Friday, March 27, 2020

The Study Of The History Of The End Of The World, Part 1

Deep within their hearts and minds, a significant number sense that the world is careening towards something that is both catastrophic yet wondrous all at the same time. Not exactly sure of what that is, many attempt to get a handle on this feeling of apprehensive expectation by conceptually referring to the stimuli and data provoking this emotional response as “the End Times”. With advances in technology just as likely to make our lives more complicated as convenient, it is understandable for contemporary man to assume that this is the first era in the history of the species to experience this particular variety of spiritual distress. However, the perspective of history shows how this cognitive distress is nothing new but has been an inherent component of Western civilization derived from that tradition's Judeo-Christian foundation even among segments of it that would no longer directly identify with that particular set of religious presuppositions.

In “The Last Days Are Here Again: A History Of The End Times” Richard Kyle begins his analysis by starting off with a definition of a few of the terms vital for understanding this particular area of theological study but which are often muddled as a result of their similarity (18-23). The first term defined by Kyle is “apocalyptic” or “apocalypse”. He defines that as a body of literature unveiling a divine secret in a manner that presents a catastrophic narrative describing a cosmic struggle between good and evil that often concludes in a decisive battle or deterministic series of events. Kyle proceeds to make a distinction between the terms “apocalyptic” and “eschatological”. In his use of the term, Kyle defines eschatology as “a study of the last things” of which the apocalyptic is a subset concerned more with impending doom.

Kyle is also careful to make a distinction between apocalypticism and millennialism. He does note that there is often overlap between the two. However, not all professing apocalypticism necessarily believe in millennialism and not all millenarians are apocalypticists. For example, theologians professing a postmillennial return of Christ do not usually believe in apocalypticism. Instead such exegetes believe conditions will improve gradually with the Second Advent occurring only after a near complete Christianization of the world. Adherents of certain forms of secularist catastrophism such as the nuclear freeze or environmentalist movements warn of an impending doom but do not necessarily foresee a desired golden age coming about afterwards should the horror that they warn against actually transpire.

A primary question raised is what is it about Western civilization that makes those steeped in it --- be they explicitly religious, secular, or somewhere along this spectrum --- susceptible to apocalyptic thinking? The first factor leading to the allure of an apocalypse is the pervasive insistence throughout Christian theology that Christ will indeed one day bodily return to Earth. Thus, at its heart, the Christian faith is by definition a millennial religion. For whatever reason in the goodness of His providence, God decided it was best to reveal in His word more of a symbolic outline of the conditions surrounding the return of His Son rather than detailed specifics.

Often it is the aspiration of man to desire more knowledge than he was intended or even capable of handling. That has resulted in those drawn to these particular passages of Scripture referring to the consummation of all things often undertaking an attempt to fill in what the human mind might perceive as gaps in our understanding. Such can serve a role if it draws the believer into a close study of the revered text for the purposes of deepening the understanding of the God supernaturally inspiring these works. However, the result can be deleterious if the outcome of that study is the confusion and unnecessary fear that often surrounds apocalyptic speculation if basic presuppositions such as no man knowing the day or hour as stated in Matthew 24:36 are not adhered in the rush to discover what is believed to be some new prophetic insight.

The second factor that can lead to an undue emphasis on the apocalyptic is the philosophy of history underlying much of Western thought. Such is derived from Christian assumptions, in particular those relating to the doctrine of Christ's return and those events leading to the commencement of eternity. Of the Western linear view of history, Kyle writes, “Rather, history moves from one event to the next until it reaches its final goal (22).”

While this view allows for repetitive themes and patterns, unlike the cyclical philosophy of history more characteristic of Eastern religions, the Judeo-Christian model does not hold to what amounts to a reincarnation of events as well as people. Instead, history will come to a decisive conclusion in the final judgment. Interestingly, though the intentions were far from Christian and the attempt to reach its goal marked by disastrous carnage, Communism also adapted a linear conception of history with the system's ultimate goal a classless utopia after the establishment of such all conflict would ultimately cease.

The scholar focusing upon this area of theological study most also note the distinction between the “apocalyptic” and “eschatological”. In his use of the term, Kyle defines eschatology as “a study of the last things” of which the apocalyptic is a subset concerned more with impending doom.

