Saturday, December 31, 2005

Kwanza Invented For Spineless Whites

Eco-Claus: Greens Emphasize Red In Christmas

In The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe by C.S. Lewis, the White Witch forbids the celebration of Christmas in part because she thinks the celebration is a waste of resources. Likewise, in Politically Correct Holiday Stories by James Finn Garner, Scrooge is as much a New Age acetic as he is a miser.

A classic song entreats the listener to have themselves a merry little Christmas. However, if certain environmentalists have their way, Americans won’t be enjoying much of a Christmas. For according to these elites, the Christmas festivities most of us enjoy are to be listed on the indictment of environmental crimes of Western Civilization against the ecosphere.

These leftists who have made an entire cottage industry insisting that right and wrong do not really exist certainly don’t mind telling the rest of us what to do. Published in the December 2005 edition of National Wildlife is a proclamation the reader is expected to adhere to if they wish to observe an environmentally-aware solstice season or whatever else the tree huggers wallow in this time of year.

Some of the suggestions are just commonsense tips on how to save money on electric bills. Others are more blatantly agenda driven.

University of Edinburgh climate scientist Dave Reay is quoted as saying, “Consumption of everything...spikes enormously in December, from extra car trips, to overpackaged foods, to electronic kitchen gadgets that nobody needs.”

Of course, the pilgrimage to the bookstore to acquire the professor’s book is still one of the few permissible excursions allowed beyond the confines of one’s domicile. One speculates whether Professor Reay himself owns any of those swanky-dank kitchen gadgets “nobody needs” or still cooks his food over an open spit and campfire after capturing it by his own hand. But then again, if past experience is to serve as our guide, liberal bigshots making such grandiose proclamations of a seemingly progressive nature such as how environmental catastrophe looms unless we alter the fundamental way in which we celebrate Christmas seldom abide by their own decrees.

Yet these self-anointed overlords don’t stop at telling us how we will be permitted to get around or how we will be allowed to prepare our sustenance. In fact, it is their desire to tell us what we may consume as well.

Towards the close of the National Wildlife Federation article, this fruitcake professor intones that mere commoners are to avoid eating foods not indigenous to one’s respective biome since provisions shipped long distances increase greenhouse emissions. Likewise, consumers are admonished to eat less meat since it takes away land that could be used for other agricultural purposes.

If they attended the 2002 Earth Summit in South Africa, I wonder if delegates from the National Wildlife Federation partook of the 5,000 oysters, 1,000 pounds of lobster, 80,000 bottles of mineral water, 4,000 pounds of steak, 1,000 pounds of sausage, 450 pounds of salmon , and buckets of caviar made available for the attendees who usually get their jollies condemning the rest of us for how much higher on the food chain the average American eats than the rest of the world. But then again, I guess they’d tell us they deserve such special treats more than the rest of us since their consciousnesses are so much more advanced evolutionarily than what ours are.

Unfortunately, such lunacy does not confine itself to the babbling idiots that hold the vast majority of positions in education, the media, and public interest groups. Such lunacy has a way of turning into the stuff policy dreams are made of.

And while these grandiose declarations often find themselves promulgated by the highest levels of the global elite, don’t get the impression that these directives will be confined to matters far removed from your everyday existence. For even now local governments believe it is their place to dictate to us how we are to celebrate Christmas for the sake of the environment.

The recycling manager of Carroll County, Maryland told the local paper there that the county recommends residents “Cut out unnecessary details, and don’t buy extra things or impulse items that you don’t need while you are out shopping.” Frankly, it’s none of the government’s business what I do and don’t need. The role of the government is to crack open the heads of violent criminals endangering life and property, not to play Martha Stewart or provide hints from Heloise as to proper Christmas etiquette and decorum.

But while many within government at various levels prefer we adhere to a regimen of frugality over the course the Christmas season not so much for the sake of our own pocketbooks or in the name of our good credit records but rather for the sake of the COMMUNITY, certain officials will blow more in a single season than entire family lines will spend over the course of multiple generations. For by the time the Christmas season 2005 comes to an end, the President and First Lady will have hosted twenty-six Christmas parties according to

At the White House, 30,000 cookies will be eaten by 9500 guests. And President Bush is president not exactly known for his profligate ways; just imagine how much more was consumed during the more conservation-oriented hedonistic administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

Supporters will snap, “So? Many of these functions are supported by private funds.” But so are our own Christmas celebrations and government officials certainly don’t mind telling us what they think about how we commemorate December festivities.

And in response to increasing fuel costs, President Bush has suggested Americans cut back and tighten their belts to do their part for the benefit of all citizens. As the head of state, shouldn’t he be willing to set an example and a good place to start might be by cutting out these shindigs for multimillionaires whose lives are one big party to begin with.

Those brainwashed into accepting dutifully whatever the elites tell or demand of them will dismiss these observations as mere class envy. However, average Americans would not begrudge the rich and powerful so much for what they have if these self-appointed Overmen stopped taking it upon themselves to tell us what to do with the little that we do have.

The best gifts are those that satisfy the deepest longings of the heart. The best present any level of government can give us during the holiday season is to stay out of our business as to how we celebrate Christmas.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Better Learn To Enjoy Your Life As A Wal-Mart Slave

According to USA Today many on the verge of retirement are in danger of losing their pensions.

Yet the President and many of his Conservative allies gleefully yammer away about the day when Americans will no longer depend on Social Security to finance their retirements.

Interestingly, they seem to not say much about what will happen when these vaunted private sector funds fail to materialize as well.

And with the costs of housing and education what they are, one cannot provide properly for a family and also save for your golden years. And if one foregoes offspring in order to sacrifice in order to achieve financial independence, one is castigated by the likes of Al Mohler for being a bad Christian.

Better get use to saying, "Hi, welcome to Wal-Mart."

Numerous preachers and the like often snoddily gleam through plastered on smiles that there is nothing in the Bible about retirement; but what they fail to realize is that not everyone derives the same sense of satisfaction as they do from their line of work and there are many occupations 70 or 80 year olds are just not going to be able to do no matter how much they might want to.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Dunkin Donut Spokesman Dies From Diabetes

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Restraining Order Accuses Letterman Of Mesmerism

Is Joel Osteen's Wife A Champion Of Liberty Or Just Plain Bossy?

According to the Associated Press, the wife of televangelist Joel Osteen was asked to leave a plane before take-off for failing to comply with a flight attendant's instructions.

But since little has been released as to the nature of the dispute, one has to reserve judgment as to whom was in the right or wrong since, given the authoritarian nature of contemporary airline passenger management, Mrs. Osteen might have very well had a valid point.

Frankly, one is better off staying home than jumping through all the hoops like cattle going to slaughter set up in order to be deemed fit in order to fly. Too bad the feds are not as fastidious about interdicting transborder vagrancy as they are about refusing to let airline passengers empty their bladders before permitted times.

Yet given her status, I wonder if she would have merely been let go if she had been the wife of a less renowned clergyman or instead locked away for violation of the Patriot Act or related legal whatnot without a trial or other niceties of procedural jurisprudence.

Wonder if hubby Joel will give his woman a stern lecture as to her attitude since he is in orbit around the charismatic brand of Norman Vincent Pealism with its name-it-claim, you-create-your-own-reality style of Christianity and seems to indicate in many of his sermons there is nothing a big smile won‘t cure..

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Pitching Woo Deemed Breach Of The Peace

A Scottish man has been charged with breach of the peace and such for composing an anonymous love letter to a bankteller that caught his fancy.

Even more disturbing is the fact he has been charged with crimes such as loitering for being in a place that was otherwise public.

So long as he was not actively pestering anyone with lewd or obnoxious comments, why is it any business of the state what his attentions were no matter how frisky or amorous they might have been?

Wonder if there would be much of a fuss if he looked like John Kennedy Jr.

Yet one more reason why these modern women are hardly worth fooling with.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Retail Humbug

Wal-Mart is renowned as one of America’s largest retail chains. The company earned this distinction in part by fostering a reputation based on traditional American values. However, in a manner similar to how the other institutions overseeing this nation have betrayed what this great country was originally based, this beloved weekend destination and rainy-day hangout has sold out to radical tolerance and diversity.

For retailers such as Wal-Mart, Christmas is really a joyous time since it is the time of year such establishments bring in the lion’s share of their profits. You would think these merchants would not be ashamed to publicly acknowledge the celebration contributing so abundantly to their own prosperity. However, from the shame exhibited at the mention of the word “Christmas”, you’d think the greeting was some lewd comment scrawled across a restroom stall.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights brought attention to this linguistic trend by launching a brief boycott against Wal-Mart for censoring recognition of the festive occasion by muting the traditional greeting of “Merry Christmas” to the more subdued “Happy Holidays”. The boycott was originally started when it was discovered that searching “Christmas” on the Wal-Mart website returned “Holiday” results while Kwannza and Hanukah brought cybershoppers to results specific to these terms.

Insult was added to injury when the Catholic League learned of an email that essentially told Christians to sit down and shut up since the majority of the people in the world don’t celebrate Christmas and most Christian symbols have pagan origins anyway.

After considerable public embarrassment, Wal-Mart apologized for the snarky email and corrected its website so that a search for Christmas would take you to Christmas results. As such, the Catholic League called off the boycott since the group’s concerns had been met.

However, one must question whether the boycott was called off too quickly since merely one symptom of a deeper underlying disease was addressed. For while the website takes surfers to the proper destination, it will take more than fiddling with some HTML to cure an attitude prevalent throughout the secular culture of executive America.

Wal-Mart plays the matter off by appearing to do the right thing and take a stand for traditional values. Yet upon closer examination, Wal-Mart has done very little in this regard.

