Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #125

When liberals insist that there needs to be a conversation, what they really mean is that they intend to browbeat and berate the general public until they surrender ideologically just to be allowed a semblance of peace and where the prevailing conventional wisdom is allegedly altered to such an extent that disenfranchisement and even potential violence against the few remaining stalwart critics is viewed as a viable option.

Of conditions at facilities warehousing urchins dragged across the border, a Southern Baptist theologian lamented, “Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.” But at no time did he offer to board these individuals in posh and palatial Southern Baptist Convention properties. If we as a nation weren’t concerned about the dignity of these souls, wouldn’t they be disposed of at the border crossing? One notices at no time did he urge parents to remain with their children in their respective homelands or for the regimes from which these individuals originated to improve conditions for their citizens.

For Boo Beep failing to consent to being Woody’s breeding sow and for Jessie The Cowgirl taking over as the new sheriff in Toy Story, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson invoked I Corinthians 11:11, stating that man is not independent of woman nor woman independent of man. But that only applies to those that are married. For no one else has right to control you in that sort of manner. As much as aspiring cultists might want to, you can’t make someone marry someone else.

The same homeschool elites jacked out of shape that characters at the end of Toy Story aren't married off would probably toss a bigger fit if these pairings were formed in a manner other than the parents selecting the mate with the decision subject to approval by pastoral authorities.

It was said in a homily on SermonAudio that one will not find the right relationship until one has found satisfaction in Christ. Given that we still endure results of a sin nature until we depart this world, such never fully happens. Ironically, these hardline exegetes are usually of the sorts that toss fits if people aren’t married by the time they are 23 years old. Second, if one has found satisfaction and completeness in Christ, why bother getting married? Solely for increasing the size of the herd as the brainwashed girl remarked in the South Park episode on homeschooling?

In analyzing the Avengers films on Issues Etc, columnist Terry Mattingly referenced in what seemed an almost condescending tone “Evangelicals and their minivans.” So exactly how else is one supposed to get around if one spawns the requisite number to be categorized as sufficiently pious? It’s not like there is a variety of station wagons on the market to select from these days.

Instead of condemning singles that stay to themselves, perhaps Southern Baptist elites should have gotten after those for the most part married that can’t seem to keep their hands off the underaged.

The media is outraged at the existence of a secret social media group where border agents are alleged to have used vulgar terminology. So apparently the media can teach us to say these naughty sorts of things. We apparently just aren’t allowed to repeat them.

If the government is not allowed to ask how many residing within the nation’s borders are actually citizens, by what right can it ask how many flush toilets are in my house when I am the one paying for the amount of water that flows through both?

Pastor Mark Dever and his herald theologian Jonathan Leeman of the Capitol Hill Baptist network of churches insist that one is in a state of sin if a believer does not hold formalized membership in a church. But aren’t their membership contracts (or “covenants” laying over the vernacular a hyperpious coating most will lack the courage to question) terminable only upon death or membership transferred not to a congregation holding to the fundamentals of the Christian faith but rather one within their particular network of churches themselves sinful? How is this appreciably different than the billion year contracts aspiring Scientologists are compelled to sign before induction into the sect?

In remarks about church membership in a Ligionier Ministries podcast, theologian Jonathan Leeman remarked that those leery of such commitment are doing so to avoid accountability. But aren’t such individuals in a sense justified to be skeptical of such intrusion into their lives when a number of congregations that look to this particular thinker as one of their leading theological beacons stipulate in their membership covenants that such an arrangement is terminable only upon death or one sidedly when those in authority rather than the mere pewfiller decides that their walk with Christ might best be cultivated elsewhere? Contrary to Dr. Leeman’s flippant dismissal, there is more to this reluctance than not “wanting to live in the light”. It is about reticence over being compelled to live by pastoral preferences spelled out nowhere indisputably in the pages of Scripture and about the perdition it sounds like some churches might put an individual through if they come to the conclusion that they just have got to leave a miserable situation.

Elder Jonathan Leeman of Cheverly Baptist Church in an oration on church membership at Southeastern Theological Seminary admonished that great care must be taken to keep the line between world and church clear. Has he brought this up with his 9Marks colleague Isaac Adams who affiliates with a group of Christian hip hop artists advocating recreational cannabis? In this same oration, Jonathan Leeman pointed out the dangers of allowing non-Christian musicians to play in church. Perhaps he could similarly clarify his position regarding Christians extolling the delights of recreational cannabis or do they get a free pass when they are not White?

In an oration at Southeastern Theological Seminary, Elder Jonathan Leeman says that he likes to drive along Embassy Row in Washington, DC to see the flags of the various nations. Many of these represent nations engaged in outright tyranny and oppression. Others subtly restrict freedom of expression in the name of tolerance and diversity. Yet to this theologian, the flag of the United States is so vile that it must be removed from the nation’s churches for fear of upsetting foreigners often from these repressive lands happening to visit an American church in America.

In an oration at Southeastern Seminary, theologian Jonathan Leeman said that there needs to be a conversation about the requirements of church membership. Usually when someone says that there needs to be a conversation than means that they will be the ones doing the talking which will likely consist of a lengthy list of demands and you will be seriously berated if you raise any objections, questions, or calls for clarification.

In an oration on membership at Southeastern Theological Seminary, theologian Jonathan Leeman joked that the first membership interview was Jesus asking Peter who do you say that I am. But nowhere in that did Jesus strongarm Peter into signing a contract stipulating that the Apostle was bound to a single congregation for life or that he could only transfer with permission to another within a particular network of specified churches. Secondly, nowhere in the interview was Peter required to elaborate a serious of raunchy past escapades that would make a soap opera screenwriter blush.

In a Capitol Hill Baptist podcast discussing race, it was remarked that Black South Africans have a remarkably forgiving ethic. So are tires filled with gasoline placed around the necks of victims set ablaze and land seized from farmers for little reason other than that they are White the sort of social justice policies these New Wave churches would like to see implemented?

In a Capitol Hill Baptist podcast discussion about race, theologian Jonathan Leeman remarked that some have been hurting for months and some have been hurting for several hundred years. So wouldn’t one of these individuals have to be an immortal like Duncan McCloud born 400 years ago in the Highlands of Scotland?

In the new wave Baptist circles out there, the American flag and patriotic anthems are out. In apparently are hip hop albums where on the cover the artists appear to be puffing weed with insignias resembling three intertwined sixes bringing to mind the Mark of the Beast. But what do i know? I apparently just stoke unfounded fear.