Kyle is also careful to make a distinction between apocalypticism and millennialism. He does note that there is often overlap between the two. However, not all professing apocalypticism necessarily believe in millennialism and not all millenarians are apocalypticists. For example, theologians professing a postmillennial return of Christ do not usually believe in apocalypticism. Instead such exegetes believe conditions will improve gradually with the Second Advent occurring only after a near complete Christianization of the world. Adherents of certain forms of secularist catastrophism such as the nuclear freeze or environmentalist movements warn of an impending doom but do not necessarily foresee a desired golden age coming about afterwards should the horror that they warn against actually transpire.

By Frederick Meekins

Bibibliography

Abanes, Richard. “End-Times Visions: The Doomsday Obsession.” Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1988.

Kirsch, Jonathan. “A History Of The End Of The World: How The Most Controversial Book In The Bible Changed The Course Of Western Civilization.” San Francisco, California: Harper Collins Publishers, 2006.

Kagan, Donald, Ozment, Steven and Turner, Frank. “The Western Heritage Since 1789 (Fourth Edition).” New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991.

Kyle, Richard. “The Last Days Are Here Again: A History Of The End Times.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1988. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1996.

Ladd, George. “The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of The Second Advent and The Rapture.” Grand Rapids, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1956.

Thompson, Damian. “The End Of Time: Faith ans Fear in the Shadow of the Millennium.”

Tuesday, March 24, 2020

Elites Lay Intellectual Foundation For Deliberate Systematized Depopulation

A Berkley academic that no doubt fancies himself an advocate of diversity, multiculturalism and moral relativism has proposed altering a variety of policies aimed at making the lives of those that dwell in rural areas uncomfortable.

This is apparently punishment for individuals daring to exhibit the audacity to make life decisions other than his.

His argument is that it is not efficient to extend the conveniences of twenty-first century existence to those living beyond the confines of concentrated centers of population.

The ironic thing is that those residing in rural areas would probably not descend into a state of feral savagery as quickly as those living in metropolitan areas, particularly those usually not required to lift a finger to earn the luxuries often lavished upon them.

But perhaps most importantly it is this sort of mindset articulated by someone claiming to be a philosopher that results in a future where two tributes are selected annually from the outlying districts to compete in gladiatorial games to the death.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, March 7, 2020

Limbaugh No Worse Than Other Presidential Medal Of Freedom Recipients

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has condemned the bestowing of the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Rush Limbaugh on the grounds that he is a “violent racist”.

Limbaugh, even if some of the things he has said over the decades were of questionable taste, has never advocated acts of violence.

That is more than can be said of those that Ocasio-Cortez associates herself with such as Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, and Ilhan Omar who dismissed 9/11 as some people just doing something.

If Ocasio-Cortez is so concerned about violence, why is she on the record of not caring whether or not she is categorized as a socialist, a political description often linked with the worst mass murders in modern history?

It is being argued that, since Martin Luther King was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the honor should not be bestowed upon Rush Limbaugh.

But as shocking as the broadcaster's four marriages might be, that still pales in comparison to not only the esteemed civil rights icon's numerous alleged affairs but also claims that he stood nearby laughing as a woman was raped.

Regarding those jacked out of shape over Rush Limbaugh being granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom, do they intend to be as livid over the honor having been bestowed on Ted Kennedy?

For despite his faults, Limbaugh never killed a woman by leaving her to drown in a wrecked automobile.

Will the one granted to Bill Cosby be revoked?

For despite numerous marriages, there seems to be no record of Limbaugh pharmaceutically manipulating the target of his libido in order to take advantage of them carnally.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, February 27, 2020

Hit and Run Commentary #127

That’s interesting. Ben Sasse published a book titled “The Vanishing American Adult”. In the tome, the legislator criticized those that do not comport themselves with an austere sobriety. Yet he appeared on the premiere episode of the Jonah Goldberg podcast where the host joked that he was wearing a spaghetti strainer codpiece. The duo referenced how corn stalks could be urinated into in such a way so that liquid biological effluent could spill out onto an unsuspecting harvester. If that was not enough, towards the conclusion of such an edifying policy dialog, a passing reference was made to “key parties.” I will admit that sometimes my content skirts along the edge of propriety. However, never did I posture that my own sense of virtue would preclude me from voting for Donald Trump because of the tycoon’s uncouth utterances as did these pivotal public intellectuals. Nor, unlike Sasse during his book tour, would I question the masculinity of college students for refusing to climb a tree twenty feet tall for the purposes of adorning an evergreen with a mere Christmas decoration.

