Monday, December 30, 2013

Newscast Overlooks Charity Recipient's Backstory

In Charles County, Maryland public educators and safety personnel went out of their way to provide an enhanced Christmas for a single mother holding two jobs living out of a motel room.

Interestingly, the WRC 4 coverage of the outreach deliberately avoided detailing the background of this recipient of eleemosynary.

For example, the most obvious question coming into the mind of the average viewer not having been conditioned by bureaucratic reeducators is where is the father in the midst of this hardship?

Relatedly, in the age of Maury Povich, since this woman has multiple children, are there multiple fathers?

Maybe if she had taken two jobs prior to procreating, this woman wouldn't have had the time nor the energy necessary to spawn in the first place.

Perhaps this woman should have had a better taste in men instead of now expecting the men that actually have jobs and work for a living to pick up the slack left dangling by the deadbeats.

This woman was no doubt informed of the pending of this Christmas charity over her latest iteration of the Iphone.

Most will no doubt be peeved about the discerning raising these kinds of issues.

No doubt Biblical admonitions about doing unto the least of these and such will be readily raised.

Interestingly, seldom is the one mentioned that points out that those unwilling to provide for their own children are worse than an infidel.

By Frederick Meekins

Using Abram & Hagar To Understand Reproductive Technology

Scripture reminds us there is nothing new under the sun. And even though the way certain things are accomplished and the settings might change to some degree, most human dramas have not changed all that much since the earliest days of recorded history.

One such desire that has been a constant throughout the passing millennia has been the longing to have children. Both classic literature and front page headlines attest to the length some will go to to satisfy the parental impulse.

Here in our enlightened and progressive era are those wearing their sophistication on their sleeves for all to see who would say that there is no reason medically or morally why the desire for children cannot be fulfilled for those seeking to have the role of primary adult caretaker in the life of a specific young person.

One venue through which couples unable to have children of their own have turned to is surrogate motherhood. In this arrangement, the genetic material of the husband is implanted for the purposes of impregnation in a fecund woman who agrees to turn over custody of the child (often for a hefty sum of money) to the biological father and his wife.

To those seeing marriage as little more than a contract instituted by human beings with little purpose beyond establishing a stable social order, its slight alteration among consenting adults is of little consequence. However, from an examination of Genesis 16, we see that utilizing a woman other than the wife one is married to in the eyes of God is fraught with consequences that cannot initially be predicted.

From the text, the reader gathers the following facts.

Though God had promised an heir to Abram and Sarai, it seemed to them that they would remain barren since they were getting along in years.

So Sarai suggested that Abram go to her servant Hagar and father a child through her. Being a typical man, Abram readily agreed and took Hagar as a second wife.

After Hagar conceived, like a typical woman Sarai chewed out Abram when doing exactly as he was told by his wife did not turn out exactly as she expected. This happened in part when Hagar copped an attitude that she was more of a woman than Sarai since Hagar conceived, no doubt rubbing it in her employer’s face.

Caught in the middle, Abram let the catfight continue and told Sarai to do as she pleased with Hagar. So since she was mistreated by Sarai, Hagar ran away.

However, Hagar eventually returned to Abram to have Ishmael after being told by the Lord to do so and after being promised that she would be the mother of a great nation in her own right as well.

This text is fraught with a number of ethical issues.

For starters, there is the near universal desire to have a family, which, often a central motivating impulse in normal circumstances, must have been an overwhelming desire when it was prophesied that one’s offspring would come to influence all the world.

Second, there is the issue of the sanctity of marriage. From Scripture, it is taught that the standard is matrimony between one man and one woman as it says two shall become one flesh, not three.

As such, wherever there are two ladies competing to be queen of the castle there will inevitably be conflict.

There is also the issue of Abram stepping up to the plate and taking care of Ishmael and Hagar even if it would be more convenient to get them out of the way.

Some might question what bearing the Abram-Sarai-Hagar triangle has to do with the modern practices of surrogacy.

For today the process is much more clinical. The surrogate is not brought into the family as a concubine or second wife (except in parts of Utah perhaps) and the man does not get to lay back and enjoy the delights of his harem.

However, there is still the possibility of what was undertaken as an effort to acquire some of the most profound joy human beings can experience (namely having a family) spiraling out of control in terms of heartache and jealousy. For example, in the case of Elizabeth Whitehead who was contracted to be a surrogate, wads of cash were not enough to extinguish maternal feelings and a nasty custody fight ensued.

Frankly, a woman would have to be a borderline sociopath to be able to sever the bond with the child that grew within her for nine months.

Secondly, since the child becomes the child of the wife merely as the result of legal maneuvering, one must wonder just how attached she will be to the child as there is likely to be buried deep some kind of resentment that the husband had to turn to another woman (even if no “recreation satisfaction” was involved) to acquire a child. Even though Sarai instigated this ordeal in part to claim the child as her own, she certainly had few qualms about tossing Hagar out on her ear when things got tense.

This brings us to the only ethically viable alternatives for the Christian couple that want to both honor God and enjoy family life beyond the marital relationship.

If the wife is consistent and sincere that it does not matter if the child she is to raise is biologically hers or not, the couple should be informed that adoption is a way of fulfilling this desire that still honors the two-as-one ideal of marriage while assisting a child that would otherwise face this cruel world unloved.

If the couple is insistent that the child must be of their biological lineage, the Christian couple wanting to please God by keeping His commandments must pray for patience to wait upon the will of the Lord if they are to become parents and have fun while trying to find out.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Secularist Educators On The March Against Traditional Holidays

Sometimes, the best way to gain insight into a thing, person, or an issue is to consider it through the lens of its seemingly opposite.

