Oprah Wants Us To Feel Sorry For Her

by David Lawrence

Oprah Winfrey is worth 2.8 billion dollars and complains that a lowly shop girl wouldn’t show her a $38,000 Tom Ford bag in a Zurich boutique.

 

You’d think that she has something better to do than accuse a shop girl of racism. She has the world by the throat but now she wants to coopt racism.  She wants to feel like she is a home girl so that she doesn’t have to feel guilty for being so much richer than her sisters.

 

Shame on Oprah.  She is not a homey.  She is a billionaire who has no clue as to what prejudice is.  She lives in a world of praise and fan adoration.  Why she wants us to feel sorry for her, I have no clue.  She is a private jet liberal.

 

The only prejudice she experiences is the bias of being given absolute privilege. And yet she wants the sympathy of being considered a prejudiced against unfortunate. She wants to pretend that she is a disadvantaged sister while she is spoiled billionaire.

 

Gathering the Votes

 

by David Lawrence

New York mayoral hopeful, Christine Quinn, wants to weaken cops, vitiate our safety and lean in the direction of socialism, letting the weak get more than their fair share. She is also defending a ten story sanitation garage in Soho near where celebs like John Slattery, Kristen Dunst, Lou Reed, Jennifer Connelly and Michael Stipe live.  She feels their investment in quality buildings should not protect them from living like the poor. She doesn’t recognize that life style relates to economics in America.

 

Quinn’s spokesman, Mike Morey, defends her decision, “The days of expecting only low-income communities to bear the burden of sanitation or public-works facilities are over, and if the belief costs Chris Quinn the vote of a celebrity, that’s a price she is willing to pay on behalf of all New Yorkers.”

 

Gee, I thought the purpose of a free enterprise, capitalistic society, was so that money could be used to afford better living conditions.  If being poor allows you to live as well as the rich why not put the poor in Olympic or Trump Towers? What about giving them triplexes at 740 Park Ave?

 

Of course, Quinn like Obama doesn’t need the votes of the rich.  There are so few of them.  Better rip off the millions of the poor and the middle class.  Get them to vote for her and then do as little as possible for them. Look at how the middle class incomes have gone down under Obama, their patron saint.

 

There is nothing more dangerous than a vote-gatherer pledging good deeds when they are merely garnering votes to feed their own egos.

For My Rich Neighbors

by David Lawrence

I live near rich people on Madison Avenue.  I used to be rich.  I am no longer. What I like about living near rich people is that they generally don’t mug you. And their help picks up the feces behind their dogs.

 

I think of the Occupy Wall Street Crowd and how they are jealous of the rich.  But I’ve lost more than they’ll ever earn.  Jealousy is feminine.  It is vaginal.  It wants to scoop up other people’s lives and issue them forth as their own children.

 

I went to jail for two years in 93.  I didn’t complain.  I loved having time to work out and write.  It was for tax evasion.  I still paid millions in taxes.  The OCW crowd pays nothing.  They’re complainers.   Like Thoreau who spent one day in prison for tax evasion. Big deal.  Or Al Sharpton who gets overnight sentences for trying to overvalue his own people.  Big Al.  A coward. He keeps making a big deal over the fact that he is black.  He forgets that his real problem is that he is ugly and inarticulate. I mean most people feel that it’s prejudiced to dislike ugliness.  If that’s so, why is beauty so valued and why are Victoria Secrets models so well-paid?

 

I am downstairs talking to a couple of my doormen.  A young woman walks in whom I don’t know.  I ask the doorman, Jack, “Who’s that?”

 

“That’s Mrs. X’s maid,” Jack says.* Jack is Sicilian.  You know the type.

 

Reggie works the front door and the elevator with Jack.  He says, “Mrs. X complained to the Board so that her maid could come through the front door.” Reggie’s from India.  He comes from the Brahman class.

 

I hate the liberals in our building.  Mrs. X once threw a party for Obama for his first election.  Her husband was alive then.  I don’t remember if Obama attended. If not, his important flunkies were there.

 

I get angry.  “Screw X.  She’s a phony.  She wants to pat herself on the back for getting her maid in the front door.  Like that’s any skin off her eighty year old bones.  It requires nothing of her.  It makes her feel big. It might make it harder for her to fit into heaven.”

 

“She only thinks of herself and her crew,” Jacks says.

 

“Does she ever consider how it makes the other maids feel who can’t come in the front? Maybe she should come in the back herself to show her solidarity with workers whom she doesn’t understand,” I say.

 

“X pretends her maid is her secretary to get her in the front door,” Reggie says.

 

“How charitable,” I say.  “The secretary doesn’t have to go through the back door.  And X feels like a queen for this.  She becomes a defender of the people.  She doesn’t have to feel guilty about her millions.”

 

“She’s a phony *itch,” Jack says.

 

“I don’t even know her but I hate her,” I say. “I hated her dead husband too,” I say.

 

“He was much nicer than her,” Jack says.

 

“The men are always nicer,” Reggie says.

 

“That’s because the men have to work for everything and the women just sit there and spend it, brag about it and prance like show dogs,” I say. “Just because women announce that they are better than men doesn’t mean that they are.”

 

“I guess these people are the reason you go to Gleason’s to box,” John says.

 

“I’m really a Hindu like my friend Reggie here,” I say.  “I’m a pacifist with a punch. I’m a Brahman.  I’m upper class like you, Reggie.”

 

“You can get pretty violent,” Jack says.

 

“When I get most violent I get knocked out,” I say, joking about my boxing skills.

 

“So tell us what you really think about Mrs. X?”  Reggie asks.

 

“I think she coddles the disadvantages of the poor to inflate herself.  She’s like Obama spreading around confetti to his cherished middle class but giving them no nourishment while he spends millions a day living in the White House.  They are both narcissists. They love themselves but act like they sincerely care about others who mean nothing to them.”

 

“You’d like to hit her, wouldn’t you,” Jack asks.

 

“Yes.  But I wouldn’t.  I don’t hit women or old people. No matter how destructive or stupid they are.  Liberals get so  indignant and ideological that they strike out at stupid demonstrations” I say. “I’m not the French rabble cutting off Marie Antoinette’s head. You see, I don’t do things I am tempted to do when they are wrong.  Obama does things he shouldn’t do if he can lie about them and make them look good.”

 

“David for president,” Reggie says.  John applauds.

 

“I’m not a good enough liar,” I say. “I’m an egomaniac but not in Obama’s league.”

 

“He’s a dictator who likes to pretend he’s the good guy, the saint,” John says. “He not only wants to live the high life but he wants to get credit for facilitating the poor.”

 

“Tell Mrs. X I don’t wish her well. That’s not nice.  I’m not nice.  It’s hypocritical.  I can’t believe I was once a liberal.  Now they’re making me into a bad person,” I say.  “See you guys later.  I’m off to Gleason’s Gym.”

 

“Break a leg,” Reggie says.

