Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Trump Equated With Italian Tyrant

On the cover of the summer 2016 issue of New Politics is a caricature of Donald Trump dressed as Benito Mussolini with his arm outstretched in the infamous Fascist salute.

Interesting how these very same leftists feign contempt and outrage whenever conservative pundits invoke similar imagery from the time of the Second World War.

It is claimed that that period's loss of life was so overwhelming that it ought to only be referred to in connection to itself and must not be cheapened by using such horrors as a basis for other historical or political comparisons.

Even more worthy of reference is the accompanying caption insisting that Donald Trump's slogan is “Make America White Again”.

The candidate said nothing of the sort.

All Trump threatened to do is to enforce existing immigration laws and to implement a number of possible security measures to keep out those not coming here in compliance with established procedures and those intent upon harming the nation.

If the editors of New Politics construe the phrase “Make America Great Again” as “Make America White Again”, aren't these intellectuals the ones insinuating that, without a White majority, America won't likely be able to retain its preeminence in the world or standard of living.

Even if Trump did run on a platform of making America White again (which he is not), how is such an aspiration any worse than the desire of Ray Nagin to keep New Orleans as a “Chocolate City” as he enunciated during his tenure as that metropolis' corrupt executive?

How is making America White again as a rallying point of a campaign anymore outrageous than activists that lament “gentrification”, a fancy way of saying its better off for inner cities to remain in a state of decay than for them to become inhabited by an infestation of White interlopers desiring to reside there for whatever reasons.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, August 12, 2016

Obama Invokes Military To Conceal His Own Incompetence

In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, President Obama said, “Donald Trump calls our military a disaster.”

By this, the President meant that Donald Trump was directly attacking the men and women that comprise the armed forces of the United States.

As formidable and impressive as they are, in a constitutional republic they only do as ordered by the elected civilian leadership.

In his remarks, what President Obama did was deflect the necessary critical analysis of his own lackluster leadership.

For it was not the frontline infantryman that authorized the premature withdrawal from Iraq.

It was not the humble field medic tending the wounds of a fellow soldier mutilated by an improvised explosive device that authorized resources to provide “gender reassignment procedures”.

Nor was it an MP standing guard that decided that the attack on Fort Hood was merely an incident of workplace violence that did not quite rise to the level of terrorism.

In the very same paragraph, the President continued, “He cozies up to Putin, praises Saddam Hussein, and tells the NATO allies...that they have to pay up if they want our protection. Well, America's promises do not come with a price tag.”

It seems that nothing ever does with this financial profligate.

It is said that freedom isn't free.

Often that is thought of in terms of the sacrifices made by those protecting the nation and its people.

The statement can also be taken literally.

The fielding of armies does not come cheap.

Ultimately those equipping and supplying these vast military forces are not doing so solely out of a sense of selfless altruistic patriotism.

Any shocked by such a remark need only be shown the invoice for a single fighter jet.

Why shouldn't our so-called “allies” be expected to shoulder part of this expense?

After all, does not President Obama favor increasingly punitive taxation imposed upon the productive whom he eagerly reminded that they were not really the ones responsible for the enterprises, accomplishments, and achievements that they mistakenly assumed were their own?

If Donald Trump is on the record of speaking favorably of Vladimir Putin, how were his remarks anymore out of line than those articulated by prominent Democrats over the years?

For did not President Obama poopoo Mitt Romney last campaign cycle for viewing Russia as a strategic challenge rather than as a close alley?

Was not the comment that the 1980's called and the decade wanted its foreign policy returned? And during her own tenure as Secretary of State, was not Hillary Clinton the one that insisted she was the one that pushed the reset button for a closer relationship with Russia?

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Technocrats Fret Hitler Quote Exposes Modus Operandi

Technocrats Fret Hitler Quote Exposes Modus Operandi A popular truism holds that those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

On the surface, that insightful observation might apply to those that know the factual details of history but refuse to embrace that field of study's numerous object lessons.

However, for the aspiring tyrants, oligarchs, and elites eager to exert their control over a targeted population, it can be just as easy to censor and oppress those examples most likely to arouse suspicions those advocating nefarious agendas might otherwise prefer remain dormant.

Through the horrors of the Holocaust, the lives destroyed or ruined as a result of the Second World War, and the nightmarish curtailment of civil liberties that took place in Germany under the auspices of the Nazi Party's, mere utterance of the name “Adolf Hitler” stops the discerning and reflective in their tracks to take stock of what is being said so that life and liberty might be preserved.

For what happened under the oversight of this particular dictator saw one of Europe's most advanced nation's transformed into one of the most brutal regimes this world has ever known.

Given the scope of the atrocities perpetrated during the Nazi era, the average person often concludes that this organization must have must have stormed into office with only the most brutal and violent of tactics that only the most courageous were willing to withstand.

And while these were always the stock and trade of the most diehard of Nazis, the movement was also able to warp for its own purposes those aspirations of the human heart towards which nearly all have a desire.

Some of the dicta propagated sounded disturbingly similar to the public service announcements of our own day.

In the attempt to draw attention to the subtle spiritual war waged at the worldview level, Life Savers Ministries sponsored an Alabama billboard that consisted of a picture of a group of children and two contrasting quotes.

One attributed to Adolf Hitler read, “He alone who owns the youth gains the future.”

The second from Proverbs 22:6 admonished, “Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Put up on a Friday in June 2014, the billboard was taken down by the following Tuesday as a result of the ensuing hullabaloo.

The ministry's founder was quoted in an account appearing in the Columbia Ledger Enquirer as responding, “We are pulling the billboard and actually never intended to cause confusion...Herbert Hoover would have been a far better one to quote when he said, 'Children are our most valuable resource'. We are a children's organization and had honorable intentions and nothing else.”

Granted, it is easy to cave when tolerancemongers are eager to rip out one's throat (possibly even literally with the threats of violence such fanatics often make in the name of peace, understanding, and inclusion).

However, what this pastor or evangelist should have done is to use this incident as what President Obama would call a “teaching moment” when the Chief Executive desires to lecture the American people in an exceedingly condescending manner.

Glenn Beck's yeoman's efforts to the contrary in struggling to educate the population as to the dangers of 20th century Progressivism, but why doesn't anyone get all exercised over this Herbert Hoover quote?

For shouldn't those seeing this alternative quote get jacked out of shape over children being dehumanized to the level of a resource like coal or, in this era of mass legalization, industrial hemp?

A resource, after all, has no will of its own and little to no rights.

The purpose of a resource is to be shaped, utilized, and discarded by those to whom in belongs once the owner or those holding title to it see fit for their own benefit.

Perhaps failure to notice that is an indicator of just how conditioned many of us have become to the statist mindset. Such a concern is similar to that unsettled by how dangerously close our world in general and our country in particular are on the verge of mirroring the early days of Nazism.

Of course, at this point, we are not close to placing the assorted undesirables onto boxcars.

But there are signs all around that such a worst case scenario is not beyond the realm of plausibility.

Government agencies whose sole distasteful purpose is to simply and dispassionately collect revenue are use to suppress speech prevailing elites find distasteful.

Millions of the unborn are snuffed out as an inconvenience by those who apparently didn't find it inconvenient to find the time for the carnal pursuit through which new life is brought into existence.

Thousands concerned over the revolutions in morality and lifestyle remain silent for fear of an act as innocent as a donation to a perfectly legal organization could one day be used against them as grounds for terminating employment.

Swarms of supposedly “youthful” foreigners are detained for who knows how long in government warehouses because a militarized or enclosed border is supposedly less humane.

By contrasting the rhetorical similarities between the Book of Proverbs (a source of world religion's most profound wisdom) and Adolf Hitler (a personification of fallen man in his most unredeemed states), one is forced to confront the two basic paths a child can be led down as they make their way towards their eternal destination.

Parenting is not a spectator sport.

Like it or not, the soul of each child will end up in the hands of one of the two great forces waging war for the ultimate allegiance of mankind.

Without a doubt, once in Satan's grasp, though not an impossibility to be freed by the infinite compassion of the works of Christ's death upon the cross and His resurrection from the dead, it becomes all the more harder and complex for the individual to accept this free gift of salvation there for the asking.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Will Russell Moore Become A Theological McLarenite?

It is often remarked that history appears cyclical in nature. By that, it is meant that, if one watches long enough, one can detect certain patterns that come back around from time to time. And with certain social currents seeming to speed by faster than ever before, often these “temporal ebbs” pour over a society or movement before those watching are even aware.

Today, Brian McLaren has branded himself as a Christian that advocates a number of positions that many other Christians would have a hard time accepting. For example, one can follow his spiritual path from a stance downplaying the relevance of the Afterlife such as the eternality of Hell and that the Kingdom of God is not so much about everlasting life in Heaven but rather about establishing utopia here on Earth to co-officiating at his son's gay wedding.

However, about 25 to 30 years ago, one would have probably have had to have been quite skilled at socio-theological forecasting to predict how far McLaren would have fallen off the deep end. For at around that time, McLaren was an academic with a specialty in literature laboring to establish a post-denominational church with the desire to get back to the simplicity of the Gospel truth all sincere Christians profess.