Their website might now take unsuspecting shoppers to the correct page, but Wal-Mart corporate elites are still insisting that their wage slaves mutter the bland “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas”. The justification for such yuletide speech codes is that, as a global corporation, they must appear to cater to the egos of all their customers.

Perhaps Wal-Mart should be reminded of where it was that Wal-Mart initially achieved the success it enjoys today. Even if Christmas is not celebrated in the distant lands where Wal-Mart hawks its wears, so what?

Here in America, the majority celebrate Christmas. If the immigrant swarms flooding across the border are offended by such a greeting extended in felicitude and goodwill, they are always welcome to return to the trash-piles upon which they originally dwelt or to remain in lands of unbounded opportunity where women aren’t permitted to drive and where religious dissidents are decapitated.

Those claiming to be economic pragmatists contend that saying “Happy Holidays” simply makes good business sense as the phrase covers Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanza and keeps everybody happy. But frankly though, are that many Jews even going to be caught in Wal-Mart and Kwanza is no more a real holiday than if a group of Star Wars fans got together to celebrate the destruction of the Death Star since events in that saga are dated in relation to the Battle of Yavin.

Despite all the hand wringing as to whether or not the mere utterance of “Christmas” will shatter Hebrew sensibilities that have endured far worse over the course of that culture’s turbulent history, it must be pointed out that those claiming to oppose public recognition of Christmas because of their adherence to Judaism are actually the members of that community that abide by the tenets of that faith the least and often only invoke the faith of their forefathers as a way to manipulate the guilt complex rampant throughout postmodern Western society.

The Jews that strive to live by Biblical values actually don’t have all that much of a problem if their fellow theists celebrate Christmas. Columnist Don Federer, an Orthodox Jew, is quoted in the November 2004 edition of Concerned Women Of America’s Family Voice as saying, “I’ve never been offended by anyone saying ‘Merry Christmas’ to me.”

Thus, liberal Jews do not oppose Christmas so much as an affront as to what they profess to be their faith. Rather they get all jacked out of shape because those Christians that celebrate the birth of Christ embrace the shared ethical heritage of these faiths that these closet secularists have abandoned.

In light of these linguistic policies, are we to forego vocalizing the names of other holidays other special interests might find offensive? Should we not refer to the Fourth of July amidst an act of commerce for fear of alienating closet royalists?

Seems Wal-Mart has no problem whatsoever recognizing other festivities that exclude significant percentages of the population. Utilizing this pronunciation paradigm, does that mean from now on Wal-Mart will refer to February as simply “History Month” rather that qualify it with a particular ethnic classification?

Don’t count on it as in the past, in league with Kraft Foods, the retail chain has distributed Black History booklets. What about a publication containing so-called “White” recipes and if Wal-Mart’s scope as a global company is to be its central marketing principle, how are over a billion Chinamen going to feel about such a document as I doubt there are that many brothers in the hood over there.

From as far back as most can remember, we have been told that the true meaning of Christmas goes far beyond the things beneath the tree that provide a sense of temporary joy. Perhaps the corporate world should also take the time to consider this lesson or they might not find as much green in their stockings in Christmases yet to come.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Multicultural Australia Coming Unglued

Friday, December 09, 2005

Thursday, December 08, 2005

No Pleasing Some People: Liberal Jews Already Peeved At Mel Gibson's Plans To Accurately Depict The Holocaust

Part of the complaint about Mel Gibson's pending miniseries depicting a Dutchman hiding his Jewish girlfriend from the Nazis is that the movie will portray Catholicism in a positive light.

But doesn't everyone that puts forth a creative effort attempt to do this with their own respective viewpoint and worldview, even Jews?

If we are now permitted to make snide remarks about the religious backgrounds of those making movies, haven't Jews been allowed to produce more than their fair share?

Are similar criticisms going to be said about Spielberg's pending drama about the Munich incident at the 1972 Olympics and its aftermath?

While Jews bore the brunt of the evil during the time period to be depicted in Gibson's proposed film, I hate to break it to them, but they were not the only ones to suffer during that time or take heroic actions.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tolerancemongers Interrupt Coulter Address

Same old same old from the diversity crowd.

Interesting how those advocating acceptance and inclusion are usually the most hateful people of all.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Feminazis Plan Blitz Against Hundred Acre Woods: Is Christopher Robbin Too Much Of A White Male?

When I dared criticize the remake of "The Honeymooners" for recasting the classic with a Black cast, I was condemned as "racist" and even banned from

However, the film was such a flop that I don't even remember seeing any previews for the movie and it was barely in the theaters two weeks. So apparently most American's had similar feelings even if they dared not say so publicly.

I guess I will get similar flack for drawing attention to Disney's plans to replace Christopher Robbin with a female human lead.

But if Disney wants to take enlightened progressivism to its limit, why must the animals of the Hundred Acre Woods be shackled with human ownership all together?

Furthermore, shouldn't Kanga toss Roo into a daycare center and forsake her calling as a mother for a career that takes her outside the home?

Why don't they end the movie with a scene reminiscent of the French Revolution with Pooh and the gang standing gleefully over the decapitated heads of their human oppressors?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Airlines Assume Men Are Pedophiles

A number of New Zealand airlines will not allow unaccompanied children to sit next to men on flights claiming this prevents the danger of potential molestation.

In light of the increasing number of female teachers that can't seem to keep their pants on around their students, shouldn't women be treated in a similar manner?

The real threat to children are the parents that let the their little saunter across the country and around the globe unchaperoned.

So instead of treating innocent passengers as deviants, perhaps regulations should be promulgated forbidding children from flying unattended.

But then again such rules would impinge upon the single parent and other related rackets that insist it is everybody's responsibility but their own to look out for the best interests of their progeny.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

"Your Papers Please": American City On The Verge Of Becoming Soviet-Style Police State

Miami Police have announced plans to conduct what they are calling "high profile ID sweeps" where they intend to
check the identification of everyone entering a public building.

Officials claim in doing so, no one's rights are being violated; but what if one does not want to show police their driver's license or happened to have forgotten to bring it with them that day?

If one refuses to participate by suddenly getting out of line and not entering the building, will that now be deemed enough probable cause to get maced in the face and a billy-club across the back of the knees?

And what if authorities deny citizens access to food in supermarkets, to buy and sell as alluded to in Revelation 13, unless they comply with draconian identification measures?

Unlike a roadside stop, one does not need government authorization to perambulate down the sidewalk. It's called a DRIVER'S LICENSE, not an authorization to leave your house permit.

Furthermore, does this really do anything to stop terrorism? For if someone is a suicide bomber, it might prevent them from taking out their intended target in its entirety, but you are still going to make headlines on the evening news if you take out the fuzz blocking the door instead.

In the case of a patriotic woman likened to a new Rosa Parks detained for refusing to show her ID to Federal Protective Service operatives while riding on a bus on her way to work through the Lakewood Federal Center in Colorado, authorities contend that they do not compare these documents against any watch-list or compile them into a database. Then why even bother since you are obviously not conducting surveillance

Spokesman at the Lakewood Center argue the measure is necessary in light of the Oklahoma City Bombing. If we are going to hold to the narrative that McVeigh and Nickels acted alone, I hate to break it to the Keystone Cops, but these scumbags weren't on a bus.

And what of illegals caught up in the sweep of this dragnet? Are they going to be deported as they should be, or is this simply yet another tactic to curtail the movements and liberties of actual Americans?

Though he does not carry much weight among ruling elites since he is a dead White male sympathetic to Christianity, Benjamin Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Those already conditioned to be good little collectivists will whine, "What do you have to hide that you can't show your ID." If that is the case, then what line of reasoning are you going to invoke when government security agencies insist that cameras and recording devices must be placed in every home; after all, if you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to hide?

The Deputy Chief of Police told the Associated Press that the purpose of this operation was for its "shock and awe." Thus, in other words, it is simply yet another method of transforming the American people into a pack of lemmings that have been brainwashed to do exactly whatever their masters in the New World Order command of them.

In the classic sci-fi/espionage drama The Prisoner, protagonist declares in light of overwhelming bureaucracy, “I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.” The issue of compulsory identification is not so much about who you are but about to whom your life ultimately belongs.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Monday, November 28, 2005

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Famed Hat Not The Only Yellow Thing About The New Curious George

For decades, children have enjoyed the antics of that inquisitive simian Curious George. Leave it to Hollywood to think it can improve on an author’s creative genius by altering the original work to bring it in compliance with asinine politically correct assumptions.

Integral to the Curious George mythos is the character referred to as “The Man In The Yellow Hat” who takes care of George and helps him out of all the mischief the rambunctious primate happens to get into. But in this era where it is said traditional values no longer exist and the worth of one’s character is determined by what trendy progressive causes one might happen to support, the kindness he bestows upon his furry companion is no longer enough to demonstrate his compassion and understanding. Now in order to be categorized as an appropriate cinematic protagonist or figure worthy of admiration, the back story of The Man In The Yellow Hat must be altered to placate the sensitivity sentinels,

According to Georgite canon, The Man In The Yellow Hat originally captured George on behalf of a zoo. Now in the movie version, The Man In The Yellow Hat is employed as an archaeologist sent to Africa on a quest for artifacts.

The reason behind the career change, the film’s director told USA Today, is that today capturing an animal would seem harsh and amounts to stealing. While George seems quite childlike in his stories, it must be remembered he is just an animal. Therefore, how can he be stolen unless inappropriately taken from another human being?

It’s not like George ends up being used in laboratory experimentation. From what’s depicted in the storybooks, it always looked like he had a pretty good life as do many other zoo animals.