If the party line is that an elder of a church no more represents a church than any other church member when the name of the particular elder is among the first things that pops up when researching a particular church, those about to have their church manipulated out from under them are hopelessly naive regarding about what is on the verge of rolling over them.

In discussing race in a podcast, Pastor Mark Dever and Dr. Jonathan Leeman discuss how they wished more racial minorities would take part in the pastoral internship program of Capitol Hill Baptist Church. You will note that at no time did the duo ever articulate their willingness to resign their own lucrative, prestigious positions to toil in manual labor and obscurity for the purposes of giving life to the utopian vision that they not only want imposed upon everybody else but also demand you celebrate enthusiastically if you wish to retain the church-bestowed designation of acceptable Christian.

I was verbally upbraided that I am obligated to “set my prejudices aside” and “to be open minded” in regards to two pastors discussing things as Christians when the perspective being addressed might end up becoming the preferential interpretation among the potential leadership of an unspecified in these posts congregation. So, in other words, I am apparently obligated to set aside the Biblical admonition to be a Berean in a church that claims to adhere to sola scriptura. So what other Biblical injunctions am I to also set aside for the time being? So why am I obligated to open my mind to new interpretative winds blowing into a church when apparently other minds are as closed regarding cautions I have raised?

In a sermon on church membership, theologian Jonathan Leeman rhetorically asked do you hang with those that do not look like you? Other than my father and brother, I don’t “hang” with anyone. Is family interaction also now to be verboten in New Wave Baptist Churches that don’t simply impart to you knowledge regarding God’s word but seek to take control of those aspects of your life over which the church once offered teaching but left you to yourself to implement?

It was remarked that, if a church member skipped several Sundays during the summer to go fishing, they ought to be disciplined. But in such an instance wouldn’t the church run the risk of the individual leaving altogether?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Consulting Online Maps Condemned As Idolatry

Posted on Baptist Press News is a column titled “Praying To Alexa”.

The author Sarah Dixon Young repents of, upon getting lost while driving, vocally asking Google for directions instead of asking God of whom she reminds owns cattle on a thousand hills according to the Bible.

The concern that human beings might surrender too much control to technology as we grow increasingly reliant upon it is valid.

However, there is also something said against attempting to appear so pious as to overreact in response to what is a legitimate use of technology.

Had Sarah Young asked God for directions, in most instances, is He really going to indisputably give them to her with a thunderous “Thus saith the Lord” when in most of life's other complexities the answers He provides are not usually so explicitly direct but rather through other means built into the system of creation that He sustains?

So just how far does Sarah Young want to take this analogy?

Are those driving to the supermarket for bread denying that God is the Bread of Life who will supply our needs according to His riches?

Would those going to a doctor's appointment be guilty of denying that God is the Great Physician as argued by the Christian Scientists, related metaphysical cults, and assorted faith healers tottering along the brink of heresy?

And are those even driving automobiles in the first place guilty of the great going to and fro predicted in Daniel 12:4?

by Frederick Meekins

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Enemies Of Free Speech Agitate To Remove Buchanan From Airwaves

Outrage has erupted over the news that Pat Buchanan will serve as a pundit on a reboot of the McLaughlin Group (a program he appeared on for decades) to be broadcast on PBS.

In contemporary America, progressives have exposed their true nature by suggesting that the best way to address ideas with which they disagree is not to debate them or to present a coherent refutation but rather to have such concepts banished altogether often under threat of violence.

As such, the purveyors of such enlightenment are suggesting that the columnist should not be allowed on the program for allegedly being a “White supremacist”.

It is argued that that particular ideology must be resisted with all possible means as it dehumanizes any that it does not look upon with favor.

Yet one article bemoaning the return of Pat Buchanan to regular broadcast news analysis is titled, “The Conservative Undead Will Never Leave Us”.

In other words, conservatives that do not go along with the prevailing consensus even when they do so with fully articulated reason free from gratuitous name calling are the equivalent of zombies.

And as viewers of the horror genre know, such creatures are worthy of no consideration as human beings for they no longer are.

You simply exterminate such monstrosities in the most efficient manner available.

So if the pundit's supporters are expected to sanitize their rhetoric for fear it encourages outrageous acts of violence, why isn't something similar expected of those demanding the elimination of our most basic of liberties in order to implement their particular cultural vision as well?

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, September 9, 2019

Hit & Run Commentary #124

Joe Biden insists that the only thing making his history of tactile constituent interactions wrong now yet appropriate at the time are changing social norms. So what he is saying is that such behavior and even much worse will be perfectly acceptable when America falls to Islamist radicals because of the failure to crack down at the border because of similar multiculturalist drivel. If one wants to hold that Biden’s actions are always wrong, one can only appeal to an absolute and transcendent morality, the only legitimate of which is found in traditional Christianity.

Pundit Matt Bai warns in a column titled “Stephen Miller Stokes Trump’s Nationalist Vision”. So would he prefer an internationalist alternative? That would mean America’s future would not necessarily be determined by those holding to traditionalist conceptions of human freedom and constitutional liberty. Rather, just as much say would be granted to those that value perpetuation of the regulatory bureaucracy at the expense of the individual and even to some thinking that those not holding to particular conceptions of God or even notions of dress deemed acceptable by anyone with a lick of common sense should be eliminated in the most brutal ways imaginable.

Did those now tossing a fit that Turning Point USA functionary Candace Owens allegedly glossed over Hitler’s atrocities get similarly jacked out of shape over a Chairman Mao ornament adorning a White House Christmas tree during the Obama regime? Unlike anyone connected with the decoration of that particular sprig of Yuletide foliage, Candace Owens is a private citizen. Mao killed more than Hitler. Or are Chinese lives not as valuable as Jewish ones? Do those outraged at Candace Owens get as worked up when they see youth inspired to advance the cause of world Bolshevism often at the behest of their tenured pedagogues wear Che Guevara shirts? For that particular figure was quite explicit in regards to his disgust for Black people.

If migrants from beyond America’s borders only enhance the nation and, contrary to what President Trump insists, are not criminals but only truly remarkable people of robust health, why are the advocates of open borders and sanctuary cities less than enthusiastic about the opportunity the President is allowing these jurisdictions to add this diversity to their own regional distinctiveness? Interesting how when it is the backyards of radical multiculturalists on the line that they become as territorial as any member of the Tea Party or Minuteman movements.

If the undocumenteds are not wanted in sanctuary cities, isn't that proof these jurisdictions are not in a warped fashion about the well being of the migrants but rather about the virtue signalling of the subversives undermining border security in this fashion?

