Assistance Applicants Crying Poor Mouth Live High On The Hog

A coworker of an associate is considering having his pregnant wife apply for WIC.

Yet this individual can afford a $30,000 SUV and a $10,000 loan that went primarily to provide his wench with a wedding or engagement ring.

The couple, despite apparently considering nutritional assistance, can apparently afford an Iphone 6 when there was nothing wrong with the cellphone that they already have.

Out of curiosity, I researched the WIC requirements for the state in which the couple resides.

Two of the criteria are interesting.

One allows for a new mom with a child up to six months of age.

Another criteria allows for mothers breastfeeding infants up to a year old.

One might make a case to extend this program to the mom while she is pregnant or is breastfeeding.

However, as soon as the whelp shoots from the birth canal of a mother that does not intend to breastfeed, there is no need to continue this nutritional assistance to her.

For the baby is not directly dependent upon her for nourishment as in the other examples that might justify the entitlement program.

Why not go ahead and provide the father with food for his own consumption as well?

He is, after all, the one that is traditionally still actually going to work while the mom is loafing about on maternity leave.

By Frederick Meekins

Pastor Baffled Why Christians Reluctant To Embrace Death At The Hands Of ISIS Or Ebola

A pastor mused during a sermon that he wondered why so many Christians were reluctant to die.

It was then remarked you can either die at the hands of ISIS or from Ebola, so you might as well have a positive attitude about it.

Do those making such statements in a religious frenzy actually stop to consider how it is to perish as a result of such necrotic modalities?

Regarding the concern Christians often express regarding death.

Why are we at fault regarding the survival instinct God has imbued into nearly every form of life?

Furthermore, if Scripture says that those that hate God love death, wouldn't it therefore follow that as the most correct religion that Christians would be the most averse to this disputed metabolic state?

By Frederick Meekins

Could The President's UN Remarks Undermine Religious Liberty

In an address before the United Nations, President Obama proclaimed to the planetary assembly, “No children --- anywhere --- should be educated to hate people.”

The President went on to clarify, “There should be no tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents.”

The President suggested that this could be accomplished in part by composing a “new compact...to eradicate the corruption of young minds by violent ideology” and by “contesting the space that terrorists occupy --- including the Internet and social media.”

Such proposed policies sounds like a prudent course of action to take against those out to destroy the American way of life.

But in deciphering the double talk that spews from the mouths of political elites like phlegm during flu season, the discerning grow concerned as to whether or not such rhetorical pronouncements will only be used against the jhadist menace.

Given the President's fundamental ideological orientation as a socialistic secularist, what safeguards are to be put in place that these strategies won't be used against Americans of a conservative Evangelical or Roman Catholic persuasion?

For example, when the average American hears Obama insist that no child anywhere should be taught to hate other people, images of toddlers and preschoolers being indoctrinated by a giant plushy mouse as to the glories of not only killing Christians and Jews but of their own suicide martyrdoms.

However, in the eyes of the crowd that Obama runs with, propagating hate can consist of little more than publicly reading those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality or peacefully insisting that professing belief in Christ is the only path to eternal salvation.

In fact, columnist Mark Steyn was dragged before a Canadian human rights tribunal for remarks not too much more rhetorically forceful than those made by Obama on the floor of the United Nations by simply exposing what jihadists had themselves articulated.

Obama suggested that different faiths should come together to speak out against this violent worldview.

It depends upon what the President means by that.

Fine and dandy if he means a respect for human decency being enunciated individually from behind each pulpit in a wide variety of houses of worship.

However, if the President is suggesting that widely diverging faiths are obligated to open their pulpits to one another free of doctrinal criticism as to where these guests measure up and fall theologically short, the government will have taken a step one too many to the point where its agencies will likely become the next great threat to our own liberties and well being once the identifiable terrorist menace has been identified and appropriately dispatched.

By Frederick Meekins

Ebola: Sitting Ducks

By Ronald R. Cherry, M.D.

A Spanish nurse has contracted Ebola – in Spain – while caring for a Spanish Priest who became infected with Ebola in West Africa. The Priest died of Ebola, so let’s pray that his nurse survives.