Are we to assume that all zoological gardens and wildlife preserves are places of lamentation and misery for every last animal? Even though he is known for his kindness to animals, is Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin “harsh” because he administers a zoo and, unlike the animals that boarded Noah’s ark, those under Irwin’s custodianship did not just one day show up at the doorstep of Australia Zoo as a result of some divine compulsion?

If we are to carry this perspective of Western man as world exploiter to its ultimate conclusion, isn’t it just as offensive for The Man In The Yellow Hat to be an archaeologist despoiling the material culture of spiritually enlightened primitives? After all, isn’t it inherently worse to take someone else’s property than some monkey that doesn’t even belong to anyone?

Interesting how those that get all worked up over the rights and dignity of monkeys aren’t usually all that much into the property rights of either the living or the dead.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Friday, November 25, 2005

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Christian Author Tackles Moral Tale Set On Ethically Turbulent Seas: A Review Of The Mind Siege Project By Tim LaHaye

In proclaiming truth, Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has suggested that the principles and concepts postulated on the level of more formalized expressions of thought must often be exhibited in a more literary or artistic manner in order to permeate the broader popular culture. Tim LaHaye attempts to accomplish this by taking the ideas he first elaborated in Mind Siege: The Battle For Truth and translating them into the novel The Mind Siege Project.

In The Mind Siege Project, a group of high school social studies students set on a boat trip on the Chesapeake Bay for a lesson in diversity and moral relativism. The class ends up learning that these ideas have dire consequences not considered in the more sedate setting of academic discussion.

Readers will be both amused and irritated at the hypocritical nature of contemporary understandings of tolerance as exposed by LaHaye and coauthor Bob Demoss. The shortcomings of this widespread ideology are laid bare in the group sessions where the facilitator sponsoring the field trip in the name of diversity upholds the rights of the individual when it comes to abortion but flat-out tells a student whose missionary parents were murdered overseas that they more or less got what they deserved.

The incoherence of the relativistic lifestyle is further brought home when a student is critically injured when she decides she is her own determinant of right and wrong by violating specific rules of safety set down ironically by the very teacher postulating rules do not exist.

Unlike LaHaye's other literary undertakings such as Left Behind that deal with grand cosmic events pertaining to the end of the world over which the average person has little impact whatsoever one way or the other, The Mind Siege Project provides insight into the many mindsets and perspectives one is likely to encounter in an academic setting or the workplace. Furthermore, LaHaye and Demoss are to be commended for their sympathetic portrayal of the spiritual struggle the Christian faces in walking the line between desiring the acceptance of one's peers and the obligation to take a stand for the Lord without regard for the impact upon one's own popularity for doing so.

However, the authors do go overboard in this tale of adventure set on the high seas in insinuating it is somehow a Christian's obligation to donate bodily organs to people little more than strangers or at best mere acquaintances. Such is not really a moral claim one can propagate as an ethical imperative to impose upon the remainder of the Christian community unless one has, shall we say, already given of themselves in this manner. How many kidneys have you given away, Dr. LaHaye?

From The Mind Siege Project, readers will take away the lesson that not everyone is always as they appear to be and that it's not always the quiet people you have to be leery of.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Japanese Imperial System Sexist

In order to marry, the daughter of the Emperor of Japan had to surrender her royal title. However, here married brothers are still on the public dole.

Monday, November 14, 2005

Wrestler Found Dead

Vatican Sides With Darwin Over Fundamentalists

If we are not to accept Genesis as written, then why should we accept Peter as the foundation upon which Christ built His church, the Scriptural justification invoked by Romanists to justify the papacy?

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Never To Late To Learn Of The Threats Schools Pose To Property Rights

With all the coverage of grandiose tragedies as of late caused by the hurricanes, less attention has been paid this year to the regular back to school festivities. However, it is at such times of mass distraction that the abridgements of liberty pose the greatest threat and this is especially true of the mundane bureaucracies that govern much of every day life but are not very exciting in and of themselves such as the public schools.

One annual ritual that connects one generation with the next is the subdued sense of joy that comes each year when parents and children go to acquire the supplies needed for the pending academic term. A less enjoyable accretion to this rite of passage is the additional practice of various schools staking a claim to this educational paraphernalia in the name of the community.

As there are as many ways to commemorate special occasions as there are families, despite the desire of radical educators to turn out students of a uniform communitarian mindset, each school goes about the homogenization of property ironically in its own individual manner.

Some such as Jennie Reed Elementary School in Tacoma, Washington are rather open about their intentions to pilfer school supplies from their students. In doing research for this annual column, I came across the school’s 2004/2005 list on the Internet with the following proviso tacked on in the bottom left corner of the page: “Also, all supplies are considered communal supplies and considered a donation to your child’s classroom.”

Thing is, such a bellicose proclamation can only be implemented if students are willing to abide by it. Thus, skilled parents could possibly get around the decree by instilling in the minds of their children that while they must be respectful towards their teachers that respect only extends so far and that their ultimate loyalty must always be towards the parents who insist that under no circumstances should little Billy or Sally turn their crayons over to school personnel.

However, some blackboard Bolsheviks have themselves found a way around the need for students to assent to having their supplies confiscated in the name of the classroom. After all, why bother asking when you can just take what you want for the alleged good of the group?

According to one blog I came across, one mother writes that her son came home the first day of second grade and told her that the teacher had rummaged through the students’ knapsacks during recess and pillaged the contents. Educrats can make all the arguments they want about the need to ransack student satchels in pursuit of drugs, weapons, or whatever other excuse they wish to invoke in the name of homeland security in order to squelch opposition to such abridgements of civil liberties, but school authorities have no right whatsoever to take items from the students' possession that are in no way illegal and are necessary to fulfill normal school activities.

In the eyes of the law, which the slayers of Terri Schiavo insist must be upheld at all costs to the letter regardless of what we think about it, isn’t the taking of property without permission or awareness of the owner theft? And if students were caught taking things out of the teacher’s purse or desk, wouldn’t they be banished from the schoolhouse, remanded to the local constabulary, or both?

Why shouldn’t the same befall these pedagogues schooled in the art of five finger discount? And if those in authority are not going to be kept in line when it comes to the little things like school supplies, where will the voracious appetite of the state end? In light of the Kelo ruling, these Bolsheviks already think it’s within their purview to seize your home.

The American people had better wake up since there is little else left to take. Too bad some student didn’t have a mouse trap waiting to smack the fingers of those unable to keep their fingers from doing the walking. That would have been an interesting story on the evening news.

Reflecting upon the innate response children exhibit to having their possessions wrenched from their tiny hands, one teacher snottily remarked in the Winchester Star that “...little children often get upset when they learn that the crayons and washable markers they so carefully picked out will be shared by the whole class.” How would this old marm like to show up to work and learn from here on out all of the automobiles owned by the teachers would be placed in a common motor pool since not everyone can afford the same quality of transportation.

“Ridiculous!”, the preconditioned liberal will snap. “Cars and pencil boxes are totally different.” And though the only thing the two objects have in common in the mind of the adult will be their size if the likes of Al Gore has his way, is not the pencil box in the mind of the child as important in teaching the lessons and pride that derive from that nearly sacred four letter word “mine”?

It takes a lot of brainwashing at the hands of educators to keep a smile on your face while your stuff is being snatched from you so everybody but you gets to use it. That is why the communalists find it imperative to begin their conspiracy of mass redistribution so early in the life of the proper member of the community.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Rudiments Of Police State Set Into Motion

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Monday, October 31, 2005

Response Of Christian Parents To Trick-Or-Treat A Halloween Mystery

I find it interesting that contemporary Christian parents that revel in all the fun they had trick-or-treating as kids forbid their offspring from doing the same.

Even Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Seminary admitted on The Albert Mohler Program that Halloween was his favorite holiday as a youth but yet refuses to allow his children to participate.

Also found it interesting that these Christian radio hosts condemning participation commemorate the day with its cutesy anthems such as the theme from the Adam's Family and "I Told The Witch Doctor" by Alvin and the Chipmunks and "Tubular Bells" from the Exorcist.

I rather enjoy such classic tunes, but I am not the one out calling down condemnation over this celebration if participants aren't out wallowing in the more gory aspects.

Kind of reminds me of those parents in the Josh Harris I Kissed Dating Goodbye crowd who themselves dated but think their oversight of their children is so complete that the son or daughter is to not fall in love or experience any kind of feelings towards the opposite sex until the parents grant permission.

And yet unlike parents that have gone astray and want to prevent their children from pursuing errant ways such as substance abuse or promiscuity, former "weeners" often speak of their exploits with a nostalgic glee that will only compound the left-out feeling of their progeny.

If these parents did not become Satanists and ax murderers but fear their own children will, doesn't this speak more to their own lack of skill in raising a family than anything inherently wrong to this annual nocturnal celebration?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Saturday, October 29, 2005

Government Conspires To Do Away With Little Fat Black Kids

New Bond Makes Big To-Do Over Dislike Of Guns: Why Should We Even Care?

It has been reported that Daniel Crag, the actor slated to assume the role of James Bond, does not like guns.

And why do we need to know or even care about this? Frankly, those that are going to see the new James Bond movie are going to see the exploits of the famed super spy and are not going to see the film in order to support the radical politics of some messily actor few have even heard of before now.

James Earl Jones doesn’t wear a black cape, a space helmet, or breathe through a respirator either. I doubt Anthony Hopkins was really all that much into cannibalism. That’s why it’s called acting.

Since Mr. Crag has spoken out against 007’s propensity towards violence but not the spy’s tendency towards promiscuity, does that mean he has no problem with womanizing? Shouldn’t he be as uncomfortable being around such lustfully named dames as Pussy Galore, Honey Ryder, and Molly Warmflesh?