Those wanting to get in on what is near the ground level of a similar phenomena only need to watch Southern Baptist Commission On Ethics & Public Policy President Russell Moore. For while at the moment holding to a foundational theology sounder than Brian McLaren's, one can now hear Moore's articulation of a certain number of beliefs that is setting him down a path not all that markedly different than the one Brian McLaren has previously trodded.

This is evident in the column published by Russell Moore titled, “Why This Election Year Makes Me Hate The Word 'Evangelical'”. In those remarks, Dr. Moore announces that he no longer wants to be known as an “evangelical” because the connotations that have accrued surrounding the term subverts the cause of Jesus. Instead, Moore clarifies that he is a “Gospel Christian”.

As in regards to the other word games played by those in the arenas of public policy, who could possibly object to the term “Gospel Christian”? For such a phrase, much like the founding motivations of McLaren's Cedar Ridge Community Church, brings to mind the primary narrative of Scripture though which the remainder of divine revelation is understood and brought to life in the heart and soul of each professing believer.

But as in the case of other terms bandied about in the media such as “choice”, “equality”, and “tolerance”, those invoking the term “gospel” often do so for the purposes of imbuing it with meanings altered enough to undermine the traditional understanding as well as support for those one must view as one's opponents or adversaries.

Moore writes, “Part of the problem is that more secular people have for a long time misunderstood the meaning of 'evangelical', seeing us almost exclusively in terms of election-year voting blocs or our most buffoonish television personalities.” Moore is himself tottering close to becoming one of these if he is not careful.

What is so wrong if activist Evangelicals are seen primarily as a voting bloc and why is it the fault of the average Christian that realizes that now is the time for all good men to come to the aide of their country? For apparently Dr. Moore has no problem with reducing Evangelicalism or “Gospel Centered Christianity” to a set of platform positions when it apparently advances the agenda preferred by Russell Moore.

Moore continues, “The other problem is the behavior of some evangelical leaders. I have watched as some of those who gave stern and windy speeches about 'character' in office during the Clinton administration now minimizing the spewing of profanities, .... race-baitingm and courting white supremacists ... [and] debasing public morality and justice through the casino and pornography industries.”

Have not Moore and his closest associates not done the same thing? Donald Trump has verbalized gruff things that have gone over the line, particularly in reference to Megyn Kelly, Karli Fiorinia, and Heidi Cruz. However, at no time did Donald Trump “race bait”.

In regards to “race baiting”, all that Donald Trump did was call for the enforcement of U.S. immigration law and proffer as suggestions a number of proposals such as a wall that might protect the lives of Americans living in what has become a dangerous area. How is this any different than the policies implemented by the Jewish State of Israel which so many Evangelicals are so chummy with that they conveniently overlook the hostility of this competing world religion to Christianity's most fundamental tenet that Jesus is both Messiah and God?

If Russell Moore is going to stand rigorously by the principle that it is essentially sinful for ethnic groups or nationalities to advocate policies that are more favorable to the particular group in question, instead of sitting on the board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, shouldn't he resign from that position and publicly repent of the organized ethnocentricism he goes out of his way to condemn when it is supposedly engaged in by White people? For in his column, Russell Moore condemns Donald Trump for courting White supremacists.

Mistaken as that pernicious ideology is on a number of points, perhaps disaffected Conservatives and even Evangelicals have decided to give that disreputable element a hearing because many average Americans that have never done a thing to injure a Black person or another minority are fed up with churches and denominational leaders that live higher up the socio-economic ladder beating the mere pewfillers over the head about how horrible Black folks and illegal aliens have it. That message is further compounded by the assumption promoted that somehow the average American is at fault for the misery allegedly endemic among these supposedly oppressed demographics when in reality such is often the result of many in these particular ethnicities failing to exercise self control and a little delayed gratification.

The sincere Christian is obligated to admit that Donald Trump is hardly a role model when it comes to important aspects of his individual character. However, it seems that bold “Gospel Christians” such as Dr. Moore are as guilty of the selective outrage that he has accused his coreligionists of when it comes to certain celebrities and public figures.

Some Christians might have gotten a little cozy with a candidate that wasn't quick enough to distance himself from those perceived as White supremacists (which in this era run amok in political correctness can be defined as little as failing to commence the automatic self-denunciation for simply being White as command of entrenched elites and social engineers). However, a number of Southern Baptists with whom Moore is closely associated are disturbingly reluctant to distance themselves from C.J. Mahaney.

To say that C.J. Mahaney is a controversial pastor would be an understatement. Not only under Mahaney's ecclesiastical leadership did child molesters get by relatively unscathed. He also ran the Covenant Life Church he pastored in Gaithersburg, Maryland along the lines of a cult.

For example, it was not enough for members to show up regularly for the Sunday morning and even the Sunday evening services. They were also expected to participate in a number of prisoner of war style encounter groups referred to as discipleship meetings where they were to spill their innermost secrets included as to how they kept their homes.

Moore writes, “We have been too willing to look the other way when the word 'evangelical' has been coopted by heretics and lunatics. This sort could deny creedal Christianity and gospel clarity with impunity, as long as they were on the right side of the culture war. Thankfully, this sort of evangelicalism is not the future.”

Perhaps Dr. Moore might prefer an Evangelicalism where believers are to overlook any number of abuses on the part of those that articulate not only the required doctrine but also a number of additional peculiarities to let it be known in the process how much they despise the traditional American way of life. Usually such statements take the form of detailing how horrible White people are and how the institutionalized church ought to exercise direct control over areas of your personal life over which God did not originally provide much detail other than a few broad principles He'd probably rather you figure out on your own how to implement.

Like Brian McLaren that went down this path before him, Russell Moore possess the ability to articulate his particular understanding of the Christian faith before a number of generational demographics. It is just unfortunate that each of these figures has grown increasingly liberal as this ability has earned each of them wider circles of acclaim.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Anti-American Rhetoric Pervades Even Conservative Denominations

On an episode of Issues Etc. examining pop culture apocalypticism, Lutheran Minister Jonathan Fiske admonished that believers need to get away from an American Republican view of Christianity that we are meant to live a good life here and now to a ripe old age after which we go on to our eternal reward in Heaven.

Interesting how the default term to denigrate these days out of the mouths of so many professional relgionists is “America”.

Furthermore, is his enunciation of the term “Republican” also invoked to besmirch the ideological proclivity of those assembling under the banner of the GOP to believe that the path towards the broadest swath of prosperity for the greatest number is to be found in individuals for the most part left alone to pursue their own well being, dreams and callings?

Does Rev. Fiske intend to cast as much aspersion upon an American Democratic view of Christianity that instead sees the path to a society approaching something akin to justice as one where the individual is nothing more than a cog in whatever group one happens to be a part of for the purposes of the government dispersing its largess to favored demographics and constituencies?

Furthermore, is the desire to maximize pleasure and evade misery necessarily a distinctively American characteristic?

Or is it that America through the blessings of the Almighty has been more successful than most regimes in achieving this most desirable yet elusive state of affairs?

For one will find that the average Third Worlder (unless brainwashed by the likes of fanatic Islam) is usually as averse to pain as most Westerners.

It is just that their respective society has not been as successful in alleviating these vicissitudes.

Often those given towards ostentatious verbalized declarations of their own piety articulate a willingness to welcome increased suffering.

However, was it not the God such souls claim as their primary loyalty the one that imbued part of His creation with that mysterious quality known as life along with a desire to see that distinct gift continued for as long as possible?

Though it may be ended as a result of a wide variety of intervening contingencies, if the believer strives to live by these principles God has established in the social sphere, won't the odds be in your favor for a life characterized by a bit less trouble?

After all, does not Scripture urge one to honor your mother and father so that your days upon the Earth might be long?

That text even admits it is a Scripture that dangles before the hearer a carrot in order to encourage compliance.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Pope Downplays Islamist Invasion

In an interview downplaying the Islamist invasion of the West, Pope Francis assured in a La Criox interview that he has seen “Muslims come to venerate the Virgin Mary and St. George.”

That doesn't cut it.

Unless you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved, you are still going to Hell no matter how highly you think of His earthly mother.

She was, after all, a sinner in need of a savior like every other human being.

In the same interview, the Pope went on to assert that the state must be secular and that the ones that are confessional in nature in that they adhere to an established creed end badly.

So, as a sovereign state of its own, does this assessment also apply to the Vatican?

Will those of a mindset similar to Ian Paisley or Jack Chick at their most militant be invited to establish a print shop on Vatican territory as a symbol of this dedication to pluralism?

by Frederick Meekins

Sunday, April 3, 2016

Narcissism Or Aversion To Communalism?

The cover of the 5/20/2013 edition of Time Magazine reads, “Millennials are lazy, entitled narcissists who still live with their parents. Lazy and entitled narcissists might be reason for moral concern and reflection, but on what grounds is it the business of the wider society as to whether or not individuals live with their parents?