According to presidential candidate Marianne Williamson in her other side hustle as a peddler of metaphysical swill, ‘“Only love is real. Nothing else actually exists. If a person behaves unlovingly, then, that means that, regardless of their negativity … their behavior was derived from fear and doesn’t actually exist. They’re hallucinating. You forgive them, then, because there’s nothing to forgive.” This raises a number of questions. Firstly, on what grounds then does the threat she insists Donald Trump poses actually exist? Is she admitting that what she is experiencing is a leftover effect of the dope she readily confesses she partook of in previous decades? Secondly, if behavior based on negativity such as fear does not exist, given that her campaign is based largely on the fear of the President, does that mean voters should be as similarly dismissive of her campaign as well? For if the threat of the Trump presidency ultimately has no more reality than that of Thanos from the Avengers or Sauron from the Lord Of The Rings, then why such a considerable expenditure of resources to take on a mere figment of the imagination?

Fox News is virtue signalling about not mentioning the name of the El Paso gunman. Isn't this the equivalent of refusing to reference the perpetrators of other atrocities? So will documentaries no longer directly mention James Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, or Timothy McVeigh?

For the concept of black blood to play a prominent role in two CW dramas, it has got to have some kind of occult or gnostic significance. Maybe it is somehow related to the black eyed children often conjectured to be some sort of human/extraterrestrial hybrid. For the primary protagonist of “The Outpost” is in essence a nephilim (or in the context of the series basically an elf which is apparently a race combining humans and demonic entities known as the Lycyri.

The battle cry of the Three Musketeers was “One for all and all for one.” An advertising campaign for the CW television network is “All for we.” That is particularly disturbing in light of the homosexual advocacy underlying a number of the station’s dramas. For unlike the motto of the Musketeers, this contemporary alteration attempting to invoke the camaraderie of the original formulation insinuates that the individual possesses no inherent worth apart from compliance with the herd mentality as part of the group.

If President Trump tightens mental health confinement standards, what is to prevent him from being taken into custody for utterances failing to comply with prevailing herd mentalities?

The Naval Academy football team is dropping the slogan “Load the clip” in light of mass shooting incidents. Instead, the slogan will be “Win the day”. But shouldn’t even this replacement be condemned in regards to its celebration divisiveness and dominance? For isn’t to declare a winner nearly the ultimate way to express that one entity is better than another by some objective criteria? Doesn’t that undermine the coming together for the sake of coming together in the utopia all are obligated to aspire to or face the consequences?

In light of the El Paso massacre, the Mexican government is demanding that the United States tighten firearms laws Because gun control has certainly diminished violence south of the border.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, January 20, 2020

Greatest Story Ever Told's Opening Act Tweaked To Advance Leftwing Agenda

In the frantic effort to co-opt all of culture to advance the cause of comprehensive revolution, not even the symbols of the sacred and solemn are immune from being hijacked for the purposes of advancing the agenda. In fact, it is often the only time that otherwise intended for destruction will be tolerated by those already having pledged their loyalty to the one bent upon toppling the Most High.

According to a story published in the 12/9/19 edition of USA Today, a Methodist church in California erected a Nativity depicting Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as detained refugees. Apparently, this is not the first time the congregation has utilized what ought to be a reverent display to propagandize on behalf of a faddish social cause.

According to the pastrix, the previous year's addressed the California homeless crisis. The 2019 version wanted the beholding to imagine Mary, Joseph, and Jesus separated at a Trumpian detention center in juxtaposition with the presupposition that “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.” It seems this holiday display compounds the factual and philosophical fallacies and omissions one year to the next.