 

“Brahmin, that’s for actors.  In my case, I want to break a nose,” I say and give him a five knuckle hand shake.

 

------------

*I use the pseudonym Mrs. X because she is the widow of the owner of a famous liberal company.  And like limousine liberals, if she hears me badmouthing me, she can surely afford to sue me. Also I don’t want to get the doormen in trouble.  They’re my best friends in the building. We gossip constantly.

Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office

Despite differing perches along the political spectrum, in separate segments on the 8/29/11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams, Bernard Goldberg, and Kinky Friedman each made snide comments against candidates for the Presidency that did not embrace evolution as part of their respective individual worldviews.

Each of these spokesmen for the secularist perspective (though Williams made a fuss over his Episcopalianism which has been one of contemporary Christianity's most spineless forms) insinuated that one's position regarding origins somehow represents an intellectual deficiency if one does not enthusiastically embrace Darwinism. Perhaps we should take a moment to examine how this might impact a politician's political philosophy.

Often ultrasecularists assure we dimwitted rubes that religion has no bearing on the nuts and bolts issues voters really care about as the nation edges closer to financial ruination and social collapse. These days, one is as likely to hear this from certain varieties of grassroots conservatism as you are from ACLU types.

Even if evolution was true, what bearing does Rick Perry, Michelle Eichmann, or Sarah Patin believing the world was created six thousand years ago have on the proverbial price of tea in China? Given the worthlessness of the US dollar, such an example is no longer as merely rhetorical as it once was.

On the national level, it's not like a singular figure would be able to reverse the inertia of an entrenched technocratic bureaucracy steeped in scientism.

If a more creationist approach to science held sway in the jurisdictions where the aforementioned politicians enjoy a constituency, who are elites to criticize the prevailing conceptual framework?

After all, aren't these the same multiculturalists that dare anyone to criticize the adherents of a particular unmentioned religion who have a penchant for flying jetliners into skyscrapers and to strap sticks of dynamite to their chests.

Those thinking, to paraphrase Bernard Goldberg, that is is ignorant to believe that dinosaurs and human beings might have shared the earth at the same time apparently also believe that how the world came into existence impacts other areas of existence. That is a notion that they share with the Christian that actually just comes at the question from the opposite direction.

Since those wanting to shut God out or at least hold Him at bay in one's approach to one of life's most fundamental questions on what is constantly tauted as cable's most highly rated news program, perhaps we should examine these assumptions a little more closely.

Those holding to evolution believe everything is in a constant state of flux and change. There are no unaltering realities or lasting principles.

For example, Congress shall make no law abridging the free exercise of religion or speech, or the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Those might have been alright in the 1700's, but those provisions aren't meant for today since we have progressed so far beyond them, the evolutionary collectivist would argue.

Rights are not something we are endowed with by our Creator as individuals made in his image. Rather these protections are statutory provisions that can be extended and contracted for the benefit of the elite ruling any given society.

The contrasting perspective holds that every detail in the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis are to be taken literally. Such an assumption produces a number of worldview implications.

For example, the theist holding to the Genesis account generally believes that the individual is created in the image of God. This doctrine is taught in Genesis 1:26.

As such, the individual possesses an innate dignity and worth. The person is not some random conglomeration of cells to be manipulated, reconfigured, and even obliterated for no valid reason. Thus, those principles viewed as outdated and obsolete are often the only things that prevent us from being obliterated by those so deluded that they can remake the entire world in their own warped image.

By Frederick Meekins

$1 million Arlington bus stop breaks down in heat

This week’s sweltering and dangerous heatwave has taken a toll on the bus arrival screen at the $1 million Super Stop on Columbia Pike.
The screen is currently out of service, with a large note apologizing for the problem.
“Due to the extreme temperatures, our monitor displaying bus arrivals is not operational,” the sign says. “We are working on the problem.”
Arlington County spokeswoman Laura G. Smith says technicians have ordered a new cooling fan for the display.

“It should be fixed within the next two weeks,” she said. In the meantime, the sign has instructions telling bus riders how to look up bus arrival times on their smartphone.

Posted from arlnow.com

A Liberal Beat Down at the Trayvon Martin Rally in Oakland

by David Lawrence

Well, the spoiled egotists are at it again.  They have not gotten their way on the Zimmerman trial and are taking justice into their own hands.  They are beating on a filmmaker in Oakland, Christian Hartsock, similar to the way Martin pounded Zimmerman’s head on the concrete.

 

Are these vicious members of the crowd what we want to substitute for neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman? Are they suggesting that we substitute brutal mob behavior for morality and modest discussion?

 

It reminds me of the spoiled brats at Occupy Wall Street.  Like these college flunkies could create a functioning Wall Street. Criticism does not imply superiority.  It often is resentfulness for those who are better than us.

 

Don’t the beasts in the crowd realize that they undercut their own accusations of racism when they assault an innocent man on racial grounds?  Is stupid really this stupid?  Is vengeance so blind that it picks unjustified targets and embarrasses itself by beating innocence?

 

I am a Jew.  We suffered the worst tragedy during the holocaust?  That doesn’t mean that we have to side with every victim even when he might have been the aggressor.  That doesn’t mean we have to be violent when we recognize that violence was unfairly used against us. That doesn’t mean that we have to defend Trayvon Martin when a court has decided that Zimmerman was innocent.  Who are these protesters?  Lawyers?  Judges?  Or activists looking for a fight.

 

And the blacks who give up the pacifist card are playing with a full deck of aggression and unfair anger. 

They deal out “Go Fish,” looking for guilt in a pool of confused innocence.

 

The blacks and Jews should be asking for calm.  Violence has always betrayed us.  The protesters were chanting, “No justice, no peace --fuck you pigs in your sleep.” Are we supposed to get rid of our present judicial system and government to replace them by violent animals?  They are hearkening back to Charlie Manson days when his crew called the cops “pigs.”

 

Naïve Americans are proud of protest.  I protest.  Protest with underpinnings of violence is regress to Neanderthal times. Shakespeare said, “The lady doth protest too much.”  So do the angry demonstrators. Almost none of them even know Trayvon Martin.  They want to make him a brother for their own violent devices.

 

When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963 everyone in Great Neck North High School broke into tears.  I didn’t.  I told my friends, “I don’t know Kennedy, why should I cry?”  I don’t know Trayvon.  Either do you.  Quit crying and learn to adjust to a difficult life with dignity, self-improvement and pacifistic forethought.

Malnourished Imaginations Fail To Comprehend The Significance Of “The Hunger Games”

The Hunger Games ranks among one of the top grossing movies of the past several years. Obviously, something about the film has captured the imagination and interest of a wide range of people and viewpoints.

This includes segments of the Evangelical Christian population as well. One might assume adherents of this particular belief system might be concerned about the violence and language that would seem to be inherent to a tale about teens forced to battle to the death in a form of televised postmodern gladiatorial combat.

Even if details in the story cross the line in terms of propriety, one would think there would be a number of elements within the overriding theme that the believer could find agreement.