For example, in terms of celebrations on the calendar, on their surface few would be more opposite than Halloween and Christmas.

Halloween, on the one hand, is a reflection that all things in this life come to an end in death and that death is the result of evil having come into the world and how all mortals have at least a passing degree of interest in that particular existential state.

Christmas, on the other hand, is a celebration of the birth of the One who came into the world so that we might have life and life more abundantly held at the time of the year in the Northern Hemisphere when nature begins to remind that the preponderance of darkness is itself a temporary thing.

By examining how each of these are viewed and approached in the mind of the secular statist, one gains more of a comprehensive understanding of the irrationality of many of the critics of these otherwise beloved occasions.

A number of these lame excuses were examined in a Desert News article titled “For Religious Reasons Christmas/Halloween Take A Hit In Schools.”

For example, at Inglewood Elementary in the suburbs of Philadelphia, party poopers there canceled the school's student Halloween parade on the grounds that the activity was religious in nature.

Reflection upon both Halloween and Christmas parties reveals that neither celebration will likely manipulate those attending these functions to abandon their mostly deeply cherished beliefs in favor of a whole new set of spiritual paradigms.

For example, the most professedly spiritual aspect of Christmas is the commemoration of the birth of the Christ Child destined to be slain from the foundation of the world in payment for the sins of every person to have walked the face of the earth willing to accept Christ as Lord and Savior.

However, at most Christmas parties, seldom does this truth upon which all of cosmic history orbits get all that much in the way of good eats and the gift giving frenzy.

But if Christmas has to be abolished because its true meaning might unsettle those that practice other creeds or who claim to practice no creed at all not so much out of a profound conviction that outright nihilism profess is really the correct way to ultimate truth but more out of a deep-seated hatred of Jesus, then Halloween should be banished from the halls of polite academia as well. But with violence and sexuality rampant throughout many of the nation's schools, can they really be considered all that polite anymore?

Halloween traces its origin back primarily to traditions surrounding the Celtic new year known as Samhain that were introduced to America by Irish immigrants. In pagan times, it was believed that during that particular time of year that the boundaries between the realms of the spirit and corporeal flesh were at their thinnest with beings able to cross over.

As a result, assorted customs developed where the living thought the agitated spirits could be mollified with treats. Eventually, the enterprising realized that they too could get a piece of the pie and whatever other goodies were being passed out that night if they decided to disguise themselves in costumes.

Over time, Samhain evolved into the festival that we have today. To kill a number of birds with one stone, the Roman Catholic Church adopted the days around the first of November as All Saints and All Souls Day since the minds of the natives were already focused upon the departed that time of the year. And a festival similar to the one already in place provided the reluctant with one less excuse as to why they did not want to convert to Christianity.

In its assorted prohibitions and condemnations, Scripture is quite explicit about the believer not having much to do with witchcraft, necromancy, and related things that go bump in the night. Coupled with a suspicion of Catholicism and the rise of alternative spiritualities such as the New Age movement in general or Wicca in particular, a perspective rose to prominence within the more conservative wings of Evangelicalism that the true Christian did not participate in this celebrations that look to as mascots the darkest archetypes such as witches, vampires, and the disembodied spirits of the departed that continue to walk the earth.

However, as Lutheran apologist Gretchen Passintino has amusingly summarized, participating in traditions such as Trick-Or-Treat no more makes you a pagan than opening a Christmas present makes you a Christian.

Probably nearly 99% of children participating in the traditions of Halloween such as parades are not doing so with the expressed purposes of rendering glory and homage unto Satan. Most are merely excited to be prancing about as their favorite imaginary character or as something they would like to be when they grow up and at the prospect of sugary or salty snacks once they have completed their celebratory perambulation.

Your child will be more likely to veer off into the Devil's clutches if they are denied things such as Halloween parades if for no other reason than to slap such ultracontrolling parents across the face. It is often the human tendency to conclude that if something is to be banned to the extent with nothing to replace it other than to sit around and mope (and that includes Bible study when everyone else is running the street gathering candy) it must be better than one can possibly imagine.

Concocting the excuse that both Halloween and Christmas must be banned since these celebrations might ignite the religious curiosities and inclinations of impressionable urchins apparently wasn't enough. The bureaucrats controlling the public school system had to reveal additional cards as to just how incompetent and devoid of common sense they really are.

Dr. Fredrick Withum released the following statement to the press as to why assorted holiday activities had to be canceled in the Cumberland Valley District where he is superintendent. He said, “Twenty years ago, nobody would have ever thought that a principal would have to consider, as a part of their training, what they would do in the event of a shooting in their building or in the midst of an aggravated custody issue within their building in which a national amber alert is issued The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case."

The first part of this statement is invoked in order to paint those that disagree with what is to follow look like like such critics agree with mass murderers, kidnappers, and all around child predators. The opening statement has very little to do with why Halloween or Christmas festivities need to be canceled.

If students are passing through metal detectors and wanded before entering the building, shouldn't that level of vigilance be able to ferret out any potential ne'erdowell attempting to sneak in an actual weapon as part a Halloween costume?

It is not that students are in any increased danger as a result of Christmas or Halloween parades.

The thing is, like many of the parents that seemingly don't have any energy to take care of their offspring but are seemingly energetic enough to engage in the procreative calisthenics necessary to conceive another or to go on the hunt for another mate, most of the teachers backing this shift in policy are most likely just plain lazy and dislike children to such an extent that they simply don't want to be bothered with supervising physically assertive activities such as traditional holiday parties.

Aside from serving as entertaining highlights of a given year, Christmas and Halloween parties also acculturate the youth with the narratives and traditions of the broader society across the span of time.

Thus, another prime motivator is not only bringing an end to Christmas and Halloween but also Western civilization in which these celebrations are practiced and expressed.