The first of these needing to be addressed is the issue of California's homeless problem. Foremostly, Mary and Joseph were not homeless. The couple anticipating the Messianic child were ordered by Roman decree to travel from their home in Nazareth to the town of their ancestors for the purposes of registering with the census and paying their taxes.

If the congregation wants to do more than posture, preen, and virtue signal as to how bad they feel about the homeless epidemic, perhaps they would do well to reflect upon what is causing this lamentable crisis. They might be surprised to learn that the sort of progressivism likely embraced by many attending this sort of church has exacerbated the situation.

For example, since easing the restrictions on cannabis across America (supposedly for so called “medicinal purposes” even for patiences not suffering metastasized cancer, seizure disorders, or glaucoma but usually for nothing more than lazy ass syndrome).homeless rates have skyrocketed noticeably. For often those for whom the consumption of this intoxicant has become the central organizing facet of their existence find it a challenge to keep themselves satisfactorily employed and domiciled.

One can legitimately debate the role to be played by government and/or charity in addressing this issue. However, it will not be resolved --- something that elites might not even want to see transpire as a number paradoxically have a vested interest in seeing that the problem remains ongoing ---- unless individual responsibility and choices are recognized for the role they play in terms of ruined lives.

Though the Holy Family was not homeless in the terms of having no designated locality of habitation once their business with the regime had been concluded, if we want to take the presuppositions as expressed by the interpretative spin of this particular Nativity to their logical conclusion, do the statists possess the conviction to point out the implications of California's infamous taxation and regulatory bureaucracy upon the homeless situation?

For if the taxes and level of government intrusion beyond basic safety becomes too great, businesses will either close or leave California. In turn, those working for these enterprises will end up losing their jobs. That could result in the forfeiture of their homes if there are not a sufficient number of open positions in which the occupationally displaced can find reemployment.

Often in America, if one found themselves in a situation where they could not find employment to their liking, there was always the possibility of making one's own job through some sort of entrepreneurial undertaking. However, given the extent to which government has come to exert punitive influence over nearly every aspect of life to the point that in order to sell doodads at a flea market one has to beseech a permit and then often have to preemptively estimate before hand how much revenue might be generated from such transactions one could easily be discouraged from pursuing the very forms of basic commerce that could have prevented one's plunge into destitution.

The reflection put into the display depicting the Holy Family as detained refugees is no better than the narrative casting them as typical homeless. The press statement referring to the figurines depicted in this manner states, “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.”

Jesus did emphasize kindness and mercy. However, He just as much emphasized that these qualities can only be extended when certain conditions are met. For the same corpus of divine revelation proclaiming the salvation found in Christ also just as explicitly extols “let all things be done decently and in order.”

It is because kindness and mercy play such a central role in Christian ethical thought that the nation is justified in exerting stringent oversight in regards to whom it will decide to grant entrance.

In terms of kindness, a government of a particular territory is obligated to extend this firstly and foremostly to those residing legally within the confines of its accepted borders. This is accomplished on the most rudimentary level by making sure those seeking to enter the territory under its protection intend that territory and those residing within no harm.

To those accustomed to living a comfortable existence in a nation relatively safe when compared to numerous others, detaining and separating families might not seem very kind or merciful. But given the circumstances, the United States should be commended for the merciful restraint that it does extend as a nation.

For example, if kindness and mercy were not priorities, the United States could very easily plant a minefield along the border without concern for what happens to any daring to cross it, with snipers standing ready to pick off any survivors happening to make it across such a daunting obstacle. But America is such an upstanding nation that the country has decided not to defend itself in such a manner out of a concern for the innate dignity of all human beings.

Relatedly, it must also be asked was it an act of kindness and mercy to create a situation where droves are apparently under the impression that all they had to do not only be allowed admission but also lavished with extensive (and the case could be made even extravagant) benefits was simply showing up with an outstretched hand? Such lawlessness is a boon to neither newcomer or longstanding citizen alike.

Given that, overall, Americans are a kindhearted and sympathetic sort, those skilled at manipulating the narrative in the direction of predetermined ends have made use of images depicting children ---- a number appearing to be quite young --- detained in locked cages with nary a parent in sight. Admittedly, such a situation is far from ideal. Yet in light of the circumstances, the policy could very well be the kindest and most merciful thing that can be done in this particular circumstance.

