Photo by Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Monday, May 16, 2016
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Saturday, May 14, 2016
Didn't Pious Ideologues Lay Foundation Of Trumpism?
Syndicated Columnist Cal Thomas has published a commentary critical of presidential candidate Donald Trump titled “The itching ears of Trump fans”.
In the piece, Thomas astutely points out where the billionaire's bold promises often lack specifics as to how the proposals could be implemented in a way that would minimize the disruption from an uncooperative opposition as epitomized by the Occupy movement and BlackLivesMatter not above the use of what most Americans would categorize as violence in the attempt to sway public opinion and policy.
But did not Thomas himself play a part in paving the way for the ascent of Trumpism?
In “Blinded By Might”, Cal Thomas admonished how the truly devout ought to dichotomize their worldviews to separate what constitutes spirituality from what constitutes competent political leadership or governance.
Now that droves of Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have flocked to a candidate that might not abide by Biblical behavioral norms in his personal life but who not only speaks bluntly about the nation's problems but in a manner that does not act like everything wrong in the world is America's fault, theologians and even conservative pundits that set this ball in motion nearly twenty years ago stand gapping in dumbfounded amazement.
In his commentary, Thomas levels condemnation at Donald Trump for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
But isn't Thomas a bit guilty of this himself?
In referencing the cruel things Trump's disturbingly fanatic supporters have called Thomas, the witty correspondent confesses being called “old” probably hurt worse than even being called a sack of excrement.
But of that particular verbal put down, Thomas writes, “Remember when age used to go with wisdom unless proven otherwise?”
Yet any other time in his desire to gain the favor of the media elite, Thomas has mocked both Tea Party gatherings and Trump rallies for being composed primarily of elderly White faces.
But one cannot get much more elderly and White than Cal Thomas.
Does he intend to consistently live by the principles he now professes by surrendering the place he does occupy in the media or the no doubt hefty check he receives for doing so?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 13, 2016
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Monday, May 09, 2016
Sunday, May 08, 2016
Saturday, May 07, 2016
Trump Critics Often Fail To Understand World As It Actually Exists
The title of the cover story of the 3/5/16 issue of the Spectator is “America Turns Nasty: The Rise Of Trump & The Souring Of A Superpower”. The title is accompanied with a caricature of Donald Trump dressed as the Statue of Liberty.
But instead of lifting aloft the famous torch, Trump is instead thrusting the most expressive of digits erect into the air. To clarify for those feigning a sense of shocked innocence, that is of course a reference to the middle finger.
Interesting it is America in general and Trump supporters in particular that are blamed for turning nasty and sour. Apparently the title is a reference to the spreading sense of irritation experienced on the part an increasing number of Americans fed up with having to take responsibility for the expanding number of deadbeats and human detritus in the world.
Donald Trump has indeed verbalized a few things that could have gone unsaid such as remarks directed towards Carli Fiornia, John McCain, and Hedi Cruz. However, many of his other quips were actually quite measured in terms of the domestic and international developments that provoked them.
For example, many were no doubt shocked when Trump suggested banning Muslims from entering the United States. His proposal could have perhaps been worded more artfully as banning admission of migrants and travelers from countries either known for supporting terrorists or unsuccessfully interdicting such violent nihilists within their respective borders.
Such a rhetorical miscalculation is still not as nasty as flying hijacked jetliners into prominent landmarks. Nor are Trump's remarks as nasty as slaughtering an unsuspecting member of the military along the side of the road and making a broadcast pronouncement regarding such an atrocity while still soaked in the victim's blood.
Others are even more outraged at Trump's proposal to build a wall across the border with Mexico for the purposes of curtailing the riffraff compromising the territorial and demographic integrity of the United States. But shouldn't even greater outrage be directed towards incidents such as the case of one particular illegal alien that was released as a result of an alleged bureaucratic mix up that is now accused of a murder spree as a serial killer?
Those whose brains are so wired to crave social acceptance and approval over the innate survival instinct will moan that such crimes are committed by only a minuscule percentage of unauthorized transborder migrants. Supposedly most aren't all that different than any other human being simply striving and struggling to make their way through life.
That is irrelevant. If you are awakened in the middle of the night by someone rummaging through your refrigerator that you did not give permission to be there, should such intruders be allowed to remain if they are otherwise nice people? In such instances, is it also somehow immoral if you decide to have someone kicked off the premises because at one time you did not use to own the house?
A number of uterosupremacists are outraged over a number of remarks made by Donald Trump pertaining to WOMMMMENNN (spelled that way in phonetic solidarity with the way in which prominent activists seem to pronounce the term). But if you are outraged over the things Trump has said in regards to a particular segment of the population no one is allowed to criticize or contradict just because their particular genetic architecture is built upon two X chromosomes, by default aren't you obligated to support the broad principles of Trumpian realist foreign policy?