In regards to such an issue, Scripture is largely silent with individuals of regard and esteem living in a variety of ways in relation to their respective parents. It seems Isaac remained at home until his 40's. Some have speculated that the Virgin Mary might have been as young as 15 or 16 before having the Christ child and fully becoming the wife of Joseph

It might be that the demographic targeted by this intended smear might skew a little “too White” to be extended a number of the privileges other such categories.

When was the last time a major news weekly (if it hadn't already ceased print publication) published a cover story criticizing welfare recipients (especially minorities) for being “lazy and entitled narcissists”?

Yet many of those not only incessantly suckle off the public teat but also grumble indignantly nearly to the point of threatened uprising if what flows through the civic nipple grows increasingly sparse or diluted in their opinion.

Just what is being categorized as “entitled”?

Does this include things such as Obama phones and the cancellation of student loans after 20 years irrespective of whether or not those willingly assenting to such debt are anywhere near to fulfilling this financial obligation?

Is “entitled” apparently preferring to live in the comforts of the home they have known their entire lives rather than in cramped, roach-infested apartments filled interestingly with the kinds of “entitled” folks good liberals such as the editors of Time Magazine lack the spine to criticize?

Young adults born into American families (especially of a Caucasian phenotype) apparently deserve condemnation should they decide for whatever reason to stay with their parents beyond the time upheld as standard ironically by those the most insistent that standards do not exist.

Yet these very same radical relativists heaping condemnation upon typical American young adults living at home with their parents turn around saying how wonderfully family-oriented it is when nearly a dozen immigrants pack themselves into domiciles that begin to feel cramped with four people residing in them.

Granted, self-absorption can be taken to extremes. Lindsay Lohan, numerous members of the Kenendy clan, or the British royal family clearly attest to this truth.

However, given what is known about the kind of liberal mindset predominant at the highest echelons of American journalism as typified by Time Magazine, the discerning should probably read a little between the lines.

If an individual is residing with their parents, it can inoculate them to an extent against a number of social or mental pathologies that many liberals and secularists applaud as the “New Morality”, which isn't quite so new anymore. Such allegedly cutting edge ethical reflection is beginning to sag in many places like the aging hippies that thrust their decadence into the face of American popular culture and public awareness.

For example, sin can take root in any of our lives in the dark corners that we would least expect. However, the young adult living with parents that expect those living under their roof to abide by what would be considered a broadly traditional morality will probably have to work a lot harder at things such as boozing and generalized carousing if those are the deepest longings of one's heart beyond those brief temptations that plague us all in weak moments.

In the collectivist mindset serving as the foundation of contemporary liberalism, “narcissistic” does not necessarily mean a propensity to wallow in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life as warned in Scripture. To many of those that would like to see American society revolutionized away from an ethos of responsible individualism and single family orientation to something more group oriented, narcissistic can mean nothing more than tending primarily to the concerns of one's own household, looking to one's own abilities and resources to make it through the struggles of life, and expecting that all but the extremely disabled or the aged that have paid into the system ought to do the same for themselves

This is evidenced in the numerous graduation exhortations delivered on the part of the Obamas. In these orations, the President and his consort admonish the students not to pursue private sector careers marked primarily by what they consider the material comforts that accrue as a result of success and achievement in that particular sector of human endeavor. Instead, those persuaded to embrace President Obama's vision of the good life will give themselves over to what is considered the public sector such as government and forms of the nonprofit activism fomenting revolutionary upheaval such as community organizing.

However, it is through the overwhelming majority of businesses that exchange a good or a service for financial profit that most needs and desires are met. As John Stossel pointed out in a documentary on the subject, though her motivation may have been nobler, corporations such as Walmart and Microsoft have actually done more to elevate the material status and quality of life of a greater number than Mother Terresa ever did.

To those of the Obamaist mindset, the ideal place for young adults is not laboring to establish the foundations of their future by either getting their own place or by residing with their parents and saving for the day when they will be on their own by purchasing their own home or inheriting one upon the passing of their parents. Rather, the totalist progressive would like nothing more than to see these organic sociologically processes disrupted by altering whatever trajectory the productive young adult might find their life headed by conscripting them into some form of involuntary servitude.

The minds of most are set to a default to conceptualize of that as some form of military service. As such, many are programmed to respond, “And what is so wrong with that?”

Nothing in a time of actual declared war where the very survival of the nation is on the line. However, contrary to the hypothesis put forth by luminaries such as historian Stephen Ambrose and, to an extent, even William F. Buckley, the military during peace time does not exist to ensure that everyone sings from the same songbook.

During such periods in American history, the nation is better served by a force of volunteers that have decided to pursue military service as a life's calling or only for a short season. That way the number is sufficient so that the country is protected but not so large that the interests of the military threaten the well being of civilian institutions.

However, when liberals such as President Obama extol the glories of compulsory voluntary service, those tasks within the narrowly defined parameters of the military are the last such orators are calling for the completion of. What these elites have in mind are more akin to the police state functions undertaken by the infamous totalitarian regimes of the early decades of the twentieth century.

For example, as he was laying the groundwork for his regime, Barack Obama announced his vision for a civilian security force as large as the military and capable of intruding into areas of your life where the traditional military would never dream of intruding. Michelle Obama reiterated that, under Barack, we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.

Though abandoning or altering a number of fundamental worldview assumptions regarding the nature of work and the relationship of the individual to the overall economy, communalist elites are able to manipulate the unsuspecting into viewing the most basic and innocent of activities as acts surpassing the most vile acts of debauchery in terms of overall subsversion.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Hipster Nazarene Insists Daily Bathing Perpetuates Western Imperialism

In a sermon, a Nazarene pastor condemned everyone as an oppressor.

In a self-flagellating confession, the pastor admits he is guilty of this particular evil by taking showers everyday while the natives of an area of Africa to which he went on a short term missions expedition did not have the luxury of using water in such a carefree manner.

And how is that the pastor's fault?

Neither can the Africans probably afford airline travel halfway around the globe.

However, that apparently did not prevent the pastor from engaging in such extraneous travel.

More importantly, did this pastor ever stop and think that these Africans are probably being denied the benefits of modern utilities such as an advanced sewer system as a result of the environmentalist organizations that such self-aware hipsters usually support insisting that the bushmen are more adorable in a state of perpetual primitivism?

Furthermore, even if the White man was magnanimous enough to gift these savages with the latest water distribution technology, will these backward cultures be willing to maintain it or will they get too distracted by the overwhelming compulsion to slaughter the neighboring tribe?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, March 6, 2016

Trump No Less Pious Necessarily Than Average Christian

In contemplation as to whether or not Donald Trump is a Christian, Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church in a SermonAudio podcast alleged the presidential candidate has not produced any fruit testifying to such.

As an example, this pastor did not offer any proof such as Trump enunciating an errant Christological profession or even the tycoon's shocking confession that he did not have any sins needing forgiveness.

Rather, the criteria referenced by Harris included no proof of regular church attendance, lack of a spirit of generosity, and lack of fidelity to a single woman.

How is charity being defined?

By the tossing of money at a particular cause or organization with no expectation of anything in return?

By that definition, the financial oblation many believers place in the collection plate each week doesn't count either.

For most are doing that for the purposes of curring favor with God or to workout some kind of arrangement between the taxman and/or the church leadership.

Secondly, it must be admitted that Trump's conjugal relationships are less than ideal.

However, unlike Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar, Jack Schaap, at least Trump seems to be attracted to woman over the age of consent or not beneath him on an organizational flowchart where the occupational statuses of the objects of his desire are not threatened if they spurn his advances.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, February 28, 2016

I Am Not Bought

By Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
 
After yet another Democratic debate -- this one moderated by PBS -- it has become increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton has become a one woman myth making machine.
 
In the PBS, debate Hillary sought to defuse a potential Wall Street-Gate on top of her existing Benghazi-Gates and Email-Gates. She proudly proclaimed that she was not bought and paid for by Wall Street and that indeed she was going to rein them in -- speaking fees notwithstanding.    
 
All this brings to mind one of the most notorious and best remembered lines in political speech making -- "I am not a crook" -- by one of the greatest dirty tricksters ever, Richard Milhous Nixon. 
 
Perhaps Hillary's speech writers should work on this one.
 

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D. is Professor of Psychology Emeritus at Florida International University in Miami.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Headline Potpourri #84

Pastor Jason Cooley in a SermonAudio homily counseled Christians celebrating Christmas that the holiday is not a hill to die on. Those insistent upon continuing to do so only look foolish. As opposed to what? That particular pastor's own brand of legalism elevating his own idiosyncrasies to the level of a clearly delineated dogma?

In a SermonAudio oration on the myth of nonessential doctrine, Pastor Jason Cooley insisted that the Emergent Church movement is the child of Fundamentalism because of the Fundamentalist movement's propensity towards compromise. However, it is also the result a wing of Fundamentalism to clamp down on things where there is no clear mandate provided by Scripture other than individual conscience.