A great deal of the saga focuses on how, as the West slides deeper into social decay, conditions revert back to the waning days of Rome. However, the issues raised by homeschool activist Kevin Swanson are in a sense even more shocking than the homicidal lotteries featured in the story.

In a sermon addressing “The Hunger Games”, Swanson focused in on a scene where one contestant plotted to eliminate a fellow competitor while they slept. To determine whether such an action was right or wrong, Swanson consulted the account in I Samuel 24 where David could have slain Saul but did not do so while the king slept because, at that point in the narrative, Saul was still the Lord's anointed King of Israel.

Instead of explicating both the Old Testament account and “The Hunger Games” as an example of where the Commandment against murder might apply, it seemed as if Swanson elevated the actions of David themselves to the status of an absolute applicable in all situations just because it was David.

Let's just hope Swanson doesn't look to what David had done to Uriah as an example of what a man should do when he desires an unattainable woman. So from the story of of Abigail's first husband, should one take away that we should threaten to whack those that diss us (to place the story in the terms of the urban vernacular of those likely on public assistance)?

Yet this is not the most controversial component of Kevin Swanson's thesis. It's not too ludicrous to hypothesize it's not very courageous to slay your enemies while they slept.

Swanson conjectures that, since David would not kill King Saul in the monarch's sleep since God had unequivocally selected Saul to be King of Israel at that specific time, the Christian is obligated to allow the operatives of an out of control government to take the lives of Americans without due process or valid cause under the universal precepts of natural law.

If exegetes arguing this position couple this notion with obeying civil authoroties in all instances, where does that end? If during the ambush police, intelligence operatives, or military personnel decide to have their way with the daughters of the proper pliant Christian, would they condemn those resisting such defilement? If not, then why must citizens passively surrender their lives and their property when their other protections from the Decalogue are wantonly violated?

Enthusiasts of unbridled power will remark that such a scenario is unlikely to ever take place. But what of the incident where New York police were alleged to have shoved a plunger up a suspect's backside? If the government is doing such things, is the proper Christian response suppose to be “Please, sir, may I have another?”

In the years ahead, Christians will be required to make ethical decisions of nuanced gradation as the institutions founded from on high to defend the innocent abandon their intended purpose to rank among the foremost of dangers. Narratives such as The Hunger Games, even if Christians cannot endorse them on every point, can assist believers in reflecting upon contingencies beyond the parameters of their normal experience.

By Frederick Meekins

Legalists Rally Against The Speculative Fiction Menace

Baptist Pastor James Cooley has posted a homily at SermonAudio.com condemning the use of the latest Superman film as an apologetic outreach.

This pastor contends that the true Christian ought to avoid the film all togeher since the symbols and motifs utilized in the story could be coopted by the Son of Perdition to delude the unsuspecting into accepting the End Times 'deceiver as the Son of God.

But the question must be asked, how does this pastor know so much about the movie if he is not simply suggesting discernment should one decide to view the film but that the film be avoided altogether?

By bringing up a topicthat does not appear blatantly wicked on the surface, doesn't a pastor worthy of the respect and pay as such have to encourage those in his congregation to be like the Bereans and to then investigate the claims on their own which might entail actually watching the film to determine for themselves whether the conclusions made by the minister are valid or not?

How does Superman not live up to Christian values if we take the narrative at face value? He doesn't make the world bow at his feet demanding worship, he renders his services for free, and for decades let the woman he's attracted to treat him like dirt before she realized who he was.

Doesn't Zod serve as evidence of what Superman would be like if he was not a highly moral individual?

The arguments against comic books and fantasy films spouted from the pulpits of the extremes of fundamentalist Christianity only decline in lucidity from that particular logical plateau.

Pastor James Cooley condemned Batman as a humanist for relying primarily upon his mind to solve crimes.

So I guess we should wait idly by for all of life's problems to miraciously resolve themselves with no effort on our part?

Another pastor condemning the conceptual construct of the superhero narrative said that God has called us to “kingdom work” and not fighting aliens.

But we may be on the cusp of a time when those missions are about to overlap.

A pastor opposed to superhero stories and comic books insisted that such narratives were wicked because intrinsic to the structure was an attempt to save the world.

So by that standard, it would be immoral to write a novel about the military especially during a conflict like World War II?

Pastor James Cooley, in a sermon titled “Super Heroes Replace Christ” said, “JRR Tolkien was a lost Catholic that went to hell, amen.”

Indeed Tolkien did if he did not rely soley on Christ to save him from his sins But so does the confused Baptist that thinks adhering to all of the Baptist peculiarities (including avoiding comic books and fantasy movies) are necessary to attest to the authenticity of one's faith.

In a sermon condemning superhero entertainment, a legalist complained that you can't have a decent understandable conversation with someone that watches movies and plays video games.

Now the legalist knows how the rest of us feel in dealing with someone whose faith doesn't simply inform or influence what they say and do but is the only thing they can obsessively talk about. By Frederick Meekins

Bioethics & Timeless Truths For Changing Times

The rate of technological and cultural change is so fast and comprehensive in these days in which we live that futurist Alvin Toffler has likened the phenomena to waves sweeping over society and labeled the feeling of disoriented perplexity that settles over us in the wake as "Future Shock". Many of these changes appear to be so profound that the pressure to abandon traditional values and beliefs from academia, media, government, and even certain factions within organized religion can feel overwhelming. However, there is more at stake than whether we send letters to acquaintances via the post office or through the computer electronically. Rather, such radical shifts of the paradigms through which we sift reality and experience will ultimately impact how we see ourselves and how we value other human beings.

With the technical complexity inherent to many of the latest developments in the fields of biology and medicine, it is easy to fall for the assumption that ethics and morality in these disciplines would better be left to the highly educated such as scientists or philosophy professors. The field of bioethics is a relatively new area of study in comparison to the totality of human knowledge. Because of its frontier nature as ethically uncharted territory, it is a discipline in desperate need of a solid Christian presence as it is pretty much a wide open field in which the ambitious and enthusiastic can plant their flag in the hopes of persuading the masses as to the propriety of a respective position.

As Christians, it is the fundamental assumption of the believer that all truth is derived from God as revealed to us either directly from His word (the Bible), deduced from reflection upon His word, or discernable from His creation construed in the light of His word. II Timothy 3:16-17 says, "All scripture is given inspired of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Likewise, Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the works of his hands (NIV)."

Since this is the case, God's law is written across the whole of creation. Try as men might to ignore or escape these binding commandments, they ultimately cannot and are seared by their own consciences as evidenced by the responses that often border on violence as typified by homosexual militants reacting whenever someone responds with anything less than a standing ovation or lavish government subsidies for this particular lifestyle. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.”

Though the Bible might not address specific bioethical issues directly by name such as stem cells and cloning, a number of the Good Book's foremost passages and doctrines serve as the foundation to a Christian response to these kinds of challenges arising in the world today. As the basis to all divine law contained within both the Old and New Testaments, the Ten Commandments serve as the guiding principles for all healthy relationships with both God and man. Prominent among these is the injunction "Thou shalt not murder."