This is highlighted in Dr. Withum's statement when he says, “The best way to make schools safer is to continue to help them be joyful places, but we are going to have to find new ways and new procedures to ensure this is the case.”

Throughout his campaigns and early days of his presidency, Barack Obama talked repeatedly about the need to fundamentally transform America.

There is only so much that the federal executive branch can do at that level. And even if sweeping changed are implemented from above they are often characterized as opposed rather than being transformative in nature.

In order to be the most successful, revolutionary transformation must be inflicted upon those possessing the least experience with things being a way any other than the alterations being proposed. Their acceptance is often the result of being exposed to them over the course of an extended amount of time as resistance is eventually worn down.

It is during the earliest years of education that this sweeping social manipulation is most likely to be the most effective. Hence the emphasis upon finding new ways of having joy.

As one concerned grandmother whose grandchildren attend school in the impacted district pointed out, in many instances that the observance of these holidays in the public school setting are being abolished with the excuse that these celebrations take away from instructional time. Of this, she astutely observed, “That's a bunch of baloney. You're going to tell me that 20 minutes out of the whole school year will do that...?”

She is absolutely correct. It is doubtful that these students are being constantly drilled in the sciences and technologies that will be need to take on and defeat the Red Chinese in the looming Lunar War.

But then again, there might not be enough time left over in the school day for Christmas, Halloween, or even Valentines Day. After all, the students of tomorrow are busy learning why they need to submit to Islamic peculiarities such as Ramadan while being led in classroom chants how there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet while they select their Muslim names or how to put a condom on a cucumber while being told that Heather has two mommies.

In their war to take over America, no front is too trivial to the proponents of totalitarianism. Many have come to realize this in the struggle to redesign the nation's health care system.

However, seizing this essential aspect of our lives and sizable percentage of the U.S. Economy will not satisfy for very long. For even now those having embraced this despotic mindset conspire to proscribe for the citizen which rituals and commemorations bringing to mind ultimate concerns may be expressed in those venues now administered in the name of the state.

By Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Post Office Downplays Christmas In Favor Of Ethnosupremacist Celebrations

On a United States Postal Service brochure reminding customers to purchase holiday postage stamps there is a Hanukkah stamp with a menorah, a Kwanzaa stamp with its assorted candles, and what passes as a Christmas stamp with a gingerbread house.

An online photo of the advertisement was captioned that one of these things is not like the other.

The unsuspecting might at first be puzzled.

After all, each of these celebrations seems to have one of its symbols philatelically represented.

Hanukkah and Kwanzaa each are depicted with decorations conveying their spiritual message and meaning.

Christmas, on the other hand, is not extended the same degree of respect.

The menorah and the candles represent the miracle of the oil lasting for eight days rather than one.

The candles surrounding a Black person on the Kwanzaa stamp represent the radical communalism propagated during that particular festival.

And while one cannot help but feel a sense of joy at seeing a decoration like a gingerbread house and that pastry's festive cuteness, the desert does not convey the true meaning of the holiday in the same sense as the other two stamps.

This gingerbread house would be more akin to using a car bomb as a depiction for Ramadan.

To be consistent with the essence of the holidays conveyed on the other two stamps, a rendition of the so-called Christmas star should be depicted in keeping with the theme of light.

Interestingly, should the curious proceed onward to the website where the stamps can be purchased, one does find just such a stamp of the Magi following the yonder Star.

So if one with such a scene is available, why is it not good enough for the mailing?

Multiculturalists and pluralists will contend that any artistic renderings of Jesus as the Son of God are inherently exclusivistic.

But of the three holidays, Christmas is technically the only inclusive one of the entire bunch.

For example, Hanukkah celebrates the triumph of the Jewish people admittedly with the assistance of God over Antiochous Epiphanies with the Greeks representing the primary Gentile power of that day.

Hence, even if not expanionistically hostile, an underlying principle of Hanukkah is that Jews must defend their interests against the outside world.

And as an ethnographic religion for the most part, these walls must always remain up to an extent in suspicion of those from outside the group. Kwanzaa is even more ethnocentrically focused than Kwanzaa.

For whereas Hanukkah is a celebration of what God is believed to have done on behalf those who were of His covenant people at that particular point in world history, Kwanzaa deliberately downplays both reliance upon God and the worth of the individual in the favor of a COMMUNITY based on racial superiority through emphasis upon values such as unity, collective work, and cooperative economics.

Interestingly, the day of faith commemorated by Kwanzaa is not so much faith in a divine power that exists transcendent to man and society but rather in the people as embodied by their mere human leaders.

Ultimately, all that Kwanzaa cares about is Blackness for the sake of Blackness.

With these observations in mind, if there were certain elements within society that flew into vehement outrage at the sight of the paraphernalia of these particular celebrations to such an extent that they demanded that these decorations be kept out of site behind a metaphysical locked counter or in a brown paper bag, does that mean that the government or Congressionally authorized semi-public corporations should comply with such demands?

Galatians 5:15 does indeed teach that the cross is an offense to those preferring to stay mired under the muck of their own sin.

However, in proclaiming the birth of Christ, the angel proclaimed, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.”

That free gift of salvation is available to any irrespective of background, ethnicity, or status willing to call upon the name of the Lord and be saved.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Issue Of Personhood Foundational In Bioethical Debates

In numerous bioethical debates approached from a secular perspective, many seemingly noble principles such as autonomy, individual choice, dignity, the common good, and the preservation of limited resources are invoked to justify various positions. However, when these complex issues are approached from a Judeo-Christian perspective, many times the implications and morality of these decisions are altered profoundly.