If firearms bother Crag that much, perhaps he should stand by his principles and forego his place in cinematic history.

Just because James Bond uses a gun in his line of work does not necessarily mean the character is some kind of gun nut. It’s kind of a job requirement.

Compromise and appeals to universal brotherhood hardly work with scoundrels such as Scaramanga, Ernst Blofeld, or Oddjob. Thankfully, despite their outlandish plots and gadgets, the Bond films are realistic enough to realize girlie men are not going to save the day with wimpy protestations in favor of disarmament and pacifism.

Copyright 2005 By Frederick Meekins

Friday, October 28, 2005

Superman Splats On Sidewalk

I guess this is the fault of comic books and TV.

Mr. Sulu Gay

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Monday, October 24, 2005

Neal Boortz Insinuates Lives Of The Rich More Important Than Yours

Diversity Advocate Proposes Eliminating The White Race

If not for C-SPAN's unflinching eye, it is possible the broader public would not have heard much about a Black radical that called for the elimination of the White race at a telecast academic conflab.

Even in other press accounts, one is not told at what kind of event the comments were enunciated. Instead the forum is euphemistically referred to as "a conference at Howard University".

Only at more conservative media outlets such as do we learn of the event's true name, "The Pro-Black Media Forum".

Makes you wonder if this Black supremacist conclave is sincerely sorry over these comments or merely regrets they got caught.

Wonder if Prime Time Live will dedicate a segment to exposing this mental poison like they did of those disturbing Nazi singers last week, of whom Matt Drudge thought the worst thing about them was apparently their desire to remain White. One would have thought the admiration of these twins for Adlof Hitler and Rudolph Hesse and dancing around the swastika would have been far more shocking than an innate human desire to preserve one's ethnic heritage --- like all other things good when pursued in moderation ---- that is apparently proper now for every group except Caucasians.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 20, 2005

"Cultural Competence" New Euphemism For Political Correctness

Now Racist To Support Interracial Marriage

Seems Whitey can never win.

Oppose interracial coupling, get your tax exemption revoked.

Come out it favor of it and get accused of despising Black folks.

Guess the only thing you are suppose to do is to keep the welfare checks rolling in.

by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

British Squirrels Addicted To Crack

What Does Albert Mohler Have Against Mentioning Global Government?

On the October 18, 2005 edition of The Albert Mohler Program the President of the Southern Baptist Seminary was discussing if America was ready for a female President in light of predictions of the 2008 electoral contest coming down to Hillary Clinton and Condolezza Rice and the popularity of the new ABC drama "Commander In Chief".

Around the 27/28 minute mark of the program, a caller remarked that with either Hillary or Condoleezza that both would take us towards a world government, with Hillary's version based on moral anarchy and Condoleezza's upon corporate globalism.

Instead of engaging this vital point, Dr. Mohler dismissed the caller's concerns with a condescending chuckle and said he would have to make such a topic a different show.

Was Mohler afraid the cat would get out of the bag that little separates the two main parties at that level of politics?

From Dr. Mohler's attitude towards the caller, I don't think he will be returning to the topic any time soon.

More importantly, Mohler's response makes you wonder why he is afraid to tackle this central geopolitical reality when in other instances he does not shy away from controversy, even having gone on the record as stipulating that one is living in a state of sin if not married by your early 20's even if living in a state of abstinence.

If we are to be so Biblical in our thinking as to caution against a female President because of teachings about women being submissive even though Condoleezza is not married and thus has no man she is obligated to subordinate herself to, why not take as seriously those warnings found in the pages of the Holy Book about the coming of a global government that will rain down terror upon mankind and curtail human liberty in the End Times?

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Tolerance Mafia Lab Death Threats Against Bill O'Reilly

Looters Should Be Shot

In one captivating scene of Stephen Spielberg’s “War Of The Worlds”, a frenzied mob besieges a minivan until the character played by Tom Cruise relinquishes control of it with the drama heightened by a few brief moments of whether or not his preadolescent daughter was going to be part of the spoils. As someone that projects certain cultural and social trends into the future, the scenario reminded me of what would likely happen should an incident of overwhelming destruction ever occur within the United States.

Those with limited imaginations will brush it all aside and say such anarchy could never happen here. And under optimal circumstances, I would never have proof one way or the other as to the veracity of my sociological postulations regarding these matters. Unfortunately in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, it seems I didn’t have to wait too long for a far off tragedy to receive confirmation.

Before the flood waters even had the opportunity to recede from this contemporary Atlantis, a wave of human scum far more deliberately malevolent than anything found in the forces of nature washed over the sunken city. For while most of the residents of the Gulf Coast were no doubt awed and humbled by the circumstances into which they were thrust, others less noble in bearing decided to exhibit behaviors proving they were barely worthy of membership among the ranks of civilized men by instead of aiding their neighbors in a time of overwhelming need deciding to prey upon them like common leeches.

Somehow thinking the laws of God and man no longer applied to them, these human rats descended on the remaining retail establishments of the city to conduct acts of unauthorized commerce outside the bounds of legal propriety. In other words for those with the same diminished reasoning capacities as those engaged in this pillage, old fashioned looting.

Those given over to the sunshine and moonbeam view of reality will whine but these people were only trying to provide for their families. Think so, do you?

Well, according to an Associated Press account titled, “Looting Begins In New Orleans”, these vandals had excess clothing and jewelry among their booty. Other reports claimed looters made off with televisions.

Now there is no kind of sob story that could possibly justify stealing a television in such a time of crisis. Much of that area won’t even have electricity for much of the foreseeable future.

As much as these criminals enrage law-abiding citizens, even more irritating are those justifying these social pathologies or that this human debris should not be dealt with with the strictest of responses.

In response to initial reports of looting, WMAL personality Chris Core suggested correctly that law enforcement in either the form of the police or national guard should shoot those refusing to desist in their acts of outright pillage. From the limp-wristed responses from a number of callers, it is safe to assume that these naive saps would have rather seen this radio personality tossed into the slammer rather than these darling looters.

Those wanting to go easy on the looters claimed that the items pillaged were only material items and not of equal value to a human life. But frankly, these things, especially beyond a days worth or so of food, are not for these people to take. Would those making such grandiose proclamations about the brotherhood of man feel so magnanimous if it happened to be their possessions and heirlooms being rifled through; would Celine Dyon get so worked up insisting these people get to touch these things if the things to be touched belonged to her?

Early on before all hell broke lose, Governor Blanco insisted that law enforcement personnel could not be diverted from rescue operations to protect what she dismissed as mere property. One wonders if she would have started off with the same anthropocentric sentiments if the pillagers had laid siege to the state house or governor’s mansion.

Those advocating an each according to his ability, each according to his need approach to disaster survival fail to realize that this failure to respect property is the first step down the path to devaluing someone else’s life all together. For just a short time after hearing about the looting of stores and such, reports started rolling in about shots being taken at rescue copters and rapists indulging their basest desires. Such acts certainly have a lot to do with survival, don’t they?

I guess these humanitarians wouldn’t want these scumbags shot either. Bet the wives of these spineless cowards feel safe and protected, but I guess women that wed such girlie men pretty much get what they deserve.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Can Students Be Compelled To Stand For Another Country's Anthem?

Wonder if the ACLU will step forward to defend the rights of a student that did not stand during a rendition of the Mexican National Anthem during a school assembly.

More importantly, if one cannot compel Jehovah Witnesses to say the Pledge Of Allegiance or make atheists bow their heads for a moment of prayer, on what grounds can a school demand students stand and render homage to a nation to which the students are not bound and owe no loyalty?

Could a school with a significant Arab or Palestinian population demand Jewish students pay tribute to portraits of Yasir Arafat or the Ayatollah Khomeni?

As an arm of the government, the public schools exist to promote the interests of American society and the citizens of the United States, not those of every other nation upon the face of the earth.

The primary mission of these places of what use to be called learning was at one time to inoculate into the minds of students a love and appreciation of American things.

From the "Jaywalking" segments on "The Tonight Show" and similar bits on "Sean Hannity", are the schools even imparting this most rudimentary of civic knowledge anymore; can American students even name our national anthem?

If not, then most certainly time should not be diverted promoting ideas of foreign lands and cultures when the ones around which life ought to be organized here are being so neglected.

Those whose hearts are elsewhere are always free to return to their places of origin if they find our way of life all that odious.

After all, they are the ones that came here in the first place and not vice versa.

One does not go into someone else's home, claim a room, and then expect the host to change his entire routine just to suit the uninvited guest.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Dec. 26, 2005 Deadline To Join Journey To The Center Of The Earth

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Tolerancemongers Rampage In Ohio

One of the undeniable truths of contemporary sociopolitical reality is that the peace protestors that show up to counter White supremacist groups inevitably cause more damage and violence than the hate groups they claim to be standing against.

I suppose this looting was necessary for survival as we were told in reference to the plasma TV's and designer clothes pilfered following Hurricane Katrina.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

UFO Abductees Admit Fondness For Their Probers

As with relationships, nice guys finish last.

Hugo Chavez Sides With Jungle Heathen Over Missionaries

Wonder what the hyper-pious that came out against Pat Robertson's assessment of the Venezuelan tyrant have to say now.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Say No To Crack: Waist Bands Higher Once More

"You Have The Obligation To Remain Silent": Man Beaten For Being Conscientious Citizen

Birds Not Descended From Dinosaurs

More Bombs Found Near Colleges

Seems terrorists might be targetting American colleges. Here are additional incidents apart from the Oklahoma Jihadist that is being swept under the rug:


Monday, October 10, 2005

UN Decimates Smurf Village

Pro-Illegal Front Group Backs Famed Communist

In the broadcast version of a Fox News story about the move to put a fence across the Mexican border, the activist promoting the unregulated movement of people across borders was sitting in an office with a collage of Che Guevara prominently placed in the background.