Often in their repeated emphasis about children being born inherently sinful and wicked, it would be helpful if these particularly rigorous Reformed theologians would clarify that such a soteriological observation is not being invoked to justify the mistreatment of such unsuspecting youngsters. For from the manner and in the contexts in which this reminder is proffered one almost takes away the impression that the ones making such verbalizations would enjoy nothing more than beating a small child senseless for the smallest infraction in the eyes of some aging prune neurotically obsessed with finding as many faults as possible.

An episode of Generations Radio addressed the topic of “Why Science Fiction Authors Tend To Be Atheists”. For one thing, Christian youth that might have skill in that genre are not often encouraged by their private school educators to pursue opportunities in such areas. About the only vocational guidance they are given regards the foreign mission field. That is fine and dandy that there is concern for the Pygmies and Hottentots. But what about outreach to Americans through their own cultural idiom for a change?

Shouldn't there be greater outrage at President Obama speaking at a mosque with ties to Islamic terrorism/extremism than presidential candidates that spoke at Bob Jones University in the days when the school forbade interracial dating?

What did Ben Carson think that other candidates and media pundits were going to speculate as he rushed back to Florida to do his laundry as the caucus process was reaching its crescendo? Makes you wonder how many times he pulled something similar in the operating room. More importantly, it also gives one pause to consider if he can handle the pressures of the Oval Office is a campaign where no lives are directly on the line causes near exhaustion or an emotional breakdown.

Regarding the schools that are requiring students to telework during snow days. Are the schools going to pick up the tab for Internet access or tech support?

Contrary to what was insinuated from a pulpit, there are dangers in the contemporary church other than a critical spirit. Isn't it an example of the critical spirit to be critical of the critical spirit? And perhaps most importantly, at times isn't what is viewed as a critical spirit actually discernment?

In a sermon illustration, a pastor poked fun at a hypothetical parishioner that spotted the alleged shortcomings of others at the worship service such as immodest dress and signs of inebriation. But isn't that Christian merely applying that they have been indoctrinated regarding for years by the kind of pastor now spoofing such exercise of judgment. There is rarely any winning at this sort of thing if you are a mere pewfiller.

On SermonAudio, a pastor remarked that a person ought to abide where God has placed us. In other words, one ought to simply obey and not question those invoking a higher status over and above you.

In a sermon, Gideon was mocked for hiding in a wine press. What is so wrong with hiding from an adversary tactically superior in number to you prior to your receiving direct revelation from God regarding what to do about the situation. There is no winning with these kinds of ministers. If Gideon had decided he had had enough and was going to slay any Mideonites coming in his direction, we would have been subjected to an endless number of homiletical expositions about vengeance being the Lord's and why Gideon was in error for failing to instead appeal for the intervention of the civil magistrate.

It was said in a SermonAudio podcast that most people like themselves too much in terms of self esteem. As proof of this out of control ego, the theologian presented the example that most people clothe and feed themselves. Are we supposed to sit passively and wait for the church consistory or deacon board to determine the privilege of what provisions with which we are to be bestowed?

In a discussion of the impact of talk radio upon the political process, home school activist Kevin Swanson suggested that the believer should be leery of the hosts such as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Rush Limbaugh that are divorced. It was a wonder such a fanatic did lump in Laura Ingram or Monica Crowely for simply being female. There was no divine mandate from Heaven barring access to the airwaves or the First Amendment those than have been divorced. Mass communications is not an explicitly church office. And what about forgiveness? If these figures are to be banned from non-ecclesiastical occupations on the basis of divorce, should the radical Christian Reconstructionists or Dominionists ever seize power, what is to prevent them from implementing a religious caste system similar to that found in Hindu India that would ban all but the most doctrinally rigorous from certain professions?

In condemnation of talk radio that he categorized as secular, Kevin Swanson warned that hosts must be careful to obey the admonition of not mocking rulers or dignitaries. But America, the authority is actually the Constitution; not the occupant of a particular office or even the office itself. So just how debauched can the offices be that we are obligated to respect? Must Hugh Heffner and Larry Flint be respected as the dignitaries of their respective firms (that being their respective businesses and not the assorted carnality they peddle)? Does this deferential respect also apply to the Anti-Christ and False Prophet which are just as much offices as they are personalities?

In condemnation of radio talk shows that might be considered more secular in that the programs do not constantly beat you over the head with direct Scriptural quotations in regards to every issue addressed, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson criticized the medium for the failure to emphasize that it might be God's sovereignty to turn the reigns of government over to the tyrannically reprobate. So does that mean when the jackboots come to ravish and debase the daughters of homeschoolers that the truly godly such as Pastor Swanson would encourage surrender to and applaud such defilement?

Towards the end of the Dec. 23, 2015 issue of Christian Century, readers are urged to click through to Amazon.com from the publication's website. By surfing that particular route, the Christian Century will earn a percentage of anything purchased. But isn't that part of the capitalism that the religious left any other time denigrates as systematic oppression and undermining face to face COMMUNITY exchange?

In condemnation of Donald Trump, Cal Thomas during a Chicago radio morning show interview castigated the assembled at the candidate's rallies as mostly old and mostly White. But can you really get much older or Whiter than Cal Thomas? By the standard appealed to by Thomas, was the widespread destruction of property in Baltimore and Ferguson mitigated by the predominance of minority faces in the mob? Does Thomas now flagellate himself for the White privilege that has played a role in enabling him to become, as he bills himself, the nation's mostly widely syndicated columnist if such racial pandering has now become part of his stock and trade.

Instructive, Donald Trump confessed that he is capable of transforming into anything that he needs to.

In a campaign commercial, Hillary Clinton assures the child of illegal aliens during a loving embrace not to worry about the disposition of her parents and to leave that to Hillary. Will similar gestures of comfort be extended to the distressed offspring of members of the Bundy Militia or those whose parents have been financially ruined for failing to comply for reasons of conscience with gay marriage mandates? For is not violating immigration law as much a violation of the duly promulgated laws of the land as these politically incorrect causes?

In an examination of President Obama's 2015 National Prayer Breakfast remarks comparing recent Islamic violence with that committed by Christian's centuries ago, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson observed that both Islam and Roman Catholicism have both made the error of being faiths inordinately concerned with power and its accumulation. And Swanson's own theological persuasion of Calvinism has been immune from this particular temptation? Servetus might insist otherwise. Swanson, ministering with the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, would no doubt likely align himself with Christian Reconstructionism or a Postmillennialism that insist that a feckless Christ is not able to return until optimal sociopolitical conditions are achieved. So apart from power (the ability to make people do that which they would not otherwise often under threat of violence or actual violence), how does Swanson intend to implement his sect's particular peculiarities?

In his tremendous consumption of fossil fuels and the expansion of his carbon footprint, Pope Francis appeared on the border between Mexico and the United States as part of a staged pity party on behalf of the swarms of illegals violating the sovereignty of American territory. He went as far as to insinuate that Donald Trump was not even a Christian. Does this mean that the Pope will celebrate the conspicuous disrespect of Vatican property and decorum? Let's see if the Pontiff remains similarly broadminded if he is awakened in the middle of the night by raucous music and the uninvited wantonly urinating on the floor of St. Peter's Basilica.

“Pete's Dragon” is being remade. But from the trailer, it looks like this interpretation won't be a family musical. Instead, the narrative looks to be constructed as a serious fantasy. Just wait until “Mary Poppins” gets a similar treatment. No longer will the chimney sweeps be depicted as happy-go-lucky as they dance across the rooftops of London. Most likely these laborers will be depicted as oppressed proletarians suffering a variety of chronic health problems. And forget about the tunes “A Spoonful Of Sugar” or “Feed The Birds”. Child nutrition and animal welfare activists will probably put an end to these beloved classics.

Greta Van Sustern is celebrating her 3500th episode on Fox News. I remember back when her primary focus was serial killer of the week.

In a recitation of his sins at the National Prayer Breakfast, NASCAR personality Darrell Waltrip enumerated among these transgressions being aloof. Aloof is defined as being emotionally distant, reserved, or unwilling to take part in things. This might be an era where one of the primary modalities of Christian fellowship consists of regurgitating the contents of one's inner being for group condemnation on a level just below that of what would take place in a Marxist prisoner of war camp. However, so long as you politely nod to those greeting you as you saunter through the church narthex Sunday morning, I've yet to find a Scripture condemning those that primarily stay to themselves.

In reference to Donald Trump, Marco Rubio hypothesized that, if a candidate despised by nearly fifty percent of the party wins the nomination, the Republicans will implode as they turn on one another. So why are Trump supporters obligated to betray their convictions and fall in line dutifully behind Rubio? Why shouldn't the Marcoists be the ones to stifle their dissent and relent to Trumpian preferences?

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Pope Exposes His Biblical Ignorance In Hurry To Promote Globalist Agenda

As part of the centuries-long effort on the part of Vatican elites to collapse the United States on behalf of the New World Order, Pope Francis said regarding Donald Trump, “...a person that thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not about building bridges, is not Christian.”