For example, Donald Trump has been condemned for categorizing Islamists and radical Muslims as being bad. How can such a political and religious movement be categorized as anything but such when contemplating its prospects and intentions for WOMMMENNN (as well as men while we are at it)?
For example, perhaps those obsessed with mammography as about the only form of cancer detection elevated to the level of a civil sacrament ought to be reminded that, in certain ISIS-controlled territories, women have had their breasts hacked off by these ghoulish demoniacs for the offense of not belonging to the regime's sanctioned religion.
At times, the verbal formulations of Donald Trump are a bit gruff and over the top. However, the United States has not faired so well as of late under the leadership of those that elevate ostentatious manners over prosperity and even survival in a world where those gaining the upper hand often don't care so much about what fork to eat the salad with as they do about the rusty knife they intend to use for the severing of heads.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, May 06, 2016
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Wednesday, May 04, 2016
Should A Male Still Be Charged With Rape For A Proven Female-Initiated Sex Act?
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, May 03, 2016
Monday, May 02, 2016
Sunday, May 01, 2016
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Tolerancemongers Assault Trump Supporters In The Name Of Tolerance & Inclusion
Click On The Headline
Friday, April 29, 2016
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Transgenderist First Lady Invokes Right To Defecate In Whatever Restroom Desired
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Monday, April 25, 2016
Sunday, April 24, 2016
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Friday, April 22, 2016
Thursday, April 21, 2016
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
Headline Potpourri #85
In an oration before the National Press Club, head Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry denounced individualism as a kind of golden calf. However, this was euphemistic praise of collectivism and an assault against economic liberty. For in this tirade against consumerism, the free market, and individual rights, it seems nary a word was articulate against some of the ultimate forms of self-centeredness such as gay marriage and abortion on demand. Bishop Curry warned that selfishness is such a blight that, left unchecked, it could apparently destroy the planet. Yet apparently he himself has not yet evolved into a perfected communal state. For this ecclesiastical hierarch has not yet announced that he will forgo the extensive travel characteristic of his position if the church is to emphasize the perspective that certain persons are no more distinctive than any other.
It is being asked would it be appropriate for Melanie Trump to be First Lady despite her past of questionable photo spreads in which she appeared particularly immodest. While worthy of criticism, seems this is less offensive than the depravity alleged to take place at Bohemian Grove, John Kennedy defiling staff members in the White House pool, or Bill Clinton getting a blow job from underneath the desk in the Oval Office. Apparently these kinds of acts don't disqualify an individual from a position of high honor but whether or not polaroids commemorating such instances apparently do.
Hillary Clinton insists that, instead of building walls, the nation needs to tear down barriers. Should she be elected, will a priority of her administration be the elimination of the assorted barriers and traffic obstructions erected throughout Washington, DC in the name of the pervasive national security state?
The same filthy beatniks jacked out of shape over Donald Trump tweeting a Mussolini quotation probably regularly peruse Mao's Little Red Book while wearing their cruddy Che t-shirts.
If Donald Trump is expected to repudiate the endorsement of controversialist of David Duke, is Bernie Sanders expected to repudiate himself for being an avowed socialist? Did President Obama repudiate the endorsement he received from the Communist Party, USA?
In a podcast rant posted at SermonAudio, Jason Cooley insisted that Internet ministry does not count as a church. Given that his is a ministry that claims it holds to no position that cannot be backed up by the warrant of divine revelation, from what passage is this prohibition derives? If the Cooleyites want to contend that the only valid churches are those operating from the sanction of historically authorized churches to the extent that any good works done as a result of unauthorized Internet will be burned up on the Day of Judgment like hay and stubble, does Pastor Cooley intend to bring his church and ministry under the direct control of the Vatican?
In his condemnation of Internet ministries, Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio podcast (itself an Internet ministry) insisted that, if you as a mere pewfilling Christian have a question or a problem, you are obligated to seek the answers from sanctioned Christian authorities rather than dare to research the concern on your own over the Internet. Don't the acolytes of the Watchtower (the weirdos that just happen to know to knock on the door Saturday mornings when you are either sitting on the can or romping in the sack with your spouse) make nearly the same threat to those ensnared by that particular variety of spiritual deception? And who is one to turn to if the power structure of your particular church is what is giving you troubles or raising your doubts? Wouldn't that particular chain of command be insufficiently removed from the situation in order to render impartial counsel?
The podcast Standing For The Truth posted an episode pondering the role played by sports in the life of the believer. In Wisconsin from where the program originates, it was noted that, on the days of Green Bay Packer games, churches offering two services would have a higher attendance at the earlier. So long as folks showed up that week, does it really matter at what time they attended?
The Pentagon insists that parents and schools must cut junk food so that the armed services can muster a sufficient number of recruits. And what if parents refuse to comply? The American people don't breed children for the greater glory of the Fatherland.
Mitt Romney emphasized that Donald Trump did not build his own business but instead inherited his fortune. That's what we call an example of the dye job calling the toupee black.