Tells you quite a bit about the values and policies embraced by these radical malcontents.

For once they abolish the borders separating nation from nation, it won't be long until they start to do away with the lines demarcating private property as well.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Apparently Some Victims More Equal Than Others In Eyes Of Media

It is said that justice is blind meaning since we are all created equal in the eyes of God we should be treated the same when it comes to the application of the law. It, therefore, follows that evil deeds are not made any more heinous when perpetrated by members of one particular ethic group or upon members of a particular ethnic group.

Ashame the mainstream media does not aspire to this standard when it comes to reporting these horrors transpiring on the underside of life. For often crimes inflicted upon minorities by members of majorities receive much more condemnation than crimes inflicted by minorities upon members of the majority in order to adhere to their prewritten script of the American as world oppressor.

News organizations across the nation were quick to report on a horrible incident in Tifton, Georgia where a number of migrant workers were killed and a woman raped by three scumbags that made a career of robbing these day laborers. Why then, has not the mainstream media been as quick to highlight the plight of a woman one state over in Florida gang raped by fourteen Hispanic transients?

Thus far, the only national outlet I have come across getting out the second story is . Aren't these incidents of similar magnitude?

Not only was this poor woman defiled by this human detritus having only God knows how many horrible diseases since I doubt they are the most virtuous of gentleman, she was also kidnapped from her home, had her nose plugged shut, and alcohol poured down her throat. So much for this demographic consisting solely of wholesome, family oriented people with no purpose in life other than humbly providing for their families. Had this women dispatched these sorry excuses for human beings into Hell as she should have, her face would no doubt be plastered all across newspapers for acts of bias.

The Associated Press account of the Tifton, Georgia atrocity noted that the attack has sent chills through the state’s Hispanic community. Yet the liberal press regularly ignores these fears and violations of the sanctity of home and person when average Americans are on the receiving end of such heinous deeds in the nation’s border areas and paint as racist those rising up to restore the sense of order the state has abandoned that would benefit all lawful residents.

It has often been said that a liberal is a conservative that has not been mugged yet. Hopefully, it will not take the wife or daughter of one of these elite journalists being mistreated in such a terrible manner for these communicators to realize that all crimes are equally lamentable without reference to the backgrounds of the parties involved.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Tom Cruise Impregnates Concubine

Wonder if he'll have the manhood to tell her she does not need medication for postpartum depression.

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Lack Of Judgment: Are Some Too Quick To Embrace John Roberts?

From his response to a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, it has been reported Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has pledged to honor established precedent if confirmed as a jurist to the nation’s highest court. While such posturing might be an elaborate rhetorical ploy to throw off the snarling liberal jackals off his trail, it does not bode well for the nation if such sentiments are actually an accurate summation of his legal philosophy.

In defense of his position, Judge Roberts continued, “Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system. A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges...They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems...but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.”

But what precedents are you going to abide by, Mr. Roberts? And if he lacks the courage to step out from behind the judicial shadow, should he be entrusted with a position that requires a backbone beneath the black robe?

While he is correct that it is not the role of judges to solve all of society’s problems, that pony has been out of the gate for quite a while now. One might be able to make an argument that it’s been all downhill since Marbury v. Madison.

When Judge Roberts pledges to uphold precedent, exactly where does his fealty to the rulings of his predecessors end? Should a case come before the Court in need of clarifying the extent of the case allowing municipal authorities to snatch private property on behalf of developers, will Roberts have enough manhood in his gavel to sweep away this appalling ruling or will he stand by the figure he has cut for himself as a wimp and obsequiously adhere to a decision simply because some other judge more confident about asserting themselves ethically handed down the decision whether or not the decision has anything to do with the Constitution as originally envisioned?

In other statements, Judge Roberts contends he has no opinion one way or the other regarding law that has already been decided. Perhaps he should be reminded that history does not look kindly upon men that hide behind skirts, even if the dress in question happens to be a judge’s robe.

Had Judge Roberts lived in other times, one wonders if he would have possessed the courage to break with decisions now considered to be infamous tragedies of American jurisprudence. At one time Dred Scott was precedent; at one time Separate But Equal was precedent. And in this time of war, anyone concerned about the abridgements of liberties that breakout in such turbulent periods such as the curtailment of speech and internment camps should be deeply concerned about any jurist so eager to enunciate a go-with-the-flow-go-along-to-get-along mentality.

Rulings such as Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson were not right at the time they were handed down nor did they somehow magically become wrong with the passage of time. They were always wrong because they violated an eternal, transcendent standard and not because of their failure to conform to changing social sensibilities.

Francis Schaeffer observed in A Christian Manifesto of the contemporary judicial climate, “By sociological law we mean law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment; and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41).” Thus it is from within such an intellectual framework that Judge Roberts is capable of claiming a fidelity to legal precedent while lending his legal expertise to the efforts to mainstream sodomy.

The standard in such a legal context is no longer so much right and wrong or good and evil as it is “stability” in Robert’s words or “peace and affluence” as Dr. Schaeffer use to warn. But if these are to serve as the highest legal ideals, would the slaves have ever been freed since the Antebellum world might have remained “stable” if it hadn’t been for those pesky abolitionists and those insisting upon their God given right to live free.

And this is ultimately the crux of the entire debate: do we see rights as coming from God or do we see rights as coming from the state? For if our rights come from God, they cannot be legitimately taken away from those living within His revealed standards since God is perfect, all knowing, and unchanging. But if we see our rights as coming from the state, they are dependent upon alterable conditions and the fluctuating whims of magistrates since government is flawed, dimwitted, and changeable.

Realizing this is the only way to overcome America’s crisis in jurisprudence. Although contemporary establishmentarian conservatives have an inkling something is out of whack, their proposed solutions will do little to halt the ongoing decline of this great Republic.

This disturbing shortcoming was particularly evident in a April 28, 2005 White House press conference when President Bush responded to a question about what he thought about comments by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council that Democrats oppose Bush’s judicial nominees on religious grounds. The President responded he did not think his nominees were being opposed on religious grounds but as a matter of judicial philosophy. But where does the President think one’s judicial philosophy comes from exactly?

One is not going to want babykillers to assume the highest legal offices in the land if one truly loves God and strives to keep His commandments. Likewise, if one does not think God exists or merely does as some kind of celestial buffoon for human amusement smiling upon anything and everything that titillates our basest passions, one is going to do everything within one’s power to curb the influence of jurists not seeing such debaucheries as some kind of innate liberty or the effort to curb such an infringement upon those freedoms that are.

Throughout the course of his ministry analyzing Western culture in light of Biblical principles, Francis Schaeffer warned that a conservative Humanism is little better than a liberal Humanism. For whereas liberal ones seek to recast all of society in their own radical image, the conservative ones --- though not as abrupt with their agenda of cultural transformation --- are so sold out to the spirit of the age that they eventually come to endorse positions they would have considered scandalous just a short time ago. And where Justice Roberts decides to stand amidst this grand struggle will determine the future of America for decades to come.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Islamophiles Downplay Jihadist Connections Of University Bomber

Sunday, October 02, 2005

Friday, September 23, 2005

Thursday, September 22, 2005

Dr. Phil's Son To Wed Playboy Centerfold

Interesting an episode the other day was about the evils of judging by appearance.

As with those that claim they read Playboy for the articles, I suppose he became smitten by this tramp through her personality.

For those charmed by the puny, ditzy model type, be warned. They don't strike me as the kind that will do much housework or happily do as they are told like a proper wife should.

Any satisfaction to be derived from having such a showcase bride based upon contemporary standards of beauty idolizing malnutrition and an emaciated look will no doubt be eaten up by divorce settlement costs a few years down the road.

Glamour wenches seldom make good companions and hardly the best selection as mothers.

As I once read in a Christian book on youth ministry, when it comes to basing a relationship primarily on appearance, fine feathers clothe an expensive bird.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Friday, September 16, 2005

Statue Of Nude, Pregnant Midget Defiles Trafalgar Square

Once upon a time, the British use to be renowned for their sense of propriety and decorum. Now it seems, however, they are letting it all hang out just like all the other nations of the decadent West.

Trafalgar Square is, to put it most simply, a square in central London commemorating the Battle of Trafalgar. Makes you wonder then why then they have decided to place a statue of a disabled, pregnant naked lady amidst this memorial to great military heroes.

One characteristic of all decaying nations is the rush to distance themselves from the values of their pasts. As such, the Mayor of London, terrorist sympathizer Ken Livingstone, has expressed a desire to have many of the statues of the historical greats taken down and replaced with those of personalities more relevant to the 21st century, this no doubt being a euphemism for the purposes of honoring perverts and deviants.

For yet another characteristic of declining cultures is an unseemly public obsession with the sexual and abnormal. The nude is being justified in part to serve as a balance to "triumphant male statuary" dominating the park, that classification providing a great deal of insight to the deviant creating the sculpture who at one time crafted a replica of his head made of 4.5 liters of his own frozen blood.

But if that was the only reason, why not make a statue of this lady with some cloths on? We are further told of the need of the statue by the model herself because, "There is so much prejudice around sexuality, disability, femininity and pregnancy..."

Maybe so, but shouldn't her naked beauty be something only for her husband to behold and relish? If anything, in light of so many pregnant women thrusting their bear bellies into plain view stretch marks and all (i.e. the Dove Soap hussies), a little more Victorian restraint might do us some good with more being left to the imagination once again.