Firstly, there is often little proof that these children actually belong to the adults that are just about using them as human shields in the hopes of sneaking them past what are assumed to be dimwitted and softhearted border patrol officers. For all we know these urchins could very well be in transit by human traffickers to lives of sex slavery and prostitution.

Thus, do not the mercy and kindness called for on the part of Claremont United Methodist Church demand that these identification and relationship claims be proven and verified? After all, were not actual Americans put through similar wringers when forced to authenticate themselves before being granted documents in compliance with the Real ID Act required in order to continue their lives as fully recognized residents and citizens of the territorial United States?

It could be responded but why must children be separated from their parents during the detention process? But would it be an act of kindness or mercy to leave these vulnerable individuals even with their alleged parents in facilities just as likely to contain the perverted dregs as well as the noble destitute from the society from which both classes are fleeing?

Those na├»ve as to how the world actually works would likely reply, “At least allow these children to remain with their mothers even if they have to be separated from their fathers to protect children from predatory men.” Like it or not, at this time under United States law to enter into the country without proper authorization is still a crime.

As such, if the children of those accused of this act get to remain with their parents throughout detention, why do not actual American children get to remain with their parents then they are taken into custody for other criminal violations? Do these so-called “human rights” activists intend to articulate a similar degree of outrage over parents arrested for failing to comply with vaccination requirements or on behalf of the German family arrested there for homeschooling and denied asylum by the Obama regime because the family happened to adhere to Christianity rather than one of the forms of Third World heathenism lavished with accolades by the otherwise godless adherents of secularist multicultrualism?

The Reverend Ristine's comment closes in the article with the remark “a radical welcome of all people.” But just how radical is the welcome that would be extended by Rev. Ristine and the Claremont United Methodist Church?

For example, some churches along with others in their areas on certain nights in the winter allow the homeless to shelter in a designated building to get these individuals out of the cold. So what if Claremont United Methodist Church agreed to take in a certain number and a dozen more than planned forced their way into the building, proceeding to use the facilities in a way that was wantonly deleterious or even explicitly disrespectful of the graciousness extended by the hosts? Would the congregation be required to allow these souls to urinate in the baptistry or defecate in the pews since interdicting such behavior might be interpreted as contradicting the “radical welcome of Jesus”?

The Claremont United Methodist Church is first and foremost a church. As such, central to its identity is a scheduled weekly time of worship where the agreed upon leaders of the congregation provide a didactic oration usually accompanied by music of a style those assembled deem appropriate.

Thus, what if a group came into the sanctuary without prior authorization and proceeded to drone on incessantly about the imperative of reelecting President Trump? Better yet, what if the uninvited interrupted the otherwise orderly execution of the liturgy (particularly during Rev. Ristine's homily) with an exegesis elaborating their understanding how certain Scriptural texts are correctly interpreted as forbidding women from the ranks of the ordained clergy?

A church has the right to say, “Look, we will allow you to enter our arms welcoming you. But there are rules you will be required to abide by. If not, we are going to have to ask you to leave and you won't be allowed to come in.” As such, does not something similar apply to other social institutions as well?

It might not be the place of government to decide complex questions of theology. Yet inversely, as part of its mandate, the state has the obligation to be not quite as welcoming as the church as its primary function is to ensure that those existing within specified boundaries do not pose a viable threat and that a set of objective standards are adhered to in order to prevent widespread social breakdown.

There can be debate as to how stringent these ought to be in a society endeavoring to balance the needs of liberty and security. Yet to argue that the welcome must be so broad as to allow all arrivals irrespective of intent is to invite nothing but the destruction of what made this land a relative oasis amidst a troubled world in the first place.