House Speaker Paul Ryan forcefully condemned the supposed endorsement of Donald Trump by alleged White supremacists such as David Duke. Was the Speaker as emphatic in his repudiation of past remarks by Jeb Bush insisting that the wanton violation of America's borders was an act of love and that the racially mixed are superior to those whose parents procreated with those of their own breed.
A pastor remarked that accumulating facts about the Bible is not learning. He insisted that one can only learn by doing. Does that mean one cannot learn about what the Israelites endured to take the Holy Land from the indigenous pagans unless one goes out and kills a few?
The cover story of an issue of the Nation magazine boldly warns “Donald Trump Is Dangerous”. And Barack Obama was not in his threats to fundamentally transform America? At least Trump wants to make America great again and not essentially destroy everything that we know and love. Was this propaganda outlet as blunt and forthright in regards to the Occupy Movement and Black Lives Matter? As shocking as some of Donald Trumps outbursts are, I don't believe that there have been reports of Trump supporters defecating on the sides of police cruisers or (perhaps even more interesting) looting the same wig shop on multiple occasions.
A number of celebrities are threatening to leave if Donald Trump is elected. But isn't that an incentive to actually vote for the mouthy mogul?
Cogitating upon what might transpire if Trump is denied the Republican nomination at a brokered convention, Clinton flak Paul Begala fretted on CNN that violence might erupt. For unlike Democrats, these activists are supposedly armed. And what about in cities such as Baltimore, Oakland, or Ferguson that are Democratic strongholds were welfare leeches and their subversive handlers rampaged in the streets and laid waste to private property in the path of looting mobs?
Father Jonathan Morris in a Fox News interview remarked how he thinks churches are better off without armed security. Does this Roman Catholic intend to call upon the Pope to disband the Swiss Guard (often toting submachine guns) as a display of the Pontiff's reliance upon divine protection?
According to an article titled “Biobots, Roll Out” published in the April 2016 issue of Discover Magazine, scientists are attaching an assortment of wires and WiFi receptors to insects such as moths and roaches for the purposes of controlling these creatures for an assortment of surveillance and intelligence missions. Perhaps an even more important question to ask is what to prevent this from being done to human beings?
In his condemnation of Internet ministry, Pastor Jason Cooley insisted that such efforts are undertaken from the perspective of despising the local church. Maybe so in certain cases. But can't it also be done to protect the flock from those imposing their own idiosyncrasies on others as if such preferences were revealed doctrine?
In a SermonAudio podcast, Pastor Jason Cooley categorized the universal invisible church as a dangerous heresy. For apparently the believer is much more edified and protected by being conditioned to believe that the only acceptable Christians free from error in the eyes of God are a minuscule percentage of Baptists and that, no matter how bad a particular congregation one might find oneself trapped in in terms of belittlement or even abuse, one ought not want to escape for fear of being cast out into uttermost darkness.
In his condemnation of the concept of the universal invisible church, Pastor Jason Cooley insisted that the doctrine was Catholic and Protestant but not Baptist. As someone that positions himself in the camp of Sola Scriptura, shouldn't he instead concern himself as to whether or not a doctrine is instead Biblical or Christian? For the Baptist church is nowhere explicitly referenced by name in the pages of divine revelation just as in the case of that form of ecclesiology's Protestant or Catholic counterparts.
In expounding on the superiority of the physicalized church over the universal invisible church as manifested in the form of Internet ministries, Pastor Jason Cooley insisted that, unlike Internet ministries which are accountable to no one, in the context of a local church such as his own that he would be required to answer to the men of his church if he got out of line in terms of deed or doctrine. Maybe so in terms of theory. However, in a church such as his own, as characterized by his SermonAudio podcasts, where those that disagree with him on secondary matters of opinion are dealt with by shouting down and verbalized ridicule, would a man that was not in jackbooted lockstep with this pastor be granted a position of authority or even allowed to accrue any influence before being kicked out? For in these kinds of churches, most are usually manipulated into being afraid of the pastor.
On International WOMMMMENNNN's Day (said with political incorrect intonation and syllabic emphasis) wonder how many will have the guts to point out that the majority misery celebrated during this festive occasion is the fault of radical Islam.
Isn't insisting Donald Trump's own rhetoric is at fault for the near riot breaking out in Chicago akin to blaming a scantily clad woman that she got raped?
Too bad the leftist media is not as outraged by the "Knock Out Game" perpetuated by ghetto youth usually upon unsuspecting Whites as they are about the few punches thrown at Donald Trump events.
So I guess if Marco Rubio has his way not only should protesters be allowed to disrupt candidate events but they should be thanked by lavishing such human detritus with increased welfare handouts.
Apparently CHIPs is to be remade as an action/comedy. If the series was considered a serious police procedural in the 70s, shouldn't the source material be similarly respected today?