Did any of those now bellyaching how criticism of Lady Mao (aka Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) leads to an uptick in death threats ever come out with as much righteous indignation in opposition to the Antifia insurgents that insinuated bodily harm to the wife of Tucker Carlson while pounding on the family’s door?

President Trump is reportedly not too pleased that Fox News held a town hall with Bernie Sanders. Though the President is allied with a number of pundits on the network, he does not deserve so much influence over that particular media outlet so as to determine programming content. If anything, Fox News and Senator Sanders are to be commended for sharing a willingness to appear in the same venue despite profound ideological differences.

In detailing the origins of the Islamist front group CAIR, Representative Ilhan Omar said the organization “was founded after 9/11 because they recognized some people did something, and that all us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” To remind people exactly what that something was, the New York Post graciously published an edition with a cover photo of the jetliner flying into one of the World Trade Center towers. For this act of responsible and accurate journalism, the newspaper has been accused of “dangerous incitement”. So if it is now unacceptable to reference documented events for fear that such might instigate hatred against Muslims, does that mean Black History Month should be similarly downplayed since a significant reason for that commemoration is to agitate animosity against Whites?

If a medication for excessive underarm perspiration is advertised as also causing urinary retention, inability to regulate body temperature, and blurred vision, I think I’ll just settle for the sweaty armpits.

If Donald Trump legitimately wrote off nearly a billion dollars in losses, isn’t this an instance of “Don’t hate the player, hate the game”? Shouldn’t even greater ire be directed towards the legislators and regulators that set up such system in the first place?

Too bad PETA is not as concerned about lowering the euthanasia rates in their shelters as they are about expunging the English language of phrases such as “opening a can of worms” or “letting the cat out of the bag”.

One can understand conservatives standing against transgenders infiltrating women’s sports. But how are these Fox News pundits jacked out of shape over these types getting business set asides intended for women much different than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson begging for Affirmative Action and assorted handouts for minorities? If true to their convictions, shouldn’t they oppose someone being granted a beneficence for an occupation where it does not matter whether you’re reproductive orifice is an outie or an innie? By insisting that women should be the beneficiaries of these sorts of programs, isn’t that an admission that women are not as good at business as men? If the response is that private corporations should be allowed to lavish benefits upon whomever they please, do these voices then intend to advocate similar set asides be lavished solely upon men or at that point do they intend to rampage in the street?

Nancy Pelosi is outraged that President Trump believes merit should play a key role in immigration decisions. The Speaker countered that, throughout American history, most immigrants did not arrive with merit. But neither were they lavished with extravagant government handouts and benefits for simply arriving here. Many were even denied entrance for failing to comply with explicit health guidelines.

Lady Mao, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, laments that the Alabama abortion law forces a woman to be pregnant against her consent. How is that different than child support laws which make men pay against their consent?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pitched a fit that Game Of Thrones was obviously written by men because the ultimate victor apparently wasn’t a women. Interesting you heard no complaints from her about the gratuitous unnecessary sex scenes for which the drama is infamous that do not likely comply with MeToo rigors regarding consent and disparities of gender power or assorted related drivel.

Regarding those that do not want the women that get abortions punished. Do they intend to similarly coddle fathers delinquent in meeting their child support obligations? At least those neglected kids are still alive.

Given that the debt is on the verge of surpassing the entire worth of the U.S. economy, irrespective of party, where exactly are the funds for infrastructure investment supposed to come from?

Migrant hordes are being released by literal busloads into American cities. That’s certainly a much more effective policy upholding national security than a wall built around the border.

It was said in a sermon that perhaps an individual does not have wealth because God cannot trust you with it. This means wealth might cause an individual to fall into sin. Relatedly, could it also be said that God does not want certain churches to increase in terms of attendance numbers because such could similarly go to the head of a particular pastor or congregation?

In manipulative propaganda disguised as a razor blade commercial, a transgendered is admonished that shaving is about confidence. Actually, shaving is nothing more than the removal of facial hair to comply with grooming standards imposed as social norms either by employers and members of the opposite sex or preferences of individual appearance and comfort.

Regarding steak and cheese Hot Pockets advertised as "high protein" as if the customer is being done a favor. Aren't steak and cheese high protein to begin with?

If humor is to be devoid of racial reference as epitomized by the tolerancemonger outrage now directed towards the cinematic classic “Blazing Saddles”, where is the sustained ongoing protest against the Comedy Central series “The New Negroes”?

Regarding the presidential contenders jacked out of shape about Biden working with segregationists in the past. Are they as outraged over their supporters that wear Che apparel or Representative Omar’s links to radical jihadists?

In Taylor Swift’s propaganda video in favor of the Equality Act, those opposing her endorsement of wanton licentiousness are depicted as unenlightened hayseeds and trailer park trash. Islamists take an even harderline stance against the acts of carnality depicted in the video. An activist number go far beyond touting protest signs to commit what Westerns would consider unconventional forms of capital punishment such as the tossing of the accused off multistory buildings . As such, does this naive minstrel intend to produce a video ridiculing those of this additional religious persuasion that wear distinctive apparel such as burkas, hijabs or keffiyehs?

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, August 12, 2019

If All Places Equal, Why Outrage Over Asking Critics To Go Back?

Considerable hullabaloo has erupted over President Trump suggesting four specific legislators return to their respective countries of origin if they estimate conditions in America onerous beyond tolerability.

First, such outcry explicitly contradicts the very multiculturalism that such protestations purport to defend.

For if one locality is no better than any other in terms of the desirability of the culture, physical geography, and the people living there, why all the faux outrage?

Secondly, particularly in the cases of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, perhaps if this duo did not constantly denigrate America, the President would not have assumed that their first loyalties lay elsewhere.

Critics have pointed that Ilhan Omar has in fact been a U.S, citizen longer than First Lady Melania Trump.

And what about it?

Melania did not gain notoriety and political office on the basis of how much she despises America as constituted by the Founding Fathers.

Nor did Melania perpetrate a convoluted identity theft scheme where to this day a definitive answer cannot be provided as to whether or not she married her brother in the attempt to pull it off.

It is too bad that those outraged over Trump's outbursts are not as concerned regarding the possible links of Omar and Tlaib to assorted forms of jihadist terrorism.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, August 2, 2019

Baltimore Remarks News Cycle Going Longer Than Battery Powered Lagomorph

According to Republican turncoat Michael Steele, President Trump’s remarks about Baltimore being rat infested are like water off a duck’s back.

Such is clearly not the case.

