Thursday, December 20, 2012

Anti-Nativity Scrooges Selective In What Gods They Toss Out Into The Cold

Anti-Nativity Scrooges Selective In What Gods They Toss Out Into The Cold

For decades, Santa Monica churches erected nativity scenes on municipal park land there in celebration of the Christmas season.  However, the onward march to abolish the assorted foundations upon which America was built continues unabated and is now even seeming to accelerate as evidenced by increasing numbers of the able bodied voting for demagogues promising bounty the recipients did not have to lift a finger for and to solemnize with one of society's highest recognitions relationships once considered so far beyond the boundaries of acceptability that the respectable were often too ashamed to even speak of.  As such, even those trappings held over from the previous world order that brought joy and happiness to the adherents of beauty and truth must be eliminated.

In 2011, the authorization process for erecting the Nativities was altered so that many of the permits ended up going not to churches but rather to a motley assortment of unbelievers.   As a result of the hassle and embarrassment, under the excuse of the necessity maintaining an unobstructed seaside view, municipal authorities decided to do away with depictive winter displays altogether.

The ultimate reason though is to deny access by any particular viewpoint by suppressing them all equally.  Sort of the socialistic notion that everyone is equal because everyone is equally miserable.

Cutting edge commentary will likely focus on the here and now with how the tradition has been abolished in its entirety.  However, the way the issue was handled in 2011 still gives rise to observations as pertinent today as they aptly apply to the overall tenor of the age in which we live rather than the narrow focus of a particular year which has already elapsed.

In 2011, one of the displays erected by the apostates and unregenerates read "What myths do you see? 37 million Americans know myths when they see them."  Pictured along with the slogan were images of  Neptune, Santa Claus, Jesus and Satan.

Of course, the Old Deluder, the Devil himself, has no problem being depicted as a buffoonish cartoon villain since, though he has a massive ego having at one time conspired to set his throne on the mount of the congregation in his attempt to usurp the place of the Almighty.  At this point in the game, he is more concerned about dragging down as many as he can with him to eternal damnation rather than to get as many as possible to swear an eternal positive affirmation to his infernal name.

Of course, especially in a place like California, it really doesn't take all that much courage to thumb one's nose at Christ either.  After all, He was the one that admonished the insulted to turn the other cheek and those ready to call for Crusades on behalf of His name, even if not in His spirit, don't exactly hold he sway they once did.

So shouldn't those wanting to take a courageous stand in the name of the Great Emptiness or however else one might be inclined to depict nothing whatsoever take on a figure whose backers show a little more teeth? For instance Islam?  These fanatics threatened the producers of South Park for even obscuring the view of the specific personage  that was suppose to be in the bear costume.

However, it seems these leftists converging upon California only go out of their way to have Judeo-Christian religious figures removed from view on public property.  They seem to exhibit little opposition to deities advocated by less than Biblically acceptable religions and forms of belief.

For in California, in the mid 90’s a monument costing the taxpayers nearly $500,000 was erected to Quetzalcoatl.  Quetzalcoatl is the winged serpent god from Aztec mythology around which a number of Hispanosupremacist front organizations hope to repaganize and de-Christianize this targeted demographic in preparation for the uprising against the United States when insurgents intend to slaughter the remaining Whites in disputed Southwestern territories.

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.  To be consistent, that would include those of a non-Christian variety as well.

Thus, it would be reasonable to conclude that there must be a greater overarching, more pragmatic commonality linking those that believe in no God and those that believe that higher order beings condescended down to our level who, rather than shed their blood and died on our behalf, insisted that our blood be shed and lives sacrificed to placate the base lusts of these craven entities whether the victims were willing or not.  That shared commonality is nothing less than an outright hatred of the God that is there and a desire to see His followers silenced.

by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Free Will in Sandy Hook

by David Lawrence

My wife tells me that God created free will so that we should not blame him for killers. That we should not be angry at him for the twenty little dead babies at Sandy Hook.
I say, “By giving Adam Lanza free will he took away the free will of those children to play, to breathe, to live.  Does God only give free will to overpowering killers?  God disappoints me. “
 “Christ died for you,” she says.
“He was subject to the benighted free will of the Romans,” I say.   “He was a good man without the Godly apparatus to defend himself.”
“Christ had free will.”
“If you believe he wanted to die,” I say.  “The Romans had free will too.  Apparently, there’s was more effective.”
“That’s sacrilegious,” my wife says.
“Truth often is,” I say.  “Free will in a killer is worth more than that in a child or a saint.  I don’t think God was fair in his apportionment of free will,” I say.
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
“I am what I say.  I am the freedom of thought, the celebration of will, the instant word of evaluation. I am mourning God’s reluctance to intercede.  I am saying that free will is comparative and not Godly. The dead children of Sandy Hook are heaven and earth’s condemnation.”