Monuments such as Trafalgar Square commemorate noble deeds undertaken in honor of God and country. But had these men seen what the future was to hold, you are forced to stop and wonder if they would have even bothered in the first place.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Plague-Infested Mice Missing

FEMA Aide Pays For Strippers

Thursday, September 15, 2005

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Republican Senator Seeks Crown As King Of The Welfare Pimps

Republicans were able to gain power during the mid 90’s in part by promising to abolish welfare as we know it. However, as these reformers once motivated by the idealism of their convictions have grown accustomed to the perks of public office, they are no longer quite so eager to bring about the abolition of these programs as they are to expand entitlement programs to create whole new levels of dependency.

One of the surest ways to maintain one’s hold on power, to extend the scope of government, and to minimize criticism of one’s pet projects is to couch these in terms of defending some venerable institution. Environmentalists have so mastered the technique that now those daring to question this movement are characterized as being in favor of dirty water and bunny massacres.

As a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, most Americans view marriage and family as one of the building blocks of a stable social order. Thus, those brave enough to question a proposal being introduced by Kansas Senator Sam Brownback will no doubt be cast as enemies of children and families. But the things these critics are really standing up for are just as important and perhaps even more fundamental values such as self-reliance and a sense of personal sobriety that one does not always get the things one wants especially if one is not patient enough to follow the proper steps in their own time to acquire them.

The plan promoted by Brownback would give low income residents of the District of Columbia Marriage and Pre-marriage Accounts where the government would match $3.00 for every dollar contributed by the account holder up to $4500. The theory is that encouraging marriage is good for children.

But if we are now considering dishing out what amounts to what could be rightly construed as a marriage subsidy, doesn’t this amount to yet another form of welfare? Furthermore, such handouts would do little to actually strengthen marriage since such funds would most likely go to those that don’t value marriage all that much to begin with.

This was evident with the couple profiled in a July 31, 2005 Washington Post story detailing the Brownback proposal. The couple chronicled has not yet gotten married because the couple is strapped for cash because he is unemployed and disabled with a back injury and to her it’s simply not enough to bask in the joy and pleasure of solemnizing the couple’s love before God and man as this woman already on a number of government assistance programs demands a storybook wedding.

Yet despite claiming to delay matrimony because of economic excuses, this has not stopped them from playing house by shacking up and having a baby on top of the fact she already has another child by another dude. Apparently the baby’s daddy isn’t too disabled; he might not be suffering so much from a bad back as he is a lazy rear-end.

This couple made their own decision to do things out of order after sitting in a tree, skipping the first comes love and then comes marriage stage going straight to the baby carriage. Frankly, why should the rest of us have to dig deeper into our pockets to buffer the consequences of their actions?

If couples such as this are not going to get married and (as most Americans possessed the moral courage to say in eras with a bit more class) “live in sin”, doesn’t it prove they do not value marriage to begin with? Why do some such as Senator Brownback insist throwing more public money at the problem is going to resolve the issue?

This is pretty much the approach that has been taken in regards to public education and look at the sorry state the public schools are in. Do we really want to endanger marriage further through additional government handouts and interference?

Those defending Marriage Saving Accounts insist that the “downtrodden” and “underprivileged” need public assistance in establishing their homes and families. However, according to the specifics of the proposal, beneficiaries can make up to $25,000 if they have no dependents and up to $50,000 if one has dependents and a total net worth of less than $10,000. Thus in plain language, what these programs do is reward those refusing to exercise a little self control or willingness to delay gratification by saving for a rainy day.

Why should others have to have what they have worked for taken and given to someone that could theoretically be making more than they do but lacks character so that the less frugal can enjoy many of the things those with the integrity to lead productive lives apart from the patronage of the state cannot afford and must delay acquiring until later down the road? Why shouldn’t the same be expected of the indolent and licentious?

It’s not like the highlighted couple is living on the streets. According to the Post, they have a roof over their heads. Since this is the case, their living arrangements are no concern of the government or even the church to much of a degree.

In the Washington, DC area where the average house is now pushing between $300,000 and $500,000, if subsidies were dished out to all of those unable to afford real estate prices, just about everybody would be suckling off the government teat.

Marriage and family are indeed a fundamental building block of a stable social order. However, these will falter unless composed of individuals that value these institutions more than any bribe to entice them into them and realize no one is responsible for their success and happiness other than themselves.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Issue Of Implantable Bio-Chips Comes Up At Roberts Hearing

Monday, September 12, 2005

Friday, September 09, 2005

Thursday, September 08, 2005

Thursday, September 01, 2005

Babykillers Seek To Set Up Shop In America's Oldest City

Society Collapses Before Our Eyes Without The Ten Commandments

Wonder how those for the abolition of the Ten Commandments think society is fairing now without these fundamental principles.

According to this story, a nursing home has been raided --- respect for the elderly being thrown out the window and all. In other incidents, vagabonds are now taking shots at rescue copters assisting in the evacuation.

This is now longer about "survival". These scumbags are attempting to establish their own rule as warlords.

In one interesting paragraph, readers will note police ran off looters from an Office Depot while law enforcement officials were themselves helping themselves to "five finger discounts" because in times of emergency officials have the power to "commandeer" buildings and supplies.

Do police plan to keep a tabulation of the goods they have procured for the sake of the COMMUNITY for later reimbursement; if not it's still theft no matter how you gussy it up.

So in essense, at those times when property rights matter the most, they count the least as it seems you are nothing more than a caretaker until the state needs to come along and appropriate these resources from you.

Seems no one is safe from anyone --- be they civilian or government --- in the expadning lawlessness of the New World Order where the strong are being allowed to take what they want from the weak.

Pray hard, America, for the hour of the tyranny may be at hand.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Police Join Looters

Hurricane Halts Gay Orgy

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Planned Parenthood Views Contraceptives As Essential To Hurricane Recovery

To bad it wasn't their headquarters and their headquarters alone that was washed away with no one in it.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

Apostate Jesters Blaspheme Holy Communion

Given the “so what?” and “You better be quiet or its off to a reeducation camp with you” response I’ve gotten from even a number of so-called “Conservatives” regarding the Harry Potter craze and reports of Lois Lane’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy, I guess what I am about to describe is considered OK now as well.

I first heard of this listening to an episode of Kevin Swanson’s Generations Radio archived at Doesn’t take a theological genius to realize that the Episcopal Church is a joke, but this is taking things to a whole new level.

On May 22. 2005, a so-called “Clown Mass” was held at Trinity Church in New York City where these buffoons made a mockery of the Lord’s Supper. With sodomites infesting the ranks of this harlot denomination, certainly puts the term “assclown” into an entirely different context.

Such antics are not the first plunge of the ranks of Episcopal/Anglican clergy into such lunacy. In the late 60’s or there abouts, a number of Episcopal ministers parachuted off a building in order to “bring the young people back into the church”. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery has jokingly remarked of the incident, if God wasn’t dead, maybe He wishes He were.

More traditional Evangelicals stand back and watch, thinking such foolishness could never occur in their denominations and congregations. The sad truth is these once stalwart bastions of theological propriety are well on their way to reveling in such ecclesiastical hijinks.

Since they prefer to do nothing more than mock and ridicule the traditional American way of “doing church”, what’s to prevent the Emergent Church movement from resorting to a Clown Communion of their own? After all, with their baggie, torn pants and bodies proudly defaced with tattoos, many in these religious freak shows are already well on their way to looking like clowns.

With most socioreligious taboos being tossed aside, a vast number of Evangelicals out of a misbegotten perception that since the Blood of Christ covers over a broad array of sins hold that these sins must no longer be construed as sins for fear of running afoul of public constituencies promoting such behaviors. In such a do-your-own-thing environment, the sanctity of the Lord’s Supper dangles by a very thin thread. For if many in the church aren’t even going to bat an eye at literature casting witchcraft in a positive light and consider it a greater impropriety to point out the scandal of procreating outside of marriage than actually breeding like a rabbit without legal blessing, what is to prevent us from getting to the point of viewing this sacrament as little more than midmorning crackers and juice if we are no longer to be shocked by the previously mentioned transgressions in our jaded age?

How much farther are things going to go? If you raise concerns about the influence of witchcraft over the minds of the young or raise an eyebrow as to the propriety of Superman’s main squeeze living a life of sleaze, you’re the one they want to burn at the stake or run out of town. Won’t be long until those insisting the Lord’s Supper be conducted with sobriety and decorum will be castigated as intolerant fuddies out of touch with developing religious sensibilities.

During the French Revolution, violent mobs desecrated a cathedral by sitting a scantily clad woman upon the altar. At least those minions of perdition had the decency to b upfront about their anti-Christian motives. Today, those that would defile holy things have either learned to be more deceptive about their blasphemy or not quite as intelligent about the evil they do since silliness has replaced seriousness throughout much of the modern church.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Friday, August 19, 2005

Additional Thoughts Concerning The Despair Of Naturalism

In trying to elevate himself by attempting to remove God from His rightful place upon the throne of the universe, man ends up far from elevating himself and instead finds himself ensnared to a form of despair and bondage far worse than anything that could be imagined under the yolk of Biblical Christianity.

To say that an individual possesses free will is to say that he has the ability to make decisions based upon some criteria existing beyond mere physical impulse.

However, materialistic evolutionary theory contends that this arena of the will does not exist as part of a deeper spiritual reality but is rather mere electrochemical response to physical stimuli with no higher reason or purpose.

Francis Schaeffer observes in How Should We Then Live: The Rise And Decline Of Western Thought And Culture that evolutionary theory in the form of humanistic thought has reduced everything to the level of a component in a great universal machine.