Often President Trump addresses the hard truths that face the nation in a manner that some might construe as blunt or inartful. It must be admitted ---- something that he himself at one point refused to do when he insisted that he had never done anything in need of divine forgiveness ----- that he suffers (as do we all) from any number of flaws. However, his sincerity in wanting to see the borders of the United States protected for the benefit of all cannot be denied and should be applauded by all that profess to love America.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, December 12, 2019

Leftist Governor Miserly In Gifting Christmas Tree Its Proper Due

With a President in the White House that at least values the input of traditionalists even if he does not always comport himself with the wisdom and humility derived from such, one would hope that they time had finally arrived for a respite from the culture wars that have been raged now for nearly a generation. However, a development in the state of Wisconsin reminds that these sorts of battles are never over and that the victories seemingly achieved one year can be reversed with a stroke of a pen the next.

In the Wisconsin State Capitol, Governor Tony Evers has erected what he is referring to as a “holiday tree”, defiantly reversing former Governor Scott Walker's principled stance to call the decoration by what nearly 99.9% of the population know it to be. That is, of course, a Christmas tree.

Yet in the current environment, it is not enough for there to be a linguistic detente with the nomenclature to be switched back and forth each time the governorship might changed party hands. For this Democratic governor must advance the ongoing assault against religious belief in general and Christianity in particular.

It is apparently not enough to decorate the disputed celebratory evergreen with the same sort of ornamentation irrespective of whether it will be called a holiday or Christmas tree with the beholding individuals to determine for themselves the symbolic meaning or lack thereof for striped candy canes, wreathes, stars, or even Santa Claus himself. With the severity of the White Witch in “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe” by C.S. Lewis or the Burgermesiter Meisteburger in “Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town” the Governor has decreed that the state tree will be (festooned) with ornaments crafted by pupils “that celebrate what science means to them, their families, and their communities.”

Mind you, this will no doubt mean science construed through the lens of a Democratic Party increasingly oriented towards socialistic radicalism. For example, it is doubtful that no ornaments will be allowed attesting to the undeniable fact that the unborn child in the mother's womb is indeed a distinct human life and no matter the extent to which an individual mutilates their body through reassignment surgery on the genetic level one remains the same sex since conception. It is just as doubtful that an ornament would be allowed attesting to the concept of irreducible complexity with the implications of that pointing the rational towards the conclusion of Intelligent Design.

Rather what is being called for here is affirmation of science so called that supports statist preconceptions in regards to environmentalism and global warming. The governor's proclamation regarding such decrees, “...clean water and natural resources, to sustainability and renewable energies..”

Wouldn't these banalities be more appropriately referenced in regards to Arbor or Earth Day? Even the press readily admits that this propaganda effort has been undertaken on behalf of the state's Department of Natural Resources to get back at the Walker administration for cutting positions in biology and ecology.

It must also be asked is Governor Evers ever consistent in undermining other holidays --- especially those precious to preferred demographics and faith communities --- for the purposes of advancing what are essentially glorified public service announcements?

For example, given the ceremonial emphasis one particular faith places on male genitalia, would the time surrounding what are referred to as that particular religion's high holy days or the celebration propped up in winter to prevent their youth from defecting to the other team be co-opted to emphasize prostate cancer awareness?

And everyone pretty much knows to leave one particular unmentioned religion and its attendant holidays alone altogether if one does not want to be scrapped off the sidewalk with a squeegee following a car bomb explosion.

Given the extent to which errant or deficient creeds must be venerated these days where tolerance is often enforced under threat of bodily harm, property destruction or financial ruination, why shouldn't celebrations primarily Christian in their origin or nature be granted a similar degree of respect in terms of the symbols for such placed in those spaces in large part provided by those professing belief in the particular religion under consideration?

For it is because of Christianity that the science the Wisconsin governor professes to value even exists in the first place as a systematized attempt to think God's thoughts after Him to the extent that we as mere human beings are capable.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, December 1, 2019

Hit and Run Commentary #126

Antifa insurgent Willlem Van Spronsen is being heralded as an hero in the mainstream media for is attack on a Seattle immigration facility. Wonder how long until New Wave Baptists hand down an edict demanding mere pewfillers flagellate themselves in homage to this revolutionary martyr.

