technological objects or structures of economic development rather than at manifestations of the natural world such as life forms and landscapes.
Yet that does not mean residents of the industrialized world can breathe a sigh of relief that these campaigns have reached the pinnacle of their destructive onslaught. One of the movement's operatives subdued by authorities warnedin the Seattle Post Intelligencer warned that, if the federal government were ever to carry through on plans to increase the role of nuclear power in America's energy policy, the stakes would be so high that it would not be out of the question for activists to target the homes of nuclear executives or even the executives themselves. The American people, however, should not think of themselves or their possessions as beyond the scope of this disruptive brand of political participation.
Many of the most radical environmentalists, and thus the most likely to act, long for a day when society will no longer be dependent upon modern technology. Such a goal seems at present unattainable as gadgets, gears, and gizmos seem to proliferate at every turn.
But according to the September 2001 issue of Popular Mechanics, there is a new device on the horizon called an “e-bomb” that could make these utopian aspirations a reality. The e-bomb would emit an electromagnetic pulse with the potential to destroy nearly every computer, electrical appliance, and motor in the civilized world without technically taking a single life in the attack itself. Casualties would no doubt mount afterwards, but environmental terrorists would dance around this by pinning that blame on the victims themselves for losing touch with the land and growing too dependent on mechanical conveniences.
Such a scenario is no doubt already being mulled over in the minds of those who craft the popular imagination. This very development served as part of the back story for the sci-fi drama “Dark Angel” set amidst an America struggling to rebuild after just such an ambush by ardent technophobes.
Chaos and mayhem are not the only dangers posed by those caught in Deep Ecology’s web. Despite the movement’s tendency’s seemingly towards anarchy, it also displays a frightening streak towards authoritarian elitism.
For example, while often claiming to represent the interests of the so-called “indigenous peoples” of the world, these activists would think nothing of preempting the rights of self-determination these natives should enjoy as human beings. Science correspondent Ronald Bailey points out in the July 2001 issue of Reason Magazine in the article “Rage Against The Machines: Witnessing The Birth Of The Neo-Luddite Movement” that certain green intellectuals propose that traditional tribal cultures be prevented from acquiring the technologies that would disrupt their established ways of life.
Often this complaint has little to do with the well-being of the rainforest; one author thought it was just terrible that one ethnic group in India no longer sat around the campfire singing songs but now instead listens to the radio. Bailey points out that one particular article on the website Primitivism.com questioned whether or not mass ownership of computers should even be permitted, the use of such devices no doubt restricted to those agreeing with the editorial slant of that particular website.
A number of Deep Ecologists --- despite all of their hemming and hawing against the inequities perpetrated by globalist institutuons --- do not themselves believe in inalienable rights or some form of constitutional representative democracy as given absolutes. Kirkpatrick Sale writes in Mother Of All, “Bioregional diversity....does not mean every region...will build upon the values of democracy, equality, liberty, freedom, justice or other suchlike desiderata.” Such a statement leaves the room for numerous human rights abuses perpetrated by a cadre of Platonic philosopher-kings operating on behalf of the environment.
Those taking solace in the fact that the rulers of such an ecotopia will suffer along with us in this Spartan existence devoid of automobiles, air conditioning, and microwave ovens are in for a rude awakening. For the leaders of such a regime will likely continue to enjoy a reasonably luxurious existence. Responding to comments made by Barbara Streisand on her webpage that Californians ought to turn off their lights and hang their laundry on a clothesline to conserve energy, columnist Dave Berry in a July 8, 2001 Miami Herald column titled "California Should Conserve On Car Chases" remarked how uplifting it is to be lectured to by someone whose residence consumes more electricity than many Third World countries and questioned if Streisand even did her own laundry.
These hypocritical conservation tips are not the only example of environmentalism run amok that the rich and famous would impose upon the remainder of society in earth's holy name. This threat is epitomized by a trend referred to as the "slow food movement".
The slow food movement seeks to replace agriculturally intensive but economic foods with higher-quality, less-efficient traditional varieties utilizing organic methods. While the elite should be free to procure whatever delicacy titillates their palates or assuages their consciences, what are the rest of us going to eat when decreased food supplies and more labor-intensive production techniques result in astronomical prices?
Addressing the reluctance of Christians to tackle this delicate area of scientific and social inquiry, in Moral Dilemmas: Biblical Perspectives On Contemporary Ethical Issues, Kerby Anderson writes, “Christians fear the prevailing pantheistic influence on the environmental movement. But New Age influence ... may be due to the...withdrawal of Christians from this arena. When Christianity did not fill this void, pantheism and other wordlviews filled it instead (195).” The result has been absolute ethical confusion and the inversion of the moral pyramid.
Peter Huber notes in "Hard Green: Saving The Environment From The Environmentalists” that certain environmentalists consider Unabomber Ted Kacyznski a more pristine example of the moral ideal they are crusading for than even environmental theoretician Al Gore since, unlike the former Vice President, this homicidal hermit lived in a rundown shack and fathered no children. Never mind the fact that Kacyznski maimed and killed fellow human beings with makeshift pyrotechnics.
It would seem these warped sensibilities are gaining a more widespread acceptance throughout Western culture. Kacyznski's own rambling tractate, published by the Washington Post and New York Times under duress of further bombings, is now assigned at Harvard not as part of a course on criminal psychology or the ideological motivations behind acts of terrorism but as part of a literature course exploring more accomplished intellects. Amidst such bewilderment, Christians must step forward to provide a degree of balance acknowledging the need to preserve God's handiwork as well as our right to enjoy it now not as slaves but rather as its free stewards.
by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Nadal Malik Hassan, the terrorist that attacked Fort Hood, got to snuggle up with a warm blankie because him was cold. The scumbag should have had ice cold water sprayed all over him and sat in front of a blasting air conditioner and berated how American soldiers fighting in the cesspool nations of the world wish they could enjoy a cool breeze.
Red Cross Aides Taliban
The next time this outfit begs you for a handout, remember that there are other organizations out there that won't be using your charitable donation to undermine the American war effort and the cause of human liberty in the world.
WMAL's Fred Grandy remarked that the knowledge of bloggers constituted an encyclopedia of ignornance. As if other divisions within the media are of consierably higher intelligence. You'd think someone's whose claim to fame was starring in a mediocre late 70's/early 80's comedy would be less class oriented as to where information originated from.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)