Cuomo Christmas Consternation

In most instances, leftwing propagandists do everything within their power to banish the lessons derived from traditional religious sources such as Biblical narratives from exerting any sort of influence upon public policy and awareness. However, if one of those cherished texts can be distorted for the purposes of advancing a particular agenda, these skilled manipulators have few qualms against doing so.

In one particular closing argument segment of his program, CNN mouthpiece Chris Cuomo declared it rank hypocrisy for Christians who celebrate Christmas to not fling the border gates wide open for the caravan swarm amassing along the U.S./Mexican border. Cuomo pontificated, “No small irony that Christians are getting ready to celebrate the story of Christmas, which is the exact story that we are trying to celebrate here. The poor and unwanted who wound up bringing the savior into this world in a stable, rejected. Just as we are doing now. This is who we are now and it must be exposed.”

Such exegeted buffoonery is to be expected from a theological ignoramus who also revels in the delights of sodomite matrimony and the unbridled infanticide of abortion.

The key to the most complete understanding possible (for no human is capable of understanding all of it) is to take all of the canonical text (both Old and New Testaments) and to synthesize these together rather than to rely upon a single textual portion isolated from the comprehensive whole. On this account, Chris Cuomo is as woefully lacking as his reflections upon the Bill of Rights as evidenced by his pronouncements regarding free speech and the right to bear arms.

First, Mary and Joseph were not the unwanted migrating for the purposes of expecting to find a more prosperous residence in a land in which they possessed no ancestral ties or against which they had a legitimate claim. From Luke 2:1-6, the objective student of theology reads that Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to comply with the decree of the Roman census for the purposes primarily of taxation. Thus, this narrative had nothing to do with immigration policy.

If a pulpiteer wanted to connect the account with something to make it relatable for contemporary audiences, the homily ought to have referenced the disturbingly intrusive census questions (since that was why a pregnant woman was required to plod across rugged countryside (tradition often depicts, on the back of a burro) or overly burdensome tax regulations such as those threatening small microbusinesses to submit proceeds to every conceivable local revenue jurisdiction in a country that spans the breadth of an entire continent.

Chris Cuomo is correct that Scripture does require compassion. However, he is even more exegetically negligent in failing to point out that this quality is circumscribed with boundaries and requirements not only on the part of the party obligated to extend it but also on the part of the ones considered to be receiving it.

Leftists love to point out how Scripture admonishes fair treatment of the stranger dwelling amidst the children of Israel. Interesting how those exhibiting an enthusiasm for the detailed oracles of God in this particular instance grow noticeably silent or even dismissive of the obligations expected of those not hailing from the Covenant people but extended the blessing of being allowed to sojourn among them.

For example, these aliens were not allowed to carry on in their heathen customs in a manner that would have polluted the sanctified culture. Those granted sanctuary would have been required to comport themselves by a body of standards far more restrictive than anything that would be imposed in Trumpist America.

Leftists priding themselves somewhat as Bible scholars will no doubt respond that these statutory rigors are part of the Old Testament covenant. These provisions do not apply to the New Testament which is based upon forgiveness and love.

So is that really how religionists of a more progressive outlook want it? So in an exaggerated Jim Carrey mannerism, “ALLLLLRIGHTY then!!”

It follows that the parameters of God's fulfilled covenant are circumscribed by the portion of Scripture referred to as the New Testament. Those wanting to invoke its protections are just as obligated to abide by its regulations.

As such, Romans 13:4 says of the magistrate, “For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” Therefore, if Chris Cuomo is going to admonish compliance with the whole counsel of God, shouldn't viewers expect to see the broadcaster deliver an exhortation urging those wanting entrance into the United States to comply with all duly enacted regulations and policies deemed necessary by the American people as enacted through their government as established by a ratified constitution?

In the conclusion of his remarks, Cuomo equated the migrant caravan at the border demanding entrance into the United States or threatening an undefined “or else” with the Holy Family. These two demographic quantities are nothing alike in terms of the responses to their respective circumstances.

For example, the most basic characteristic one cannot help but notice about the caravan is its incessant and forceful making of demands. For it was not the orderly way in which the throng went about filing petitions for entrance that prompted border enforcement personnel to respond with the strategic deployment of the compound colloquially referred to as “tear gas”.

The Holy Family, on the other hand, are not on the record in Scripture as to making any demand whatsoever. The account is not even clear as to whether or not they told anyone else of their plight.

In dramatic interpretations of the Gospel account more likely to give the kids more charismatic than those relegated to the role of shepherds but not quite the apple polisher of the lad usually selected to play Joseph, the innkeeper is made out to be a bigger equus africanus asinus than the one Mary is depicted as riding into Bethlehem on for sticking a pregnant woman in a barn. However, an innkeeper is not even mentioned in terms of explicit divine revelation.

There is next to no background provided as to how it was that Mary and Joseph ended up in the stable. All theories speculating as to whether it was at the suggestion of the innkeeper because of Joseph's pleading or because the sanctified couple quickly dashed in for a modicum of privacy because Mary couldn't any longer keep the blessed event contained within her virgin womb with the alternative being not to lay down the head of the little Lord Jesus gently on the hay but rather letting the crown of glory plop onto the dusty streets of Palestine.

It can be stated with near certainty that Mary and Joseph acted nothing like the migrant horde amassing along the border with Mexico or even the typical hipster millennial mother that demands accolades and extravagant concessions for simply having procreated. At no time did Joseph hurl rocks at the inn, threatening to burst through the door uninvited. At no time did Mary demand that those within earshot alter their routines to accommodate the circumstances in which she found herself or provide her with a lactation room more extravagantly furnished than a five star resort.

As an inherently emotional season, many are prone to turn off for the holidays those defenses that usually protect the discerning from being taken advantage of during other times of year. However, it is in such moments that those bent on undermining both our heritage and our liberty are prone to be at perhaps their most deceptive.

By Frederick Meekins

From Whence Cometh Christmas Conniption?

Over the past several decades, the culture war animosities that arise in response to the condemnation of Christmas and the vocal response rushing to the defense of the celebration have become so predictable that these have about taken on the status of traditions in themselves akin to decked out halls, trimmed trees and marathon broadcasts of “It's A Wonderful Life” and “A Christmas Story”. Those realizing that it will probably be futile to expect to eliminate this beloved festival and, more importantly, the worldview that this holiday represents through a direct frontal assault are now starting to insist that the war against Christmas doesn't exist at all.

In one essay titled “Time For Truce On 'War Against Christmas'”, Leslie Handler goes as far as to call this annual Yuletide dispute “fabricated”. She proceeds to equate those outraged to the point of articulated disagreement against this annual campaign to undermine American culture with the perpetrators of “shootings on ball fields with lawmakers or places of worship filled with people praying or bars filled with our youth who perhaps have not yet learned to hate.”

The sort of naiveté thinking that youth in their early twenties likely to be found in a bar have not already figured out how to hate is proof enough why a number rushing to the defense of the Christmas cause think that these attacks against the holiday serve as proof that Western civilization may be closer to the point of collapse than many realize or are willing to admit. The reasoning is little better elsewhere in the column.

Leslie Handler insists that the movement to expunge the most explicitly sectarian examples of Christmas commemoration from government sponsored venues is based upon the separation of church and state which Handler insists the country is built upon. But from this errant soil springs equally errant fruit.

Though it might be part of the jurisprudence imposed under threat of Waco-style law enforcement for failure to comply, the sort of separation of church and state as advocated by Leslie Handler is found nowhere in the First Amendment as enumerated by the Founding Fathers nor imposed upon the states through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. What the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”

What that means is that a non-Christian student cannot be compelled to accept or affirm Christian doctrine against their will under threat of punishment. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the vast majority should be forbidden from articulating their most sincerely held beliefs or that entire aspects of the nation's heritage should be ignored to the point of suppression because a minuscule but highly-organized activist few demand such at the hands of radical secularists or combustible pyrotechnics at the hands of the militant adherents of certain heathen creeds.

In the name of faddish ideologies such as multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion, it is argued that those holding to any number of bizarre notions no matter how far outside the mainstream or even inimical to public order, mental stability and bodily integrity should not only be allowed to have their say publicly. Those within earshot had better not respond with anything but gleeful enthusiastic acceptance if they do not want to face catastrophic consequences such as the loss of employment or the opportunity to advance academically.

Leslie Handler writes in response to a caller of a talk show suggesting that if a parent does not want their children singing “Oh Holy Night” perhaps the child shouldn't be in the school chorus, “Would this woman really want her child singing a religious song honoring a faith other than hers? Would she believe it was OK for her Christian child to sing a Muslim song praising Allah?”

Christian have been forced to do the equivalent of this for quite awhile now. This has been going on for years if not decades.

For example, in Virginia in 2015 and in West Virgina in 2018, students were forced to copy in Arabic the shahada, the ritual proclamation indicating that those that recite the creed have been initiated into the Islamic faith. At least if an atheist whelp reneges on what he sang during a Christmas carol, even among the most die hard of contemporary Christians, the urchin is not viewed as fair game for execution unlike in the eyes of certain Muhammadean sectarians.

Some time ago in Prince George's County, Maryland, pupils studying a unit on ancient Egypt did not simply review the beliefs from the realm of the Pharaohs from the standpoint of “This is what the ancient Egyptians believed, class.” Rather the students composed letters to pagan deities beseeching advice (one might argue that is the essence of prayer) and crafted amulets for the purposes of warding off evil spirits. One must ask would the ACLU let it quietly slide if on a segment on the Middle Ages students would have nonchalantly been allowed to bead their own rosary or paint their own icon?