Diversity fanatics are still jacked out of shape a week later.

Tolerancemongers are pitching a fit that Trump claimed that Baltimore’s homicide rate is higher than that of Afghanistan.

The President probably picked that up from claims beaten into America’s collective consciousness in regards to assorted gun control and anti-military propaganda efforts on the part subversive activists.

So will those invoking such concocted statistics to justify bureaucratic manipulation of the nation’s fundamental structure now be similarly castigated as purveyors of discord and acrimony?

In response to Trump’s remarks about Baltimore, the Commander and Chief is being chided that he is the President of all Americans.

That must be in the same spirit as Hillary categorizing her critics as “deplorables”, Obama denouncing rural Pennsylvanians in particular as bitter clingers unwilling to relinquish their God and their guns in favor of statism’s beatific vision, and when he urged devotees to get into the faces of the regime’s enemies who dared question his infallible decrees.

Given that these critics of the President concerned in particular with the plight of urban blight have apparently had an epiphany that the unity of the nation transcends the differences at this moment on the verge of tearing America apart, perhaps they will now renounce their incessant nagging for reparations for specific wrongs suffered directly by no one alive today and that no one alive today had any hand in perpetrating.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

Anti-Gun Fanatics Target First Amendment

Defenders of the right to bear arms vigorously observe that the Second Amendment is the constitutional provision that ensures the ongoing viability of those freedoms guaranteed by the First deemed by many to be of a more noble or loftier character. Those with their vision clouded with aspirations of how they would like the world to be rather than how it actually is often snidely respond that a level of moral awareness has been reached where the use of force or even the insinuation of an appeal to such is no longer necessary among the COMMUNITY of enlightened individuals to safeguard those protections referred to as rights.

A bill submitted to the Florida legislature for consideration provides clarification as to the precarious and interlocking nature of the Bill of Rights where, if one of these in undermined, they are all ultimately undermined. Now that what is insisted is a consensus has coalesced that firearms in the hands of minors is so lamentable as to require in most instances intervention on the part of the state, it has been proposed that it ought also be against the law to the extent of a penalty of up to $1000 and/or a year in jail for anyone under the age of 18 to post an image of a firearm to social media.

So what other objects not inherently illegal or immoral in and of themselves ought youth to be punished for depicting in an artistic manner disseminated by electronic communication?

Youths below a certain age are not permitted to drive automobiles. Does that mean that a teen auto enthusiast that uploads the image of a vehicle to a social media profile ought to arrested in a police raid?

Given how broadly the proposed statute is written, continuing with this analogy to expose how asinine this is, the teen would not even have to be depicted driving the car without a permit or even simply seated in the driver's seat. One would be in violation of the law for simply posting an image of an automobile. It must be seriously asked would hate crimes penalties be added if the car depicted happened to be the General Lee from “The Dukes Of Hazard”?

Given the way the proposed law could be interpreted, could a child that likes to draw robots be imprisoned for posting an image of Megatron, the Decepticon leader from the Transformers who in his classic form not only transforms into a gun but has a massive canon strapped to his arm? Don't think this is absurd?

In 2008, a passenger was booted from a flight for doing nothing more than wearing a shirt where Autobot leader Optimus Prime from the same Transfomers series was depicted holding a gun. That's right, a passenger was removed from a flight not for carrying an actual weapon but for rather wearing the shirt with a picture of a cartoon character holding a gun that in actuality could not fire a single shot.

If today subjects of the regime can potentially face imprisonment and financial ruination for mere images that do nothing more than symbolize inanimate objects, where will this theoretically end? Might someone be subject to interdiction by law enforcement for simply posting a picture of the Cross, a crucifix, or the equivalent of a status update reading “Jesus is Lord” or “He is risen, indeed”?

Sophisticates will respond don't be silly. Those only represent ideas or beliefs. Guns or the promotion of firearms, on the other hand, represent a tangible threat to individual well being and maintenance of a sustainable social order.

It might be one thing to enforce prohibitions against weapons conveyed in a manner that does not comply with promulgated standards. However, if one can criminalize something that is not inherently evil in and of itself as the vehicle through which an idea is transferred from one mind to another, the floodgates have been thrown open to a new form of tyranny that is nearly boundless. Should images of sugary snacks be forbidden because of the dangers these delights pose to diabetics and the obese?

C.S. Lewis once observed that the way contemporary society treats sex was analogous to those dieing of starvation gathering to catch a brief glimpse of a meal that the viewers would not be allowed to taste nor touch. One must now ponder in deliberative seriousness if a mind as formidable as his own could conceive of a time when even the image of something innocuous would be as forbidden as a behavior allowed to fester out of control as a result of the attempt to expunge the transcendent eternalities intended to protect against such horrific outrages.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Refuses To Pay Reparations But For How Long?

Despite an amount of hand-ringing, groveling, and self flagellation that might make even Phil Donahue say enough already in regards to slavery and the race issue, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is refusing to fork over a hefty sum as reparations to a coalition of assorted activist malcontents.

The Seminary is correct to oppose this ultimatum.

Maybe these denominational functionaries now have an idea how the average pewfiller or frontline pastor feels constantly being clobbered over the head these past few years with this social justice tripe.

But for how long will resolve against this sophisticated form of ideological extortion remain?

After all, it did not take long to get the seminary's president Albert Mohler from one year categorizing C.J. Mahaney as one of his closest friends to the next referring to the controversial founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries with phraseology as if the two were barely acquaintances.

If the Southern Baptist Convention is now passing resolutions praising critical race theory, before his retirement, Albert Mohler will probably have a big smile plastered across his face as he surrenders the seminary's endowment to the equivalent of Al Sharpton who will immediately proceed to squander it.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Producers Hint Batman May Never Return To Television

In the Gotham series finale, viewers were provided a glimpse of the time when the characters had developed into their forms most remember either from the comics or other media.

However, according to a story posted at SyFyWire, there is a likelihood that there might never again be a Batman TV series .

That is because, DC Comics believes, Batman rightfully belongs in the movies.

So how's that working out for both viewers and the character?

With both “Superman vs. Batman” and “Justice League” underperforming, Ben Affleck has already, as they like to say, hung up his cowl.

This do not necessarily have to be this way.

There is no reason that there cannot be a cinematic Batman along with a small screen Batman that we are given more of than a glancing shot of as the screen fades to black.

After all, DC gatekeepers apparently have little issue with presenting the media-consuming public with two widely varying interpretations of the Flash.

Time to time, Superman makes an appearance on the Supergirl TV series and now Lex Luthor has been added as an ongoing antagonist.