This admonition was not handed down arbitrarily just so God could laud his authority and power over us. Rather, this commandment was set in place as recognition of man's unique status as a creature made in the image of God. Genesis 1:26-27 says, "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image'...So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." This image of God in each individual is so sacred that no individual should be able to take the life of another without serious consequences. Genesis 9:6 warns, "Whoever sheds the blood of man; by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Thus, the fundamental consideration in regards to these complex issues arising as a result of advances in biotechnology is that of personhood. As these scientific developments promise more and more of the things we as human beings crave the most in our earthly lives such as freedom from disease, prolonged life, or even enhanced abilities and children designed to our specifications, it becomes easier and easier to view other human beings as a means to achieve these goals for ourselves rather than as those whose lives we would like to see improved.

For while all of the issues raised in a cursory bioethics survey start off with noble-sounding justifications, when we look behind the lofty pronouncements, many of us would be shocked by the staggering numbers of bodies concealed behind the curtain. Perhaps one of the first bioethics debates to grip the public consciousness was no doubt abortion.

Those opposed to the practice argued that the procedure so dehumanized the unborn that the utilitarian allure of convenience would prove so seductive that the value would be invoked to justify the disposal of other members of the human family not measuring up to some arbitrary standard of productivity or quality of life. Since the time of its legalization, abortion has continued to divide the American electorate. This barbaric practice has been joined by a plethora of additional bioethical conundrums and outrages.

If anything, the potential of human cloning and the use of stem cells harvested from either fetuses falling victim to the abortionists knife or embryos purposefully formed in a laboratory to destroy in order to collect these genetic components garner even more headlines. At the other end of the spectrum of life, physicians are intervening to end the lives of those deemed a waste of recourses such as in the case of Terri Schiavo. This woman would have undoubtedly remained alive if she had not been denied basic nutrition and hydration, actions that could cause considerable legal trouble with the likes of PETA or the Humane Society should you decide to inflict such appalling mistreatment upon the family dog.

Even though the strongest and most direct moral case is the one that boldly stands upon the Word of God as its ultimate foundation, Western culture has become so "de-theized" (the very thing that causes human life to be devalued in the first place) that if one does not introduce these theories and concepts surreptitiously at first, one may find oneself excluded from the public policy debates where these kinds of decisions are made. In “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics”, Scott Rae provides a framework through which the believer can introduce Biblical principles into these debates without initially coming across like some kind of “religious lunatic”. In today’s philosophical climate, all it takes to get that slur hurled at you is to question the prudence or propriety of the increasingly popular urge to copulate with anything that moves (or even with that which doesn’t according to the necrophiliacs who, if you search hard enough, probably endow a professorship at some prestigious university or a public interest lobbying group at some swanky office building not far from Capitol Hill).

A professor of Biblical Studies and Christian Ethics at the Talbot School of Theology, Rae shows that all truth is God’s truth and how the best philosophical thinking reflects this foundation. These seemingly disparate approaches to knowledge (faith and reason) find a connection through natural law. This approach to jurisprudence and ethics holds that there are certain principles binding upon all people with slight variations that produce the kinds of circumstances under which human beings thrive. These include the universality of heterosexual marriage, respect for private property, and prohibitions against murder.

“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” equips the reader to ferret out the hidden moral assumptions of those opposed to the Judeo-Christian approach to these issues. A number of the alternative ethical systems explored include utilitarianism (the right option is that producing the greatest good for the greatest number), ethical egoism (the morality of an act is determined by one’s self-interest), emotivism (morality is merely an enunciation of the inner feelings of an individual making an ethical pronouncement), and relativism (right and wrong change depending upon the context of a particular situation with there being no eternal absolute). It is emphasized that the advocates of these positions cannot accuse the Christian believer of bias and not being objective unless nontheists want to shoot themselves in the foot as well.

“Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” provides the student with a multi-step framework of analysis that will assist the individual in weeding through complex issues that they may initially find intimidating and beyond their expertise but which can be more easily comprehended once boiled down to their constituent parts (105-107). These steps are listed as follows: (1) Gather the facts (one should obtain as much information about a specific case as possible). (2) Determine the ethical issues (these can be stated in the form of the conflicting claims at stake). (3) What principles have a bearing on the case (these are the principles at the heart of each competing position)? (4) List the alternatives (these consist of possible solutions to the moral dilemma). (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles (in this step one eliminates the possible solutions by determining their moral superiority or propriety). (6) Consider the consequences (in this step, one contemplates the implications of the alternatives). (7) Make a decision after analyzing and contemplating the information.

While this is important information, none of it will do any good unless Christians and those troubled by the disregard for human life sweeping across the culture get their message out to the wider public. Most will assume that as common everyday people not holding positions of influence in either academia, the medical profession, or within the formal ecclesiastical structure of the organized church that there is little that they can do to assist in this daunting struggle. However, with the advent of certain technologies as revolutionary to the realm of communications as the breakthroughs in genetic manipulation are to the field of biology, their voices can reach farther than they might initially imagine.

With technologies such as blogging and social media, independent voices laboring on their own (often derided by critics as geeks in pajamas) have coalesced into a source of opinion and information that in certain respects is coming to challenge the predominance of the mainstream media. Therefore, Christians can very easily use the new media to get their position out to the public regarding a wide range of bioethical issues.

Fundamental to the Christian understanding of the discipline is the pivotal role personhood plays regarding many of the issues at the forefront of bioethics. However, a number of voices within the Transhumanist movement (the ideology that humans should incorporate into their bodies mechanical or genetic enhancements so that the species might move beyond the the limitations inherent to our own nature) believe the definition of personhood should move beyond run of the mill human beings to include cyborgs, androids, and genetically engineered human/animal hybrids.

One doesn't have to be an expert in robotics or genetics to warn of the human rights horrors that would likely result should such a line of research be allowed to advance too far beyond the stages of theoretical speculation. One merely need to have seen a few of the Borg episodes of Star Trek and point out what this kind of tinkering backed by a communistic outlook leads to.

The future is there for those that want it the most. It will either go to those that believe that the masses exist for the benefit of the elite as the push onward towards their New World Order. Or, it will go towards those that view each individual as being created in the image of God, existing within a framework of divine laws that allow the individual to live life to its fullest while protecting each of us from the dangers on the prowl in a fallen world.

by Frederick Meekins

Abolished Planetarium Placed Under The Microscope

According to the 4/2/10 edition of the Washington Post, a number of school districts are on the verge of closing down their planetariums. Planetariums are structures where images of the stellar skies are recreated using assorted audio visual equipment.

Educational administrators claim that, in this era of limited budgetary resources, it costs too much to make the technological enhancements necessary to ensure a similar wow factor among the students of today accustomed to the visual wonders capable with advanced electronics. While that may be true to an extent, there is also an orientation of pedagogical methodology here that will impact generations of school children to come and possibly play a role in determining what kind of country America will become.