With so much allowed to take place in the public schools sounding more like something out of the Defense Against The Dark Arts course at Hogwarts rather than the technologically sophisticated curriculum of the twenty-first century public school, it is only natural that Christian parents and students are going to be a little agitated when all manner of heathens, deviants, and subversive foreigners whose primary loyalties lie with the homelands they fled rather than the one lavishing them with an assortment of handouts often denied to those forced to provide these luxuries to newcomers and others refusing to lift a finger are glossed over when the time comes to speak allowed their own truth.

Often the beneficiaries of this public largess are even applauded as superior to those retaining loyalty to the values that made America great in the first place. This sting is made even worse in the cavalcade of diversity when traditionalist, instead of being given their turn in the spotlight that insists no viewpoint is more important than any other, are told to sit down and shut up over alleged atrocities that those alive today had no role in perpetrating.

In the Brave New World in which we find ourselves, Heather has two mommies. Entire classes are often expected to miss recess for an entire month to symbolize solidarity with the Akmed's and Omars of the world during Ramadan. White kids are compelled to feel bad all through the month of February over injustices and that long since been overcome. Female students are now the ones punished over biological males taking leaks trousers down in from of them standing in the little girls' room. These parents ought to be incredulous over claims insisting that somehow the child of the village atheist is irrevocably harmed by lyrics hoping for peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

Leslie Handler in her column admonishes, “Take a moment to listen to someone else. Learning new perspectives can be a good thing.”

Both objective surveys and man on the street comedy interview routines alike prove the disturbing widespread ignorance regarding American customs, institutions, and cultural practices. As such, the education system would doing all children a favor by at least pointing out that there is more to the holiday season than a week off at the end of the year.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #118

Given the number of cast members that have died as a result of drug overdoses over the decades, isn’t Saturday Night Live about the last TV program that ought to poke fun at enthusiastic imbibers?

Would a man whose life had been ruined by fallacious or overly burdensome child support obligations have been allowed to interdict a Capitol Hill elevator for the purposes of verbally berating a United States Senator?  If not, then neither should have an hysterical woman suffering an emotional break down over unproven allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

In his analysis of the Kavanaugh/Ford testimony on “The Glenn Beck Show”, Bill O’Reilly said that he no longer watches cable news because even Fox News pundits say that which they think will get them money.  As such, does O’Reilly renounce the fortunate he accumulated as the public face of that network for nearly two decades along with that from hawking the “Killing Nearly Everything Under The Sun” line of books night after night on his network broadcast?

A Washington Post column is absolutely correct. The Brett Kavanaugh debate is a perfectly valid barometer to determine whether or not someone is worthy to date. Because how can a man trust a woman that believes that one doesn't need actual proof to move forward with abuse allegations and why risk end up siring such dimwitted offspring?

Contrary to Fox News' fawning praise of the Trump of regime, is ISIS really "utterly destroyed"? For the danger of Islamist jihad is that it does not need much of a centralized headquarters in order to present a formidable continued threat.

On SermonAudio, a pastor against Halloween said that he gives out bags of candy containing a gospel tract.  But isn’t that the moral equivalent of slipping a tract along with a dollar into the thong of a stripper or giving a jihadist a discount on fertilizer if we are to believe Halloween is as evil as these homilists insist?

In an anti-Halloween homily posted at SermonAudio, it was stated that, if those in Hell could return today, these souls would plead with us “not to celebrate the things we do today”.  That is a euphemism for trick or treating. What the pastor is preaching is a form of works righteousness. How is that different than what the Catholic church (which the pastor deliberately bad mouthed earlier in the sermon) allegedly teaches?  If the damned returned from Hell, it is doubtful the primary thing they wished to convey would be their regret about accepting a few autumnal confections filled with nougat while cavorting in costume. If we are to believe Baptist theories of soteriology, wouldn’t the message instead be believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved?

In a Halloween homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor condemned churches that hold Trunk or Treat but conveyed that he hands out bag of candy with a tract.  But isn’t that the equivalent of condemning visitation of the local brothel but seeing nothing wrong with inviting over a call girl from an escort service.

Are pastors that admonish avoiding Halloween celebration on the grounds of the potential harm that can befall children that night such as molestation also going to suggest a similar policy regarding church functions given nearly the same horror known to be perpetrated against the carnally innocent in numerous ecclesiastical venues?

Regarding shrill banshees jacked out of shape about the HimToo movement.  A man can’t be compelled to want to spend time with a woman that doesn’t know her place.

Regarding shrill banshees jacked out of shape about the HimToo movement.  If a woman has an inherent right to say “no”, doesn’t a man have just as much an inherent right not to ask in terms of refusing to interact in the first place?

Ridicule has erupted over the HimToo hashtag over men refusing to date in light of abuse allegations that fly too quickly and believed too easily.  The mockery is proof that this alleged call for justice is not about eliminating questionable behavior but rather a euphemism for the confiscatory redistribution of resources and power not unlike the other concerns hijacked throughout the history of leftwing revolutionary upheaval.  For just as no man has the right (to utilize the sort of Biblical language these sorts of Marxist reprobates usually despise) defraud the body of a woman, no woman has the right or legitimate expectation to defraud the pocketbooks or bank accounts of men that don't deem these skanks an acceptable risk.

When CNN propagandist Don Lemon insists that protests should be allowed to take place anywhere, does he intend to be consistent and advocate that sidewalks in front of abortion clinics be considered one of these acceptable venues?

In an anti-Halloween exposition, a Baptist minister pointed out that the Puritans did not want anything to do with Halloween.  As I recall, they didn’t cotton up to well to Baptists either. So should we similarly still be opposed to Baptists now because the Puritans did not like them back then?

But does Elizabeth Warren possess more Native American DNA than any other average American?  And don’t such DNA tests prove that there is more to race and ethnicity beyond that of a mere social construct leftist social engineers only seem to insist must be set aside if it buttresses traditionalist American assumptions and perspectives?

Donald Trump’s refusal to donate to charity if Elizabeth Warren could prove she was Native American is still a less devastating broken promise than “Read my lips.  No new taxes” and “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

There’s still more proof that the little Black kid might have sexually assaulted a woman than Judge Kavanaugh having done anything illegal in terms of taking carnal liberties.

Propagandist Trevor Noah laughing at footage of a White person calling another Caucasian a “White lady”.  And that is different than Blacks like President Obama having to constantly remind us of his color how?

Regarding those opposed to dating in favor of “courtships”.  So it is inappropriate for an unchaperoned couple to go out to dinner, bowling, or a movie but apparently Ruth can spend all night alone with Boaz in his bedroom and this is supposed to be the ideal Christian love story?

Meal kits.  Aren’t these just a marketing trick to get hipsters to prepare their own food?  How are these any different than how people eat that have made the vast majority of meals at home except for the jacked up price?

By Frederick Meekins

Romney Downplays Danger Of Out Of Control Press

In a campaign blog post republished as a column by USA Today, Senator-elect Mitt Romney criticized President Trump for “vilifying” the press.

Interesting how we the common rabble often have to swear near-feudal oaths of fealty that our own remarks submitted as letters to the editor have not been published elsewhere before such content will even be considered.

Instead, Romney extols, Americans ought not look to the press as an enemy but rather as an essential component of democracy.

At times, the President has not only gone overboard in his attacks on the mainstream media but crossed over that boundary into the territory of scathing remarks of little bearing on the issue at hand directed at particular correspondents.

But neither should the danger of journalistic outlets claiming to report Joe Friday’s “nothing but the facts” spinning those in a way more befitting admitted opinion commentators to subtly advance an agenda or even parading outright fallacies for this purpose be downplayed.

In his own column, Romney (probably unwittingly) shows how this is possible without even realizing it.

Romney writes in gushing praise of establishment journalism, “it opened our eyes to the sexual abuse of children by priests”.

Interesting how he doesn’t even reference similar abuses at the hands of his own beloved Mormon Church that interjects itself into the lives of families creating barriers between parents and children that no members of any legitimate religion ought to put up with or allow.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #117

Those now outraged over the shennagains alleged to take place at high school and college parties were the same ones just a few years ago insisting that teens should have access to as many condoms as they want because they are incapable of controlling their base impulses, that those waiting until marriage are somehow insane, that parents refusing to allow their offspring to attend these sorts of orgies are borderline abusive, and that 40 year old virgins are an acceptable topic of cinematic ridicule.

Would these bigshot women now making a fuss about the antics that take place at teen and college parties settle for the sorts of men that did not attend such functions now in second rate occupations because they do not succeed in those professions that require a more predatory nature that would be able to provide the posh lifestyle these sorts of women usually demand?

So if allegations of sexual misconduct without proof are to now serve as the basis of blocking the accused from public office, why can’t claims of what transpires at places such as Bohemian Grove be used to remove elites from positions of influence?

So what is it going to be? When Judge Kavanaugh was initially nominated, critics responded that they preferred a jurist with more “real world experience”. By this, it was meant that they did not think he was necessarily debauched enough with a number of aborted fetuses left in the wake of a lifestyle embracing the spirit of the age with gusto. But apparently now neither is he acceptable for perhaps having wallowed in the might makes right, if it feels good do it mentalities we are expected to endorse for the purposes of eliminating the traditional morality that prevents the species from achieving greater evolutionary heights and levels of consciousness.

If a pastor never calls on anyone to pray nor solicits volunteers to do so, is it fair to condemn from the pulpit the amorphous unnamed in the congregation with allegations about being afraid to pray aloud?

So if hardline Baptists can look down their noses at those that don’t wear ties to church, what is so wrong with Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran clerics looking down their noses at Baptist ministers that do not wear vestments or collared clergy shirts?