Am trying to wrap my mind around New Wave Baptist thinking. Apparently a pewfilling angler that skipped three Sundays in row to go fishing should be subject to formalized church discipline. Likewise, a member wanting to resign from a congregation over the refusal to remove a book from the church bookstore by an author that allegedly abetted child molestation was denied PERMISSION to leave. Yet there is no outcry for discipline on the part of these sorts when ministries eagerly link to CD’s with cover art depicting the puffing of recreational cannabis or when a theologian calls for the hacking of the U.S. electoral system to prevent a Trump reelection. In fact both offenders are still upheld as beloved brothers in the faith most likely simply because they are Black.

Apparently this is the debate topic of the day: I resolve that overall one is better off overall being a “momma’s boy” than “p---y whipped”. In most instances, a mother does not have an incentive to financially ruin her son and in most cases strives to ensure that he is not mistreated. The woman controlling a man through sex has no reason not to ruin the life of a man she can no longer manipulate or who no longer keeps her attention in a carnal manner. What these woman jacked out of shape are actually articulating is a frustration and the inability to acquire the resources accumulated by a man that is a momma’s boy or adopted some iteration of MGTOW ideology.

In an episode of the City Of Man podcast, Capitol Hill Baptist-linked theologian Thabiti Anyabwile denounced as a tendency the White church the reluctance to accept those as Christians who do not vote conservative. But he himself recently remarked that you are satanic if you do not support reparations.

In an episode of the podcast The City Of Man, Capitol Hill Baptist-linked theologian Thabiti Anyabwile denounced elevating White normativity to the level of Christian obligation. As an example, he referenced a panel on worship responding negatively to the possibility of Christian hop hop. If culturally expansive ministries want to make the case for the legitimacy of such artistic productions, perhaps these organizations should link to albums other than one depicting an image of an individual puffing what one assumes is recreational cannabis given that the title of the CD itself alludes to words associated with the use of controlled substances. Furthermore, if Black people don’t like White folks’ worship music and vice versa, why not just go to a church where your preferred demographic predominates? These are not the days of the Pre-Reformation in which we live with only one church game in town.

There is nothing in the Pledge of Allegiance insinuating that because an individual articulates its phraseology in reference to the United States that God is not the God of other nations. So just what other aspects of life internal to America must be curtailed and altered from the perspective of being concerned regarding what other countries think? And I was the one accused of spreading fear for daring to raise the question of what would happen to a congregation’s flag should a merger take place with a congregation where one of its elder’s claim to fame is his antipathy to ecclesiastical displays of patriotism.

It’s been claimed that childless millennials that go to Disney parks are sad and weird. Maybe so. But they are entitled to spend their excess vacation dollars anyway they want. Vacation is about doing what you enjoy. Not pleasing those around you that in no sense provide for you. Maybe childless millennials that go to Disney are weird. But they are less disturbing than the gays that go to Disney and stick their tongues down each other’s throats in front of young children.

If this is the route we want things to go, I would say that a church should be more ashamed over having a Wrestlemania style jumbotron, smoke machines, and effect lighting than a simple American flag.

Apparently Pastor Matt Chandler speaks at Dallas Theological Seminary. I remember when respectable dispensationalism considered you little better than a Catholic if you were a holy roller such as a Pentacostal or Charismatic.

According to Pastor Matt Chandler in a sermon on racial reconciliation, it is insinuated that you ought to confess your “racial sins” to someone solely on the basis of what color they happen to be. At that point, one really ought to leave such a church and never look back. That is especially sound advice in regards to Chandler’s own Village Church which is also facing a multimillion dollar molestation lawsuit.

In a Matt Chandler sermon at Dallas Theological Seminary on overcoming prejudice, an institution functionary admonished the need to repent of the cultural sins of our forefathers even if these misdeeds are more perceived than actual. Now does that include things said about and done to Catholics or are they not usually Black enough?

Just because a pastor or minister is wracked with White guilt over his lack of diverse friends, there is no reason an entire congregation needs to be beaten over the head about it. In all fairness, I don’t really hang out with all that many White people either.

If the Obama’s are so outraged at President Trump’s characterization of Baltimore, why didn’t the former first couple settle on property there for their post-presidential residence rather than in a swanky, upscale section of Washington, DC. Aren’t there a number of open air markets in Baltimore of the sort that Michelle claims to adore?