Constance Skelton, Science Supervisor for Arlington, Virginia schools mused according to the Washington Post, “...that while the space race provided a captivating, teachable moment for yesterday’s budding scientist, newer issues such as climate change are likely to inspire tomorrows.”

So in other words, instead of encouraging young minds to marvel at the wonders of the universe, expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and increasing prosperity, students are to be conditioned into embracing the limitations decided upon for them by elites and shamed for enjoying a standard of technology beyond that utilized by the hominid apemen from the opening scenes of "2001: A Space Odyssey". This is what it means to emphasize the Ecology Age over the Space Age.

It is not reading too much into things to make such a point. It is the systematic goal of progressivist liberalism at all levels of government and culture to curtail American power and influence even if the other world powers have no intentions of abiding by such diminished expectations.

For example, the Obama administration announced in 2010 the cancellation of the Constellation program, essentially scrapping plans to return to the Moon that would have eventually established a permanent lunar base. Neither is there even much of a plan to replace America’s decommissioned space shuttle fleet.

Instead, the NASA of the 21st century will rely primarily on the Russian space service to ferry personnel and supplies back and forth to the International Space Station. No wonder that orbital port’s intended name of “Freedom” was dropped before the project even got off the ground.

Just because Obama is giddy about U.S. power and influence receding into the sunset, that doesn’t mean other nations are going to be as contented about curtailing their scope. Both China and India have aspirations about visiting the Earth’s only natural satellite.

Big deal, those with terrestrially bound imaginations might respond. Isn’t going to the Moon not much more than a photo op where astronauts do little more than plant the flag and knock a few golf balls around in microgravity?

The Moon represents much more to the planetary power willing to plant its flag there than a symbolic effort and gesture. It will be from the Moon that mankind will set sail out into the cosmos and the Moon could very well be a vital staging area for any planetary empire seeking to control or exert influence over the Earth itself.

Does anyone believe that the world will be better off with outer space under the control of the Red Chinese and Russia or rather the United States?

Whether or not school districts really have the financial resources to continue their planetarium programs is not the primary issue. What should concern every American is that such a reason would be invoked to justify dismantling imagination and thus the opportunities of future generations.

By Frederick Meekins

A Conservative Environmental Statement

Over the course of the past several decades, an entire industry has arisen establishing an ideological and philosophical framework addressing the environmental issues facing modern society. Much of this thought stems from the worldview of contemporary liberalism, which often exhibits a mindset inimical to traditional religion and American socio-political culture and economics. The time has arisen for conservative thinkers to devise schools of thought incorporating their finest principles and presuppositions with knowledge of what is happening to the handiwork of the Creator.

This is not some radical departure from the norm. After all, Theodore Roosevelt and Gifford Pinchot, two individuals responsible for laying the framework of America's federal resource preservation programs, were Republicans.

While acknowledging that there are others in the country having different religions, American and Western civilization must reembrace its Judeo-Christian foundations in order to save the environment. Many environmentalists criticize Christianity for providing a philosophical justification for the degradation of the Earth. However, what these critics have failed to realize is that this is only one interpretation of this faith in regards to the environment.

Even though man is given the instruction to subdue the Earth, no where in Christian Scripture is he given permission to wantonly destroy what he has not created. In fact, it could be argued that the opposite is true. According to theologian Tony Campolo in "How To Rescue The Earth Without Worshipping Nature", it is in fact contradictory to man's Biblical role of stewardship over the Earth to callously destroy nature (194).

Furthermore, it could be reasoned that, since God created the universe, only He has the right to destroy it forever. Therefore, man's attempts to do so could be deemed a form of idolatry violating the First and Second Commandments.

By getting back to their religious, political and economic roots, Americans would also be helping the environment as well. In essence, modern conservatism can be good for the environment.

Often, environmental ideologues and activists promote the message that we must be saved from ourselves and that it must be accomplished through a totalitarian revolution on par with the one undertaken by the Bolsheviks. This is not the case.

The key to ecological preservation and to an extent restoration lies not in collectivism but in the very cornerstone of liberty. That is none other than private property.

No doubt to the dismay of many socialists masquerading as guardians of the biosphere, there can exist a body of thought derived from Christian and conservative conceptions of property ownership concerned with the notion of environmental preservation. Several of these works were reviewed in the 9/11/95 edition of the Washington Times Weekly Edition by Jonathan Adler, at the time director of Environmental Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

One book reviewed, "Property Rights In The Defense Of Nature" by Elizabeth Brubaker argues that property ownership is the best form of environmental protection. When individuals own something, for instance land as property, they are more apt to care for it because their futures and prosperity are intertwined with it.

In a sense, this notion is related to Garret Hardin's tragedy of the commons. The commons did not ultimately suffer because of insufficient bureaucratic regulation. The commons were ravaged because the people saw them as a public resource and were not psychologically invested in the preservation of this resource in the same way if these plots were privately held.

Likewise, big government is not necessarily the savior of the environment it is often made out to be. If anything, the evidence points towards the opposite conclusion.

The largest, most pervasive governments in human history behind the Iron Curtain were guilty of the most atrocious environmental tragedies. The receding Ural Sea and the Chernobyl nuclear reactor both were within the borders of the Soviet Union, the very epitome of a planned economy.

Often in trendy environmental circles one hears that “small is beautiful”. The very same individuals mouthing this platitude then turn around and advocate for large global bureaucracies.

Historian Anna Branwell notes in “Ecology In The Twentieth Century” that it is contradictory to advocate grassroots participatory democracy as an environmental cure while at the same time laying the groundwork for a coercive globalist agenda which utterly ignores the expressed will of the people. Centralized government planning fails for the same reason that the commons ended up as such a tragedy.

A hierarchical bureaucracy takes away freedom of the individual, causing him to have no stake in the outcome. Thus, bureaucracy has the tendency to thwart many of the laudable goals it was allegedly intended to achieve.

Despite this discrepancy between the small-is-beautiful crowd and their affinity towards heavy-handed government solutions, society would do well to remember this axiom of social organization.

Surprisingly, there is a consensus developing between a number of grassroots activists on both the left and the right that Washington is often ill prepared to handle local environmental problems. Too many environmental bureaucrats, institutions, and special interest groups have intertwined themselves with the entrenched political establishment. Certain varieties of both liberals and conservatives have lamented the tragedy wrought by government subsidies such as the case of the Forest Service selling the nation’s timber resources below their assessed market value.

The tone of this analysis should not be taken as that of a libertarian manifesto. As a fallen and sinful creature, man will always need some level of governmental regulation.

However, at the same time, it needs to be realized that government must have checks placed upon it because it is ultimately staffed by those having the same sin nature these agencies were instituted to guard against. Rather than harassing an innocent individual for removing a tree from his wetland property, governments should instead concentrate their efforts on rogue corporations harboring loyalties to no nation or overriding moral principles. Profit, in and of itself, is not evil; however the way it can be earned is.