However, it would seem that most of the things said about walls in divine revelation are overwhelmingly positive.

For example, Proverbs 25:28 counsels, “He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.”

Some might dismiss that as rhetorical metaphor rather than as a literal example where actual people and lives are involved.

In terms of history, an entire book of the Bible is dedicated to an individual moved by God to take on as his life's work the rebuilding of the wall around the Jerusalem that he loved.

That was none other than Nehemiah.

And to those that dismiss that entire account as Old Testament, the New Testament speaks perhaps even more favorably of walls.

For example, in Revelation 21:14, Heaven or the New Jerusalem is described as having a wall made of jasper having twelve foundations (each named for one of Christ's twelve Apostles).

With this wall measuring 12,000 stadia in length, width and height, assorted Bible scholars estimate this wall to be 1400 miles long, 1400 miles wide, and 1400 miles tall.

Given that Heaven is where the concentrated presence of God dwells, it is safe to conjecture that God must really like walls.

As the institutionally professed Vicar of Christ, does the Pope now take it upon himself to claim that he apparently knows more about what God wants than God?

Lastly, what about the walls built by the Roman Catholic Church in terms of doctrine and dogma to control access to God?

For example, it is doubtful that one will be granted access to what those administering this form of Christianity believe to be the gateway by which to enter the Kingdom of God (namely Communion, the Lord's Supper, or the Eucharist) unless one consents to this denomination's particular peculiarities.

As such, why shouldn't the United States be allowed to determine for itself by what criteria outsiders will be granted permission to enter here as well?

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Sword Of The Lord Columnist Insinuates Sci-Fi Fans Not Fit To Teach School

For decades, the Sword Of The Lord has served as a voice of independent Christian Fundamentalism. This publication has fulfilled that mission by regularly standing its ground against the encroaching liberalism and modernism plaguing broad swaths of the Christian church.

One of the most interesting regular features of the paper is “The News and Views” column by Dr. Hugh Pyle that usually applies Christian plain-spokenness to a number of items of public interest. However, in the October 21, 2005 issue of the Sword Of The Lord, Dr. Pyle goes beyond his normal commonsense to draw conclusions not supported by the evidence or deducible from it.

In his Oct 21, 2005 column, Dr. Pyle laments the poor example set by many contemporary public school educators and how in times past these guides along the path of learning imbued their students with a sense of spiritual as well as academic knowledge. As proof of his thesis, he cites a feature in his local paper where an interviewed teacher responded to a survey that his favorite movie was Star Trek.

Dr. Pyle responds, “You had better give your children all the education you can at home and in a good, fundamental church and Sunday school.” From his reaction, you’d think the teacher had admitted to having a stash of girlie videos. Would Dr. Pyle have said this had the teacher admitted to liking sports

With all the nonsense going on in the public schools, you’d think that a teacher that enjoys Star Trek and related science fiction would be the least of any concerned citizen’s worries and might even be considered an asset on an academic faculty. For despite the moral shortcomings that pop up from time to time in the plots, over the course of its various incarnations, Star Trek has consistently remained one of the few expressions of popular culture to present itself as if ethical reflection actually mattered and was often essential to the story.

Dr. Pyle further laments, “Usually my teachers were well read in good and great literature, which included the Bible, and it showed up in class.” And what exactly did this great literature consist of? Shakespeare? It may come as a surprise, but the plays of Shakespeare were the Star Trek of their time because --- while we consider them highbrow literature today --- these dramas were performed primarily as popular entertainment. Paying homage to this tradition, Star Trek has often employed Shakespearean allusions and motifs throughout its history.

Though I cannot speak fully as to Dr. Pyle’s personal convictions about the matter, for a number of those operating in a closely related socioecclesiastical circle even literature produced by fellow Christians is not even good enough. For while most Christians were pleased about the attention given to C.S. Lewis as a result of the cinematic adaptation of The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe even if they had reservations about every last point in his systematic theology, more hardline pastors, scholars, and evangelists want Lewis roundly condemned on all counts rather than to sift the wheat from the chaff in what he has written and some come close to heaping damnation on anyone that dares crack open one of this professor’s books. One pastor in an audio sermon, in an attempt to scare Christians away from seeing the film, claims demons literally hovering in the theater might latch on to unsuspecting viewers (as if this won’t happen in most churches these days, many of the Fundamentalist ones included).

Others a bit more reasonable in their criticisms such as David Brown of the First Baptist Church of Oak Creek, Wisconsin claim C.S. Lewis is inappropriate for Christians to read since Narnia is inhabited by creatures of a questionable spiritual pedigree such as centaurs, fauns, and witches. However, such insights fail to properly analyze classic Western fantasy literature.

Just because there is a witch in The Chronicles Of Narnia does not set off the Harry Potter alarm. Unlike Rowling, Lewis conforms to traditional literary aesthetics by casting the witch in the role of the antagonist or villain.

The most thoroughgoing separationists ---- the term in this sense meaning those that choose not to ecclesiastically affiliate with those of differing religious viewpoints rather than those misinterpreting the First Amendment --- contend that Lewis must still be avoided since to have a witch in a story in any capacity is a violation of II Corinthians warning the Christian to touch not the unclean thing.

If that’s the case, then what are Patch The Pirate Clubs doing in numerous Fundamentalist churches? In much the same manner as Rowling has glamorized witchcraft, numerous churches have romanticized the life of high-seas piracy.

Potter critics rightly point out there is no such thing as a good witch. Likewise, there is no such thing as a good pirate.

Why not just organize Jack The Carjacker Clubs for kids since that’s what pirates essentially were in the Age of Sail. Better yet, why not update things for the current millennium and start Tommy The Terrorist Clubs?

At least Lewis had the decency to cast the witch as the villain. What’s the excuse for this strand of Fundamentalism that demands every last detail be in apple pie order or they’ll bring the legitimacy of your Christian faith into question? Pirates have probably ruined as many innocent lives and possibly even more than the average witch ever has.

If every character in every story abided by every last behavioral norm and stricture insisted upon by many Fundamentalists, frankly there’d hardly be any literature worth reading. This does not mean though that a book must be filled with promiscuity or profanity to be interesting.

To these critics, even the most wholesome classics uncomfortably push the limits of acceptability. According to Kevin Swanson of Generations Radio, Little House On The Prairie suborns lesbianism since Laura Ingalls Wilder dared to exhibit a bit of an independent streak; I guess Half-pint was too tomboyish or spoke her mind one too many times for old Pa Swanson’s tastes.

As evidence, Swanson cites Laura’s refusal to say "obey" in her wedding vows. However, it must be remembered that these are simply a cultural manifestation of a Biblical imperative and despite popular conceptions to the contrary aren’t spelled out verbatim in the pages of holy writ.

No Chronicles Of Narnia. No Little House On The Prairie. Doesn’t exactly leave much to read and from the literary theories expounded by these pious ascetics, it’s a wonder they still let the good Christian read the Bible. For while David might have been a man after God’s own heart, there’s a goodly portion of his life you’d hardly want your children emulating.

Perhaps some Christians are too quick to embrace C.S. Lewis in his entirety without casting a discerning eye on those areas where he did come up short. But if that is the case, these overly-exacting members of the clergy have themselves to blame in large part.

For if these divines find contemporary speculative fiction to be inappropriate if it does not adhere to their particular systematic theologies on every point, are they themselves doing anything to produce acceptable alternative narratives, sagas, and epics? Furthermore, are they actively encouraging the bright young minds in their congregations to pursue artistic or literary callings. Because from what I have studied of and experienced from those of this particular Evangelical perspective, most have adopted a proto-Romanist mindset that those possessing a religionist vocation are somehow more important than the rest of us and the work of such sanctified journeymen more essential to the fulfillment of God’s good purposes. That’s why in many churches, Christian schools, and youth groups one hears an awful lot about becoming a missionary to the heathen savages in some far off jungle but precious little about targeting the barbarians that are taking over this culture and trying to undue the consequences of godless thinking upon our own institutions of thought and learning.

Interestingly though, the Sword of the Lord does not hold a consistent position against all forms entertainment. For while fans of science fiction aren’t fit to teach and a Christian had better not dare go to a movie since even the money from more wholesome motion pictures is likely to flow into the coffers of reprobates, the staff at the Sword of the Lord gets as googoo-eyed around celebrities as the remainder of the population and turn a blind eye when it suits their fancy to the exacting standards of deportment usual insisted upon by the publication.

Featured in the top-left corner of the December 20, 2005 edition is a profile of outdoor sports host Chad Schearer. In his testimony, Chad tells of being invited to a NASCAR race by one of the stockcar owners. If the Sword of the Lord is to be consistent, shouldn’t this individual be chastised and disfellowshipped for going somewhere where alcohol, scantily clad women, and profanity are bound to be present?

As outcast in Christian circles these days as I am among the heathen, I don’t have much of any moral qualms about motorsports. However, I am not the one whose publication is insinuating one is some kind of deviant if one likes laser guns and spaceships and calling into question the legitimacy of one’s Christianity for occasionally associating with conservative Southern Baptists or level-headed Charismatics.