If Hillary is so against "bullies", wonder if she has anything to say about what her husband and Butch Reno did to the Branch Davidians.
Rubio says conservatism cannot be about anger and division. But aren't there things you are supposed to be angry about and not want to be a part of?
If you disrupt any candidate's rally beyond asking a question during the designated question and answer period, why shouldn't you expect the possibility of being whacked by a billy club?
On National Geographic's “The Boonies”, it was pointed out that only American Indians are allowed to fish with gill nets on Lake Michigan. If this is a concession to preserving an ancient culture, why is it allowed to take place from a motorized watercraft designed by the White man? Such technologies were not part of an alleged way of life stretching back centuries. Are Indians so dimwitted that they are not capable of learning how to fish with other techniques? So apparently color of skin ought to be taken into consideration when law is applied after all.
Sally Fields admits she did not like the film “The Amazing Spider-Man”. She should be assured that, regarding certain aspects, that feeling is mutual. Her depiction had to have been the worst casting and portrayal of Aunt May in the history of the character.
So why is Lindsay Graham's remarks regarding violence being done to Ted Cruz more acceptable to milksop Republicans than Donald Trump wanting to bop a protesting Beatnik?
If Jorge Ramos is so concerned about "hatred" on the part of Trump, does that propagandist ever condemn La Raza (an Hispanosupremacist hatre group)?
Donald Trump is blamed for the disturbances that erupt in response to his rallies. Applying similar logic, is Belgium at fault for the terrorist attack because authorities there arrested a jihadist in connection to the attack on Paris?
It is exclaimed that, without a brokered Republican convention, we would not have not had President Lincoln. You either think he was the greatest president of them all or the spawn of the Devil himself. However, one has to admit that that phase of American history wasn't exactly the most enjoyable that this nation has ever endured.
Hilary Clinton insisted that America needs a president to defend the country and not embarrass it. This from a woman whose husband got a blow job from an intern beneath the desk in the Oval Office. Some will respond that Hillary should be considered on her own merits. Fair enough. Are we to consider her drunken bar hopping in Columbia the pinnacle of American foreign policy?
Chumlee of History Channel's “Pawnstars” has been arrested in connection with a number of sexual assault, firearms, and controlled substance violations. As such, shouldn't the series he is a cast member of have been yanked from the programming rotation by now? After all, Dog the Bounty Hunter, Duck Dynasty, and Paula Deen were tossed off television for a period for mere verbal formulations that in no way violated any duly authorized statute. The Dukes Of Hazard was banished from television entirely with the majority of its cast either now dead or living in post-celebrity obscurity.
Bowing to threats by environmentalists and animal rights raconteurs, Sea World has announced an end to its killer whale breeding programs and ultimately theatrical performances involving these particular cetaceans. Given that for decades Sea World served as a front for the Aneheuser-Busch Corporation, does that mean that should the temperance lobby become sufficiently agitated, booze peddlers ought to cease the distribution of noxious beverages despite a desire for them by a larger percentage of the population. Moral libertines will likely retort that, unlike orcas in captivity, no one is harmed as a result of intoxicating libations. Battered spouses, neglected children, and those mangled in a variety of automobile accidents might argue otherwise.
If Panerra Bread is now emphasizing in an advertising campaign that their food is clean, the concerned consumer really needs to ask how many times have these victuals been dropped on the floor.
A commercial mentioned that there are something like 28 flavors of Poptarts. Yet when goes to a supermarket, there is usually only one or two kinds there on the shelf.
In a sermon, prosperity minster Chuck Pierce confessed that “Tomorrow booty is coming to my house.” Does he mean as in wealth or something else? Given the number of sex scandals that plague churches these days, it can never hurt to ask or clarification.
If WOMENNNNN (the term said with its politically correct intonations) are so dimwitted that they should not be held responsible for the decision to slaughter their unborn children, why should such WOMENNNNN be trusted with the right to vote?
If women that have had abortions should not be charged because the act was not criminal at the time the act was committed, neither should specific Germans be held accountable for what they did at the time of the Holocaust because those deeds were also legal under German law. Some might respond how there is a natural law transcending temporal statutory law. If you are unwilling to apply that in the case of the unborn and the mother, you still do not fully embrace the idea of the unborn being a fully alive human.
Albert Mohler, on an episode of his Daily Briefing, said that the guilty party in a abortion is the one actually taking the life of the unborn child and not the woman seeking it. Extrapolating from such logic, the best way for a man to get rid of a wife he no longer desires is to contract with an underworld hitman. That way, only the mercenary gangster would be guilty of murder.
If women that have had abortions shouldn't be punished, neither should men negligent in paying their child support. At least in the case of such fathers, the children are still alive and not shishcabobbed.
If preachers are going to raise a fuss about folks coming to worship service but not Sunday school, they shouldn't be surprised when these targets of their articulated ire eventually drop the worship service as well.