If we have come to the point in society where it is now deemed inappropriate in an open judicial or legislative forum for a man to ask at a respectable physical distance questions regarding the validity of an alleged incident, isn’t that pretty much an admission by those making this demand that women are too mentally unstable or fragile to handle the pressures of policy and government? For if one is going to crumble before an inquisitive Senator, why do we think those of that gender would be able to handle the ruthlessness of an Islamist, Red Chinese, or Russian Neo-Soviet interrogator as a prisoner during a time of war? Dr. Ford is, after all, supposedly an academic used to the rigors of intense discussion and not a laundry room scrubwoman or sheltered debutante.

Leftwing propagandists are having a hearty laugh at a Russian wench tossing a concoction of water and bleach onto the laps of guys she finds manspreading on public transportation. Wonder if this would be found so funny if a similar kind of low grade chemical warfare was conducted against WOMMMMMMEN exposing enough cleavage to make a baby hungry or a skirt yanked up to, as my mom used to say, their who-ha.

So if it turns out two others assaulted Dr. Ford as is now being reported, will this become about pursuing justice wherever that might lead or will this incident quietly drop from both media and judicial attention given that the intended target can no longer be destroyed by these allegations?

If a woman over the age of consent did not like what was transpiring at a particular party to the point that the worrisome activity ranked of criminality, why would she return to similarly administered soirées on multiple occasions if she otherwise comported the rest of her existence with no evidence of coercion? And if a college age dude that hung around high school parties ought to be castigated as a pervert, deviant or sex addict, shouldn’t the same suspicion be directed at a college aged female as well?

Apparently media snowflakes are gripped with mental breakdowns over President Trump’s articulation of the phrase “con job”. Yet these are the same sorts that can’t go three words without uttering a profanity and have little problem with raunchy novels about women that get their kicks being chained up or flogged by rich men.

Judge Kavanaugh likely isn’t a sexual predator. However, what other manner of psychosis grips his mind to have propelled him to have made and kept a calendar that detailed?

In the fall 2018 edition of the Eerdman’s Academic Catalog is a book titled “Burying White Privilege: Resurrecting A Bad Ass Christianity” by Miguel A De La Torre. Torree is a Professor of Latinx Studies at Iliff School Of Theology and apparently an ordained Southern Baptist. One chapter within the work is titled “The Fallacy Of Whiteness”. So would Eerdman’s allow for the publication of a text by a Professor of “White Studies” to badmouth the racial grievance industry (particularly those wings of it derived from Hispanosupremacism)? Just as important, would such a scholar be allowed to retain his ministerial credentials with the Southern Baptist Convention?

In an analysis of the encounter between Marco Rubio and Alex Jones, it was dismissively quipped on BlazeTV that Jones believes that space aliens knocked over the World Trade Center. Even if Jones did, would that be any more bizarre than the Mormonism that Glenn Beck professes, a religion holding that God was once a man from the planet Kolob and that you too can one day become a god of your own world if you refrain from coffee and warmed tea?

The legislators now outraged at flatulence jokes probably back in the day supported government grants for “artworks” depicting crucifixes submerged in urine, portraits of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung, and photos of men with whips protruding from their backsides

Propagandists feigning concern over Judge Kavanaugh simmering with anger certainly don’t seem to mind the expression of that sentiment when Black Lives Matter insurgents loot electronics outlets and hair care establishments.

If you believe the Comcast Internet Essentials for deadbeats commercial that students are using the net to complete calculus assignments, I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

An Atlantic Monthly Magazine article is criticizing Mormons for once desiring to be a “White and Delightsome people”. Will similar condemnation be heaped upon Jews seeking to retain a distinctive ethnic or racial component of their spiritual identity?

It has been argued that, because of his combative responses during his Senate confirmation hearing, that Judge Kavanaugh does not have the temperament to dispassionately adjudicate the conflicting claims of the cases likely to come before him on the bench. Then why can’t the same be said of the shrill banshees hysterically accosting Senators about his nomination on Capitol Hill elevators or mobs threatening reporters upholding traditional presumptions of innocence without any preponderance of evidence?

By Frederick Meekins

Pastor Fails To Acknowledge Democrat Fomenting Discord

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor warned that the problem with Donald Trump is that he alienates nearly every ethnic group with the exception of White people.

And Hilary's categorization of those that disagreed with her as “deplorables” ought to be construed as a term of admiration and consensus building?

So what this pastor is saying is that the church ought not strive to view the moral land scape through the principle of their being neither Greek nor Jew.

Rather, pulpit pronouncement must be formulated in such a way as to pander and cater to favored minority agitators as predetermined by manipulative social engineers.

If a pastor is going to suggest that Donald Trump is to be blamed for disturbances because of his rhetoric that unruly protesters should be roughed up a bit, doesn't that pastor also have an obligation to admit that President Obama should be blamed in part for Antifa hijinks when he urged his supporters to “get in the faces” of those that dared articulate opposition to him and when he explicitly declared that those disagreeing with his immigration policies should be considered “enemies”?

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #116

Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church said that, if you love silver, you can’t love your neighbor. That is because, when the neighbor is in need, you will hoard the silver rather than meet the neighbor’s need. Firstly, shouldn’t you providing for the need of your neighbor be dependent upon why the neighbor is supposedly in need in the first place? Secondly, for a church where the pastoral staff is repeatedly on the record at SermonAudio as to how much contempt they harbor for the American flag, why is there more than one flag in the SermonAudio profile picture for Berean Baptist Church? Wouldn’t those funds have been better spent providing for one’s neighbor?

Interesting the number of periodicals hinting at Trump’s dictatorial aspirations with a caricature of him adorned in Roman regalia. Did the mainstream media depict Obama in a similar fashion? After all, was he not the presidential aspirant that delivered his nomination oration amidst Grecian columns and to whom school children sang what amounted to worshipful choruses? I don’t believe that was Donald Trump threatening the fundamental transformation of America from the standpoint of explicitly denigrating the Founding and to send around government agents door to door to forcibly access your weight. Nor was it Melannia threatening that we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.

An episode of Generation’s Radio analyzing the history of homeschooling glamorized the socioeconomic situation where sons continued in the vocational callings of their fathers. Note that the emphasis is on the callings of the fathers. That does not translate as that necessarily being the callings of the sons. For all we know, given that people died at notoriously young ages back when the described situation was the typical career path, they probably weren’t as satisfied or fulfilled as this podcast would try to lead listeners to believe. Most back then were probably quite miserable. It’s just that if anyone dared express how they felt, mob justice would have probably hung them for being demon possessed or as a homo if a man dared mention anything about his emotional state.

Does the mainstream media praising Senator McCain for being an independent thinker ever intend to praise President Trump for also being an independent thinker? Most of what McCain advocated was rehashed establishmentarianism. A number of Trump’s insights actually are bold and innovative.

In response to those banned or suspended from assorted social media platforms for posting content not necessarily obscene in the traditional sense but for being at variance with prevailing herd mentalities, it is correctly observed that these are private companies not necessarily bound by traditional understandings of free speech. However, what is to prevent this perspective from being applied to other commodities provided by the private sector such as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation?

It has been proposed that the Russell Senate Office Building be renamed in memory of John McCain. Senator Richard Russell, after whom the building is named, opposed a number of civil rights initiatives. So forty or fifty years from now when something sticks in the craw of whatever activists then are constantly mollified for fear of stoking a riot over what John McCain did, should his name in turn be removed from the structure? What if radical feminists decide that the memory of John McCain is no longer worthy of such an honor because of dumping his first wife in favor of a younger, leggier, and less crippled upgrade?

Many outraged over comedian Norm McDonald’s remarks referencing Down Syndrome most of the time rank among those suggesting the sufferers of that affliction should be denied continued existence.

Had Judge Kavanaugh not attempted to cop a feel as a youth, the reprobates now tossing a fit that he might have would turn around and insist he would be unfit to sit on the bench for lacking existential appreciation for the evolution sexual standards and morays.

Hank Hanegraaf posted a podcast episode titled “The Dangers Of Fundamentalism”. While a legitimate topic of apologetic reflection, does he also intend to record an episode as critical of the shortcomings of the Orthodox church as well?

Vacuous thespian Anne Hathaway in an oration denounced “white, straight, cisgender privilege”. As such, does she intend to forfeit the fortune she has accumulated for being about as White as you can get?

Even if Judge Kavanaugh got a little hands on as a teen, it’s not like he left a woman to die in a car crashed into a body of water and conveniently forgot to notify public safety officials until some time later.

Unless there is a photo of the incident, why ought allegations of Judge Kavanaugh’s indecent exposure over thirty years ago be believed?

The Baltimore Sun is downplaying the multiple casualty incident perpetrated by a transgender shooter. It is repeatedly emphasized throughout the report that the individual suffered from “emotional distress”. Wonder if such sympathy would be extended to a man resorting to a similar manifestation of outrage as a result of an inequitable divorce settlement or outrageous child support obligations beyond his means to afford.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #115

A Trump appointee has resigned her position as deputy communications director of the Department of Health and Human Services over online postings made prior to her appointment that have little to do with either health or human services.  A strained case could be made that categorizing Islam as a cult that has no place in America, though a personal opinion considerably more broadminded than the fate radical Islamists would impose upon Christians in lands where that totalitarian theology holds sway, is a problematic perspective to be articulated by an official of a government adhering to the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause.  However, what bearing does her belief in conspiracy theories such as Pizzagate have to do with anything? The repercussions of this are chilling in terms of employment being contingent upon cognitive compliance with prevailing intellectual assumptions. For example, should a person be denied an appointment to office if they do not celebrate the findings of the Warren Commission with the enthusiasm of a creedal dogma?  And just whose assumptions are to be granted preference when there is a conflicting difference of opinion? For example, should a bureaucrat in a southern state be dismissed for holding to Darwinism when most of the population likely holds to some form of Creationism from a position that is not directly related to the implementation of science policy?