However, I guess if you are part of the “in crowd”, you don’t necessarily have to abide by the rules and standards derived from a particular interpretation of God’s Word the common believer in the pew is expected to adhere to. For you see, Chad’s pappy is pals with the editor.

Furthermore, if Christians are suppose to stay away from works of imaginative speculation such as Star Trek and The Chronicles Of Narnia, how is it that these pastors and evangelists know so much about them? Unlike some things one knows to be inherently wrong by their mere existence, to nitpick these narratives on a nuanced doctrinal level one is going to have to sit there and study them for awhile.

Therefore, if preachers are going to address the issue from pulpit and pen, doesn’t the admonishment to be a Berean compel us to do our own first hand research since in the Protestant tradition one is not to blithely accept the ruminations of the clergy without some kind of collaboration through the application of one’s own critical thinking skills to what has been postulated by those holding ecclesiastical office. If anything, by speaking out against imaginative literature, pastors should rather be pleased then when members of their congregations go to research these works for themselves.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 11, 2016

UFO’s, The Movies, & The End Of The World

An asteroid crashes into the earth, killing thousands and unleashing untold havoc. Just months earlier, millions instantaneously disappeared without a trace. Nonhuman intelligences --- extraterrestrials if you will --- finally reveal themselves to mankind, claiming responsibility for the act. The aliens contend they have done this because the vanished could no longer be permitted to hinder humanity’s evolutionary advance.

A superior genetically-engineered individual promises to usher in an era of peace and stability --- provided the nations of the world submit to his draconian computer monitoring system. Tiring of global anarchy, the world gladly accepts his diabolical offer.

Are these the scenarios of the latest science fiction thrillers to hit theaters or newspaper stands? Surprisingly, they are in fact taken from the Book of Revelation and other passages of Bible prophecy, with modern details added as interpretative elements, to make what many consider the most obtuse portions of the Bible a plausible blueprint for the future.

Having jettisoned his Judeo-Christian foundation, modern man stands stupefied as he faces the repercussions of his own moral disregard. This is increasingly evident in the apocalyptic themes addressed in popular culture and mainstream news sources.

Viewers are left free to ponder the cataclysm of their own delight. Over the past several years, moviegoers have seen a number of films about volcanic explosions and asteroids careening into the earth.

The other apocalyptic horsemen needn’t feel left out. “The X-Files” regularly examines the possibility of totalitarian government lurking under the shadow of alien conspiracies.

Other science fiction productions have examined the spate of incurable mutant pestilences ready to lay waste to our medically impotent civilization. Terrorism experts argue that such a weapon of mass destruction will likely be deployed in the not-too distant future.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish between the dramas and the news programs. This boundary was further blurred when scientists cloned a sheep, unleashing a furor over the legal status of potential human beings conceived in such a manner.

This is a legitimate concern in light of the tragedy of abortion plaguing Western society. Yet, the path of caution must run both ways.

What protections will exist for the rest of us from these individuals of enhanced ability? A number of these individuals will no doubt use their aptitude for evil since the fallen parts of man’s nature defies even the most sophisticated science.

Does anyone remember the Star Trek classic “The Wrath of Khan”, the title character himself being the product of genetic engineering run amok? And much of George Lucas’ Star Wars Saga centers around a series of events referred to as “The Clone Wars”.

Scripture foretells of such an individual --- though we know not the specifics of his origins --- who will use cunning and intellect to subdue the earth and its inhabitants for his own nefarious purposes.

There is nothing wrong in raising these kinds of issues as man strives to ascertain his cosmic predicament via the venue of popular culture. In fact, the Christian should rejoice in the soul’s struggle to ponder the reality of its creator and the opportunities that open for the sharing of these truths which before now seemed unbelievable.

There is also a danger, however, as those unwilling to repent and realign their ways with those declared by God through Jesus Christ will continue along their own path despite the overwhelming evidence.

Anyone doubting this word of caution only need be reminded of the tragedy of the Heaven’s Gate Cult back in the 1990‘s. Despite possessing advanced educations and sensitivity to the spiritual decay around them, these souls decided to follow a real nutcase who duped them into believing salvation could be found with a group of interstellar Jack Kevorikians trailing a cold dirt wad, the Hale-Bopp Comet, circling the Milky Way.

Man has been provided the answers to his varied yet interconnected problems if he would only choose to accept Christ’s free gift of salvation and follow Jesus as Lord and Savior. Unfortunately, both the flow of history and the forecasts of prophecy seem to indicate that humanity will refuse this message despite the overwhelming consequences. Don’t you make the same mistake.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, February 6, 2016

A Close Encounter Of An Intravenous Kind

“Quick. Look Outside!”

“What?” I replied to my brother.

My brother responded, “LOOK OUTSIDE.”

I rushed to the door and opened it. “I don't see anything.”

My brother's voice grew increasingly agitated. “Up in the sky and down the street.”

I stepped out a bit onto the front porch, lifting my gaze upward. Still accustomed to the indoor illumination, my vision had not yet adjusted to the unbridled sunlight.

“I don't see anything but clouds.”

“Keep looking. You will see it,” my brother snapped.

Despite growing frustration at my brother's tone, I continued as he insisted. After a few more moments, my eyes finally noticed what it was my sibling had been so insistent about.

Its outline nearly matched the clouds in the background in terms of color. However, if one stared with sufficient intent, one could make out the faint hint of a metallic curvature.

My heart palpitated. It couldn't be. But it apparently was. “Oh myyyy....Is that a UFO?”

“No way,” my brother replied, almost dismissively.

“That's a UFO.” My limbs growing unsteady as I contemplated the import of my words.

My brother retorted, “You just want it to be a UFO because you believe they exist.”

“And why do you need to be so skeptical? If you don't believe that's a UFO, why did you bother me with this?”, I replied.

To that, he had no answer. It was difficult to transcend the overwhelming sense of dumbfoundedness that washed over the psyche as one contemplated the significance of the image seemingly floating there in the sky.

“It's just dangling there, “ my bother observed, “even though you can see right through it.”

I hypothesized, “It probably doesn't even have any physical substance.”

“You mean like an illusion?”

“Not exactly. I mean it's probably spiritual, slipping through from another dimension.”

My brother still did not want to concede to the validity of my speculations. But with no other explanations for what he was seeing with his very own eyes, he enunciated no further protests.

Curious onlookers began to gather, wondering what it was suspended in the sky. Arms and hands gestured upward.

The bottom of the translucent metallic outline slowly opened. A beam of light extended downward to the blacktopped street below.

My eyes widened. I walked down a few steps, wanting a closer look but trepidatious regarding the mysterious phenomena unfolding before me.

Apparently I wasn't quite as excited as the assembling throng. Though they were probably halfway down the street, one could still hear their enthusiastic yammering.

I descended to at least the bottom of the steps. From there, I would at least have a better view but be close enough to hurry back into the house if something dangerous was to transpire or something over which one would need a degree of plausible deniability if men adorned in certain downplayed hues came knocking to ascertain just how much individuals had witnessed.

A form slowly yet steadily descended through the bottom of what most would categorize as a spaceship or flying saucer. The gasps of the onlookers grew even louder.

The protrusion was a pasty gray, almost like clay in coloration. The end of this tubular extension flicked back and forth in an obviously serpentine manner.

But as the creature emerged from the craft, it became apparent that it was not entirely cylindrical. Two spindly arms branched off the upper sides of the torso. These appendages were held outstretched.

Given my religious background, it almost seemed as if the entity was posing in a crucified posture. To others, it could have just as easily suggested, “Come unto me all that are weary so that you may find rest.”

As the creature lowered itself in the tractor beam to the street below, that was exactly what the gathered began to do. A stretcher with a patient upon it was slowly pushed through the crowd.

The assembled could now see some kind of tube dangling from the entity's outstretched limb. A dark, viscous fluid dripped from it into what appeared to be a plastic collection bag.

Intrigued, I squinted to get a better glimpse of the spectacle unfolding before me. I informed my sibling, “That must be that abomination's blood. He's making it appear as if he is shedding his blood for them.” My brother simply deferred to my observation and analysis.

The entity look down at the convalescent reclining upon the gurney. What might pass as an expression of sympathy or pity formed on its nearly colorless face.

Medical personnel quickly took the tube dangling beneath the lifeform's extended appendage and attached it to the convalescent's arm. The dark, viscous fluid oozed into the patient's body.

The gathered observed in reverent anticipation. They barely said a word, but the attentive could still hear the audible gasps and sighs.

The invalid began to stir. Vitality returned to the previously near-lifeless body at a steady pace.

Eventually, the joyous person sat up in amazement under his own strength. He hopped to his feet with the enthusiasm of someone that had not been able to accomplish such a simple gesture in what seemed to him no doubt ages.

Cheers of adulation erupted. The hovering serpentine entity looked down and offered what it could of a smile. It looked upward as it ascended the tractor beam back through the bottom of the ethereal saucer.