Perhaps the most fundamental concern raised by a standpoint informed by the principles of the Bible is none other than personhood. Though something we each possess, its value varies drastically depending on the worldview each of us brings to the concept.

For example, to the person living out a consistently evolutionary or materialistic perspective, the idea of personhood is not that important since it is merely an arbitrarily contrived social and intellectual construct with no inherent worth other than what we decide to give it. Thus, it is no major concern if the concept is altered to exclude those at the extreme ends of life’s continuum unable to sustain themselves apart from intensive medical intervention.

However, if one approaches the matter from the Judeo-Christian perspective, the concept of personhood impacts dramatically the techniques and procedures one finds morally justifiable. Since man is made in the image of God, the life and spirit of man (his personhood if you will) is unique in all of creation. As such, it is due a respect placing it just below the reverence due God Himself.

Since the human being holds a special place in the heart of God, it is God Himself that establishes the guidelines regarding how we are permitted to relate to and treat other human beings. In Genesis 9:6, where God establishes His covenant with Noah it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man”. Later in the Ten Commandments this decree is reiterated in the command “Thou shalt not commit murder”.

From this, it is established that it is morally incorrect to take an innocent human life not having itself taken another human life. Therefore, it is improper to deliberately take a human life that does not threaten yours or has not violated the law.

Since the minds of men dwell continually on evil, a number of wily thinkers attempt to skirt around the issue by redefining personhood to make it distinct from the humanity of these individuals facing the prospects of having these procedures inflicted upon them. However, even these attempts prove inadequate as they endeavor to describe things how some would like them to be rather than how God created them.

For humanity/personhood is something one possesses inherently rather than bestowed upon you as a result of having reached some developmental milestone. The individual remains a distinct biological entity throughout the continuum of existence.

If anything, by limiting personhood to those having reached some arbitrary standard such as viability, quickening, or sentience speaks more to the limitations of medical science than an actual state of ontology. And with advances, these frontiers are being pushed back further all the time.

Things are now to the point where doctors are able to do surgery inside the mother’s womb. A photo of one such procedure where a tiny hand reached out of the mother’s abdomen got Matt Drudge fired from the Fox News Network. It was feared such an image might unsettle or disturb the consciences of viewers regarding the issue of abortion.

Scott Rae in “Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics” concludes his examination of the abortion issue with the following argument advocating for personhood of the unborn: “(1) An adult human being is the end result of the continuous growth of the organism from conception... (2) From conception to adulthood this development has no break that is relevant to the essential nature of the fetus... (3) Therefore, one is a human person from the point of conception onward (142).”

by Frederick Meekins

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

WMAL Morning Host Losing Touch With Moral Conservatism

WMAL is a station in the Washington Metropolitan Area where listeners can turn for solid conservative opinion throughout the broadcast day.

However, regarding Mornings On The Mall co-host Larry O'Connor, one might be advised to turn a skeptical ear.

On the 11/4/23 edition, he intoned that the only law he believed in in regards to the immigration debate was that of supply and demand.

So does that mean that if there was a market for outright slavery that that particular form of peonage would be acceptable?

O'Connor's response regarding news of the alleged harassment by Miami Dolphin's Ritchie Incognito of teammate Jonathan Martin involving death threats and the expression of a desire to defecate in his victim's mouth was little better in terms of the moral position enunciated.

According to O'Connor, instead of filing a complaint about the matter, a 300 pounder should have settled the issue like a man.

That is, of course, being euphemism to take the matter outside.

As we learned from Kenny Rogers' “Coward Of The County”, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man.

However, Martin's girth is of no relevance, especially when he'd be confronting others of similar size possibly given to homoerotic violence.

Why shouldn't Martin avail himself of the procedures intended for the purposes of preventing the situation from escalating to a point of no return where the individual defending himself might end up facing a litany of legal or criminal charges?

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Schumer and the Hillary Gang

by David Lawrence

Schumer's endorsement of Hlllary is just another excuse for Chuck to push his jowls into the doggie bowl of the limelight.  He actually means--"Vote for Hillary but take a picture of me." If only he were a woman and good looking I’m sure he’d be lining up to compete as a bathing suit model for Sport’s Illustrated.
He is as false and egotistical as good-times-are-coming failed Obama. It is a joke that he says, ""Hillary's experience is unrivaled and her vision is unparalleled." 
Most of Hillary’s experience was as an Alinksyite, a radical, universal health care enthusiast and a wife who refused to admit that Bill was cheating because it might endanger their political careers.
Recently, she played a significant role in the Benghazi screw up. Her comment, “What difference, does it make?” rivals Marie Antoinette’s “Let them eat cake” for callous indifference. 
Hillary’s only real credentials are having been married to Bill who ended up a sexual degenerate who failed to accept bin Laden’s transfer as a prisoner from the Sudan and backed Obama’s presidency twice when he was far too intelligent to believe that Obama had the experience or open-mindedness for the job. 
Schumer is just a reflection walking into a mirror and patting himself on the back. He applauds himself because—well, who else would?
Hillary is Bill dressed in a skirt, an attempted continuation of a liberal dynasty that has already failed and refuses to respect American traditions. She is popular.  That’s usually a symbol of inadequacy where the voting public is ignorant and self-interested.  
Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”  Obama said, “I’ll get you food stamps.”  Hillary implies, “I’m my husband.”  And Schumer asks,
“Where are the photographers?”
Vote gatherers accuse the Republicans of failing. But it is the Democrats who are ruining the economy, the military, our ethics, our traditions and our Emersonian self-reliance. The Democrat voters have failed us, not the Republicans. 
How?  They have failed us by voting for short term pleasure and hand-outs rather than long term governance.
I am writing this in New York City, the land of the liberal la-la’s. A few days ago I enjoyed the fruitless exercise of voting for Joe Lhotta.  Of course De Blassio won.  He is the wrong man for the wrong job, a liberal’s antagonistic delight.   
When I was flying to Paris in the eighties De Blassio was visiting Moscow.  He honeymooned in Cuba and visited Nicaragua.  He loves fascistic liberalism, a communist government that is strewn with corpses from China to Cambodia.
And Hillary?  A not so bright woman who loves power.  And Bill?  A bright man who loves women. 