An ongoing series of movies with installments released every two to three years are not enough to do a mythos as complex as Batman the justice and detail that would be possible with a TV series.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

One of the fundamental axioms of politics and policy is to never allow a crisis to go to waste. By that, it is meant that, if at all possible, a tragic event should not only be invoked in reference to limit the circumstances surrounding it, but also to taint one's opposition with the ensuing heartache so as to make their own defense against the allegations directed towards them seem callous and insensitive.

An article posted 7/26/18 on the Washington Post website is titled “Why Some Christians Don't Believe In Gun Control: They Think God Handed Down The Second Amendment”. The analysis opens, “We're now at a point when Americans are killed or injured in a mass shooting almost every month...Despite this, resistance to gun control in the United States remains fierce.”

However, blame is not placed on those actually perpetrating such horrific acts of violence. Instead, blame is aimed at those nebulously referred to as “Christian nationalists”.

The author defines Christian nationalism as an ideology that holds to the inseparable bond between Christianity and American civil society. Adherents of the philosophy are accused of believing that America should remain broadly Christian in terms of underlying symbols and policies with the nation's foundational liberties to be understood in terms of a literal and absolute meaning.

Interestingly, the authors of the study point out that adherents of Christian nationalism do not necessarily adhere to a singular interpretative theological tradition. Rather those of this perspective are not only conservative Evangelicals but also traditionalist Catholics or even those that construe existence through a religious lens but do not necessarily practice their faith through formalized church attendance.

Such a definition raises a number of issues and questions perhaps even more important than the right to bear arms. Among these rank why certain technocrats want to eliminate this particular liberty and, conversely, why Americans must not allow this precious freedom to be taken away if they desire to retain those more obvious such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The first presupposition denigrated as going “beyond merely acknowledging some sincere religious commitments of the Founding Fathers” is that America should always be distinctively Christian in terms of national identity. But if the majority in the nation are Christian at least to the degree that they have no problem identifying the institutions of such in terms of origin, why are these obligated to be altered to placate a small cabal of disgruntled secularists?

The next issue raised by the authors of the study that ought to be of concern is opposition to enumerated liberties understood as being divine, literal and absolute.

If rights are not understood as being divine in origin, it follows that these protections must derive then from being bestowed upon the individual by the state as the ultimate authority answerable to nothing higher in a materialistic or naturalistic universe. After all, even if for a moment the institution decides to grant those subject to it a degree of leeway referred to colloquially as “rights”, there is nothing preventing these from being revoked at a moment's notice because of the near monopolistic use of force utilized by the state. For even in a situation where the population has access to basic firearms, these are minuscule in terms of the sorts of munitions available to the state in the era of total war.

Only when rights are construed as being bequeathed upon mankind by God apart from the state can they be perceived as absolute and unchanging. For such a gift would be a reflection of God's absolute perfection and unchanging goodness.

Nor would an honest or descent person want it any other way. For if rights are granted by an individual or institution that is fallible by nature, who is to say that these rights were not mistakes to begin with.

This concern is evidenced in the case of Alex Jones. It has been concluded that a controversialist such as himself must be “deplatformed” for the sake of the social good because of his propensity to disseminate ideas contradictory to the narratives concocted by globalist puppet masters determining what will or will not constitute acceptable factuality.

Most people, even his admirers, will eventually admit that Jones has said shocking and outrageous things over the years. But what if this government that can adapt the scope of the allowable in order to calibrate what the technocrats conclude is the sort of society that they desire decide to contract the boundaries of permissible utterances further?

Believe that Jesus is the only path to Heaven? But if rights do not exist above the material world, what if a government concludes such cannot be said for fear of undermining the sense of equality of those residing within its jurisdiction? Unless the people are allowed to retain some kind of tangible check on such power run amok.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #122

Students at a Minneapolis high school are under investigation for holding a “patriotic black out” where the participants adorned themselves in red, white and blue regalia while a number also clung to a Trump 2020 reelection banner. The complaint was instigated by the coach of the visiting team that stayed in the locker room during the national anthem. So if it is their First Amendment Right to disrespect the flag in this manner, why don’t the students have a First Amendment Right to support the flag and anthem? Likewise, if students can be investigated for supporting the flag as a preparatory step towards punitive disciplinary measures, shouldn’t similar steps be taken against those that deliberately snubbed their noses at this nation’s most rudimentary symbols?

Regarding the senile Indian that beat his tomtom while a Catholic student who did little more than look on with a bewildered smirk was initially tossed to the wolves by operatives of his diocese . What does being a veteran have to do with the issue? In that case, are Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McViegh deserving of extra sympathy for simply being veterans?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has decreed that a system that allows for the existence of billionaires is immoral. But isn’t a system immoral when it imposes so many regulations and confiscatory assessments that the individual of average intelligence and ability is discouraged to the point of no longer striving to better themselves or expending the effort to accumulate wealth for the fear of being destroyed for violating these byzantine obligations?

In his criticism of the purity movement, a homeschool activist applauds his grandmother for getting married at the age of 15. So if this is to be allowed nowadays in Christian settings, will these young couples be expected to provide for themselves? Or, as in the case of many missionaries, is everybody else going to be guilt-tripped into providing those with outstretched hands and superiority complexes?

In his condemnation of the unmarried, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that our primary concern ought to be keeping the commandments of God and that likely means that our children are to be married. In other words, getting children married is not about their individual happiness or personal well being. Rather it is apparently about children existing to mollify the psycho-spiritual quirks and mental deficiencies of their parents. Along with that, Swanson warned that Christians must not get sucked into romantic or idealistic conceptions of marriage and instead view the institution as a tool (much like haired shirt one supposes) to mortify the flesh. In other words, kids ought to smacked up side the head (probably literally in the minds of some acolytes of this extremist form of pedagogy) if they refuse to settle for a mediocre partner they are less than enthused about and must apparently acquiesce to because of their parents diminished sense of self-worth.

In condemnation of fantasy films, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson upheld as praiseworthy a movie detailing a massacre of early Virginian colonists on the part of American Indians. But why is it acceptable to examine the moral implications of those sorts of actions in the light of that described narrative but instead inappropriate to contemplate a similar ethical situation in the form of Thanos’ use of the Infinity Gauntlet?

Regarding the alleged assault against actor Jussie Smollett, Joe Biden tweeted that such attacks must never be tolerated in this country. Did the former Vice President ever issue similar statements against the knockout game where urban youth predominantly selected White victims euphemistically referred to as “polar bears” or in regards to activist hordes looting private property in response to unpopular police actions or jury verdicts?