Of this outlook, Schaeffer writes, “In one form of reductionism, man is explained by reducing him to the smallest particles which make up his body. Man is seen as being only the molecule or the energy particle, more complex but not intrinsically different (164).”

To prove such an observation is more than Evangelical hyperbole, Schaeffer quotes Harvard University Chemistry Professor George Wald who said, “Four hundred years ago there was a collection of molecules named Shakespeare which produced Hamlet (164).”

In order to remain consistent, those holding to such a perspective have to concede such a masterpiece is not so much the result of creative insight as it is a fortuitous case of gas. And to any naturalist offended by my remarks, they cannot very well complain about them since by their own worldview, I had no control over what I wrote.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

Respect For The Dead Or Fear Of What Lies Ahead?

My brief comments regarding Stephen Jay Gould’s family suing over his death from cancer at the hands of inept doctors generated a greater response than anticipated, once again proving the role played by evolution as a fault line in the ongoing battle of values dividing much of America. Yet despite the emotional responses Darwin’s theory continues to evoke, those seeking to escape the implications of a universe created and sustained by God continue to formulate arguments in defense of their position that even a Neanderthal could see through.

One response chided me as a soulless individual for supposedly “speaking so ill of the dead” for pointing out the inconsistencies of materialists seeking compensation for the loss of a loved one since by definition that worldview has no objective standard upon which to base right or wrong with human beings ultimately of no more importance than the disease organisms doctors regularly seek to eradicate.

On what grounds does a naturalist accuse someone of having no soul? To the naturalist, the soul does not exist.

If matter is all that exists and is the ultimate foundation of the universe, mind is nothing more than electronic impulses coursing through the brain. Thus, if we are nothing more than the sum of the sum total of our physical parts, one can no more be held accountable for one’s comments than they can be for the need to go to the bathroom if thoughts are to the brain what urine is to the kidneys.

Interestingly, why do those professing belief that this world is all that is with no afterlife even care whatsoever about what I have to say about someone that has ceased to exist? It’s not like the deceased is going to read my comments.

Though Christianity affirms the existence of an afterlife, there is nothing in the Bible saying we are forbidden from discussing the ignoble deeds of the departed. If we were forbidden from doing so, that would also mean we could not discuss the failings of Joseph McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, or any other figure the Left feels the need to criticize incessantly. Why should Stephen Jay Gould be granted an exception?

In all likelihood having now had his faulty thinking corrected through the singeing flames of hellfire if he continued to deny Christ until his last breath, Dr. Gould would probably thank me for taking the time to warn others of the errors and inconsistencies of his previously held views. In Luke 16:27-28, the rich man sent to hell says, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.”

In the raising of such a fuss about correcting the fallacies of the errant departed, one is forced to speculate whether such concerns are raised out of a misdirected sense of propriety or more from a desire to avoid contemplating the fate that awaits themselves should they continue to ignore the pangings of their own conscience.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Saturday, August 13, 2005

Saturday, August 06, 2005

A Review Of 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch

Regardless of one’s opinion of Tony Campolo, one has to admit Campolo is not afraid to speak his mind.

In 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid To Touch, Campolo takes on some of the most difficult issues confronting contemporary Christianity.

Some of the issues addressed from the chapter titles include “Are Evangelicals Too Pro-Israel” and “Where Does A Single Woman Over 30 Go To Get Rid Of Loneliness?”

Some of Campolo’s comments are insightful such as those realizing that singleness is as ordained of God as marriage.

Other comments reveal a serious misunderstanding as to the fundamental nature of human nature.

In the chapter dealing with homosexuality, Campolo suggests that Evangelicals grant a blessing to celibate gays living together.

But humanly speaking, will any relationship between romantically attracted adults living under the same roof remain celibate for long?

Even among Christians, one reason for disinterest in the church is its failure to address the concerns of the day and instead explicate some arcane Old Testament passage week after week with little application to the life of the average Christian.

If nothing else, even despite his errors, Campolo’s text should spark interesting Sunday school debates or riveting rejoinders from the pulpit.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Yet Another Celebration Catering To Minorities

In promoting racial equality, it is often harped that on the inside we are all the same regardless of color or background. Apparently that isn't quite the case since we are now being bombarded by yet another celebration pandering to minorities.

Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day (try putting that on a greeting card) seeks to, well, raise awareness of transplant organs and minorities. While one can hardly oppose the quest for good health, like many other causes promoted by the liberals, this one should also be subjected to closer scrutiny and critical thought.

For starters, if we are going to have a Minority Transplant Organ Awareness Day, shouldn't we also have a Caucasian Transplant Organ Awareness Day? Not every White person that needs a transplant organ gets one.

So why is it inherently more tragic if this tragedy befalls a minority than your run of the mill White person? Furthermore, if there was only a single organ available, can anyone justify why Jesse Jackson would be more deserving of it than Ted Kennedy? Even more importantly, are those White big shots that enjoy imposing minority favoritism on the rest of us in order to show how enlightened and progressive they are going to forego an organ for themselves or a loved one in favor of a minority should they ever find themselves in such a situation or is this merely another burden they expect to pass on to the average White American?

From the way these public campaigns are expressed, you'd think the average White guy was as immortal as Ducan McCloud of the Clan McCloud from the Highlander series.
However, seems to me White folks drop dead from the same afflictions.

In one news story justifying this day of ethnic guilt, one AP story laments that American Indians make up 34& and Hispanics 42% of those awaiting kidney transplants in New Mexico. Maybe if these communities learned to lay off the booze a bit, they could reduce the numbers instead of shifting the blame to Whitey.

Even among conservative circles, it is now popular to claim that racial differences do not exist. While that should be true in the eyes of the law, if it is so in terms of biology, shouldn't organs be interchangeable between various groups if these distictions are nothing more than arbitrary cosmetics?

Seems this issue will force the proponents of radical multiculturalism to make a decision in favor of either their fantasies of absolutist egalitarianism or the system of demographic spoils they have devised to ultimately lavish power on themselves as the administrators of a new ethnic feudalism.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Voltron Movie Planned

Saturday, July 23, 2005

Article Takes On Harry Potter From A Biblical Perspective

Dr. P. Bradley Carey, president of the Institute For Christian Works, has posted a Biblical analysis of Pottermania in an article titled “HARRY POTTER: ENEMY Of GOD“.

He does an excellent of job of martialling the Biblical evidence for his argument and placing the book in the context of these scriptural teachings.

Those concerned about this phenomena but not sure exactly how to put their finger on it will find this to be a vital apologetic resource.

Monday, July 18, 2005

Will Lois Lane Be An Unwed Mother In New Superman Film?

In DVD's I have of the classic Max Fleischer Superman cartoon's, Lois Lane is depicted as the embodiment of American femininity as she carries herself simultaneously with spunk and lady-like decorum.

As the foremost expression of American popular culture, the changes in Superman over the years can be used to map the extent of the nation's moral decline.

For example, in the current Smallville series, the females of this subset of the DC comics universe no longer adorn themselves like the classy dames of the 1940's or even the elegant look of Margot Kidder or Annette O'Toole in the movies of the 1980's but rather drink and whore around with the best of them all the while leaving little to the imagination as to the appearance of their bellies and lower backs.

Now it seems the saga of this hero flying high for truth, justice, and the American way might be crash landing into perdition as a scifiwire story seems to indicate that Lois Lane might have an out of wedlock child in the upcoming film.

If this is what now passes as upright American womanhood nowadays, we might be so bad off that even Superman is unable to save us. Frankly, not even Superman should be expected to take responsibility for another man's indiscretions. Having been unable to exercise restraint in these matters, the best Ms. Lane should be able to hope for is a second-tier costumed adventurer such as Reed Richards, whose already had a child himself, or his brother-in-law the Human Torch, whose already been divorced.

Superman is superman, after all. He can have any woman he wants. Why should he settle for one that's already been marked as someone else's property and on top of that one that treats him like bilge when he's disguised as Clark Kent?

If it was the other way around and someone ignored Wonder Woman when she had a little librarian outfit on but threw themselves at her drooling all over her when she stripped down to that bosomy patriotic number she pours herself into, fans would insist she move on to someone that cared more for her as person with mind and feelings and all that other sensitivity blather. Why doesn't Superman deserve the same? Don't tell me broads aren't into looks as much a dudes.

If filmmakers are going to keep insisting that Superman must continue to change in order to reflect the times in which we live, one wonders how many more decades will pass until a version is released where Luthor is the hero and Superman the villain if the Man of Tomorrow continues to insist upon imposing his standards upon common criminals and would be galactic conquerors.

As in regards to my columns daring to question Harry Potter and certain ethical undertones of the Star Wars universe, some (even many so-called "Conservatives") will dismiss me as a lunatic and a greater danger to the world than the most wicked of supervillians. Those that do should not go crying when their children come home practicing withcraft or as teenage parents if we are to now smile upon these practices as wholesome in what should be the innocent realms of the imagination.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Civic Duty To Read Latest Harry Potter --- At Least Before Sat, the 16th

Normally, I would be reluctant in encouraging someone to read an occult-laced tract like Harry Potter as one has to judge for themselves whether such material might be harmful to their spiritual walk. However, in a case where a Cananadian supermarket inadvertently released the text ahead of its debut date, those getting their hands on it now have a civic duty to read the manuscript in order to take a stand against government intrusion into our minds and homes.

A Justice with the Supreme Court of British, Columbia has ruled that those acquiring the book ahead of time must not speak about the book, copy it, or even read it. Furthermore, the lucky customers must also surrender the book they purchased in good faith to the publisher until 12:01 am, July 16th when the dark lords of the New World Order have decreed their obedient minions among the ranks of mere mortals may finally gaze upon this work of juvenile necromancy.