For years, Democrats especially harped propaganda that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms was not the concern of the voting electorate.  As such, what does it matter if a candidate dabbles in the composition of racy cryptozoological narratives? After all, numerous practitioners of mental health assure that the smut on television does not cause irrevocable psychological damage.  And no matter what freak might have been gotten on with Sasquatch, it could not have been as shocking as that concocted in the mind of Senator Jim Webb whose own forays into literary carnality depicted children.

So why is it considered unacceptable for a political candidate to dabble in Bigfoot porn but a work about an eccentric billionaire that beats,  ties up, and controls his concubine is considered a literary and cinematic blockbuster?

Too bad San Francisco is not as concerned about public defecation as plastic straws.

Shouldn’t those opposed to the construction of a border wall remove not only the locks but the doors as well as a form of home security?  To be consistent, shouldn’t those lugubrious regarding their broadminded sentiments regarding border policy instead be required to inform each passerby of the wonderful things contained within the domicile but the only method that they should be allowed to prevent unauthorized entry be the suasion of their own words?

Shouldn’t Democrats feigning contempt at so-called “Bigfoot erotica” be even more outraged at the drama Smallville and any romantic scenes from Superman productions over the decades?  For if the evolution most progressives hold as a theory of origins proves true, technically human beings and Sasquatch are genetically closer than humans and Kryptonians

If organized religion will allow those divorced before professing belief in Christ to remarry without penalty such as disqualification from holding ecclesiastical position, can those getting divorced after acceptance into formalized membership be granted a similar loophole to remarry without punitive sanction by insisting that they really were not saved at the time of the initial divorce or marriage to a divorced individual?

Under the direction of Pope Francis, the official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is being updated to decree that the death penalty is inappropriate in all situations and circumstances.  Perhaps even more importantly, isn’t this an admission that the Popes and magisterium under their purview that allowed the death penalty under limited circumstances in more contemporary times and certainly on a more systematic basis in previous eras where blessing was granted to the execution of opponents of the Church proof that these institutions are not so infallible after all?  

Madonna has fled to Portugal. The sagging pop star conveyed this is not America's finest hour. If that's the route the criticisms are to take, since when was it even last Portugal's finest century?

Outrage erupted over the Drudge Report headline “Border Battle: USA Taking In 250 Kids Per Day” accompanied with a photo of a group of children holding what appeared to be firearms.  It was claimed that these were not Hispanic children but rather Syrians in their homeland and the firearms not real but merely toys. Perhaps liberals should direct their umbrage at themselves rather than Matt Drudge.  Nowhere did the Drudge Report say that these were Hispanic children. Aren't the liberals automatically doing so the ones exhibiting the sort of racism that they have taken it upon themselves to expunge from the remainder of us?  For are not these liberals the ones that in any other instance rank among the first to point out that many conspiring to violate U.S. border are not Hispanic?

So will it only be in Trevor Noah's mind, as he says of the concerns of others regarding socialism, should he one day gaze upon his pay check and see that the vast majority of it has been confiscated to be redistributed to those that did nothing to earn it or to finance programs with which he does not agree?

So why didn’t all of those celebrating the removal of Alex Jones from social media as a manifestation of the glorious prerogatives of private property and free enterprise rush as enthusiastically to the defense of the Christian baker refusing to prepare a cake for a gay wedding for nearly the same reason?

The elites jacked out of shape regarding Laura Ingraham’s courageous reflections upon the nation’s disastrous  demographic changes are the same ones that reside in gated communities protected by armed sentries packing the same firearms that would be denied to everyone else.  However, the rest of us are expected to not only reside in but celebrate the rapidly ghettoizing slums resulting from unbridled immigration.

Laura Ingraham assures that her articulated concerns regarding demographic change are not about race.  And what if they were? Do not other ethnic groups lament their own potential demise and organize for the purposes of their own survival with the blessing of various institutional elites?  For are the sorts of criticisms aimed at Ingraham targeted towards the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference when that organization agitates under the motto of "Empowering the Hispanic Church, Engaging the Hispanic Vision and Enriching the Hispanic Dream"?   Such a statement does not exactly exude with the militant colorblindness imposed upon the likes of Ingraham that threatens occupational ostracism and broadcast banishment for any media personality vocalizing anything but complete acquiescence to globalist social engineering.

If churches are going to reduce the Book of Ruth to yet another tirade with which to beat congregations over the head with as some kind of condemnation regarding people marrying later, do these same ministers also intend to applaud unmarried people sleeping together in the same room as also transpired in the text.? Many hyperlegalists these day just about equate going to the movies or even out to eat together as a form of prostitution.

Regarding outrage over depiction of Apu on the Simpsons.  Isn’t the point of the series that they pretty much poke fun in one way or the other at everyone?

Faux newscaster comedian John Oliver has condemned as racist Laura Ingraham for her lamentation regarding certain demographic changes taking place as a result of unbridled immigration.  But if all cultures really are equal, why didn’t Oliver remain in his own homeland or move to a less prosperous and free country which would have no doubt been less majoritarian White? Most importantly, as someone that is not from here, has Oliver put his money where his leftwing mouth is and moved into an area marked by the diversity the remainder of us are expected to reflexively embrace without hesitation under threat of punishment?  More than likely, he has no doubt cordoned himself surrounded by his fellow pale Morlock elites demanding we respond with nothing but celebration in regards to the fates intended for the remainder of us.

So if a girl named Heather’s mother divorces Heather’s step father and Heather’s mother marries another man yet the first husband is still considered the step father would the title of this children’s book be “Heather Has Two Daddies: The Next Iteration”?

Throughout coverage of the anniversary of the Charlottesville upheavals, Americans were constantly admonished that nowhere is there any place for White supremacism or racism.  Thing of it was, seldom were we actually told what exactly does this consist of or that it was just as morally reprehensible when a similar tendency manifests itself in the heart of someone other than a majoritarian Caucasoid.  A number of activists assured that, even if people treated each other respectfully as individuals, the campaign of comprehensive reeducation and social transformation would not be complete until systemic deficiencies and discrepancies are addressed.  In other words, resources will be taken from those that have them to be given those that do not irrespective of whether or not these recipients have done anything to earn these beneficiences. So in order to be proven sufficiently purged of the old order’s biases, you will be condemned as racist if you stand there with anything other than sheer elation when on that day your bank account, your home, and your very possessions will be seized from you in the name of beginning the world anew.

If someone does not want to watch football on Sunday on religious grounds, that is their personal business.  But isn’t that person saying that no one should be allowed to watch football on Sunday because of that individual’s convictions akin to saying that access to bacon should be prohibited to everybody to placate Adventists and Islamists?

Did those jacked out of shape about a proposed census question regarding citizenship exhibit a similar degree of umbrage over the long form’s interrogatories as to how many flush toilets could be found in the respondent’s domicile or how far they drove to work?

Propagandists are celebrating the father of White consciousness gatherings Ronald Kessler threatening to toss the rabble rouser from the family domicile.  So do these liberals intend to applaud similar ultimatums made against gays violating their parents’ preferred values as well?

If access to public transportation is to be predicated upon embracing the prevailing sociological theory as insinuated by a gaggle of Washington Metro system employees outraged about a subway car set aside for attendees of the Unite The Right rally in order to prevent a riot or melee, will the next step to be to deny electricity and water to those harboring ideologies outside the social mainstream?

By Frederick Meekins

Is Grief About Healing Or Group Compliance?

It was said that when a Christian dies, other Christians should naturally express sadness but that they should also rejoice that the person has gone home to glory.

Usually the interval between these emotional responses is placed on a schedule dictated not by a person’s own rate of healing but rather on a timetable expedient so as not to inconvenience other believers .

While one is glad that the person is no longer suffering, it often feels like one has been left with a consolation prize.

Given this sentiment holding in suspicion those having lost a loved one, it prompts one to ask are some afraid to express their true grief for fear of being hauled before some inquisitorial body?

“Sister So and So, you just aren’t your former self after the designated mourning period extended to you by the graciousness of your ecclesiastical overseers to whom you have pledged obedience and fealty. You are hereby summoned to confess before specified consistory of any doubts or reservations you might have harbored even momentarily.  Failure to comply will result in the revocation of any formalized position or office that you hold in this organized fellowship. Confessions of doubt will also result in disqualification of said position or office.”

Yet if someone does express consolation that the departed loved one is in Heaven and that some degree of comfort is found in light of the knowledge they will again one day see their loved one, they should also expect to be slapped across the fingers for supposedly being presumptuous as to whom may or may not have been effectually called despite any profession of faith the departed might have made and regarding what knowledge of this transient realm we might retain in eternity.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #114

Charles Krauthammer is on the record as describing himself as a “Jewish Shinto” meaning that he worshipped his ancestors. Yet for simply wanting to protect America’s borders against a tidal wave of human debris this columnist was at the forefront of establishmentarians roundly condemning President Trump.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has been criticized by MSNBC propagandist Mika Brzezinski for the “tone deaf” decision to eat in a Mexican restaurant. So is this a form of cultural misappropriation? What this complaint is an example of is symbolism over substance. Does this network intend to renounce every public service announcement warning ever broadcast against the dangers of peer pressure? Failure to do so would be rank hypocrisy. For what is being condemned here is nothing more than failure to comply with riotous mobs.