The Governor of Virginia pontificated that, since most legislators are men, they should stay out of the abortion debate. Applying similar reasoning, does that mean women should remain silent regarding the formulations for determining child support since it is usually men paying it?

The 1/30/19 Washington Post announced that Rand Paul was awarded $580,000 in a lawsuit over injuries sustained in an attack by his neighbor over a landscaping dispute. The story also pointed out that the perpetrator spent a month in jail for assaulting a member of Congress. As a good libertarian, shouldn’t Paul be opposed to an increase in penalty based upon the station of the victim when the crime was not necessarily motivated by the elected office held by the victim? Likewise, did Joe Biden issue a statement how neighbors physically attacking neighbors cannot be tolerated in this country? Guess Rand Paul is neither gay or Black enough to warrant such additional sympathy.

Sophisticates across the political spectrum are warning that Trump’s border national emergency will open the door to dictatorship. So where were these voices when their beloved Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were drawing up plans to suspend the Constitution, seize private property, and to conscript the civilian population into slave labor details? Aren’t the political figures that formulated these sorts of procedures as much at fault as any office holder that might implement any power already on the books?

Alaska airlines is threatening to hire more minority pilots. So pandering to activists is apparently more important than successfully transporting aircraft from point A to point B.

Regarding the weather forecast. The way the meteorologist is referencing the transition of snow to rain as "the change over" sounds more like a report on menopause.

Presidential contender Kamala Harris assures that the New Green Deal is more something to aspire to rather than concrete policy proposals to actually implement. So she wants an America where people will not be allowed to eat meat or fly? Can it be explained why it is an outrage to erect barriers to keep out those that have no right to be here but perfectly acceptable to impede the travel within designated borders of those sanctioned to be within a particular territory?

Bernie Sanders raised nearly a million dollars just hours after announcing his latest presidential bid. As a good socialist, shouldn’t he insist that these funds be seized and redistributed to less successful candidates?

by Frederick Meekins

Monday, April 1, 2019

Caravan Response Highlights Extent Of Progressive Hypocrisy

So many illegals are pouring over the border that Immigration Services are releasing the throngs onto American streets.

Local authorities are being asked to assist in the care of these undocumented transients.

But shouldn't enlightened progressives be outraged at this policy request?

They, after all, tossed conniptions at Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking it upon himself to enforce federal laws that were not.

The vigilante patriots of the Minute Man Project were condemned for doing nothing more than monitoring the border and reporting violations to law enforcement.

Activists are lamenting that the holding area for the horde of illegals swarming over the border resembles a concentration camp.

But unlike the case of the historical facilities alluded to, no one was forced into the ones the United States is accused of administering in this instance.

No goons banged down the doors of these people and dragged them here.

How many making these complaints are going to grant these migrants shelter in the gated communities from whence those making these sorts of allegations usually ensconce themselves with luxuries they would deny those deemed less enlightened in terms of espoused ideology?

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Diversity Fanatics Manipulate History Not For Education But To Advance Agenda Narrative

There is no pleasing diversity fanatics.

These subversives constantly harp the shortcomings of the past in the hopes of disgusting the otherwise undiscerning into going along with the pending revolution to collapse what remains of America's constitutional liberties.

Now, the First Lady of Virginia Pamela Northam is accused of a thought crime for handling a legislative page a piece of cotton during a tour of the Governor's Mansion and asking the student to imagine what it would be like to be enslaved and forced to pick that all day.

Is not that the entire point of history, to try and better understand as much as possible what those in he past endured?

One must ask then what exactly was it that Mrs. Northam did so wrong?

Try and prompt someone to try and think for themselves rather than reflexively respond in a manner as commanded by social engineers?

A complaint letter --- not even written by one of the students to whom the cotton was handed which also included Whites as well ---- states that the First Lady of Virginia's presentation made one of the delicate snowflakes within eartshot “uncomfortable”.

So how is that worse than what the average American feels every time these regrettable transgressions of the past are invoked to justify developments such as looting after unpopular trial verdicts and the expansion of social programs that will plunge the nation further into a debt spiral from which it will likely never recover?

So what is it going to be?

Are we going to reemphasize the negativity of the past to the point where the positive things we do have as a country are forgotten or are we to ignore them entirely because some have so pandered to the aggrieved so spoiled by unmerited concessions that the fawning attention demanded now overwhelms them?

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, March 2, 2019

Reparations A Down Payment On National Decline

History teaches that, when candidates are swept into office largely as a result of promising the electorate significant outlays from the treasury, the particular regime in question is at its death knell and on the verge of collapse.

In an attempt to pander to Blacks in this sort of manner, Elizabeth Warren --- identified by Reuters in the account of this policy proposal as White so we can be relieved that the leftist press has settled this brouhaha as to whether or not she's actually an American Indian --- has come out in favor of reparations.

In particular, the Senator is backing legislation that would assist minorities in making a down payment on a house.

But if it is wrong to deny someone access to housing on the basis of race, why is it right to assist an individual to procure housing when it is obvious that the person does not deserve to own a house on the basis of meritorious achievement?

Conversely, why is a Rustbelt or Appalachian White barely getting by as a box store cashier obligated to provide the taxes so the likes of Jussie Smollet, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson can be provided a down payment on a house?

If targeted populations were lavished with these handouts, would they shut up once and for all regarding historic mistreatments they never directly suffered or will they continue to invoke these in the ongoing attempt to extort additional concessions from gullible and easily manipulated Whites?

Providing government housing to vast swathes of the population benefits neither those it is lavished upon nor the areas in which such individuals come to reside.

The squalor endemic to numerous public housing projects is testament to this truth.

If Elizabeth Warren really was an Indian, you'd think she'd already be familiar with this sad reality.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Vocations Of Magistrate & Missionary Divergent At Core

For decades, secularist and religious progressives have urged their more theologically conservative counterparts to recognize a distinction between those that administer the affairs of the state and those that administer the affairs of faith.

However, with the Trump Presidency, it has become evident that what is meant by that admonition is that those that hold to traditional notions of piety are instead obligated to surrender to leftwing policy proposals.

This is particularly evident in an article posted at CNN.com titled “Why evangelicals should rethink Trump gospel”.

For example, the article says, “The Great Commission assumes the the faithful make disciples everywhere, including so-called S-hole countries.”

No Christian says otherwise.

However, the vocation of the President is not that of the frontline missionary.