Apart from its glorification of Satanic rituals, numerous Christian thinkers have warned of the Potter Series because of Harry's tendency to break the rules when it suits his purpose. Since this is the worldview J.K. Rowlings and her publisher wish to promote among the young, shouldn't they applaud those refusing to comply with the ruling?

Since outfits such as the ACLU and the like go into more spasms than a werewolf having its belly rubbed whenever the specter of government threatens to interfere with what goes on in the privacy of one's bedroom or when authorites exert control over what one is permitted to read, you'd think this would be a case right up their alley. Furthermore, especially among those that bought the book with cash, how can such a ruling possibly be enforced? Those having the book ahead of schedule should go ahead and read the book anyway before the approved date knowing that in doing so they take a stand for intellectual liberty.

Unless the practicioners of the dark arts have another nefarious purpose in mind such as mass manipulation or fear they might turn into a pumpkin if someone gazes upon their runes before the appointed hour, J.K Rowlings and these gnarled crones in the publishing industry have no right to complain as they will be getting the same amount of money whether these fourteen copies are sold at 12:01 am or a mere week earlier.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Caucasians More Likely To Suffer From Reflux Disease

Does this now mean we are to target prevention and treatment campaigns towards White folks and try to make everybody else feel guilty that White folks suffer from this dreaded affliction --- believe me, as a sufferer it can be rough --- as is the case with other diseases that supposedly afflict minorities in disproportionate number such as diabetes, heart disease, and prostate cancer even though these are the things most White folks keel over from eventually as well?

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Two There Always Are: But Who Is A Jedi & Who Is A Sith?

Throughout the Star Wars saga, fans have been led to believe that the Jedi stood for justice and goodness throughout the galaxy. However, the actions of one of the characters renowned as the embodiment of the principles expounded by the sect compels such an assumption to undergo careful reevaluation.

Most no doubt think I am referring to Anakin Skywalker since the final installment of the series details his transformation into Darth Vader. However, I am actually referring to Yoda, the diminutive space troll so hideous he is actually kind of cute.

In a Pepsi commercial, the Jedi master is seen sitting at a lunch counter here on earth. But instead of politely waiting to order his lunch like a good little elf, he instead resorts to a level of trickery that would put Q from Star Trek to shame.

Yoda employs Jedi sorcery by casting a spell on the guy next to him to give Yoda his fries. The victim complies, but when the imp tries to exert his will to acquire a disputed Pepsi, the victim reasserts himself to retain ownership of the coveted soft drink.

While the commercial is somewhat humorous, it also gives us a bit of clairvoyance into the moral worldview of the Jedi. In the final analysis, the Jedi end up not being all that different than the Sith.

For starters, anybody thinking there is nothing unsettling about a psionic adept waving their hands and getting a weak-minded subject to fork over whatever the space swami desires is in for a rude awakening. Some might think it’s a joke, saying those under a Jedi’s sway get exactly what they deserve.

But if Jedi are allowed to roam the cosmos pilfering what they please, what’s to prevent one with more ambitious appetites from using his powers of beguilement to have his way with unsuspecting space damsels? Can’t very well cry rape when you approve of soft drinks being taken from those under psychic manipulation when someone with a bit more force flowing through them uses their powers in a slightly more provocative manner. Just because Yoda’s 800 and some years old doesn’t mean the rest of the Jedi have as much trouble extending their lightsabers.

Those with the power to take advantage of the common people in this kind of manner should be controlled by a strict code of behavior. Though the system proved inadequate, at least on Babylon 5 the earth government had an agency known as the PsiCorps to regulate telepaths from infringing upon the privacy of so-called “mundanes” or normal people.

At least J. Michael Stravinski had the foresight to realize power no matter how well controlled or intentioned is going to end up being abused. Apparently Lucas is naive as Jar Jar Binks in having no similar worries about one person crawling around in the mind of another and seeing it as something to encourage as positive by making it a practice his heroes engage in with shocking regularity.

The principles and aphorisms espoused by the Jedi sound noble upon an initial hearing but end up justifying larcenous behavior. For example, throughout the recent trilogy, Jedi elites such as Yoda remind that fear of loss is a path to the Dark Side.

I guess such is taught so --- as with the elites of our own little corner of the universe such as government revenuers and welfare bureaucrats --- the Jedi can take whatever they want and dare anyone to say anything about it. For shouldn’t it be a greater wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to you than to not want what is rightfully yours taken away?

One statement from “Revenge Of The Sith” that stands out to the philosophically sensitive is Obi-Wan’s declaration that only a Sith lord deals in absolutes (an absolute itself, by the way). But even if the proclamation is taken at face value, then how can one even say there is any difference between Jedi and Sith since distinctions cannot be made in a moral universe where absolutes are said not to exist?

The last installment of the Star Wars epic is marketed as depicting Anakin Skywalker’s betrayal of the Jedi. But perhaps instead of betraying this sect of mystic galactic warriors, Darth Vader represents that cults ultimate fulfillment.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Is The Government That Naive?

In April, police in Fairfax County, Virginia pulled over a van making an illegal u-turn. The constables soon discovered the illegal u-turn was not the only statutory violation committed by those in the van for twelve inside were illegal aliens.

After being processed by Immigration and Custom Enforcement, all eleven passengers were released and instructed to show up for final review; they were let lose onto our streets for the sake of the children and all. Unless the mother was some kind of tramp and did not know which hombre was the father, can anyone justify why every last one of them should have been allowed to go?

Furthermore, if these parents cared so much for their progeny, wouldn’t they have applied to come to this country in the proper manner? Regular, real Americans have had their own children snatched over less serious infractions of the law.

Needless to say, none of those released with the promise to return did so. But one does not have to be a PhD to figure out that was going to happen. With the drivel filling the minds of the overeducated these days, it’s probably an insight available only to those whose minds have not been corrupted in this manner.

Unfortunately, the poison of such diseased thinking is not confined to the otherwise unemployable in the ranks of media, government, and academia. Many average Americans are more than eager in promoting the surrender of this great nation.

One deluded soul posting on the messageboard commenting on the story posted, “If you ‘processed’ all the ‘illegals’ out of the United States, we would have economic collapse....Who the heck picks your fruit and vegetables? Cleans up your building? Cleans restrooms? Cooks your fast food? Does the dirty work that no one else wants to do? Many Americans have grown too fat and entitled to do the physical and ‘menial’ wok. Selfish people...afraid you won’t be able to afford that big fat SUV and wide-screen television?”

Such comments were probably made by one of those selfish people who has never done any menial work in their life. Usually, those clamoring for unfettered borders are the ones that have “too much” ---- if we are now going to hurl invectives against the blessings of liberty --- and want to ensure that the good life remains the exclusive province of the elite by importing laborers for the purposes of driving down wages and increasing their own wealth and power.

Instead of complaining about the laziness and girth of the average American (as if from appearances the average immigrant has missed too many meals), perhaps we should be asking how many toilets the likes of George Bush, John Kerry, or Ted Kennedy have scrubbed over the course of their lifetimes since the only thing they ever did to be entitled to their vast resources was spring from their parents loins. Hillary Clinton acted like it was revelation handed down from on high when she realized janitors are people too.

It’s not so much Americans have grown “too entitled” to do menial labor but rather don’t see why wages should be driven down for the work that they do. For the elites do not allow the invasion of the United States to proceed unabated to elevate the status of lamentable Third World peons but rather to drag down the living standards of all people to make it easy to rule over all of us as subjects of the New World Order.

Maybe if most forms of immigration were abolished and the proper steps taken to interdict transborder vagrancy, perhaps the elites would be forced to take the hit in their own pockets rather than the pockets of the average American. John Kerry and George Bush can afford to alter their lifestyles a lot more than can John Q. Public.

Often delicate economic relationships are thrown out of whack through undue government intervention and involvement. Multinationalists like to remind the American people of the need for an uninhibited free market in terms of eliminating trade barriers and subsidies to maintain global prosperity. Thus, if undue government meddling causes socioeconomic disequilibrium, then why shouldn’t this principle apply to welfare and domestic assistance programs buffeting those suffering from self-inflicted indolence?

If welfare was to be abolished for all but the physically incapacitated, the lazy would be forced to take the jobs currently occupied by immigrant labor. Fear of starvation might prove to be a powerful entrepreneurial motivator.

Meddling do-gooders will gasp, “But what of the children born to the underprivileged?” In much the same manner as a looming specter of malnutrition will inspire those with a rumbling tummy to take jobs they might not want to otherwise, the realization that one won’t be getting an additional check for each new mouth they bring into the world will cause a case of erectile dysfunction even Viagra couldn’t cure.

The United States did not have these out-of-control wedlock births before the advent of out-of-control social programs. “But won’t innocent children starve?” those placing their misguided conceptions of compassion above commonsense ask.

Not necessarily. Generations got by on what most would turn their noses up at today. So long as the “poor” have a can of soup from somewhere like a Save-A-Lot or an Aldi’s and a good set of second-hand clothes from the local thrift-store, they don’t really have too many complaints that the government or even the church should be concerned about. One of the most diabolical things ever done in devising these programs for the able-bodied was naming them “entitlements” since those unwilling to provide for themselves aren’t entitled to as much as they’ve been duped into believing.

Integrity of the nation’s borders is one of government’s few legitimate functions. If those holding public office fail in fulfilling this sacred obligation as a result of their own outright stupidity or blatant intentional neglect, perhaps those addicted to the benefits of authority should no longer be permitted to retain such lofty positions.

Copyright 2005 by Frederick Meekins