The preservation of the environment does not require a radical transformation of human values and society. Rather, the effort requires Americans to reembrace those core values at the heart of their unique national identity --- thrift, nobility, and individual responsibility. Over the years, a number of Americans have lost touch with these values in part as a result of interferences on the part of a government thinking it knows best.

However, through the curtailment of government subsidies and through the punishment of known polluters, the beneficent invisible hand described by Scottish economist Adam Smith will guide the nation in the selection of policies felicitous to freedom, flora, and fauna. Dominion over nature does not always translate into its conquest or destruction, but rather the oversight of these treasures and resources in the name of their omnipotent Creator.

by Frederick Meekins

Dying for an Answer: An Attempted Theodicy to the Problem of Evil

It is perhaps one of the greatest intellectual stumbling blocks in all of religious thought.  As much as any soul would like to avoid the topic all together, sooner or later each person will be forced to grapple with the seemingly incongruous realties resulting from the simultaneous existence of both a sovereign God and the prevalence of evil in the world.  To some, the disconcerting existential trauma of suffering in their lives and in the lives of those around them is enough to make one come down in the negative in their answer to the God question.  However, upon deeper reflection one is forced to realize that --- though still mind boggling --- it is not necessarily inconsistent for both evil and the Biblical conception of God to exist at the same time.

In the hopes of gaining just a bit of perspective into such an overwhelming universal mystery, it is probably best to start out by formulating the problem in a summarized written form.  Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective” states the problem in the following manner: “(1) If God is all-powerful, He could destroy evil.  (2) If God is all-good, He would destroy evil. (3) But evil exists. (4) Therefore, there is no such God (Geisler, 274).”  To establish a credible defense to these charges, the Christian must show that evil does not necessarily upset the divinely appointed applecart and is allowed to exist because of the purpose it serves in subordination to higher, more important realities even if these do not always make sense to finite human sensibilities.

At the heart of this debate is a discussion as to both the nature of God and the nature of evil.  As to the ethical nature of God, Matthew 5:48 instructs the reader, “Be ye therefore  perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect.”  However, that goodness is not like unto that of a saintly grandmother, though kind and loving in all of her intentions, who is helpless to prevent the world from deteriorating all around her.

In the spirit of the Rooseveltian axiom of speaking softly and carrying a big stick, God has the power necessary to carry through implementing how He thinks things ought to be.  Colossians 1:17 says, “And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”  This is further elaborated and extended in Acts 17:28 which reads, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being...” 

Pretty much nothing happens without God knowing about it and at least allowing it to happen by not intervening to prevent it even if He himself does not endorse the action, behavior, or event in question.   Evil, by its very nature on the other hand, is a thought or deed violating God's nature of absolute goodness as expressed in the form of His natural and special revelation to those who inhabit the universe He created.  

Yet, if God really does have the whole world in His hands as the old spiritual suggests, there needs to be a bit of explanation on the part of the apologist or theologian.  For if God really is in sovereign control, one must show how this fits together with passages such as I John 1:5 which says, "This then is the message we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

The first step in eliminating the apparent contradiction arising between the existence of both God and evil is to show how evil might serve some purpose or be allowed to exist as the unfortunate byproduct of some more comprehensive good.  Perhaps the best response Christian thinkers have provided thus far over the centuries is probably the so-called "Free Will Defense".   

The underlying assumption of the Free Will Defense posits that the fault and consequences for evil in the world lies solely on the shoulders of those who commit moral transgressions and exhibit ethical shortcomings rather than upon a God imposing them upon the world from the outside.  Scripture bears much of this idea out in passages such as Romans 5:12 which reads, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned..."   Thus, it is pretty much our own fault as a species as a whole for the misery rampaging across the face of the earth and in individual lives.

While such a theory might help account for things such as crime, war, and even sickness since none of us have escaped the stain of sin, by itself it does not provide enough explanation to account for the tragedy arising from natural disasters (often referred to as so-called “acts of God”) or why God does not normally intervene to prevent ne’er-do-wells from inflicting pain and suffering upon their victims innocent in terms of instigating these particular acts of malice.  Both of these quandaries find their answer in what Ronald Nash calls the “Natural Law Theodicy” or what John Frame refers to as the “Stable Environment Defense”.

Frame notes in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”  that a stable environment is fundamental to human existence (164).  Ronald Nash writes in “Faith & Reason: Searching For A Rational Faith”, “Free rational action requires a world of natural objects governed by natural laws (200).” 

C.S. Lewis adds to this perspective in “The Problem Of Pain” , “But if matter is to serve as a neutral field it must have a fixed nature of its own ... if you were introduced into a world which thus varied at my every whim, you would be quite unable to act in it and would lose the exercise of your free will (19).”  Lewis continues in the following paragraph, “Again, if matter has a fixed nature and obeys constant laws, not all states of matter will be equally agreeable to a given soul, nor beneficial for that matter which he calls his body (20).”

Thus in essence, the same system of reasonably stable natural laws that allows man to survive and even thrive in an otherwise hostile universe can also end up allowing the very same components of nature that man requires for his very existence to be turned on him and to inflict harm upon him.  Lewis points out how fire can either warm the flesh or burn it. 

This is wrought with consequences as to why both nature and man seem capable of raining down misery with impunity.  As to the issue of natural disasters, Romans 8:20-22 explains, "For the creation was subjected to frustration not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it... We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time (NIV)."  Thus, the very physical setting of creation is under the curse not unlike that imposed upon humanity for the fall of the species into sin.

Though the providence of God no doubt often spares certain individuals from befalling the ferocity of a world out of control, the system of physical laws through which the natural world is governed is usually left in place for the overall benefit of finite kind.  For we would be unable to adjust in our current condition to a constantly changing and fluctuating cosmos.  This principle readily applies to those bent on using physical matter to inflict their own corrupt wills upon secondary by-standing parties. 

For example, one can use a baseball bat to enjoy an afternoon of leisurely recreation or to work someone over during an armed robbery.   While we would all like God to intervene to prevent physical matter and natural forces from wreaking havoc upon us, in all likelihood doing so would inflict even greater harm upon the human species and the world in their current condition than simply allowing these contingent entities to continue on until the so-called end of history and the beginning of eternity.

Much of this theodicy is focused upon the preeminence of freedom in the relationships established under the terms of the divine economy.  But some might argue that it is at this point of imbuing the actors in the universal drama with their own sense of freedom that God erred in His drafting of the cosmic screenplay.  However, it is because of His absolute goodness that God has seen fit to grant some degree of say-so to those He loves the most.

It is because of the overwhelming sense of importance placed upon love that freedom must take precedence over order and control though freedom and love take place within the boundaries established by this order and control.  For as any lovesick high school student turned down for the prom eventually realizes, love must be given freely or it is not true love.