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Friday, November 8, 2013

Hillary Advocates Bull In A China Shop Police State While In Buffalo

In a speech in Buffalo, New York, Hillary Clinton let slip a startling degree of insight into her political ideology and philosophy of government.

Responding to a heckler carted off by security, the former Senator and Secretary of State admonished that citizenship does not involve yelling but rather coming together to sit down and talk about the kind of future that we want as a nation.

Hecklers should be removed from such settings and not allowed to disrupt the message those gathered have assembled to hear.

However, the incident raises a number of questions.

Does this prohibition against raucous and uncontrolled vocalization of a disturbing volume also apply to those the former First Lady and presidential-aspirant would consider her allies or simply her opponents?

Back during the Bush Presidency in her role as Senator during debate surrounding the Patriot Act, Hillary Clinton reminded (in a rather loud voice it should be pointed out) reminded dissent was itself the highest form of patriotism.

Even more disturbing was how Hillary categorized the heckler.

Instead of simply calling for the removal of this disruptive nuisance refusing to exercise the First Amendment in an orderly manner, Hillary suggested that this individual typified any that would dare challenge or disagree with her publicly.

Thus, in a Hillary regime, would those in Congress refusing to go along with her and more importantly the citizens daring to speak out against her be similarly manhandled by the federal security establishment?

We do indeed need to talk about the kind of future we want for America.

However, the kind of future advocated by Hillary will simply bring additional ruination upon this once great country.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, November 2, 2013

Obama’s Deeds are Dust in the Wind

by David Lawrence

Obama was hired to improve job opportunities and the economy.  It is sadly-funny that he would have been elected over Romney who was a financial whiz when Obama was merely a community organizer and an adjunct, untenured professor. Electing Obama is equivalent to choosing a lawyer from ACORN instead of Warren Buffett to head up Berkshire Hathaway. He didn’t have the experience then; he doesn’t have the flexibility of compromise now. 
Just look at the Government shut down.  Democrats want to blame it on Republican Bureaucrats and The Tea Party.  That would be like blaming Russia’s previous poverty and the Cold War on clerks in Siberia rather than Stalin.
Since Obama’s being elected twice, our financial institutions have been downgraded, real unemployment is peaking  and his latest job demoralizer—ObamaCare—is causing the loss of full-time jobs and healthcare at places like UVA, Walgreens, Trader Joe’s, Wegmans, UPS etc.
The thing that amazes me is how anybody with a conscience could defend Obamacare’s administration which has raised the debt from ten trillion dollars to seventeen trillion dollars. Obamacare is about to throw us into another couple of trillion dollars in debt.  If Obama were the CEO of a company he would have been fired a long time ago.  If he made speeches defending his business performance, the Board of Directors would have thrown up in paper cups.
Obama once called Bush immoral for increasing the debt from five trillion to ten trillion dollars. Yet he has done worse yet still considers himself the great hope of the middle class. The middle class is earning less during his administration and he is choking them.  His own race, African-Americans, are doing the worst of all.  Yet he flatters his victims and pretends that he is a savior rather than a deterrent.
Are people so race conscious that Obama gets a pass from all his financial devastation just because he is black?  The whites have found a subterranean racist way to undercut Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted his children not to be “judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Instead liberals elect a person because of the color of his skin. Reverse prejudice is prejudice nevertheless.
I am sickened when talking heads like Bob Beckel and Krirsten Powers go on the O’Reilly Show and defend Obama’s fiscal malfeasance.  It is unconscionable and immoral. O’Reilly should know better than to argue with ridiculous, slanted positions.  It’s a waste of time. Having these Democrat ideologues on his show does not create a fair dialogue but makes the show into a joke. A masochistic joke.  Not so funny.  Ridiculous. 
Obama will never admit that he is wrong and correct his mistakes.  Our children will be paying for Obama’s giant ego for years. Liberals and Democrats have themselves to blame. They wave flags of empathy like they care about everybody yet they inadvertently prepare the way for the sad failure of their children. They are haters masked as charitable, loving people. Their leader, Obama, is a good speaker when aided by a teleprompter.  His deeds are dust in the wind. Unfortunately, the dust makes us blink.

David Lawrence has a Ph.D. in literature.  He has published over 200 blogs, 600 poems, a memoir “The King of White-Collar Boxing,” several books of poems, including “Lane Changes.” Both can be purchased on  He was a professional boxer and a CEO.  Last year he was listed in New York Magazine as the 41st reason to love New York.

Friday, November 1, 2013

Grammar Marms Ignorant Of The Looming Genetic Tyranny

At Liberty University, Senator Rand Paul warned of the temptations and dangers inherent to genetic experimentation and manipulation.

But instead of confronting one of the most profound issues that an advanced technological society will face in the years and decades ahead, smaller minds and those of limited imagination are focusing on whether or not the legislator's remarks were rhetorically footnoted with all of the punctuation put in the right place.

Those with too much time on their hands unable to substantially refute the Senator's remarks, such as Rachel Maddow, are claiming that he plagiarized his summary of the film Gattica from Wikipedia.

If truck drivers and hog farmers rather than academics and journalists were the ones that got all worked up over plagiarism, would this linguistic oversight be considered all that much of an outrage?

Snobs siding with Maddow flippantly query what does Gattica have to do with a political campaign stop.