Geraldo is still tossing a hissy that Ted Cruz's remarks concerning New York values are a veiled form of anti-Semitism. So apparently it is not enough that we must allow establishmentarian elites to destroy the culture. We are also not allowed to say anything about it either. And are we to assume that those dwelling in New York City articulate nothing but positive support in regards to rural Christians?
During episodes of the drama Quantico, isn't it racist for the Indian gal to advertise “The Jungle Book”? If color doesn't matter and we aren't to notice it under threats of ostracism, why not yet the blond chick so pale that it looks like she's never seen the sun introduce the commercial?
The radicals jacked out of shape at Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson for praying as he felt led by the Holy Spirit at the NASCAR race he sponsored out of his own pocket are the same ones all in favor of biological men urinating in the same restroom at the same time as your underage daughter.
By Frederick Meekins
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Friday, April 15, 2016
Thursday, April 14, 2016
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Monday, April 11, 2016
Friday, April 08, 2016
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Wednesday, April 06, 2016
Refugees Not Wanting Exposure To Pork Sausage Should Return To Their Homelands
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Reformed Theologian Downplays Total Depravity In Pluralism's Name
On an episode of Issues Etc, Dr. Michael Horton condemned the Donald Trump campaign on the grounds that no candidate should run for the presidency on the basis of fear and for promoting a mindset of Us vs. Them in terms of “opposing the Other”.
Dr. Horton positions himself as standing in the camp of rigorous Reformed theology.
Reformed theology promotes itself as approaching the world as it actually exists rather than how fallen humanity would like it to be.
As such, aren't there many things in a world permeated by sin that we need to protect ourselves from or (to put it in other words) be afraid of?
Furthermore, it could be argued that, apart from biological racialism since you can't change skin color (no matter how hard Michael Jackson might have tried), Reformed theology has got to be the ultimate form of Us vs. Them thinking.
For no matter how much effort one might put into the attempt to persuade someone to repent and turn to Christ, it is ultimately God alone who selects from eternity past those that will be with Him in Heaven and those that He will allow to slip into Hell.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, April 04, 2016
Sunday, April 03, 2016
Narcissism Or Aversion To Communalism?
The cover of the 5/20/2013 edition of Time Magazine reads, “Millennials are lazy, entitled narcissists who still live with their parents. Lazy and entitled narcissists might be reason for moral concern and reflection, but on what grounds is it the business of the wider society as to whether or not individuals live with their parents?
In regards to such an issue, Scripture is largely silent with individuals of regard and esteem living in a variety of ways in relation to their respective parents. It seems Isaac remained at home until his 40's. Some have speculated that the Virgin Mary might have been as young as 15 or 16 before having the Christ child and fully becoming the wife of Joseph
It might be that the demographic targeted by this intended smear might skew a little “too White” to be extended a number of the privileges other such categories.
When was the last time a major news weekly (if it hadn't already ceased print publication) published a cover story criticizing welfare recipients (especially minorities) for being “lazy and entitled narcissists”?
Yet many of those not only incessantly suckle off the public teat but also grumble indignantly nearly to the point of threatened uprising if what flows through the civic nipple grows increasingly sparse or diluted in their opinion.
Just what is being categorized as “entitled”?
Does this include things such as Obama phones and the cancellation of student loans after 20 years irrespective of whether or not those willingly assenting to such debt are anywhere near to fulfilling this financial obligation?
Is “entitled” apparently preferring to live in the comforts of the home they have known their entire lives rather than in cramped, roach-infested apartments filled interestingly with the kinds of “entitled” folks good liberals such as the editors of Time Magazine lack the spine to criticize?
Young adults born into American families (especially of a Caucasian phenotype) apparently deserve condemnation should they decide for whatever reason to stay with their parents beyond the time upheld as standard ironically by those the most insistent that standards do not exist.
Yet these very same radical relativists heaping condemnation upon typical American young adults living at home with their parents turn around saying how wonderfully family-oriented it is when nearly a dozen immigrants pack themselves into domiciles that begin to feel cramped with four people residing in them.
Granted, self-absorption can be taken to extremes. Lindsay Lohan, numerous members of the Kenendy clan, or the British royal family clearly attest to this truth.
However, given what is known about the kind of liberal mindset predominant at the highest echelons of American journalism as typified by Time Magazine, the discerning should probably read a little between the lines.
If an individual is residing with their parents, it can inoculate them to an extent against a number of social or mental pathologies that many liberals and secularists applaud as the “New Morality”, which isn't quite so new anymore. Such allegedly cutting edge ethical reflection is beginning to sag in many places like the aging hippies that thrust their decadence into the face of American popular culture and public awareness.
For example, sin can take root in any of our lives in the dark corners that we would least expect. However, the young adult living with parents that expect those living under their roof to abide by what would be considered a broadly traditional morality will probably have to work a lot harder at things such as boozing and generalized carousing if those are the deepest longings of one's heart beyond those brief temptations that plague us all in weak moments.