“A nursing auxiliary in Madrid has tested positive for Ebola after treating a patient in the Spanish capital, according to Spanish newspaper El Pais. The case is believed to be first in which a person contracts Ebola from a source outside of Africa. While the woman has not been identified, El Pais reports that she is 44 years old, married without children, and originally from Galicia, though she has worked for more than 15 years in Carlos III Hospital in Madrid. She has not left Spain or come in contact with the Ebola virus except for her work in treating Manual García Viejo… The newspaper notes that the nurse brought herself to Alcorcón hospital's emergency room after experiencing a fever, and was tested twice for Ebola, both times with positive results. Co-workers tell El Pais they are shocked by the contamination, given that the hospital used "extreme" protection against the disease.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/10/06/Spanish-Health-Worker-Becomes-First-Ebola-Patient-to-Contract-Disease-Outside-of-Africa

 

The Spanish nurse likely became infected with Ebola via airborne transmission. No doubt she had extreme protection against direct contact with the body and body fluids of the Ebola patient, but that is not good enough.

"Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings... We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks... We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs [powered air-purifying respirators] to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa – and beyond." Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/09/commentary-health-workers-need-optimal-respiratory-protection-ebola

Airborne transmission of Ebola probably accounts for this case and others, such as Dr. Brantley who also exercised extreme caution - except not enough caution - he did not use a HEPA-filtered full face respirator. Under CDC guidelines health care workers are protected against direct contact but not against inhalation or eye exposure to microscopic contaminated droplet nuclei, which cannot be seen and which can travel across a room with air currents, and which can remain infectious for about an hour and a half. The potential for this strain of Ebola is exponential, and we have 300 million un-vaccinated sitting ducks - we Americans. Our government has failed in its primary duty – to defend and protect the American people. I believe our pharmaceutical companies would have developed Ebola vaccines years ago were it not for Big Brother.

 

Read more here:

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/140825

 

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/politically-correct-ebola?f=must_reads

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/140923

 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cherry/140923

Broadcaster Hints Ebola Plague Could Be Retribution For Violating Mosaic Dietary Guidelines

On the 8/5/2014 broadcast of Viewpoint, Chuck Crismier examined the threat posed by the Ebola virus.

In his analysis, he pointed out that the virus can be spread through the fruit bat, which a number of Africans consume as part of their native cuisine.

Crismier interjected that such a practice is not Biblical.

If the apologist is insisting that Old Testament dietary regulations are binding upon New Testament non-Jewish believers, he is not correct.

In Matthew 15:11, Christ Himself counsels that an individual is not defiled by what goes into one's mouth but rather by what comes out of the elocutionary orifice.

This New Testament alteration of the Old Testament law seems to be sustained by a number of other passages.

In I Timothy 4:4, the Apostle Paul asserts that ALL foods (not just the list of Mosaic kosher foods) can be enjoyed with thanksgiving.

To clarify that God was the God of both the Jews and the Gentiles, in Acts 10 Peter was instructed to eat from a selection of foods that up until that point that he had been conditioned to avoid as unclean.

God would not have compelled Peter to do something that was still a violation of God's law.

It's not like Peter was told to marry a man or to offer worship up towards a false god.

It is a correct observation that very few Americans would want to eat a bat.

However, is Chuck Crismier going to insist that he has never eaten or since repented of partaking of crab, shrimp, or lobster which are also forbidden under Old Testament dietary guidelines since these creatures are essentially underwater coach roaches?

Likewise, if Chuck Crismier believes this strongly about strict adherence to the Mosaic law in its entirety, does he intend to broadcast an episode of his Viewpoint news and cultural analysis program condemning the Duck Dynasty clan for the consumption of yet another food clearly forbidden in the pages of Old Testament revelation?

And what about the fast food industry such as Burger King and McDonald's?

A common complaint among certain factions of the more doctrinally enthusiastic is that contemporary Evangelicals are insufficiently Hebraic in their approach to the interpretation and application of Scripture.

So if Africans are to be condemned for consuming bats which might be one of the very few food items available to such impoverished populations, does one have to be consistent and declare an all out crusade against the All American cheeseburger?