After all, that distracts from much more important work such as the legalization of gay marriage and the distribution of subsidized birth control.

However, will these libertines keep singing the same tune when a test is developed possibly determining whether or not someone might be inclined towards the particular variety of temptation of which Rachel Maddow is herself afflicted as evidenced by her mannish appearance?

Perhaps Senator Paul should have been more careful in observing the protocols of scholastic attribution.

But isn't this response to his remarks akin to dismissing someone warning against the dangers of the looming Final Solution because the analyst in question forget to mention what review of Mein Kampf was being quoted from?

by Frederick Meekins

Friday, October 25, 2013

TV Snake Handlers Pick & Choose The Counsels Of God They Abide By

On the National Geographic network reality series “Snake Salvation”, an ongoing storyline dealt with one of the pastor's daughter whose unemployed husband left her.

It is pointed out that, according to the belief's of the sect, if the she remarries, she will go to Hell.

However, that punishment is not necessarily connected with that particular sin if forgiveness is not asked for., especially on the part of the wronged party.

What about the young man in this situation?

It says in I Timothy 5:18 that the one that does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel.

Seems there would be a greater chance of him being tossed into everlasting damnation for taking a wife while having no means or intentions of providing for her.

And if we are to be hyper-Biblical to the point where the true believer must handle serpents and there seems to be little lasting forgiveness, shouldn't this pastor now resign his pulpit if he can't even prevent his own daughter's marriage from falling apart?

After all, according to I Timothy 3:4, one of the qualifications for holding the pastorate is to rule over his family well.

Most Christians living in the twenty-first century realize that there are limitations to that particular passage of Scripture.

However, we aren't the ones running up and down the pews with a snake in one hand and a Molotov cocktail in the other.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, October 18, 2013

Mediocre Comedian Fancies Himself As Historically Astute

During an appearance on the 10/8/13 Tonight Show, has-been comedian D.L. Hughley condescendingly quipped how ignorant it was to compare Hitler and Obama.

After all, Obama only wants to provide everyone with health insurance.

Hitler, on the other hand, intended to obliterate and destroy those deemed unworthy of continued existence by the standard of his pernicious worldview while controlling in nearly every last detail those permitted to remain alive.

Since D.L. Hughley is now being promoted as an expert on historical and political affairs, perhaps he might care to enlighten us on the comprehensive array of tactics and strategies Hitler used to rise to power.

Granted, there were always a cadre of followers attracted by the violence and brutality inherent to the National Socialist ideology.

However, an even a greater number of Germans were lured into this deception in large part through promises of lavish social programs encompassing nearly every facet of existence.

One might think of the approach taken back then similar to that of the Life Of Julia propaganda utilized today.

Seldom do tyrants announce their intended deprivations of fundamental liberties upfront.

For example, buried in the bowels of the terms of use on a number of the Obamacare exchange websites is a clause stipulating that any personal information that the applicant submits to obtain the insurance mandated under penalty of law can be forwarded to other agencies for the purposes of law enforcement and audit.

It must be admitted that Barack Obama is likely not as deliberately bloodthirsty as the infamous German Chancellor.

But that said, one of his goals is nonetheless a thinning of the population of those he views as detrimental to the Volk or rather the COMMUNITY.

As the strictures of the Obamacare system tighten their grip around the neck of the American people, increasingly those having surpassed specific plateaus of existential chronology in all likelihood will be denied certain varieties of treatment.

When asked at a campaign forum, Obama himself suggested that a 90 year old still possessing a zest for life might just have to be denied those resources that would enable continued temporal existence.

The thing with those aspiring to exert near total control over the lives of targeted populations, as is the case with the spiritual father of such despots (the devil), you often don't realize what has been stolen from you until it is too late.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, September 28, 2013

The Petty Souls of Liberals, Socialists and Communists

By David Lawrence

By “petty” I don’t mean insignificant.  I refer to narrow-minded and spiteful.  I mean the petty grievances of trivial minded, bureaucratic people.
Liberalism, socialism, communism start at the top, trapped in the logical deductive brain.  They militate against the freedom of the body politic and free enterprise. They do not develop from within the population.  They squelch people from above like ideological suffocating bricks. They do not develop like organisms. They are restrictive, constraining philosophies.
Communists are anal retentive, obsessive-compulsives.  They are afraid of lack of control so they programmatically design an overly intrusive government.  They are neurotics who fear freedom and have anxiety attacks about loss of rigidity. They have petty souls. They are lost in the little picture rather than the panorama. They are afraid to step outside the framework of their hedged in philosophy. They are snapshots rather than free spirited movies.
Communists want to organize the economy, jobs and life styles so that they don’t have to confront the emptiness of the universe or the magical presence of a God.  
Communists organize because they are afraid of chaos.  They are afraid of chaos because they don’t trust their minds and are worried that they might themselves actually be criminals, rapists or uncontrolled animals.  They do not know themselves so they hide behind government; they worry that they themselves are ungovernable. They organize because they are afraid of openness. They have wild souls so they try to arrange themselves into little governmental bricks, walls of organizational solitude. They are cowards, afraid of freedom.
Communists are anxious that they can’t compete within society.  So they structure a system where everyone has a job and no one’s is considered better than the others.  A doctor and a garbage man have equal status. That way they all can feel good about themselves regardless of their embarrassing lack of  accomplishments.
Communism reduces the prestige of successes and raises the esteem of failures.  It is an inverse system of government that has failed more times in more countries than any other form of government.  Its essence is reinvigorating the prestige of failure. 
However, communism is a star system where the big shots in the Communist party are the rock stars.  It steals the prestige from the multiple successes in society and hands it to the bureaucratic, angry politicians. Its existence depends on stepping on the little people.  It’s ironic that communism boasts about distributing a fair share when all it does is take from people and peddle to the politicians and party members. 
Obama wants a consistent, socialistic system. As a dope smoking mediocrity in private school and college he would have never succeeded if he didn’t have a governmental avenue to his success. America is becoming a socialistic country where freedom to succeed is usurped by structured political bureaucracy.  Neurotic narcissists are always comfortable within the structure of governmental tyranny.  Obama sees himself reflected in the pool of large government.  He then pushes us into that pool and we drown like Narcissus in debt and military chaos throughout the world.
People think that Obama is bright because he speaks well.  What difference do words make when he is bankrupting the country?  And if he is so bright why does he sound like every other sophomoric liberal in Brooklyn?  He speaks in so many clichés that he has become a cliché.
Brooklyn is where my boxing gym is—Gleason’s. Thank God that I can get hit in the head there every day and clear up my thoughts. His pontificating words fall from my ears like wax.  It’s too bad that they stick to so many of my naïve, liberal friends’ ear canals.     
I am embarrassed for the millions of people who are fooled by him.  Stupid is the predisposition to say “yes” to his childish ideas when all the signs say “no.”
And the stupid local liberals think that conservatives are stupid?  Yet I live in a dialectic of various social philosophies while liberals  line up against the wall to shoot themselves in the feet. In an argument with liberals, they never know what I will say next.  I can predict their every opinion before they spout it.