In the collectivist mindset serving as the foundation of contemporary liberalism, “narcissistic” does not necessarily mean a propensity to wallow in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life as warned in Scripture. To many of those that would like to see American society revolutionized away from an ethos of responsible individualism and single family orientation to something more group oriented, narcissistic can mean nothing more than tending primarily to the concerns of one's own household, looking to one's own abilities and resources to make it through the struggles of life, and expecting that all but the extremely disabled or the aged that have paid into the system ought to do the same for themselves
This is evidenced in the numerous graduation exhortations delivered on the part of the Obamas. In these orations, the President and his consort admonish the students not to pursue private sector careers marked primarily by what they consider the material comforts that accrue as a result of success and achievement in that particular sector of human endeavor. Instead, those persuaded to embrace President Obama's vision of the good life will give themselves over to what is considered the public sector such as government and forms of the nonprofit activism fomenting revolutionary upheaval such as community organizing.
However, it is through the overwhelming majority of businesses that exchange a good or a service for financial profit that most needs and desires are met. As John Stossel pointed out in a documentary on the subject, though her motivation may have been nobler, corporations such as Walmart and Microsoft have actually done more to elevate the material status and quality of life of a greater number than Mother Terresa ever did.
To those of the Obamaist mindset, the ideal place for young adults is not laboring to establish the foundations of their future by either getting their own place or by residing with their parents and saving for the day when they will be on their own by purchasing their own home or inheriting one upon the passing of their parents. Rather, the totalist progressive would like nothing more than to see these organic sociologically processes disrupted by altering whatever trajectory the productive young adult might find their life headed by conscripting them into some form of involuntary servitude.
The minds of most are set to a default to conceptualize of that as some form of military service. As such, many are programmed to respond, “And what is so wrong with that?”
Nothing in a time of actual declared war where the very survival of the nation is on the line. However, contrary to the hypothesis put forth by luminaries such as historian Stephen Ambrose and, to an extent, even William F. Buckley, the military during peace time does not exist to ensure that everyone sings from the same songbook.
During such periods in American history, the nation is better served by a force of volunteers that have decided to pursue military service as a life's calling or only for a short season. That way the number is sufficient so that the country is protected but not so large that the interests of the military threaten the well being of civilian institutions.
However, when liberals such as President Obama extol the glories of compulsory voluntary service, those tasks within the narrowly defined parameters of the military are the last such orators are calling for the completion of. What these elites have in mind are more akin to the police state functions undertaken by the infamous totalitarian regimes of the early decades of the twentieth century.
For example, as he was laying the groundwork for his regime, Barack Obama announced his vision for a civilian security force as large as the military and capable of intruding into areas of your life where the traditional military would never dream of intruding. Michelle Obama reiterated that, under Barack, we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.
Though abandoning or altering a number of fundamental worldview assumptions regarding the nature of work and the relationship of the individual to the overall economy, communalist elites are able to manipulate the unsuspecting into viewing the most basic and innocent of activities as acts surpassing the most vile acts of debauchery in terms of overall subsversion.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, April 02, 2016
Did Vatican Functionary Coopt Funds Intended For Sick Children To Redo His Pad?
Click On The Headline
Friday, April 01, 2016
Should Collegiate Assignments Get In The Way Of Toppling Western Civilization?
Click On The Headline
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Televangelist Insists The Key To Success Found In Tenderly Folding Her Panties
Click On The Headline
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Monday, March 28, 2016
Should Southern Baptist Contractors Pull Out Of Abortion Clinic Job To Placate Activists
Click On The Headline Link
Friday, March 25, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Is It Shocking That Scott Baio Endorses Trump Or That Sott Baio Is Still Alive?
Click On The Headline
Monday, March 21, 2016
Prominent Critic off the Mark Regarding Apocalyptic Thriller
As a semi-professional contrarian prognosticator on current events and ideas, I’ll be the first to admit how easy it is to find fault with things falling outside the purview of one’s own take on the world. However, it would seem from John Whitehead’s review of "Left Behind" in the February 7, 2001 edition of WorldNetDaily that some people are never happy.
Though I have not yet seen the film nor read the series of novels as of earlier 2001, I have seen similar works such as "The Omega Code", "One Moment After" and the 70’s classics "Thief in the Night", "Image of the Beast", and "Prodigal Planet", as well as having noticed the proto-eschatological themes addressed in more mainstream science fiction such as "Babylon 5" and "Earth: Final Conflict". I believe I am safe in addressing John Whitehead’s criticism of this cinematic production.
John Whitehead levels considerable criticism at "Left Behind". Yet at one time he was one of the voices calling for greater Christian involvement with popular culture as evidenced in a profile of him published in the December 7, 1998 edition of Christianity Today. It is in response to this yearning that the producers of "Left Behind" hope their efforts will "lead to more family-friendly movies".