Still watching from a distance, I turned to my brother and observed, “I bet the cost of that doesn't come cheap. And it will probably end up being a price we will all be forced to pay whether we want to or not.”

by Frederick Meekins

Monday, February 1, 2016

Southern Baptist Condemns Trump For Failing To Pander To Women & Minorities

James 1:8 warns that a double minded man is unstable in all that he does. Few religious leaders on the scene today typifies what this Scripture is getting at as Southern Baptist ethics and public policy functionary Russell Moore.

In an op-ed published in the New York Times, this theologian wrote, “Donald J. Trump stands astride the polls in the Republican presidential race... Most illogical is his support from evangelicals and other social conservatives. To back Mr. Trump, these voters must repudiate everything they believe.”

As not only a graduate of the Southern Baptist Convention's most prestigious seminary but also as a professor at the school as well, shouldn't Dr. Moore know that words mean things? Some possess very precise definitions.

In academic writing courses such as the infamous English 101, one of the first things students learn is to be cautious when applying words such as “all”. For if your opponent can find as few as a single counterexample, they have pretty much derailed your argument.

However, in his fanaticism, Rev. Moore insists that to vote for Donald Trump is to repudiate everything which the Christian professes to believe. But casting a ballot for a limited number of reasons barely touches on any essential Christian doctrine.

Granted, there was one off his rocker Charismatic or holy roller that attempted to make the eschatological case that Trump was the trump to be blown in the Book of Revelation. However, at no time has a Christian holding to an orthodox understanding or interpretation who also supports the Trump candidacy renounced the so-called fundamentals of the Gospel message. These would of course be that Christ as the only begotten Son of God and second member of the divine trinity took on human form being born of a virgin so that He might live the sinless life that we could not in order to die upon the cross and rise from the dead as payment for our sins so that those that might believe in Him could enjoy eternal resurrected life with Him in Heaven.

In his analysis, Rev. Moore raises of number of valid concerns regarding Donald Trump's moral shortcomings and failures. Of Trump's behavior towards women, Moore writes, “His attitude towards women is that of a Bronze Age warlord. He tell us in one of his books that he revels in the fact that he gets to sleep with some of the top women in the world. He has divorced two wives (so far) for other women.”

Such should give the Christian striving to live up to the rigors of Biblical morality cause for concern. However, to categorize Trump's attitude as that of a “Bronze Age warlord” is a bit over the top.

It is probably safe to assume at no time did Donald Trump impose his physical affections upon women that were not receptive to his amorous advances. As a multibillionaire, he'd probably have too much to loose in a post-Anita Hill era where rumors and allegations are too easily believed.

Unless these are rape victims, aren't these wenches as every bit the depraved whoremonger as Donald Trump? Just as Donald Trump prides himself on his carnal conquests, the women he has bestowed the honor of pleasuring him carnally have probably have had their own egos stroked (along with a few other things) by the fact that a man of his wealth and power would extend to them this kind of attention.

As an archetypal capitalist, Trump is probably quite good to these women from a material standpoint. These aren't the aging church biddies with so much hairspray that their beehives or bouffants would likely catch afire should they wander to close to an open flame. Those operating in Trump's circles know what they are getting into when they catch his eye and likely even seek out that kind of attention from the likes of him.

If Dr. Moore is going to condemn Bronze Age mentalities towards women, does he intend to criticize some of the teachings propagated by the likes of the Duggar's? For example, of that family's twenty some children, does Dr. Moore find it strange that not a single one has really attempted a college education? And what about the teaching emanating from the Duggar compound that even a pregnant wife is obligated to physically service her husband anytime he awakens in the middle of the night with an urge or an itch?

Russell Moore further writes, “In the 1990's, some of these social conservatives argued that 'If Bill Clinton's wife can't trust him, neither can we.' If character matters, character matters. Today's evangelicals should ask, 'Whatever happened to our commitment to traditional family values?'.”

In part, that once strong conviction was been undermined by self-styled sophisticates such as Russell Moore positioned higher along the ladder of ecclesastical position that go out of their way to enunciate their contempt upon those seen as mere pewfillers with little purpose other than depositing coins in the collection plate when so ordered. In other columns, Rev. Moore has gone out of his way to express a giddy delight at the demise of so-called “cultural Christianity”, described as an interpretation of the faith more concerned with the preservation of the social norms derived from the faith perhaps at times even more so than the relationship between the individual and the Savior.

However, what Moore has criticized in such cases is apparently not so much activist Christianity. For he certainly has little problem with advancing policies that perpetuate his own perceptions of White guilt bordering on that exhibited among the ranks of the Emergent Church Movement.

Dr. Moore writes, “Mr. Trump incites division, with slurs against Hispanic immigrants and with protectionist jargon that preys on turning economic insecurity into ugly 'us” versus 'them' identity politics. When evangelicals should be leading the way on racial reconciliation, as the Bible tells us to, are we really ready to trade unity with our black and brown brothers...for this angry politician?”

Regarding “protectionist jargon”, would Russell Moore be as giddy at the prospect of foreign labor depressing what are no doubt his own extravagant wages and posh expense accounts? Like many a hillbilly pastor, Russell Moore can no doubt prattle on for hours about how hard he probably toiled in the cotton fields, bayous, or coal mines.

But only in his mid 40's, it is doubtful much dirt has accumulated under his manicured fingernails or callouses formed on his hands. The most profound physical strain Dr. Moore has encountered in his occupational position as of late has probably been an occasional paper cut.

Perhaps we mere pewfillers ought to embrace Dr. Moore's call for stagnate or declining wages. It would mean, after all, fewer dollars that we would be required to be slipped into the collection plate.

From his own actions, Russell Moore's call for racial reconciliation amounts to little more than aligning himself with Evangelical front groups that deep down advocate their own distinct hue of racial separatism at best or ethnosupremacism at worst in that (to put it in a plainspoken manner) despise the White race (or however else you want to describe Caucasoids in this era where whatever flies out of the mouth of someone of that demographic extraction attempting to stand for their particular people or heritage will be coopted in order to indict the enucinator with allegations of hate speech or thought crimes).

For example, Russell Moore sits on the board of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference. Of that, the discerning believer ought to ask a number of questions that in today's climate could result in either losing their position as a Sunday school teacher or deacon and might even lead to their church membership being revoked.

Firstly, would a group of that name open its positions of leadership to individuals advocating a Buchananite foreign or immigration policy? If not, how are these sectarians any better than the ministries that focus upon family values such as abortion or the preservation of heterosexual marriage now condemned as divisive by the religious progressives that applaud ethnic and racialist agitation?

Secondly and perhaps even more importantly, would Russell Moore sit on the board of an organization titled something like the Coalition For Nordic or Teutonic Evangelicals? If not, why should such an organization be any less commendable than one advocating that someone is deserving of special praise, adulation, or accommodation just because they happen to be Hispanic?

Interesting, isn't it, that the Scripture that there is neither Greek nor Jew is only presented for exegetical contemplation when it can be invoked to criticize the tendency of Whites to gravitate towards others of their own particular phenotype? The admonition is conveniently overlooked when certain grievance industry minorities have no problem with judging someone by the color of skin rather than by the content of character.

There are indeed a number of reasons to be concerned regarding a potential Trump Presidency. Without a doubt, this tycoon excels at expressing many of the concerns and frustrations weighing on the hearts and minds of average Americans. However, many of his proposals and solutions seem lacking in the specifics that would be needed to get the country from the state of crisis in which we presently find ourselves to the more solid footing Donald Trump promises in a manner that would adhere to the liberties and procedures of a constitutional republic while minimizing the social disruption that would likely result from a dramatic alteration in governmental policy and approach.

Apparently Russell Moore intends to posture and preen in an attempt to acquire accolades for himself from progressives by heaping condemnation upon those giving what Donald Trump has to say a serious hearing. In his reflection, perhaps Russell Moore ought to as seriously reflect upon the role he himself has played in propagating a milieu where many Americans no longer feel as if they have a place any longer in either this country or even the church.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Retiring Episcopal Hierarch Calls For Communist Upheaval

In reflection on her term as the presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church posted at YouTube, Katharine Schori said that the reign of God would look like a society where there is justice in the sense that nobody lives in want and nobody has too much.

Given that the apostate wing of Anglicanism isn't exactly known for its apocalyptic millennialism or even a literalist interpretation where these eschatological expectations can only be fulfilled at the Second Advent of Christ's return, such a statement ought to be a cause for concern.

There is little reason to object to the aspiration of everybody being free from want provided they lift a finger of their own to some degree in pursuit of this ideal.

However, without Christ Himself on scene to render such a verdict, who is to say what constitutes “too much”?

Might “too much” be the ostentatious vestments and silly hats many belonging to this retired bishop's particular denomination like to prance about in?

If these functionaries really cared about the equitable distribution of recourses, they could still solemnly fulfill the requirements of their ritual and liturgy in little more than a collared clergy shirt running not more than $50 online.