Saturday, September 14, 2013

Syria is not Our Enemy

By David Lawrence

I wish Obama would quit playing up to his image of the good guy who saves innocent people. His attack on Syria will just lead to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and contingently murder more Syrians.
He plays Mr. Empathetic good guy but he is responsible for numerous deaths and the financial collapse within America.  His green energy ideas have bombed, cost us jobs and increased our deficit by billions.
His health care plans have raised the cost of insurance, cut the availability of doctors and reduced numerous full time workers to part time employees.
That people would still listen to his childish, sophomoric ideas is a joke. Mr. Pacifist is once again risking American lives. He thinks he will avoid boots on the ground in Syria but he doesn't have the military experience to assume that.
Syria is not our enemy.  It is its own enemy.  Obama is the one demolishing the American Way of life. He is Syria without the nerve gas. 
Obama has even hurt our traditions and morals, enabling same sex marriage, an emotional windfall but a moral disaster and a frightening horror to children. 
Obama has a good heart.  He wants the best for everyone.  But he has a truncated brain that sees the small picture and the immediate solution rather than the long term workability of thought-out ideas. His theories seem good in the short-term but in the long term hurt us. Psychiatrist Alfred Adler used to call this type of diminished thinking—short-term hedonism.    

The highway to hell is paved with Obama’s best intentions.  He went to an Ivy League College but never ingested the various, eclectic and dialectic ideas of the institution. He is not a thinker. He is a purveyor of clichés.   He is the brash ivy on the walls. 

Obama’s Threat to Global Peace

By David Lawrence

Speaking from Russia, Obama said (Daily News, 9-07-2013) “that failure to punish Syrian President Bashar Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons would be a threat to global peace and security.”  What does he mean by global peace?  Bashar Assad is fighting a localized civil war which has nothing to do with the rest of the world.  Rather Obama is threatening global peace by threatening to intervene in Syria and have countries like China and Russia line up against us.
Obama went on to fabricate that ignoring Syria’s chemical attacks “would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence.”
Rogue nations are idiosyncratic and follow their own rules. They don’t respect America enough to determine that their behavior in Syria will spill over to their despotisms.  The world is a multifarious place.  Rules and practices change like the wind.  No dictator is going to be sitting in his tribal palace assuming that because Syria had its own indigenous situations that they will be treated similarly and that they have to worry about a consistent pattern of retaliation from feckless America.
Obama brags in the Daily News that he “was elected to end wars, not start them.” He certainly fooled the voting public.  He is coming close to being the cause of World War III.  His rhetoric is peaceful.  His actions are incendiary and warlike even though they spring from a base of cowardice. Back in 2008 I already predicted that Obama would become a Warlord and published it in Fullosia Press.  My liberal friends laughed at me.  I predicted that he would be the cause of Israel’s demise.  My Jewish friends dismissed me.  
Obama thinks that he can perform a limited action. Did he forget that the minor death of Archduke Ferdinand caused the murder of millions in WWI?  Things get out of hand.  Even for a socialist who is trying to control America like a nanny state.

Obama is a classic liar. His deeds bear no relationship to his speech.  Americans are his ridiculous dupes. 

Monday, September 2, 2013

Best To Avoid Syria Entanglement

The gassing of Syrians by their fellow countrymen will rank among the great atrocities of the 21st century.

However, beyond a stern verbal condemnation, is it all that wise for the United States to get involved at this point?

Do we really know for certain who is the responsible party?

This conflict is not Star Wars or Lord of The Rings with clearly discernible protagonists and adversaries.

Either side could be capable of doing such a thing.

On the one hand, you have a brutal dictatorship. On the other side, the so-called “freedom fighters” have been accused of cannibalism and granting of a religious dispensation allowing for the raping of women caught up in the conflict.

Most importantly, if the Obama Administration decides to get involved militarily, does the President have the resolve to do what must be done?

For example, what if a campaign to eliminate Syrian weapons of mass destruction is conducted half-heartedly in the manner in which the President undertakes so many of his policy initiatives and America returns home before the task is completed?

Since whoever is responsible has no qualms about about killing their own people systematically and in the most horrible manners imaginable, what would prevent them from doing so to the people of the United States?