But of such efforts, John Whitehead says today, "Christian involvement in culture should be in a way that ultimately serves that end --- not merely to pour $17 million into a poorly adapted feature that does not contribute to leading viewers into a deeper relationship with their eternal Creator."
One must assume Mr. Whitehead thinks such edification can be found in "The Last Temptation of Christ" which he classified as "a sympathetic and reverent treatment of Christianity’s origins," according to the Christianity Today profile. It should be recalled that "The Last Tempation" was the movie that made Judas out to be the hero and cast Jesus as the villain.
Mr. Whitehead further admonishes contemporary Evangelicals in light of the "Left Behind" phenomena, "Instead of dedicating their lives to taking care of the poor and the needy, American followers of Christ too often ignore His example and instead look for cheap thrills in an increasingly superficial world."
Mr. Whitehead should be reminded of his own neglect of the downtrodden in his own pursuit of glitz and the limelight. According to Christianity Today, Mr. Whitehead’s civil rights organization the Rutherford Institute, at the expense of those facing more pressing and substantial First Amendment religious rights issues, came to the defense of Paula Jones --- the floozy who wouldn’t disrobe for then Governor Clinton but who apparently had no problem doing so for Playboy photographers.
To some Christians, it’s not legitimate missions activity unless it’s directed at some impoverished foreigner halfway around the globe. John Whitehead writes, "...instead of centering their hopes, prayers and financial resources behind the tragedy in India [a reference to the recent earthquake] ... much of the American Christian community was busy hyping a movie that one reviewer called ’unintentionally hilarious’."
Elsewhere on his gaudy and semi-tasteless looking magazine and website Gadfly, John Whitehead has explored the metaphysical background of the "X-Files".
How would he propose we reach out to those whom this particular genre speaks to? Somehow I don’t think vaccination clinics or soup kitchens will quite grab them where they are hurting most. An evangelistic film geared towards their interests in paranormal phenomena and government conspiracies likely would, however. And for others, such visualization would help make the obscure beasts, dragons, plagues and judgments of the Book of Revelation and other passages of Scripture relevant to their early twenty-first century lives.
John Whitehead dismisses "Left Behind" as a "B" film and comments, "Truly Christian films embody this aim by exploring the human dimensions of loving thy neighbor as thyself, portraying servants in a world where everyone seeks to be a master, and by encountering the Divine in unexpected places ..."
What more could Mr. Whitehead hope for than a movie set during the time of the Tribulation?
During that period in eschatological history, the very power of Satan will be allowed the seemingly unbridled power the Prince of Darkness has always longed for since the time of his fall, and during this future era simply being a Christian could get you executed. It is under such conditions to which Americans are currently not accustomed that the protagonists of "Left Behind" must stand for truth and righteousness during the heyday of the New World Order.
In all likelihood, "Left Behind" is not a perfect movie. However, much of the drivel and filth produced by Hollywood is not worth watching to begin with.
It must be remembered that Christians have not had much practice at producing cinematic masterpieces that are both theologically accurate and appeal to a broad audience. This is due in large part to the sanctimonious piousness like that displayed by those such as John Whitehead, who in at least this instance, refuse to realize the apologetic of certain literary genres and narrative techniques.
By Frederick Meekins
Saturday, March 19, 2016
Friday, March 18, 2016
Canonizing the Blair Witch: Pagan Religion More Noble than Christian Belief in the Eyes of Some
Isaiah 5:20 reads, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Many assume this warns that those who violate this holy decree will have the judgment of God heaped upon them. But while God is not slack in fulfilling His promises, the forthcoming retribution might not necessarily flow directly from His fingers in the manner we might expect. Often we end up being punished by the consequences of our own actions without God intervening as a primary cause.
In an article appearing in the January 18, 2001 edition of the Prince George’s Sentinel extolling the merits of Wiccan variety witchcraft, one discovers that in calling evil good and good evil that the very epistemological categories required for rational thought and communication begin to break down. Foremost among these is the idea of truth and its basis in objective factual knowledge.
The article begins its symphony of misinformation from almost the very first note. Sentinel staff writer Matt Carr boldly declares early in the piece, "Christianity has dwelled in the hands of war and genocide. Missionaries sent forth to deliver the teachings of God ... led to the torture of the Chinese and Japanese."
From this, one would conclude that fanaticism is only a Christian shortcoming. But excuse me, has anyone checked out much of Islam’s record lately? In Sudan, Christian children are sold into slavery and their legs mutilated so they can’t run away. Upon reaching adulthood, many will be executed so they won’t present a threat to their masters.
And speaking of Japan, did you know that the Christian church there was nearly wiped out by persecution after the death of Francis Xavier, the pioneering Jesuit missionary to the Orient? And the Red Chinese harassment of the modern Church is so well documented that I don’t even need to provide additional information to justify my claim.