By Frederick Meekins

Religious Leftists Agitate Politically

According to the 10/15/2014 issue of the Christian Century, a coalition of religious leftists is launching a campaign to encourage voter registration in low income and immigrant communities.

In other words, populations likely to elect candidates more likely to promise the largest handout payments.

This mobilization effort plans to organize under the banner of Let My People Vote.

Mind you, these are likely the very same agitators insisting that the pro-life, pro-family, and pro-American policy preferences of Religious Right organizations such as Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition cheapen the cause of the Gospel.

by Frederick Meekins

Republican candidates actually fairly moderate compared to Democrats on social issues, despite media's biased coverage

By Robert Pickup, Jr.

William Saletan writing at Slate says that “Aiming at a broad electorate candidates are looking for issues where the public agrees with them and dodging issues where they might lose votes.”  This goes without saying when it comes to politicians, but then Saletan only devotes one sentence to Democrats not wanting to talk about the economy.  He then devotes the rest of his article blasting Republican cowardice on social issues saying “They don’t want the election to be about these issues, even in Red States.”

His first example of a Republican trying to “weasel” out of a social issue question is in the Virginia Senate race between Democrat Senator Mark Warner and Republican Ed Gillespie.  Speaking about contraception Warner said “the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby got it wrong.  I don’t think a for profit corporation ought to be able to interfere in an employees health care choices.”  Warner doesn’t seem to understand that case however.  The Hobby Lobby case limited the ability of the Government to force privately owned companies to violate the owners religious beliefs.  Hobby Lobby still provides many forms of contraception’s in their Health Insurance plans.  Warner also said that Gillespie would vote to overturn Roe V Wade.  Again the Senator gets it wrong.  As Gillespie rightly responded “there is not going to be a vote to overturn Roe, that’s a Supreme Court decision.  I’m running for the United States Senate.”  It’s no surprise that Warner is raising social issues to attack Gillespie, he voted for the unpopular Affordable Care Act and voted with Obama 97% of the time.  That is problematic for him amongst Virginians. 

Saletan moves on to the Arizona Governors race between Democrat Fred Duval and Republican Doug Ducey.  When asked about same sex marriage Ducey said that “on an issue like this a Governor doesn’t make the decision.  This decision is decided by the people.”  However this is no longer the case.  Liberals are all for Democracy until they don’t get what they want, then they go to the courts.  According to the New York Times “20 Federal courts in a row had ruled that State bans on same sex marriage, or on recognition of marriages performed in other States, were unconstitutional.”  Many Pundits believe this issue will be fully put to rest by the Supreme Court very soon.  

Saletan then discusses probably the most well known Governors race this election cycle.  That is the Texas Governors race between Republican Greg Abbot and Democrat Wendy Davis.  When asked about their views on abortion Davis talked about her filibuster of an abortion bill.  She said “I have stood on the Senate floor for 13 hours to assure that this most private of decisions could be made by women.”  In actuality the bill didn't take away a woman’s choice.  The Washington Post wrote that the legislation would only ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospital surgical centers.  As Abbot said “women still have 5 months to make a very difficult decision.”  Only after that  did the State have “an interest in protecting innocent life.”  This is right in line with what most Americans want.  According to a collection of polls gathered by the AEI most Americans support first trimester abortions.  However they oppose second and third trimester abortions and support restrictions such as parental notification.  

As we can see far from being cowards on social issues, Republicans are being very moderate compared to these extreme leftist candidates.  They are trying to concentrate on issues that matter most to people.  These issues according to Gallup are Jobs, the economy in general and the Federal deficit.  Gay marriage, contraception and abortion didn’t even make the list.  Democrats know that by raising these issues they can distract voters from the fact that they have caused, made worse or ignored the issues that matter most to their constituents.

Is The Southern Baptist Missions President More Interested In Your Stuff Than Your Soul?

There is no pleasing some theologians unless you word to the most exacting detail everything the way that they would.