A pastor lamented that neither party is willing to talk with one another on Capitol Hill in pursuit of compromise because elected officials must play to their respective bases. I know that sounds like sophisticated political analysis, but has the pastor making the statement actually contemplated the implications of what he is suggesting? For in terms of at least those on the right, are not Fundamentalist ministers the ones at the forefront of indoctrinating their respective audiences against the dangers of “compromise”? If you spend years conditioning people to avoid associating with Catholics and Charismatics in the name of separation and insist that women wearing pants are just a step away from lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion on demand, don’t be surprised when those that have taken what you say to heart don’t really want anything to do with those with whom they have profound worldview disagreements. So to these pastors that harp for the need for high standards when the standard being advocated is not really even something clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture, just where is there anything left to compromise with the proponents of contemporary Progressivism?

In a discussion with Bill Kristol on the future of conservatism. Jonah Goldberg remarked that social media communities are not real communities. So what is to be done for individuals that find more fulfilling opportunities in the virtual over offline worlds? For example, churches that offer a single Sunday school class are not able to provide additional teaching opportunities. And frankly, being allowed to plop money into a collection plate as the soul extent to which one is allowed to participate in the comprehensive enterprise of Christendom doesn’t cut it in terms existential satisfied purpose.

At the Heritage Foundation Annual Leadership Conference in fielding a question assessing Donald Trump, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas lamented the he wished the President would not condemn people because such an act was inherently anti-American. But shouldn’t those professing to hold to values over party be willing to condemn people that do condemnable things? And isn’t the only reason the news-consuming public knows the name of Cal Thomas is because of his aptitude for biting amusing criticism? After all, did not Cal Thomas pull something of a John Kerry in opposing Donald Trump before supporting Donald Trump by contributing an essay to the Never Trumpers special edition issue of National Review condemning the prospects of a Trump presidency?

In Nigeria, Islamist herdsmen attacked ten largely Christian communities. Nearly two hundred were killed with a number of villages being completely burned to the ground. Did these poor souls attempt to defend themselves or were they pacified as a result of indoctrination in misinterpretations of passages regarding the turning of the other cheek? Perhaps it is about time they look to guidance from the movie The Untouchables.

So regarding the family allegedly kicked out of a church during a funeral. Were they behaving with decorum as one ought in a church or rolling in the aisles and leaping over the pews as some demographics are during fits of religious ecstasy. For how often are chalices broken in the course of normal use?

To placate special interests prone to loot property and rampage in the streets when not pandered to in regards to assorted public issues, President Trump has reversed his initial position and is now ordering flags lowered to half staff in honor of the slain Gazette journalists. So why is this beneficence not extended to all murder victims or do their lives not matter to the propagandists in the mass media?

Outrage eruptted over Corey Lewmandowski allegedly mocking a Down syndrome child separated from her mother at the border. The headline ought to have ben that liberals have finally met a sufferer of that affliction that they did not think should have been euthanized. For as unsettling as the Trump regime’s treatment of these individuals might have been, it’s still a whole lot better than that endured by Down syndrome fetuses in Iceland. So where is the leftwing condemnation of such policies in these European social democracies to which America is expected to aspire?

Attorney Alan Dershowitz has been ostracized by liberals on the grounds of being a Russian operative. Didn’t they used to adore him for similar reasons?

Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, has passed at the age of 90. One cannot help but admire Diitko’s approach to the craft. Unlike Stan Lee’s more affable and outgoing shtick, Ditko had not given an interview or made a public appearance in decades. Instead he allowed his body of work to speak for itself. And while fans of graphic sequential narrative owe a debt of gratitude to the role played (some might argue usurped) by Stan Lee as a sort of ceremonial head of an industry that was not always extended the respect it deserved as a legitimate art form, as much appreciation should also be bestowed upon the unassuming professionals that actually turn out this ongoing work.

Tolerancemongers are ecstatic about a number of nations having fallen to multiculturalst hooey such as Australia and Great Britain banning or expelling proponents of enforced border security. But if these leftist regimes should be applauded for guarding what remains of their soiled and fraying social fabric by barring those seeking entrance in accord with established procedures, why is the United States frowned upon for staking similar steps to preserve its own civic identity by barring those that did not grant this nation/state the most fundamental of courtesies of coming through the proper entrance in the manner that a sovereign people requests?

So why is it acceptable for Christians to admit to watching “The Greatest Showman” on home video but not in a movie theater? Doesn’t the purchase of a DVD still send proceeds into the coffers of producers? Don’t the costumes worn by lady circus performers usually show more flesh than women wearing pants? And why is it apparently acceptable for unmarried men and women to be grabbing all over each other on the flying trapeze but fundamentalist pulpit exegetes explicitly condemn ballroom dancing?

It was said in a sermon that it is not up to us to decide who is and is not a valid Christian. An insightful observation. Too bad it was contradicted by a significant portion of the homily that followed that proceeded to castigate and impugn those that garden on Sunday and not only women that wear pants but also have short hair.

ThinkProgress, the news portal for the Center For American Progress, is outraged that Pizzagate truther Jack Posobiec was issued press credentials to cover the Trump/Putin summit one behalf of One America News Network. For those that don’t recall, Pizzagate was the conspiracy theory that a Satanic peophile ring was masterminded from a DC pizzaria noted for its occultic decorative motif. However, it must be noted that the Center For American Progress was founded by John Podesta. Podesta is on the record of engaging in a serious email exchange with former astronaut Edgar Mitchell about the steps that would be required for the United States acquire zero point energy from a non-violent extraterrestrial intelligence from the “contiguous universe”. Sort of makes the Pizzagate allegations not seem so wild-eyes or off the wall after all, doesn’t it?

Nine times out of ten when a minister drones on about something not being in Heaven it is usually euphemism in his personal opinion as to why we should not be allowed to enjoy whatever it is here on Earth as well.

If Discovery Channel’ Shark Week now intends to emphasize celebrity shark encounters over solid documentaries, this may be one programming block that has itself jumped the proverbial shark.

If Disney rehires molestation aficionado James Gunn, shouldn’t the conglomerate also rehire Roseanne Barr? After all, much of what she was terminated for was speculations about George Soros that are probably true. Doesn’t the advocacy of child abuse deserve greater punishment than ethnic humor that fell flat?

By Frederick Meekins

Why Not Lady Church Ushers?

In the 5/23/14 edition of the Sword of the Lord, editor Shelton Smith lists those undersung yet essential ministries in the church in an article titled “The Preacher's Best Friend”. The first enumerated on this list are ushers.

Of these functionaries, Smith writes, “The men meet the folks coming in.” Smith then proceeds to list a number of responsibilities assigned to this position such as the distribution of bulletins, the finding of seats and the collection of offerings.

The wording itself raises a particular question. Must those filling this position be men? Why can't these individuals be a women?

In many independent and Fundamentalist churches, the deacons carry out these tasks. If so, such a gender specific pronoun would be understandable.

Such churches hold to the simplest interpretation of the text that the diaconal office should only be held by men according to I Timothy 2:12. However, by his own admission, Shelton Smith does not necessarily view deacon and usher as being synonymous.

He writes, “Our soul winners, bus workers, teachers, deacons should not feel left out here.” One might respond that in using the term “men”, Brother Smith was being a linguistic traditionalist in that the term “men” can grammatically include both men and women.

The other two church support ministries mentioned in the article are sound technicians and nursery workers. However, in connection with these, neither is referenced with gender specificity.

For example, sound technicians are referred to as “they” (a term that can include both men and women). Nursery workers are praised as “These men and women are the saints who attend other people's babies during Sunday school and church time.”

In defense of male-only ushers, it could be argued that these servants of the church might be called upon to carry out tasks best fulfilled by men. Ushers are on the front line of the church interacting with the public.

As such, limiting the position to men only cuts down on the possibility for hanky-panky on the part of flirtatious visitors or even sexual predators coming into the church. So if we are to be so uptight about untoward interactions between female ushers and male visitors, shouldn't we be as concerned about improper attraction or spats between a male usher and a female visitor or some lawsuit gold-digger attempting to make a buck off harassment or abuse allegations?

If the threat of this kind of scandal or outrage is to be a foremost preoccupation, then why would Shelton Smith approve of men being allowed to serve in the nursery? For is not molestation a greater evil than a momentary passing tingle or thrill someone might experience from a passing glance or smile in public with someone other than one's spouse.

If anything, wouldn't these potentialities necessitate female ushers to interact with female visitors and male ushers to interact with male visitors. Others will respond that only men should be ushers because it is commanded that women are to remain silent in church according to I Corinthians 14:34..

Verbal communication is at the heart of the usher's ministry as they great people and direct them to where they need to go. If that is the case, should women be forbidden from choir membership and (perhaps even more importantly) musical solos? For along with the pastor's sermon and Scriptural readings, music plays a pivotal role in conveying the doctrine and teaching of the church.

An additional argument could be made that only men should be ushers since these officers and volunteers are usually responsible for the collection of the offering. I am aware of no Scripture that forbids women from handling finances and currency. From the list of virtues and enterprises elucidated in Proverbs 31, it would seem that women of godly character would excel in just such an arena.

It will no doubt be retorted that money is dirty. As such, only burly, gruff men should handle something as filthy. If that is the case, why does it usually fall to women to toil in the kitchen before, after, and during the church suppers?

Scripture does indeed teach that men and women are distinct creations that each exhibit the creative nature and purpose of God in an unique manner. However, when determining what exactly that entails, the exegete must be careful to distinguish what exactly is there in the text from what may be a sincere yet single interpretation among several within a spectrum of acceptability.