So much for the wonders of multiculturalism.
Elsewhere, the Sentinel article plays so loose with the facts that it is doubtful if the statements made are worthy of classification as such. The article says of a local Wiccan, "[he] celebrates a religion of nature, much in the same way those burned at Salem did."
In all likelihood, with the exception of the local slave, probably not one resident of Salem, Massachusetts was a practitioner of the occultic sciences. Rather the modern equivalent of those persecuted at Salem can be found among those falsely accused of sexual harassment simply because they’ve rubbed someone the wrong way, figuratively of course, and their accusers had more in common with Anita Hill than today’s average Christian.
Furthermore, technically there were no Wiccans in Massachusetts at the time because, quite frankly, Wicca hadn’t been invented yet. According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly reviewed on Crosswalk.com, Professor of Religion Phillip Davis of the University of Prince Edward Island and Historian Ronald Hutton of the University of Bristol concur in their assessments that Wicca was concocted in 1950 by amateur anthropologist Gerald B. Gardner who was influenced by German romantics and various occultic practices.
Even though Wicca does not posses a clearly delineable historical pedigree, that does not mean its ideas aren’t drawn from some kind of background. It’s just not the one filled with unicorns and flower children its adherents would like many to believe. It may have more in common with the Wicked Witch of the West depicted in the Wizard of Oz.
For example, in Wiccan lore, practitioners of this form of spirituality trace their lineage back to the Druids. Did you know that the Druids practiced human sacrifice?
Closely related to the Wiccans are those today professing themselves to be pagans. Their rights to bad mouth Christianity’s historical shortcomings are also suspect given their own atrocities.
Leviticus 18:21 says, "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech [a pagan deity] (New International Version)." Later on in the book of II Kings chapter 23, King Josiah destroys the altars upon which children were sacrificed to pagan gods. One might like to note that Wiccan feminists play a prominent role in the abortion movement.
No wonder Wiccans are quick to heave objective history out the window.
From the Prince George’s Sentinel article, one gets the impression that witches are the only mistreated religious group. The warlock interviewed for the article said, "I’m intimidated to put my beliefs on applications."
Join the club. Many Christians feel the same way about the retaliation they will receive for expressing their convictions to leftwing supervisors and coworkers. Frankly, very few employment applications ask for one’s religious beliefs being that to do so violates the law.
Yet the ironic thing is that these very same ones peeved at those apprehensive about suffering a witch among them, to use the King James English, find John Ashcroft an unfit nominee for the office of Attorney General simply because of the Christian beliefs he happens to live by.
As a nation built upon the freedom of religion, the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to live free in their beliefs without government harassment and without actual forms of physical violence from those with whom they disagree. However, a society that extols witchcraft as virtuous and shuns Christianity as a shameful thing is further down the yellow-brick road of losing its freedom as a judgment permitted under God than most realize.
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Hipster Nazarene Insists Daily Bathing Perpetuates Western Imperialism
In a sermon, a Nazarene pastor condemned everyone as an oppressor.
In a self-flagellating confession, the pastor admits he is guilty of this particular evil by taking showers everyday while the natives of an area of Africa to which he went on a short term missions expedition did not have the luxury of using water in such a carefree manner.
And how is that the pastor's fault?
Neither can the Africans probably afford airline travel halfway around the globe.
However, that apparently did not prevent the pastor from engaging in such extraneous travel.
More importantly, did this pastor ever stop and think that these Africans are probably being denied the benefits of modern utilities such as an advanced sewer system as a result of the environmentalist organizations that such self-aware hipsters usually support insisting that the bushmen are more adorable in a state of perpetual primitivism?
Furthermore, even if the White man was magnanimous enough to gift these savages with the latest water distribution technology, will these backward cultures be willing to maintain it or will they get too distracted by the overwhelming compulsion to slaughter the neighboring tribe?
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, March 11, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Wednesday, March 09, 2016
Will Evangelical Wimps Elevate Manners Over Survival?
In justifying why it is acceptable to vote for Mitt Romney but not Donald Trump since it is likely that neither is a valid Christian, the pastoral staff of Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina enunciated during a SermonAudio podcast an interesting array of verbal criteria to justify such an electoral decision.
For example, Romney is supposedly a much more pleasant individual more concerned about unity and bringing people together.
Furthermore, it was clarified, even if his Mormon faith is in error, it is still sincerely held.
So would these pastors have as much problem if people utilized a similar criteria in deciding what church to attend or join?
For example, sure, Brother Osteen has his glaring doctrinal deficiencies.
But one cannot deny that he treats people a whole lot better than Touch Not The Unclean Thing Hyperseperationist Baptist Church where Pator Knowitall yells at the top of his lungs about women wearing pants rather than dungaree skirts so long that they herd dustbunnies as the garment scrapes the floor.
By Frederick Meekins
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Monday, March 07, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)