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