By Frederick Meekins

Pleiadian Republican No Different Than Other Ranking Thought Leaders

The Internet is having a good laugh at the Miami Herald’s endorsement of a candidate running in a Republican primary claiming she was abducted by extraterrestrials.

Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera believes that since she was a small child she has been visited numerous times by Pleiadians sharing with her a message that God is not so much a person as a universal energy.

Before carting her off for psychiatric evaluation, how is what she is professing appreciably different than what is constantly espoused by the media-political establishment?

On Friday’s, the History Channel broadcasts nothing but programming insisting that world religions and ancient cultures were founded by beings from that very portion of the celestial sphere and now that programming block has been replicated to repeat Sunday evenings on A&E.

George Lucas became a household name and made a boatload of money in the process producing blockbusters for the purposes of emphasizing this very same worldview about the nature of God.

Sophisticates will reply that such ideas are acceptable in the world of entertainment.

However, when it comes to actual political power, it should only be handed to those whose minds are down to earth and not so much lost in the stars.

Then perhaps these advocates of sanity will be as forceful in their opposition to federal money going to sponsor conferences in posh resorts where academics discuss the ramifications of extraterrestrial intelligence not so much as topic of dispassionate scientific curiosity but rather to propagandize how traditional theism is the philosophy that must be eradicated if the human species is to ever advance beyond our terrestrial limitations.

Mainstream journalism cannot have it both ways.

It cannot treat Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera as a pariah yet not compel Mitt Romney to come clean about the astrotheological presuppositions of his own Mormon faith positing that God was once a man from the planet Kolob and that you too can one day become the deity of your own little corner of the cosmos.

By Frederick Meekins

Elites Mock Those Taking The Threats They've Harped Seriously

Liberals hate no one more than those that take the implications of progressivist ideas seriously.

Advocates of that particular ideology no doubt ranked among the foremost ridiculing President Trump's proposal of a new branch of the armed forces for now referred to as the “Space Force” that will be dedicated to defending against threats from beyond the Earth's atmosphere.

But are not Hollywood leftists the ones making significant livelihoods promoting the message that the foremost security challenges will eventually originate from that particular operational theater?

Space-centered invasions or conflicts have been the topics of some of cinema's greatest blockbusters.

The History Channel has become so identified with extraterrestrials that one episode of South Park spoofed a documentary on the network suggesting that Thanksgiving actually commemorates a meeting between the Pilgrim forefathers and ancient aliens.

Sophisticates will sneer that Trump's Space Force is not intended to take on an unidentified flying saucer menace but rather America's own earth-based geopolitical adversaries.

Fair enough, but are not our own Progressives the ones harping what a renewed threat Russia poses and how President Trump before now did not take that particular regime seriously?

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #113

Apparently part of the stink surrounding the Roseanne Barr kerfuffle is that George Soros is a Holocaust survivor.  He survived it allegedly by ratting out his fellow Jews.

Too bad the elites jacked out of shape about Roseanne Barr’s George Soros tweet do not get as upset about the machinations of Soros to collapse the global economy and remake the world order in his preferred image.

So if we are to have sympathy for women that kill their babies during drug induced stupors, why not for Roseanne Barr who might have been experiencing a similar sort of mental compromise?

So if ABC is taking a hardline stance that the distinction between humans and apes is inviolable and sacrosanct, should we expect the promulgation of anti-evolution creation science in all of its programming?

If man is nothing more than an ape as is propounded in the minds of children from the first day of pre-school up through the final PhD exam, wasn’t Roseanne’s remarks a simply statement of ontological fact rather than intended insult?

So if Roseanne can be fired for equating Valerie Jarrett with an ape, shouldn’t ABC’s corporate overlord Disney renounce ever penny it has made from Marvel Comics?  For as part of their philosophical foundation, that entire fictional universe holds that man is nothing but an ape advanced to the level of intelligence by extraterrestrials unable to mind their own business.

So is ABC really outraged that a verbally uninhibited comedian equated a human being with just another sort of primate or are they afraid of a Black Lives Matter horde rampaging through the corporate headquarters?

If Supergirl producers hold that guns are not necessary to make a person powerful and more importantly right, doesn’t that actually make Lex Luthor the hero of the Superman saga in attempting to warn humanity of the danger to Earth posed by Superman?  Though it is a different company, applying this logic, isn’t Iron Man’s pro-Zachovia Accords position correct over that of Captain America’s in that no unsupervised civilian should be allowed to run around with superpowerss?

If men are no longer supposed to like women in swimsuits and evening gowns, shouldn’t women be forced to settle for men with Duck Dynasty grooming habits?  Similarly, no longer should Leonard and Penny on “The Big Bang Theory” be the material of comedic fodder but instead the social norm if these wenches insisting appearances shouldn’t matter want to be consistent.

Outrage has erupted over Roseanne Barr retweeting a negative comment regarding Valerie Jarrett after promising to make amends for what she had done.  Given that there is no likelihood that Roseanne will be reemployed by ABC, why shouldn’t the comedian feel free to speak her mind in regards to what she perceives as a legitimate point of public policy?  The retweeted comments had nothing this time to do with race but rather dealt with the ideological repercussions of Jarret’s pro-Islamist sympathies.

In light of Paige Patterson’s controversial comments, Baptist functionaries are urging abused woman to leave the house and call the police.  Will they be offering similar advice to abused men as well? Critics will respond that not that many men are abused in comparison to the number of mistreated women.  But in regards to these sorts of intrusive public awareness campaigns we are constantly beaten over the head with the refran that one is one too many. And apparently one instance of bad advice that boiled down to a difference of opinion was enough for Paige Patterson to lose his job as seminary president.

The career of Southern Baptist functionary Paige Patterson has largely been destroyed as a result over things that he has said that are for the most part a matter of opinion considered to be bad advice.  Foremost among these alleged statements is that an abused spouse ought to remain with and reconciled to the partner perpetrating such mistreatment. Following the royal wedding, Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry is being heralded as a foremost homilist on the topic of love.  But if the prelate threatens to sue congregations wanting to withdraw from the Episcopal Church over doctrinal reasons, shouldn’t he be viewed as bad as Patterson for insinuating that a spouse ought to remain at all costs with a partner that beats them and denied basic support should the partner actually muster the courage to leave an unhealthy situation?

Southern Baptist Convention President J.D. Greear critically tweeted of the Vice President’s oration before that particular ecclesiastical association that its identity is found in the Gospel and its unity in the Great Commission, not in political platforms.  Perhaps Pastor Greear could point out where where anything the Vice President articulated was at variance with the dictates of Scripture. If the Convention’s renewed rallying cry is to be no identity but the Gospel and no unity but the Great Commission, does Greear intend to put the smackdown on the likes of Russell Moore when the preening ethicist veers off into his promotion of minority identity politics and bashing of elderly Whites?

Lawyers in the Parkland school massacre are insisting that the aloof deputy was not under a legal obligation to intervene.  As such, isn’t that validation that the greatest number possible in general and educators in particular should be allowed to publicly carry concealed firearms?

Why are violations of U.S. immigration law the only crimes over which there is discernible outrage regarding the separation of children from parents?

Do Vatican functionaries intend to berate the Mexican government as well if that nation does not allow children allegedly born in the U.S. to return to Mexico along with their parents? As a predominantly Catholic nation, one would think that an institution that constantly harps against the corrosive moral effects of materialism (except in regards to its own posh holdings) would find that actually the preferable solution.  Unless of course that interferes with that globalist organization’s centuries old objective of undermining the American people as a defensive bulwark against that elite’s particular variety of planetary tyranny.

Too bad liberals are not as concerned about busting up American families as they are about illegal immigrant families.  For urban populations (and increasingly ones that could be referred to as trailer park trash as well) have essentially procreated themselves into squalor largely as a result of a welfare system that lavishes resources upon fecund relationships where frankly poppa was a rolling stone.

Regarding these liberals jacked out of shape about children separated from illegal alien parents. Do they complain as loudly about these WOMMMMMEN's shelters that despise men so much that they separate sons in their early teens from their mothers?

A school in Virginia once named after Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart is to be renamed in honor of Barack Obama.  So if the new name were to offend a miniscule segment of the population known to destroy other people’s property until they get their way (for this is ultimately why the name of the school is being changed in the first place), will educational authorities decide to change the name yet again?

If there are no excretory orifice countries as we were admonished following one presidential exclamation, why is there now a  horde of families we are now expected to extend a welcome to irrespective of whether or not established procedure was adhered to?

If it is acceptable to heckle an a Secretary of a federal agency outside of a restaurant, why is it not acceptable to behave as boisterously outside of an abortion mill?

Did planetary elites get as worked up into a froth over a German homeschool family denied asylum fearing European authorities would seize their children?

It might be one thing to require online businesses to pay sales tax to their respective states. However, in light of the Supreme Court decision just handed down, does this mean someone that sells over Ebay, Etsy, or Amazon will be required to file for tax licenses in every jurisdiction now where someone might be living that buys a second hand trinket from your trashpile?

Pastor Chris Sonksen is suggesting that up to 80% of those that attend church should up and quit because they take organized religion far to casually.  He writes, “...What if everyone served in their God given purpose?” That might sound ideal. But what if the church you attend is so small that there is no opportunity for you to be allowed the opportunity to fulfill what one believes to be their God-given purpose other than that of a wallet to be emptied into the collection plate?