A Facebook meme attributed to Southern Baptist International Missions Board president David Platt is quoted as saying the following: “Accept him? Do we really think Jesus needs our acceptance? Don't we need Him? Jesus is no longer one to be accepted or invited in but one who is infinitely worthy of our immediate and total surrender.”

Is there really a reason to get one's backside up on one's shoulders over a pastor or evangelist that phrases the soteriological appeal in terms of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior?

Granted, as part of the infinite triune Godhead, Jesus can hobble along quite fine without us no matter how much Pastor Platt believes world missions might collapse without his particular brand of religious over-enthusiasm.

What it simply means when someone accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior is that the person assents to the truth and validity of the claims and conditions made in the Gospels.

What is interesting is Rev. Platt's phraseology of immediate and total surrender.

Traditionally, that is what occurs when the sincere individual comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, meaning one makes a concerted effort with the help of the Holy Spirit to resist those more sinful desires.

However, what Platt may mean by that, given the perspective taken in a number of his books such as “Radical” and his sermons available on sites such as Youtube, is a bit different.

To Platt, it is not so much that your life and possessions are Christ's to determine directly how these are to be used to His glory but rather that is to be determined by your betters up the ecclesiastical food chain.

According to sermons from the likes of Rev. Platt, in taking up your cross, it is not sufficient to endure a particular struggle or trial that has come into your life but rather that you are to think of yourself as on the way to execution in terms that you are supposed to be wracked with profound guilt for a standard of living above that of the subsistence level.

However, religious superstars such as David Platt are to enjoy a semi-luxurious lifestyle flying across the country and around the globe having accolades and wads of cash tossed in their direction over how wonderful they are for being outraged that you have what you have.

Christ Himself says in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

The text does not say that Jesus will beat down the door.

Customarily, when someone knocks at the door, it is your right to either open the door to invite them into your dwelling or to decline their request along with whatever it is they might be happening to bring you.

But then again, we are in the age where apparently the theological celebrities know more than Christ ever did.

By Frederick Meekins

Pastor Apparently Selective In What Pagan Practices He Condemns

In a sermon titled “The Satanic Deception Of Halloween” posted at SerrmonAudio.com, Pastor James Cooley details the history of how black cats came to be connected with this autumnal celebration as the spirit familiars of witches and as a result of an alleged Druidic belief that cats were the reincarnated souls of evil people.

To this, the podcaster interviewing Pastor Cooley remarked that he knew there was a reason why he did not like cats.

Pastor Cooley concurred with an “Amen.”

But who is it that created cats?

Surely it was not Satan.

Was it not the God that we are supposed to be so dedicated to that we can't even participate in a festival that does not possess any meaning for most other than dressing up in a silly costume to collect candy from door to door?

Cats are not inherently evil.

That is merely the connotation they have been imbued with from a cultural and literary standpoint derived from subjective existential or psychological sources.

In other words, from nothing more than what someone happened to think or feel regarding them.

Should something be abandoned because a number construe a conceptual or ontological category to be evil rather than it actually being so?

So does this include Fundamentalist Baptist Churches?

For years, that form of ecclesiology's most ardent adherents rightly condemned the pedophile scandals that wracked the Roman Catholic Church.

However, it turns out that nearly the same perversion had gripped a number of hardline Independent Fundamentalist ministries.

Therefore, isn't it logical to contend that there have been more innocent people hurt in a spirit of appalling wanton sin perpetrated by those that should have known better than were ever hurt by cats exhibiting a similar degree of deliberate malice?

So does that mean we should refrain from attendance at these particular houses of worship to avoid offending the weaker brother?

Often, the conspicuously pious will homiletically insist that Halloween ought to be avoided altogether not so much to refrain from actual wrongdoing but to avoid the appearance of such and out of the necessity to separate from unclean things as counseled by Scripture.

As such, shouldn't we also consider the source of this sentiment against cats if the propriety or impropriety of a thing is to be determined not so much by how it is practiced today but rather by ideas affiliated with it at the time a custom came into existence?

By the pastor's own admission, this particular prejudice is supposedly Druid in origin.

Thus, if we are to severe all connections with Halloween for being pagan in origin, why not this unfounded contempt for felines as well?

By Frederick Meekins