More importantly, how are those that “don't have enough” necessarily negatively impacted by my having “too much”?

What if one has more simply because one has been a better steward of what one has been blessed?

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Unearthly Beings

Rather than embrace the salvation there for the taking provided by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a growing percentage would rather put their trust in alleged visitors from outer space planning to usher humanity into a New Age utopia under the guise of a “benevolent dictatorship”.

A good example of this increasingly-pervasive UFO mythology appeared in an edition of the Prince George’s Journal when one of the columnists exhibited a number of the typical intellectual and spiritual fallacies surrounding this controversial issue. For starters, the columnist assumes the federal government is concealing alien corpses from another planet or knowledge pertaining thereof under lock and key in the deserts of the Southwest.

Our government might be guilty of many things (including psychic warfare according to various reports), but harboring extraterrestrial biological remains is probably not one of them. Naturally, people are going to see strange things in the skies above Roswell and Area 51; it is, after all, where experimental aircraft are tested, many of which in all likelihood do not conform to popular aeronautical configurations.

The philosophical reasoning of the columnist under consideration is even more fuddled than her historical assumptions. The columnist complains about the popular conception that the universe’s non-human inhabitants are diabolical and bent on interstellar domination. But she herself then makes the equally egregious error in assuming any extraterrestrial intelligence must be in a moral sense inherently superior to any human being.

Many of the great Western thinkers of both the classical and Christian traditions contend human beings possess the same nature the world over, operating along an established behavioral continuum. Isn’t it safe to assume that sentient life across the universe would adhere to a similar standard?

Popular science fiction seems to bear this out as television programs in this genre exhibit a wide array of alien psychologies often in the span of a single episode.

On Star Trek alone, Vulcans value the intellect while Klingons revel in bloodshed; the Borg epitomize Communism as they have no rulers yet all are slaves having their individuality sublimated to the prerogatives of the collective. The Bajorans of Deep Space Nine are deeply religious, the shows producers using them to comment on the role of religious faith in light of the Space Age. On Babylon 5, the Vorlons claim to stand for universal order while pursuing their own nefarious agenda. So much for extraterrestrials being superior.

It seems from this small sampling that such creatures would be as complex and varied as the nations and peoples now inhabiting our own world. Star Trek creator Gene Rodenberry through his work seemed to argue humans would actually be the ones providing a sense of balance to galactic affairs with the so-called aliens actually the ones for the most part exhibiting behavioral and philosophical extremes.

It seems the incessant praise of all things alien might just be another attack on the wonders man has accomplished in his few short millennia of existence. The liberals who bash human ignorance in light of the knowledge an advanced extraterrestrial civilization would have to offer turn around and praise the backwards peoples of the Earth such as jungle tribesman and desert nomads.

Applying this heuristic of the “noble savage” (to borrow Rousseau’s term), wouldn’t us simple Earthfolk bring enlightenment to the interplanetary voyagers? Perhaps we simpletons would even persuade them to abandon their vile space-faring technology (which no doubt pollutes the solar winds) for a way of life more in tune with the principles of cosmic sustainability confined to a single planet.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Republican Elites Demand Americans Embrace Servile Acquiescence

The United States drifts further into decline.

However, don't expect establishmentarian Republicans to do anything about it.

It seems the party's foremost luminaries and rising stars are more concerned about maintaining the go along to get along mentality that has brought the nation to the precipice of collapse.

This was evident in South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's response to the 2016 State of the Union Address.

The party has grown so weak and tepid that it was suggested on the WMAL morning show in Washington that some debated the propriety of even referring to this short oration as “Republican” for fear of appearing too partisan.

In her remarks, Haley insisted that, “Some people think that you have to be the loudest voice in the room to make a difference. That is just not true. Often, the best thing we do is turn down the volume. When the sound is quieter, you can actually hear what someone else is saying. And that can make a world of difference.”

The Scripture does counsel that a soft answer can turn away wrath and can make a world of difference in terms of personal relationships.

But what is being suggested by Governor Haley is that, while subversives threaten violence and destroy private property in pursuit of assorted radical agendas, once again the so-called “Silent Majority” really ought to remain quiet and continue to be walked all over.

As an example of the path she suggests to utopia, Governor Haley uplifted the response to the terrorist madman that murdered those assembled for prayer at the Charleston church prayer group.

The end result of that tragedy that Governor Haley is the most proud of is not necessarily the aversion of widespread looting but rather the removal of the Confederate Battle Flag from South Carolina state property.

But was this move not the epitome of the loudest voices being triumphant in terms of determining the course of public policy?

For it is doubtful that workaday South Carolinians had the final say in this decision.

Rather, as with many of the others made across the various levels of government and throughout influential social institutions, this one was no doubt the result of activist leeches not even living in the particular jurisdiction that threaten to burn entire cities to the ground if you so much as look askance in their direction working in tandem with nefarious elites attempting to implement a globalist New World Order.

In her remarks, Governor Haley assured, “No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.”

Too bad this sentiment no longer seems to apply to you anymore unless your progenitors just got off of the boat or have wads of cash large enough to pay your way into an assortment of secret societies.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, January 15, 2016

The Christian & The Socratic Quest For Truth

Not well acquainted with the Western intellectual heritage, some Christians readily dismiss all philosophical endeavor because of the results arrived at by many ungodly thinkers seeking to elevate their own finite speculations above God's revelation. However, it must be remembered that all truth is God's truth. Made in the image of God, man can mirror to a small degree a portion of his Creator's rationality if he is seeking after that truth in an honest fashion.

It has been remarked that Western civilization owes its foundation to the two ancient cities of Jerusalem (representing Judeo-Christian theism) and Athens (representing Greek philosophical inquiry). And while the primacy of the Judeo-Christian contributions must not be forgotten as it represents God's direct relationship with man, the Athenian connection must not be forgotten either. For it represents man trying to come to grips with the world --- both the terrestrial and the human --- made by that divine Creator.

Ranking among the foremost of ancient Greek thinkers was the Athenian Socrates. It must be remembered that the thought of Socrates rested outside the accepted canons of orthodox Christianity.

For example, Socrates believed that man existed prior to his earthly incarnation. However, the idea professed by Socrates that absolute morality exists apart from human culture and convention has a great deal of truth about it.

Like the current era, those living in Athens during the time of Socrates found their culture awash in the chaos of moral relativism. This situation arose in part as a result of Sophist teaching.

The Sophists were a group of traveling teachers who would share their insights with those willing to pay, namely the well-to-do of the Athenian aristocracy. The Sophist worldview was epitomized by the following aphorism attributed to Protagoras, pivotal member of the movement: “Man is the measure of all things.” This meant that man had to rely on his own experience with the highest arbiter of conduct being the collective conventions of any given reality and objective morality nonexistent.

Protagoras was not willing to live out the implications of his own ethical theorizing as he maintained that individuals ought to follow the practices of their own particular culture in order to guarantee social stability. The doctrines promulgated by other Sophists were just as dangerously inconsistent.

Gorgias said truth did not exist nor could it be communicated. Apparently with the exception of this truth of course. Thrasymachus believed might did indeed make right.

It was in such an atmosphere that Socrates undertook his relentless pursuit of the truth in order that he might live what he termed “the good life”, defined as living in such a way as to maximize virtue. He attempted to discover what constituted this morality by subjecting the truth claims propagated within his culture to careful scrutiny and reflection.

To Socrates, the knowledge of morality and truth were not merely intellectual commodities to be touted out to score points in public debates or used to pass the next philosophy exam. Similar to the Christian view of truth, knowledge of the ethical was to serve as the basis of action.

It was this conception of truth that Socrates sought after despite the hardships it eventually brought him. The events leading to the trial of Socrates occurred approximately 405 BC when Socrates as a member of the Committee of 500 refused to convict a number of generals accused of military negligence. The thoughtful sage reflected that to try the military leaders as a group violated the established judicial norms.

Throughout his trial for allegedly corrupting the Athenian youth, Socrates was confronted with several occasions where he could have escaped from authorities or played on their sympathies in order to spare his life. But instead Socrates let the truth stand on its own and accepted whatever consequences the defense of it brought.

Socrates' quest for morality and truth is to be commended, especially in light of the cultural conditions in which he found himself. However, the Christian must be careful when employing this thinker as an historical example worthy of personal emulation.

For starters, Socrates was only partially correct when he argued that individuals do evil because they do not know it is wrong. This might be true in some circumstances like when one eats an extra cupcake thinking it will be pure pleasure when in fact it ends up resulting in a stomachache. However, such is not always the case.

I Timothy 2:14 says, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” Adam, therefore, fell into sin knowing full well what he was doing when he went against God's command not to eat the forbidden fruit.

Even though Socrates is to be commended for searching for the truth in light of the spiritual darkness that gripped Athens in the form of Sophist philosophy and pagan religion, that search was only partial at best. For Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. If one's quest for truth is not to be washed away like the house built on the sandy shore mentioned in Matthew 7, it must ultimately be based upon Him.

By Frederick Meekins