The Scripture says in Joshua 24:15, "....choose you this day whom ye will serve."  The text does not say that the decision will be thrust upon you.  The Lord will hear enough whining on the Day of Judgment.  He does not need to make His task more difficult by assigning the responsibility for our eternal fates and destinies to any party other than ourselves.

For centuries, skeptics used the problem of evil to chip away at the foundations of theism.  However, the fact that the objection can be raised at all points towards the affirmative in its conclusion to the God question. 

Human beings recoil in horror as they do to the pain and unfairness of the world since it is such a shocking affront to the way things were originally intended to be.  Atheism uses this reaction deep within the soul to make its case for a totally naturalistic universe.   But if evil, pain, and suffering are simply a part of the natural order, on what grounds are we justified in railing against it, and for that matter, how are we even capable of determining something has gone awry in the first place?

If evil is nothing more than part of the backdrop against which life plays itself out, man should barely notice it.  For example, most normal people do not lie awake at night wondering why there is oxygen in the world or work themselves up into having an anxiety attack despairing as to why they will have to eat breakfast in the morning.  The ability to complain about and speak out against evil points to the reality of some transcendent standard existing above the fray by which to justify this innate tendency towards making judgments.

One might counter that these standards simply exist within the individual as personal conscience.  Yet both the daily news and the pages of history are replete with examples of how competing interpretations of these principles differ considerably and the conflicts that often arise without appeal to a yet higher arbitrating authority.

Thus, some external standard must exist in order to tell the difference between right and wrong.  The only sufficient basis for this criteria is found in God.  Alister McGrath provides the following proof in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths“:  “(A). Unless there is a God, there cannot be objectively binding moral obligations. (B). Objectively binding moral obligations exist. (C). Therefore, there is a God (40).”

At this point, the Christian thinker ought to take the problem of evil, invert it, and turn it against the critics of faith.  John MacArthur writes in "Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible", his response to the September 2001 terrorist attack upon the United States, “The question we ought to ask is not why disasters happen sometimes.  What we ought to ask is why don’t disasters happen all of the time (65).”

The problem really is not so much the problem of evil but rather the problem of pleasure.  For human beings have done such a superb job messing up the world, that if God did not exist, how does any pleasure exist at all?  And if God does exist, why does He continue to bless mankind despite the rebellion, animus, and contempt characteristically displayed on the part of the species to its benevolent Creator? 

James 1:7 says, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.”  No matter how wretched life can get, somewhere along the way most people can recall at least a single moment of fleeting kindness in their lives and usually more.

Even if the Christian takes the time to carefully delineate the case that God is not responsible for the existence of evil in the world and how the existence of phenomena morally classified as such does not contradict His nature of absolute holiness, this is often still not enough to satisfy some of the more rigorous skeptics.  These voices will counter that, even though the above theistic assertion might be true, God is still the bad guy in this story.  In their eyes, He has not done enough to use His immense power to rectify the situation.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.  God has been far from passive in solving this problem He did not create.

Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman write in "An Unchanging Faith In A Changing World: Understanding & Responding To Critical Issues Christians Face Today", "God has embraced this in the most intimate way possible through the abusive treatment His Son received when he was tortured and crucified (81)."  These apologists continue, "Thus, the real problem of evil --- ...whether anything can be done to overcome it and bring good out of it --- has been answered (81)."  In essence, the problem has already been solved.  The thing is that we are so mired in the flow of time that we are not yet able to fully enjoy the effects of this resolution.

God did not run away from the problem, but instead tackled its resolution head on in the most enthusiastic manner imaginable by allowing pain and evil to be visited upon Himself and in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.  Nor did God gloss over the reality of evil in the attempt to buttress His position by spinning the matter in His favor by downplaying our pain.

God comes at the issue in such a straightforward manner that His blunt forthrightness would make plain-spoken newsman Bill O'Reilly blush.  Job 14:1 declares, "Man born of woman is of few days and full of trouble." 

God could very well quote the following from that old country song when we grow weary of the troubles inherent to life in this world: "I beg your pardon.  I never promised you a rose garden."  He does, however, promise to do away with them in the next world where He will wipe away every tear according to Revelation 21:4.  If God really was little more than a fairy tale, would the authors of Scripture include those texts that do little to sooth the troubled soul about the bleakness this side of  Heaven and instead force the individual to confront some rather starting realities?

The problem of evil has plagued the mind of man at least since the day the first parents were expelled from the Garden of Eden for disobedience.  However, the problem is not so much that God is a messed-up illogical being but rather that man is so limited in his capacity for reason that he is unable to ascend to the level of understanding necessary to comprehend the operational totality of the universe at the level of cosmic completeness.

God let's a whining Job have it in Job 38:3-4 and beyond when the Lord inquires, "Gird up now thy loins like a man [translated as "brace yourself' in the NIV]; for I will demand of then an answer thou me.  Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Declare if you hast understanding." 

And while man can theodicize until he is blue in the face, such answers provide only a modicum of comfort when one befalls ill health, when a family member passes away, or when religious fanatics fly airplanes into skyscrapers.  During such trials, the best one can hope for are the reassurances found in Romans 8:28: "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purposes."

Bibliography:

Boa, Kenneth and Bowman Robert. "An Unchanging Faith in a Changing World: Understanding and Responding to Critical Issues That Face Christians Today." Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997.

Frame, John. "Apologetics To The Glory Of God: An Introduction."  Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishers, 1994.

Geisler, Norman & Feinberg, Paul. "Introduction To Philosophy: An Introduction." Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980.

Lewis, C.S. "The Problem Of Pain." New York, New York: MacMillian Publishing, Eighteenth Printing, 1973.

MacArthur, John. "Terrorism, Jihad & The Bible: A Response To The Terrorist Attacks.: Nashville: W Publishing Group, 2001.

McGrath, Allister. "Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths: Building Bridges To Faith Through Apologetics."  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

by Frederick Meekins

 

 

 

 

Adebolajo Finger painting in Blood

by David Lawrence

Michael Adebolajo said after decapitating Lee Rigby, “The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers, and this British soldier is eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth.”

 

Adebolajo stood in the street holding a knife and a meat cleaver and said, “We swear by almighty Allah that we will never stop fighting you.” 

 

His hands were red like he had been finger painting in blood.  Actually, he was like one of Mengele’s demented Nazi children justifying his ridiculous peacetime killing in a neutral place by announcing that “Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers.” He blames the English for unspecified crimes and then commits an insane, individualistic bloody crime. He is the negative image of an Aryan. He is a black racist. 

 

Adebolajo doesn’t even realize that the British kill hardly any Muslims compared to the Americans and that the deaths of Muslims are in retribution for Muslim consistent terrorism and the murder of innocents around the world. If Muslims weren’t so bloodthirsty and jihad-bent, there would be no Muslim killings by British or anyone else.

 

The killings in Iraq were to depose a monstrous tyrant, Sadam Hussein and stop possibly misperceived weapons of mass destruction.  Our first attack on Afghanistan was in retribution for 9-11.  An attack more justified even than our war on Japan after Pearl Harbor.