The role of the President foremostly is to protect the well being of the nation he governs and those legally dwelling within its boundaries.

Nowhere in Scripture are entire nations obligated to lower their standard of living because others are insufficiently governed.

One of the most prominent critics of the Trump Presidency is none other than Pope Francis.

So before CNN gets on its high horse about Evangelical voters, if the Pope is such a fan of unbridled immigration and refugees, shouldn't the world's most influential media organization ask why the physical holdings of the Vatican are not being utilized to house these weary souls but instead remain open as what is essentially one of the world's oldest tourist traps?

God is not the one that needs those finely furnished structures.

After all, Acts 7:48 assures that God does not dwell in houses built by the hands of man.

Perhaps as the alleged Vicar of Christ, it is about time the Pope did the same.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, February 11, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #121

Did the ones tossing a fit about the emoluments clause of the Constitution supposedly being violated by President Trump get similarly jacked out of shape over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton profiting from the Uranium One deal or contributions made by certain regimes with notorious human rights records to the Clinton Foundation?

On the one hand, one wants to rush to the defense of Veggie Tales for being accused of fostering racism. On the other, one cannot help but burst out laughing thinking their creator got exactly what he deserves for the inordinate amount of time he spends on his podcast vocalizing Emergent church style White guilt.

The Violence Against Women Act is up for congressional reauthorization. Where is the Violence Against Men Act? Are men that have scalding water thrown on them by their wives somehow not as burned as a woman having the same thing done to her by her husband? The fact that women might more often be the victims of this unacceptable sort of behavior is a moot point. For are not these progressives usually the ones that drone on about a single victim being one too many when it comes to justifying their niche and intrusive agenda proposals?

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer find walls to be so immoral and that ingress towards particular destinations should instead be encouraged, does the duo intend to advocate for the removal of physical barriers impeding access to the Capitol?

If Kapernick is so opposed for what the flag stands for that he refuses to stand for the National Anthem, why is he considering playing for the very team that his political allies indoctrinate the public into believing is the epitome of oppression and insensitivity, namely the Washington Redskins?

Diversity fanatics went ballistic over a photo of a White model wearing a Black Panther sweater. Where will this stupidity end? Applying this standard, must one possess nearly genius I Q before wearing a Reed Richards’ Fantastic Four t-shirt? Does one not only have to be a genius but also proficient in in snark and sarcasm before being allowed to wear anything with an Iron Man logo? Must one be blind in one eye before being allowed to don anything alluding to Nick Fury? Even more importantly, why aren’t those objecting to cultural misappropriation and such still not outraged over the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. being switched from White to Black in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with racial awareness is to be the utmost priority in regards to the enjoyment of speculative costumed narrative? Along similar lines, isn’t casting Idris Elba as the character Heimdall in the Thor movies offensive to the practitioners of Nordic spirituality?

The Leah Remini episode regarding Scientology’s infusion into the National Of Islam was interesting. However, it was a bit disingenuous in overlooking the interest in extraterrestrials shared by both sects.

It is unfortunate that an 8 year old Guatemalan boy died at the border. But if his parents refused the offered medical treatment, isn't that their fault rather than Donald Trump's?

Regarding those in apoplexy over Trump threatening to invoke “emergency powers” to build the Great Wall of America. Did they ever lift a finger in response to tyrannical executive orders already on the books that would allow the federal government in a time of concocted crisis to not only seize any resource it desired but to also conscript and relocate vast swathes of the population into what would amount to a civilian slave labor force?

It is a shame that the establishmentarian media is not as jacked out of shape over multiple presidential administrations failing to secure the border as over a single president perhaps mischaracterizing what his predecessors might have said regarding his proposal to address this gaping hole in national security.

If no civilization or nation is superior to any other as has been hypothesized by the ostracism of Rep. Steve King from committee life, why do the migrant hordes press ever onward to violate Western borders?

Biologically, all humans are equal. However, in terms of the way they live, some civilizations are indisputably superior others.

Now that the House of Representatives has taken a self-congratulatory stand against “White sumpremacism and nationalism”, will Nancy Pelosi be as decisive in imposing condemnation and ostracism on Rashida Tlaib for having her photo taken with a Hezbollah operative?

A California Bible Presbyterian Church has dismissed its pastor over a message on its church sign reading “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.” The founder of the Bible Presbyterian movement, Carl McIntire, would be rolling in his grave. For despite his faults, Carl McIntire never backed down from a fight, especially when divinely revealed truth was on the line. Bruce Jenner might have mutilated his genitals and defaced his biochemistry with the injection of certain hormones. But that individual’s underlying genetic structure is still composed of an XY pairing of chromosomes. So what of other previously undeniable truths of Scripture or of nature’s God is this Bible Presbyterian congregation willing to surrender for the sake of social utility or cultural convenience? Will Jesus no longer be upheld as divine once the Islamists pull into town?

A Harvard panel discussion posted on Youtube is titled “The Future Of News: Journalism In A Post-Truth Era”. The moderator begins with a lament how this topic is of great urgency to the survival of our democracy. This is in large part, she continues, do to the erosion of fact. But wasn’t it just a few short years ago that academics and intellectuals of the variety lavished with endowed professorships at elite universities were at the forefront insisting that truth did not exist? Any insistence that facts as objective descriptions of reality was to impose White male heteronormative cognitive preferences upon those disposed towards alternative modalities of conceptualization. After all, just recently the darling upon whom these sorts pin their political aspirations in the hopes of setting the world right anew, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, admonished that the facts don’t matter when you are morally right.

If the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Electoral College in order to prevent smaller states from thwarting the will of the majority, why can’t the Constitution be amended so that smaller states can withdraw from the Union so citizens there do not have California or New York values imposed upon them against their will?

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, January 19, 2019

Megachurch Laments Results When Skimping On Sunday School Teachers

In a SermonAudio podcast, the staff of Berean Baptist Church lamented how the average Sunday School teacher does not go beyond the printed curriculum.

But isn't that for two basic reasons?

Number one, if teachers stick to the curriculum, they have at least that to defend themselves with when the pastor comes to pepper them with a battering of Scripture references should a doctrinal or even a merely an interpretative difference arises in class.

Second, even if they love both God and pupils, the Sunday school teacher --- unlike the pastor in most circumstances ---- is just a volunteer.

For, to put it bluntly, the Sunday School teacher has other things in life that they also need to attend to and you get what you pay for.

If asked to do the other workaday work of the Sunday school teacher, it is doubtful the pastor could do that job without the book or operational manual either.