In a Matt Chandler video on racial reconciliation, it was insinuated that the true church is obligated to listen to the music of and eat the food of different cultures. If you attend a church, there might not be much you can do about assorted rhythms assaulting your tympanic membranes. But the moment you are told what you are obligated to eat in order to receive the approval of the COMMUNITY, you have begun taking dangerous steps into cult territory.

In a video on racial reconciliation posted by Matt Chandler of Village Church, it was lamented that most Americans will only have friends of another race if the person thinks like they do.  So just how deep into our closest confidences are we obligated to bring those advocating the forcible redistribution of property and resources or the proponents of assorted forms of revolutionary violence and jihadism? To what extent are conservatives and related traditionalists obligated to alter their own underlying worldview to placate ecumenicalist social engineers?

In a video by Matt Chandler of Village Church on racial reconciliation, it is emphasized that the individual’s preference does not matter in regards to worship music. That might be true if you want to remain at a church as a paid staff member. But has news about the Protestant Reformation not yet reached certain people? Dear reader, if things are that onerous at your church, you have the freedom to go elsewhere if you are already driving wherever else you want to go. You don’t even have to go back at all if things have burdened your conscience to that degree and there is no hope of improvement or you derive no sense of purpose or satisfaction playing the gadfly role.

It was insinuated by Pastor Matt Chandler in a video on racial reconciliation that you are racist if you do not welcome racial minorities into your home. Frankly, I don’t really welcome that many other Caucasians. They really have no reason to be there.

American cities are so overrun with rodents that the nation is on the verge of a bubonic plague outbreak. Should that happen, any categorizing the epidemic as anything other than a glorious environmental correction will be condemned as an enemy of sound ecology.

Too bad tolerancemongers are not as concerned about rodents infesting Baltimore as they are about Trump’s characterization of the situation.

In a sermon on racial reconciliation, Pastor Matt Chandler insinuated that there needs to be verbalized confession of sins between those of various racial groups. So how does this work: “Hey mommacita or brown sugar, I’m sorry that I like your jiggle when you strut.”

In agitating about White privilege, Gospel Coalition operative Matt Chandler lamented how in his youth the local high school football games were diverse but the churches were not. That is because the town probably only had the one football team but most likely multiple churches.  So who decides what congregation closes up shop to placate some leftwing activist’s arbitrary preferences? Chandler can’t even let enough control go of the churches he has planted for them to operate as autonomous independent congregations. His preferred ecclesiastical modality is the multisite paradigm.  That is where in most instances you go to a satellite campus to watch a live stream feed from central headquarters.

Does it really matter if White folks worship in churches composed primarily of other White people and Black people in churches composed primarily mostly of Black people so long as one congregation is not planning to go vandalize or firebomb their counterparts?

In condemning seminarians establishing independent congregations rather than coming under the authority of megachurch potentates, how is Matt Chandler appreciably different than a medieval pontiff insisting that there is no legitimate church outside of Rome’s direct authority? Maybe if Chandler did not oversee a church of 14,000, if the average church had an average attendance of 100 people, maybe nearly 150 people would be able to be employed by smaller independent congregations.

If you are so mentally weak that seeing the flag of a country in a church building in that country inflicts upon you irrevocable psychological harm, perhaps it might be best if you avoided international travel.

In ramblings psyching himself up to perpetrate his atrocity, mass murderer Santino Legen wrote, “Why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white tw**s?” In attempting to cast this incident solely as racial, the comment directed against Whites is largely being ignored. If we are obligated to delve into the philosophical causes of these sorts of tragedies, isn’t population control and radical environmentalism just as much to blamed in this incident?

Considerable debate has erupted over remarks regarding the propriety of childless millennials vacationing at Disney parks. But what about scrutinizing an assertion made in the initial tirade suggesting that simply because a woman has a child she should be allowed to skip the line because neither she nor her whelp have the patience to wait and are too important to be bothered with the inconveniences that beset mere mortals? So unless a customer is willing to pay extra for some sort of timed access permit, just because you have spawned that does not entitle an individual to resources where access is based upon other objective market criteria.

By Frederick Meekins

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