 

Another jihad-driven moron, Dzhokbar Tsarnaev, wrote in a backyard boat, “When you attack one Muslim you attack all Muslims.” But Tsarnaev deserved attack.  He is a conscienceless murderer like Adebolajo.  He uses ideology as an excuse for heinous behavior. He is not an innocent target.  He has earned his death.

 

Adebolajo is a bloody, finger-painting moron who will unfortunately be looked at as a hero by all his deranged brothers.  Until the Muslims reject the Adebolajo’s of the world, this retarded holy war will continue. 

Lemonade Laws Leave Sour Taste

For generations, lemonade stands taught numerous children a variety of fundamental realities regarding the nature of the world and life beyond the confined of their particular family units. These undertakings still do.

The thing of it is, though, these lessons have very little to do with how providing a desired product along with attentive costumer service if the way to advance economically. Rather, an increasing number of young people are learning from these undertakings that the America that they will likely live the majority of their lives in (if the country does not collapse entirely) will increasingly become a nation where such blatant displays of individuality and personal achievement will be met with hostility and resistance bordering on what cannot be described as anything other than violence.

In most of these instances, the narrative unfolds something like this.

The children are informed that they cannot operate their lemonade stand because they have not obtained the proper permit from the authorities in question.

Those reading these paragraphs sequentially might be inclined to remark that the situation described above hardly classifies as a threat of violence.

Perhaps it is not directly. But what about the instance that occurred outside the U.S. Open in the neighborhood of the Congressional Country Club in the Washington, Metropolitan Area where one outlaw beverage dispenser was slapped with a $500 fine?

With the following observation, renowned economist Walter Williams would likely concur. Whenever a government imposes a fine, what the authorities are actually doing is issuing a threat against the alleged violators of some regulation concocted by any number of state agencies.

If you don't think violence or perhaps rather force (for those that somehow think verbal precision is going to somehow magically protect you from being hauled off to some detention camp or deflect bullets like Superman once the gunfire starts), won't be used against the cited party should they refuse to desist or not pay the fine you have been drinking something far stronger than dixie cup lemonade.

Perhaps the greatest lesson those crushed by the prerogatives of the state in this fashion learn is to never look within themselves to what it takes to get ahead or to do anything that sets themselves apart from the more docile members of the COMMUNITY.

Tis better, in the eyes of the statist, for the individual to accept and embrace the meager pittance and station bestowed upon you by those that have been deemed more qualified than yourself to determine your place for you in the socioeconomic order.

The purpose of these enforcement actions is to rid our nation from such independently inclined riffraff. After all, there are even now so-called "Christians" insisting that what is wrong with the cinematic Western as epitomized by John Wayne and the Cartwrights is not so much gun play but rather that such figures dared to take it upon themselves as individuals or as independent families to do what needed to be done without consultation with the COMMUNITY.

Those observing (especially the young) learn how the regulation is cast is even more important than the regulation itself.

For example, in one case in Georgia, a local police chief justified the disbandment of one particularly notorious lemonade distribution ring composed primarily of adolescent girls on the grounds that the state did not know what was in the distributed concoction.

Unless there is some actionable intelligence that we mere subjects are not privy to, there hasn't been too many Al Qaeda plots intending to disseminate poisoned lemonade through speakeasies operated by juvenile revolutionary jihadists. And even if one stretches back to the old concerns about Halloween delectables being laced with razor blades and the like, most of those accounts were blown all out of proportion by ministers attempting to frighten parents into keeping their children locked inside on that particular autumnal evening.

The next lesson learned is that certain excuses can be invoked in order to perhaps sway popular and bureaucratic opinion as to why the children in question should be allowed to flout the disputed law or regulation. It seems some reasons are some how more noble than others.

For example, in the instance of the youngsters threatened outside the golf course in suburban Maryland, the response in the press was that these youngsters were trying to raise money for charity. But what if the funds were not being raised for that purpose?

Is there something inherently wrong about keeping money for yourself? In exposing the false altruism scandal and other related efforts to squash individuality, Ayn Rand asked what is so bad about individuals attempting to provide for themselves.

On social networks, posters commenting on the issue have gone so far as to remark how dare the media even report on these cases since the accounts cast law enforcement in a negative light because the law must be enforced at all costs because the law is the law. Though American police departments and agencies have not yet deteriorated to the particular level about to be mentioned, it must be pointed out that the Gestapo and the KGB enforced what was considered law in their respective regimes as well.

So-called "conservatives" seem to have no problem whatsoever directing criticism at any assortment of other government agencies. So are they so dimwitted as to lose sight of the higher goal of human liberty when they are distracted by a shiny badge?

Just because a government has enacted a law regarding something, does that mean the temporal statute contramanding the laws of God must be obeyed in all instances? If so, does that mean the family of Corrie Ten Boom got what they deserved? After all, the law is the law.

Some might recoil at the idea of comparing the closing of a bootleg lemonade distillery with some of the greatest crimes in human history as one sheol of a conceptual leap. However, where do you think the framework is laid to get a people once marked by the common sense that flows from natural law to commit deeds that would only be approved by the most warped of consciences?

For, if a people lack the courage to stand for the right of a child to have a lemonade stand, do you think they will muster the courage to speak out regarding more profound incidents when those in power start aiming guns at heads in order to implement their transformative agendas?

By Frederick Meekins

by David Lawrence

Obama wowed the bathetic, emotionally charged, simplistic  audience in Connecticut when he tried to save gun control legislation, “Now’s the time to get engaged.  Now’s the time to get involved.  Now’s the time to push back on fear and frustration and misinformation.”  

 

The arrogant narcissistic tone of his gun control speech applies to all his other grandiose plans.  Once again Obama is outlining his bad qualities and accusing others of having them.  He blames others for “fear and frustration and misinformation” while he has pandered fear about the sequestration and frustrated the middle class with incipient inflation and lack of jobs.

 

He has told the people that Obamacare would be cheaper, that we could all keep our original policies and that seniors would have more opportunities rather than limited coverage and death panels.

 

Obama looks in the mirror at his bad qualities and turns it around and reflects his own negativity back on the Republicans. 

 

Obama wanted a good thing—health care for everyone.  Instead he ruined it by being overly ambitious.  There won’t be enough doctors for the new patients and our country will go bankrupt from the additional layers of bureaucratic administration.

 

Guns or health care, Obama lies about the possible results and pretends he could do more than he could do.  He is a phony whether he is refusing to drill for oil, holding up the Keystone XL Pipeline, limiting fracking,  giving out free condoms, refusing to vote against infanticide or backing contradictory gay marriage. 

 

Obama is engaged in concepts that are too large for his sophomoric, jump-to-conclusions mind.  He wants to change everything because he doesn’t know how to modify the adjustable. His idea of baby steps is a leap off the Grand Canyon.

 

He implements the impossible instead of the probable.  He has the rigidity of an ideologue and the opinionated simplicity of Mr. Potato Head.