This kicking out of a business a patron where the product offered and requested does not violate directly the beliefs of the proprietor and propagandists justify the action on the grounds that individuals holding to beliefs at variance with those imposed by elites should not be welcomed in society is an early manifestation of the Antichrist spirit that will refuse to grant the essential provisions of existence to those refusing to bend a knee to the globalist regime by refusing to take the Mark as foretold in Revelation 13.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi opined that it is immoral to build a border wall.  Instead, she insisted, it is better to build a bridge. Such would facilitate rather than impinge upon access  In previous decades, Americans could pretty much roam the Capitol corridors as they saw fit without being confined to some visitor center.  Now access is severely restricted. In light of what could be considered a spirit of glasnost, does Pelosi intend to advocate legislation or alterations in internal policy negating such restrictions or to remove barriers inhibiting access to the facility’s grounds?  After all, Americans have more of a right to the Capitol they pay for and from which are promulgated so many of the directives controlling their lives than non-citizens failing to comply with duly constituted statutes to violate the border with impunity.

By Frederick Meekins

Should Those Bucking Public Opinion Be Banished Unto Utter Desolation?

Acolytes of tolerance and inclusion are applauding one Indiana town where these values are not to be extended to a congregation daring to exercise its First Amendment rights with a sign simply reading “LGBTQ is a hate crime against God.”

For nothing more than summarizing a basic Christian doctrine or moral presupposition, the congregation has been kicked out of the structure in which its services were convened.

Those holding to an absolutist libertarianism will likely respond that the individual should be able to evict any tenant that advances values with which they do not agree.

Perhaps so.

So should landlords be able to remove from their premises leasees that are practicing coupled homosexuals or heterosexual shackups that romp in the sack without benefit of matrimony?

In response to this message, one activist little better than a graffiti vandal rearranged the letters to read “Stay open minded”.

If private property is now to be upheld as the inviolate standard, will there be as much hue and cry over this particular individual imposing their preferred morality upon a means of public expression that does not belong to them.

For unless we have indeed descended into mob rule, property rights are not predicated upon compliance with the herd mentality.

By Frederick Meekins

Fundamentalist Attends Baseball & Auto Races But Not Ministerial Association

In the 8/12/16 edition of the Sword Of The Lord, the publication's editor Shelton Smith composed an article titled “The Fellowship Thing: A Clearly Defined New Testament Concept”.

In the column, the minister concluded that, even if someone professes to be a born again believer, you really ought not have much to do with the individual unless they pretty much march lockstep with you in agreement on a comprehensive litany of secondary matters.

One wonders how Smith feels regarding other denominations as leery of those wild-eyed Fundamentalists.

As evidence of his hardline position, Shelton Smith referenced a ministerial association he had been pressured into attending as a young pastor and seminary student.

To justify the fact that he never went back, Smith mentions seeing so-called ministers of the Gospel caught smoking cigars and hearing others engaged in “off color conversations”.

Some might have even remarked how good a lady might have looked in tight-fitting jeans and a short haircut (ha ha).

As shocking as that might have been, can he really insist that what he might have been exposed to at such a meeting in the 1970's was really worse than what he was in the vicinity of during the NASCAR races and baseball games he is on the record of having attended in the pages of the Sword of the Lord, a publication that at one time published an article explicitly stating viewers of Stat Trek were not fit to teach school?

By Frederick Meekins

More Off Target With Moonie Offshoot Than Firearms

On an episode of A&E’s “Cults and Extreme Belief”, correspondent Elizabeth Vargas profiled an offshoot of the Unification Church called the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary.

Instead of detailing how the sect’s theology differed from that of orthodox interpretations of Christianity or even the questionable recruitment techniques utilized by Moonie organizations, the episode spent an inordinate amount of time harping upon the sect’s admittedly idiosyncratic incorporation of firearms into certain aspects of its liturgy.

While such might not be a normal part of spiritual practice, such is not without historic precedent.

As such does Elizabeth Vargas intend to broadcast similar exposes with accompanying ominous voice over narration asking do Sikhs really need those ceremonial daggers and just why does a sword play a role in certain Masonic rituals?

Not once do I recall anything said as to the legality of the guns depicted which had been deliberately emptied of ammunition.

Instead, a lengthy reflection dwelt upon the tragedy that could result should the firearm end up being misused by a less rational adherent of this theology.

For as you know, the line of argumentation continued, anyone that doesn't embrace the transgender movement and believes that legitimate marriage can only be between a man and a woman is by definition well on their way to being diagnosed as mentally deficient.

As proof, the plight is followed of a former Unification member whose mother was paralyzed when she was accidentally shot by his brother because the youths in the sect enjoyed recreational shooting.

One cannot help but sympathize with a family that has experienced such a tragedy.

But isn't it the fault of the one that shot her, her own child?

Off all of the abridgments of human decency perpetrated over the years by the Unification Church and now apparently its offshoots, this incident really isn't one for which these parties bear responsibility.

Elizabeth Vargas has been open regarding her struggles with alcoholism.

As such, because some people can't control themselves around alcohol to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others, does that mean no one should be allowed to utilize the substance in ways otherwise considered legal?

If not, then why this journalistic production where one constitutional liberty is invoked for the purposes of subverting another?

By Frederick Meekins

Warehouse Criminal Migrants On Properties Of Open Border Propagandists

Professional religionists spanning a broad theological spectrum along with a number of prominent public figures have joined forces in criticizing migrant detention policies blamed on President Trump perceived as splitting up family units.

A number of these such as the Roman Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention also hold sizable properties such as universities and denominational headquarters.

So have any of these leaders, as well as the First Ladies joining in this chorus, that any other time crave as much media attention as possible to share just how much “social justice” concerns burden their respective souls ever offered to shelter these people under their collective roofs?

If not, why not?

It will probably be responded that such a gesture would likely inconvenience the vital work of these important leaders, compromise their safety and diminish the value of their real estate holdings.

Then why is that a burden that must be borne by the neighborhoods and lives of those that don't get to make the decisions as to whom is granted entrance to this great nation in order to placate the assorted open border rackets?

By Frederick Meekins

The Perdition Declension

The disorienting light swept over me unexpectedly. The pain and nausea was overwhelming for a moment, but subsided nearly as quickly as it had arrived. My mind was a bit slower to recompose itself. I slowly lifted my head and opened my eyes. I looked around in the attempt to figure out where I was.

“Where, where am I?” I asked.

One of the gathered nearby responded, “I don't know.”

My head continued to clear. “I...I think there was some kind of explosion.”

We looked at one another.

Another added, “I was in a hospital room.” I supposed that would have made sense. She was, after all, adorned in what looked like light-blue scrubs of some sort.

But we were no longer obviously in a hospital or any other kind of medical facility.

We appeared to be outside.

The realization swept over me in a renewed wave of nausea. I solemnly informed the gathered,. “I think we are dead.”

The eyes of those closest to me widened.

“Dead?” they mumbled in considerable yet hushed silence.

We took stock of our situation. We looked up the verdant clover and grass-covered path that sloped continually upward. One could not avoid feeling drawn towards it.

We realized that was one of two possible directions. However, reluctance began to build to view what laid in the other. Yet there was a greater cosmic compulsion regarding each person to view it nonetheless.

Before us, we could see charred and burned trees. Not a single leaf clung to the lifeless limbs of the trees lined along the dry rocky path that sloped downward.

Beyond what were once vibrant trees in the distance, dark smoke billowed slowly into the sky. Its ascent seemed as reluctant to reach for the sky as had been our reluctance to gaze it its direction.

The smoke lingered to form what could be described as nothing but a warped, sinister halo. At the center one could glimpse at briefly before having to look away an intense flaming orange and yellow. It made a blazing sun seem cool and refreshing in comparison.

“That must be Hell,” I said to clarify things as much to myself as anyone else around me.

By deduction, someone else concluded, “Then that way must be Heaven.” They pointed in the direction for added emphasis.

The reality of where everyone was continued to sink in. Still, no one was really all that eager to make a choice.

Hesitation continued to grip me. But I knew I had to say something. It seemed that no one else would.

“I guess we go in the direction dependent on whether or not we want to see Jesus.”

“Jesus?” someone responded in a tone mixed with both surprise and disgust.

Murmuring spread amongst the group. One of the particularly more vocal enunciated,. “Well, I certainly don't want to see him.” A few nodded in agreement.

Another lamented, “But I've been so bad he won't let me near him.”

“Hold on, “ someone tried to comfort, “all you've got to do is to want to see him and be sorry about what you've done.”

Parties began to form. We found ourselves with one last chance at a choice in light of the evidence with which we were confronted staring us in the face. Despite being on the very boundaries of the Afterlife, the larger group still did not want anything to do with Jesus. Perhaps one or two changed their minds, but not many.

Most were convinced that they had never done anything wrong. Some were eager to flip Christ off for even the bare minimum of a requirement to avoid the Hellfire blazing before their very eyes. Their disgust and contempt overrode even the primal instinct to avoid the fire and billows of smoke at the end of the decimated path strewn with jagged rubble. They did not want to commence their perambulation into perdition, but through the stubbornness of their own wills, they conscientiously began the descent nevertheless.

The remainder of us looked on stunned in silence, aware of the torment and suffering that awaited them at the end of the journey. Despite pleading, they went in that direction anyway.

We watched for a while. Morbidly, one supposes, our own lamentation and regret for them subsided as they passed out of sight into an eternity of their own choosing.

Nothing could be done for them. Even with the evidence of the two paths set before their very eyes and what was required to avoid the less desirous destination, they had set out in that direction anyway.

After much solemn contemplation and awkward silence, the remaining began to look one another in the eye again. Smiles crossed our faces.

By deduction we concluded that if those that wanted nothing to do with Jesus went down towards that fiery pit, then Heaven must be in the opposite direction up the verdant hilly path.

Many laughed joyously in celebration. This was what, after all, each of us hoped would be awaiting us at the conclusions of our earthly lives. Some had been expecting it for decades; others not quite so long.