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Newsweek Trashes Christ’s Name During Christmas Season

The Dec. 17, 2012 issue of Newsweek Magazine published a cover story titled "Who Was Jesus?"
Instead of providing a balanced perspective on this topic, editors instead allowed the topic to be addressed by Bart Ehrman.
Bart Ehrman's claim to fame is essentially undermining every tenet of orthodox Christianity by casting doubt on the sources that serve as the foundation of the faith in favor of texts more gnostic in origins and interpretation.
Thus, it must be asked, would Newsweek publish an article casting aspirations on the founder or central figure of another world religion deliberately during a time of the year held to be one of the most sacred among a significant percentage of the faith’s adherents?
Would Newsweek pull something like this during Ramadan?
Both Voltaire and Nietzsche in their respective eras remarked how the name of Jesus Christ was on the wane and that God was dead.
Now, a Bible Society has turned Voltaire’s former home into an office and it is Nietzsche that is dead.
As the periodical prepares to publish its last print edition towards the close of 2012, perhaps Newsweek should stop and reflect where its name will be 200 years or so in comparison to the Name Above All Names.
by Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Obama Welcomes the Fiscal Cliff

by David Lawrence

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner boasts that Barack Obama is willing to go off the so-called fiscal cliff if Republicans don’t increase taxes on those who earn more than $250,000. So, our fearless leader, Obama, a scholar in economics, a mathematical whiz kid, is willing to damage our whole country if he doesn’t get his way. 
Hell hath no fury like a metrosexual spurned. The shrew can’t be tamed.  It’s his way or the highway.  All or none, no matter how much it damages America, his country, his target for spiteful arrows of outrageous decrease in fortune.  Hamlet was also adolescent.
Obama doesn’t care if he punishes us with automatic spending cuts and tax rate increases.  If an agreement is not reached by January 1st he will go over the cliff with us in his knapsack.
Geithner defends Obama’s approach and pretends that he is protecting Medicare for the future when he has done nothing to avoid its going bankrupt and has recommended no substantial easing of entitlements.  Geithner claims he will be using taxpayers' resources wisely when he has in fact stupidly marched us into a 16 trillion dollar debt. He defends Obama’s economic failures and says that they are worth going over the economic cliff. The choice to Geithner and Obama is not between going over the cliff and saving ourselves but between getting their way or the highway.
While Obama has offered no compromise the House Republican leaders presented a counteroffer, including changes to Medicare and cuts to spending. Obama and Geithner rejected the offer as a “wish list” but offered no compromise in its place.
Obama doesn’t care if going off the fiscal cliff will set the economy back into a recession.  He never had a father.  I suppose he is guessing at what a father’s authoritarian attitude should be and he is adopting it for himself. I’m beginning to believe that there should be a law against damaged people becoming President.
While America waits for the fiscal cliff situation to be resolved, businesses are cutting back.   Orders of non-military goods have gone down and consumers are spending less. Retail sales are declining.  
Going over the fiscal cliff would impact the private sector as well as the federal.   The federal sector would cut 615,000 jobs; the private sector would lose 1.5 million jobs. Obama wants to enable our economic suicide just so he can get his juvenile way. Doesn’t he have any foresight to determine the relative demerits of various proposals? Can’t he see that adding $5,700 more a year to a middle class individual’s taxes is negative?   
Obama boasts that he is the great friend of the middle class.  He is leading them to their financial demise.  Riding a steed in his armor no one can see his toothy military smile and his big ears that betray his hiding in his helmet from reality, listening to his own echo like the ocean in a conch shell. 

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Redistricting should be about representative government, not about creating "competitive districts"

by Michael Newton

The recent article in The Arizona Republic, “Election adds to debate over redistricting” continues the debate over the fairness of Arizona’s recent decennial redistricting. Republicans are upset that in state that voted for Romney (Rep) over Obama (Dem) 54% to 44% and Flake (Rep) over Carmona (Dem) 50% to 46% the Democrats managed to win 5 of the 9 federal legislative districts. They point to this as a sign that the system for redistricting was rigged by the Democrats.
Overlooked is a more fundamental problem with the whole redistricting process. The stated goal of the redistricting project was to make competitive as many districts as possible. The redistricting commission succeeded in creating 4 safe Republican districts, 2 safe Democrat districts, and 3 so-called competitive districts. Instead of gerrymandering the state to benefit a political party, they gerrymandered it to promote the goal of “competitive districts.”
But what is the real purpose of electing representatives to the House of Representative? As is self-evident from the name, the purpose is to elect people to represent their constituents. In creating these competitive districts, the state ensure that nearly half of the voters in those districts are not represented in Congress, or rather that they are represented by someone in Congress who holds views in contradiction to their own. To maximize the people’s representation in Congress, it would make more sense to gerrymander the state to create, in Arizona’s case, 5 safe Republican districts and 4 safe Democrat districts. Then, the Republicans can choose their representatives in their primaries and the Democrats can choose theirs as well. We live in a representative democracy, or so we are told. It makes little sense to purposely ensure voters go unrepresented.

Michael E. Newton is the author of The Path to Tyranny: A History of Free Society's Descent into Tyranny and Angry Mobs and Founding Fathers: The Fight for Control of the American Revolution. He is currently writing a biography of Alexander Hamilton.