If these pastors want Sunday school teachers as absorbed in the nuances of Scripture and doctrine as professional clergy, pay the Sunday School teachers the wages of a pastor or staff member at a church that already has at least a half dozen pastors and compensated assistants already on the payroll.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, January 13, 2019

Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

Legislation has been proposed in New York that would require applicants wanting to purchase a firearm to submit three years worth of their social media postings for review as well as their previous years online search history.

The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.

This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.

It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.

However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.

For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.

However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?

An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.

However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, January 1, 2019

Hit & Run Commentary #119

A Huffington Post article ponders “Why White Americans Love To Claim Native American Ancestry”.  Probably because they are sick and tired of being blamed for all the problems in the world from government, to media, to academia, to even assorted religious denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention.  Most Whites probably make such claims in the attempt to get these subversives off their backs, as a way to make a statement that they are not as dull and boring as the assorted race hustlers make them out to be, and perhaps as a way to position themselves to potentially grab a piece of the spoils accumulated as a results of threats made by the ethnic grievance racket.

A radio pastor postulated that Halloween sucks the individual into the occult the way that cigarettes pull one into the world of hardcore narcotics.  But what about the millions that don’t dabble in the world of drugs beyond tobacco? Isn’t this akin to insisting that one piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken is the gateway into obesity and heart disease?

An assailant was shot trying to enter a Washington, DC TV station without authorization.  In coverage of the event, detail was provided as to the layers of security an individual was required to pass through before being granted access to the building.  Such security measures are probably commonplace at media facilities across the country. But if broadcast media personnel deserve such workplace security, why is the United States as a whole not deserving of the additional protection that would be provided by a Great Wall of America?

A leftist subversive interviewed on Fox News said it is unAmerican not to consider the asylum claims of the Honduran horde oozing ever closer to the U.S. border.  Will this pundit speak out with similarly decisive condemnation of the deadbeats in this surging mob setting the American flag ablaze?

An article in the 11/2018 edition of The Nation is titled “White Men’s Tantrums: They’re frustrated by the prospect of their power eroding”.  Does this propaganda outfit intend to publish similar exposition analyzing how when Blacks toss tantrums over disagreeable judicial or law enforcement actions it usually results in looted electronics retailers or hair care establishments?

In light of mail bombs delivered to a number of prominent political figures, policy elites are warning that the rhetoric must be toned down.  But it is when people feel that their expression is being stifled that they are prone to consider violence.

In response to the mail bomb attacks, social engineers are blathering about the need for Americans to come together and set aside their differences.  So just how much more are we obligated to surrender to subversive partisans that will not be happy until everything one has worked for is confiscated and squandered in the name of income redistribution and resource equity?

So Linda Moulton Howe claims that earth is the experimental laboratory of multiple extraterrestrial races but claims of the New World Order stretch the limits of credulity in her mind?

How is the deplatforming of the entire Gab social network over the actions of a single member appreciably different from the sort of prejudice our multiculturalist overlords demand that we reflexively oppose to the point of infringing upon the spirit of traditional understandings of free expression if not technically its letter?

Apu is being excised from the Simpsons over concerns about stereotypes and cultural sensitivity.  So does that mean something similar can be done about Ned Flanders, Rev. Lovejoy and the mockery of Christianity presented by those two characters?

The Synagogue Shooter is on the record as opposing Trump over his support of Israel and the Jewish community.  As such, isn’t blaming the President for the massacre as much an outrage as blaming a scantily clad woman that she got raped?

If Halloween is so evil, isn’t slipping a tract in with the candy akin to slipping a tract along with a dollar into the thong of a lapdancer?

In condemnation of Vice President Mike Pence appearing with a Messianic rabbi, the Yahoo headline accuses the sect of this religious functionary of cosplaying as Jews.  Couldn’t the same thing pretty much be said regarding a variety of religious leftists hijacking Jewish terminology to advance a particular liberal agenda? For most of that persuasion seldom abide by the rigors of Old Testament custom or theology but rather invoke the concepts as a shield to protect their militant secularism and anti-Christian prejudice from scrutiny by those easily cowed by political correctness.  

If we are all obligated to come together irrespective of our theological differences in light of the tragic synagogue shooting or face assorted curtailments of civic participation opportunities such as the expression and dissemination of verbalized thought, shouldn’t those shouting this the loudest actually be complaining the least as to whether or not the rabbi appearing with Mike Pence was one that denies the divinity of Christ or embraces Jesus as the Messiah?

How is the call not to politicize itself not an act of politicalization?  What this really translates as is one does not want to hear an interpretation one does not agree with as to the hypothesized causes of a particular event or tragedy.  The ones perpetrating a particular event are ultimately the ones responsible. However, failure to examine the ideology motivating the deeds alleged to be perpetrated in the name of a certain cause, religion, or philosophy or even where these ideas were implemented in a way not intended by the initial expositor is to exhibit an appalling level of stupidity as to how the world works that will only serve the perpetuation of such tragedies.

Interesting.  So church people get reamed a new one if they talk things other than church before church.  Then I’ve heard them get reamed a new one for talking something other than church after church.  Then they get reamed yet again if they do not befriend people that they really aren’t allowed to say much of anything to in the only place where these said people would really encounter one another as frankly they possess no other shared interests or even in the same stage of life.

If suburbanite WOMENNNNN turned against the Republican Party  because they did not like President Trump’s tone, let’s see how they will like that of their daughters’ and granddaughters Islamist harem masters in about 25 years.

If a middle school displays propagandistic artwork depicting a celebrity whose primary reason for renown was refusing to comply with commands issued by organization administrators contradicting the preferences of the individual in question, should educators be surprised or respond with anything but praise when pupils exhibit a similar spirit of recalcitrance in responding to directives issued by government educators indoctrinating young minds in the glories of civil disobedience?

So will all those celebrating high voter turn out be as ecstatic when it will be Republicans or even more specifically Tea Party types turning up at the poles?  That is when we are usually beaten over the head with ponderous reflections about there being “too much democracy’ and how we are better off if distant elites plot the minutest details of our lives.

President Emmauel Macron of France denounced President Trump’s promotion of nationalism.  But doesn’t France administer an entire government agency for determining which foreign words may or may not be assimilated into the language?  Don’t many French go out of their way to make it known just how much they despise the American way of life? Most importantly, wasn’t it the French that inspired President Trump’s semi-idiotic idea of a military parade where tanks would have rolled down Washington, DC streets?

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, December 27, 2018

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

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

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

Thursday, November 22, 2018

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

Friday, November 16, 2018

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

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