“Well, I suppose this is it. We'd best get started,” some suggested. Nearly every one smiled and cheered. We were, after all, on our way to Heaven.

No one seemed to mind the inclined perambulation at first. Surely Heaven was worth an uphill but otherwise even walk. Some a little ways off were singing hymns.

Joy filled the air.

Despite the anticipation of the destination, minds --- even if no longer alive in the terrestrial sense --- could not help but wander.

The ease of the ascent did not exactly channel one's thoughts into the task at hand.

Thoughts of family began to fill my head. How would they get along without me?

Sure, I'd be more than fine in Heaven. However, they'd be stuck in misery for now back on Earth.

I stopped for a moment to catch my breath. It seemed that, with each additional thought regarding my family, the following steps up the leisurely slope grew increasingly difficult to take. I tried to put thoughts of the mortal life and world out of my mind.

As I did so, the pace would become easier. There was much to look forward to at the end of this easy and gentle ascent.

The path was certainly much more pleasant than the jagged crags selected by the majority for no other reason than that they did not want to see Jesus. Besides, not only would we see Jesus, but I would also be reunited with loved ones that passed away earlier. Others would be there that I had never met but loved anyway. Possibly cherished pets might even be there as well in eager anticipation. Speculation about that question alone and curiosity to see it resolved once and for all imbued me with renewed vigor to continue.

Yet family, to the mortal mind at least to one transitioning from one realm to the next, exist as an interconnected whole. As much as my mind focused on grandparents, departed uncles and even buried dogs and cats, I couldn't block out images of those still on Earth.

Once again, movement forward grew exceedingly difficult. It seemed as if I slid a few steps back down the hill.

“What the....?” I caught myself mentally from completing the thought. There was no need to be nearing the Gates of Heaven quite literally with such verbal formulations on my mind and tongue. Furthermore, having seen some march willingly towards the infernal destination just a short time prior dissipated any of the psychological relief one might under terrestrial circumstances experience verbalizing such profanities of metaphysical reference.

I turned to the other perambulating pilgrims. “Did you see that?', I asked as they walked by as I slid back. They smiled kindly enough with sincere reassurance but continued with their singing and walking forward.

The more that I felt I was not worthy to number among the happy throng assured of their beatific triumph, the more I thought about family back on Earth, the further back down the hill I slid.

I elevated my head in realization at the extent of my declension. I was back to where I started.

I looked over to my right. It seemed that I was back on Earth. My family was so close that I could have touched touched them if I possessed corporeality.

My finger touched the translucent barrier separating the realms. Ripples cascaded across it like soft shock waves skipping across a pond.

I placed my hand against what I concluded must be some kind of energy barrier. It could not be consciously seen, but one could sense it nonetheless. The sensation was not unlike that of pushing together the same poles of two magnets.

I pushed my hand against the barrier a little harder, eventually making a fist so to concentrate the pressure of my efforts at a single point on the barrier. Maybe I could find a weak spot.

For what purpose, I did not know. After all, I was dead, right? I couldn't go back.

It seemed at this very point where the material world and what, for lack of a better term, one might term the spirit world weren't even converging in a cemetery. If I somehow broke through, I wouldn't even have my body to inhabit.

Despite logic insisting I start back up the hill towards Heaven, I still couldn't resist the urge to poke a little more at the ethereal barrier. I pressed my fist against it once more.

A cone began to extend through to the other side. My hand disappeared altogether into the funnel.

I stopped. If my entire hand could slide in without too much effort, how much more of me could fit into it?

I extended my arm in up to the elbow. Other than a slight repulsion similar to a light magnetic field, there was very little in the way of sensation or resistance.

I wondered if anyone on the other side could see what I was doing. Maybe my efforts were manifesting there in the physical world in the form of some kind of paranormal phenomena.

I looked down at my arm. From my perspective, the appendage had disappeared.

I stopped for a moment. Should I pull it back out? Maybe I should push against the barrier with my other hand as well. Perhaps I should try to push again at it with my entire body, or at least with what I perceived of as a body.

I braced myself, pushing my hands against and then into the nebulous barrier. I kept walking forward. My nose tingled as my proboscis rubbed up against it. But I did not stop.

As the field approached my eyes, everything blurred. At first, the image was out of focus but eventually everything turned a translucent cream color not unlike looking through a teardrop.

My body tingled as it passed through the barrier. Dizziness and nausea swept over me.

The distortions grew overwhelming. My consciousness began to fade.

Instead of reaching either of the Afterlife's eternal destinations, would my own existence now dissipate into nothingness? I clung to any sliver of awareness for as long as I could.

Fading.

Fading.

Fading....

The Nothingness. It lasted only a brief second.

Whereas before my vision was distorted by an illuminated blur, that brightness was now replaced by a distinctive darkness.

My heart was racing, the fear causing my tympanic membrane to pound.

Consciousness washed over my eroded mind. Slowly I realized I was not dead. From the weight of the blankets draped over me, I concluded it had all been a dream. A very intense one, but still nothing more than a dream.

My heart slowed. Fear dissipated. Whether right nor wrong would be an issue for theologians with too much time on their hands, but at the moment I was relieved to consider this world my home.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #112

A survey indicates that most millennials would rather date a convicted felon over a Trump supporter. Likewise, why should Trump supporters settle for these deadbeats and sloppy seconds? Jesus might forgive but that does not cure STD’s. Given the conscientious vocalization of this sentiment, perhaps pity should be denied when said millennials are victims of the convicted felon’s domestic violence, indolence, and criminal conspiracy.

Investigators have concluded that there is no proof that California Assmeblywoman and MeToo movement supporter Cristina Garcia groped a staff member in 2014. So sort of like a significant percentage of the cases of individuals accused by MeToo activists possessing no forensic or corroborating evidence beyond “He said, She said”.

Activists are sponsoring a mariachi band to play outside the office of a lawyer that flew into a tirade over the refusal of restaurant staff to speak English. So will these radicals applaud pro-lifers taking a stand on behalf of the unborn outside of abortion clinics?

If a landlord can evict a lawyer caught on video for articulating his displeasure against restaurant staff speaking in Spanish, on what grounds should a Christian business be required to bake cakes for gay weddings?

Will a video of a lawyer caught in a tirade over restaurant staff speaking Spanish rather than English also be used to ruin the careers and livelihoods of others heard in the video?. For those were actually the ones threatening violence. For the most part, the lawyer was merely stating his compliance with the see something say something propaganda we are constantly conditioned with.

Will New York Democrats condemning the comments of a lawyer videoed articulating dismay over restaurant staff vocalizing Spanish rather than English as a “violation of our civil society” defend President Trump for his accurate portrayal of the horrendous acts of violence perpetrated by a number of illegal aliens?

Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz has decreed that the National Rifle Association is “just shy of a terrorist organization”. If that is the case, does that push C.A.I.R and Black Lives Matter over the threshold into being legitimately categorized as such? C.A.I.R. has never really explicitly denounced Hamas or Hezbollah as terrorist organizations. And, unlike the NRA, activists affiliated with Black Lives Matter regularly destroy property as a method to express their displeasure in response to unpopular trial verdicts or police actions.

The producers and cast of the new iteration of “Murphy Brown” have declared that their core mission is to take on the world of alternative facts. They do realize, one hopes, that Murphy Brown is not real. Has the medication not had time to kick in at the retirement home? As a fictional character, isn’t any scenario the screenwriters present by definition an alternative to reality? And many dare to ridicule the conspiracy theorists that decipher the symbolism referenced in the latest science fiction productions? There will probably be more accurate content on the average episode of Ancient Aliens than in the escapades of this nonexistent broadcaster.

In a Christianity Today article, Albert Mohler doesn’t even reference by name Paige Patterson, dismissed as president of a Southern Baptist Seminary largely over a matter of words rather than of deeds. It is almost as if the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary had never even heard of the president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and former prelate of Mohler’s own denomination. As disturbing as Patterson’’s remarks might be to those of anti-masculinist sympathies, the issue boils down to what Patterson said rather than over anything he did. So if Mohler is in a rush to distance himself from one colleague over what boils down to a matter of interpretation and opinion, why did Mohler assure C.J. Mahaney at a conference that he was surrounded by hundreds of his closest friends? For what Mahaney is accused of doing can not be boiled down to simply holding an opinion at odds with prevailing revolutionary fervor but rather in delaying justice from being dispensed in the case of an accused child predator serving directly in Mahaney’s chain of authority. For should that not be considered a greater offense than an off hand remark that teen boys are visually drawn to teen girls?

In a Southern Theological Seminary Leadership Briefing on the public virtue of George Washington, Albert Mohler did not hold anything back pertaining to the first president’s shortcomings in regards to matters of race and ethnicity. So does this Reformed theologian intend to deliver a prominent oration as hard hitting critical of Calvin’s role in the execution of Michael Servetus or the role played by the Puritans in abridging the innate liberties of Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson, and a number of Quakers?

A South Carolina Baptist church has voted to remove a series of sculptures depicting the life of Christ on the grounds that the works are perceived as being “Catholic”. The artwork has been erected on the grounds of the church for eleven years. If they bothered the pastor so much to the extent that he strongarmed the congregation into authorizing their removal, why did he become pastor of this church in the first place? If installed after his ascension into the pulpit why didn’t he stand by his convictions and resign in protest? If a church wants to do everything by the Good Book and avoid anything that is not authorized in its pages, does the congregation intend to remain consistent and resign from the Southern Baptist Convention as well? For does not an ecclesiastical organization found nowhere in the pages of divine revelation ruling from an ornate centralized location also reek of the alleged odious stench of Catholicism as well?

By Frederick Meekins