The border is pretty much a siv and, if Assad is indeed responsible as Obama is insisting to the civilized world, the President has already announced his intentions to allow that particular Middle Eastern tyrant to remain in power where the ensconced despot can plot revenge at leisure.

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, August 24, 2013

Oprah Wants Us To Feel Sorry For Her

by David Lawrence

Oprah Winfrey is worth 2.8 billion dollars and complains that a lowly shop girl wouldn’t show her a $38,000 Tom Ford bag in a Zurich boutique.
You’d think that she has something better to do than accuse a shop girl of racism. She has the world by the throat but now she wants to coopt racism.  She wants to feel like she is a home girl so that she doesn’t have to feel guilty for being so much richer than her sisters.
Shame on Oprah.  She is not a homey.  She is a billionaire who has no clue as to what prejudice is.  She lives in a world of praise and fan adoration.  Why she wants us to feel sorry for her, I have no clue.  She is a private jet liberal.
The only prejudice she experiences is the bias of being given absolute privilege. And yet she wants the sympathy of being considered a prejudiced against unfortunate. She wants to pretend that she is a disadvantaged sister while she is spoiled billionaire.


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Gathering the Votes

by David Lawrence

New York mayoral hopeful, Christine Quinn, wants to weaken cops, vitiate our safety and lean in the direction of socialism, letting the weak get more than their fair share. She is also defending a ten story sanitation garage in Soho near where celebs like John Slattery, Kristen Dunst, Lou Reed, Jennifer Connelly and Michael Stipe live.  She feels their investment in quality buildings should not protect them from living like the poor. She doesn’t recognize that life style relates to economics in America.
Quinn’s spokesman, Mike Morey, defends her decision, “The days of expecting only low-income communities to bear the burden of sanitation or public-works facilities are over, and if the belief costs Chris Quinn the vote of a celebrity, that’s a price she is willing to pay on behalf of all New Yorkers.”
Gee, I thought the purpose of a free enterprise, capitalistic society, was so that money could be used to afford better living conditions.  If being poor allows you to live as well as the rich why not put the poor in Olympic or Trump Towers? What about giving them triplexes at 740 Park Ave?
Of course, Quinn like Obama doesn’t need the votes of the rich.  There are so few of them.  Better rip off the millions of the poor and the middle class.  Get them to vote for her and then do as little as possible for them. Look at how the middle class incomes have gone down under Obama, their patron saint.

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

Sunday, August 4, 2013

For My Rich Neighbors

by David Lawrence

I live near rich people on Madison Avenue.  I used to be rich.  I am no longer. What I like about living near rich people is that they generally don’t mug you. And their help picks up the feces behind their dogs.
I think of the Occupy Wall Street Crowd and how they are jealous of the rich.  But I’ve lost more than they’ll ever earn.  Jealousy is feminine.  It is vaginal.  It wants to scoop up other people’s lives and issue them forth as their own children.
I went to jail for two years in 93.  I didn’t complain.  I loved having time to work out and write.  It was for tax evasion.  I still paid millions in taxes.  The OCW crowd pays nothing.  They’re complainers.   Like Thoreau who spent one day in prison for tax evasion. Big deal.  Or Al Sharpton who gets overnight sentences for trying to overvalue his own people.  Big Al.  A coward. He keeps making a big deal over the fact that he is black.  He forgets that his real problem is that he is ugly and inarticulate. I mean most people feel that it’s prejudiced to dislike ugliness.  If that’s so, why is beauty so valued and why are Victoria Secrets models so well-paid?
I am downstairs talking to a couple of my doormen.  A young woman walks in whom I don’t know.  I ask the doorman, Jack, “Who’s that?”
“That’s Mrs. X’s maid,” Jack says.* Jack is Sicilian.  You know the type.
Reggie works the front door and the elevator with Jack.  He says, “Mrs. X complained to the Board so that her maid could come through the front door.” Reggie’s from India.  He comes from the Brahman class.
I hate the liberals in our building.  Mrs. X once threw a party for Obama for his first election.  Her husband was alive then.  I don’t remember if Obama attended. If not, his important flunkies were there.
I get angry.  “Screw X.  She’s a phony.  She wants to pat herself on the back for getting her maid in the front door.  Like that’s any skin off her eighty year old bones.  It requires nothing of her.  It makes her feel big. It might make it harder for her to fit into heaven.”
“She only thinks of herself and her crew,” Jacks says.
“Does she ever consider how it makes the other maids feel who can’t come in the front? Maybe she should come in the back herself to show her solidarity with workers whom she doesn’t understand,” I say.
“X pretends her maid is her secretary to get her in the front door,” Reggie says.
“How charitable,” I say.  “The secretary doesn’t have to go through the back door.  And X feels like a queen for this.  She becomes a defender of the people.  She doesn’t have to feel guilty about her millions.”
“She’s a phony *itch,” Jack says.
“I don’t even know her but I hate her,” I say. “I hated her dead husband too,” I say.
“He was much nicer than her,” Jack says.
“The men are always nicer,” Reggie says.
“That’s because the men have to work for everything and the women just sit there and spend it, brag about it and prance like show dogs,” I say. “Just because women announce that they are better than men doesn’t mean that they are.”
“I guess these people are the reason you go to Gleason’s to box,” John says.
“I’m really a Hindu like my friend Reggie here,” I say.  “I’m a pacifist with a punch. I’m a Brahman.  I’m upper class like you, Reggie.”
“You can get pretty violent,” Jack says.
“When I get most violent I get knocked out,” I say, joking about my boxing skills.
“So tell us what you really think about Mrs. X?”  Reggie asks.
“I think she coddles the disadvantages of the poor to inflate herself.  She’s like Obama spreading around confetti to his cherished middle class but giving them no nourishment while he spends millions a day living in the White House.  They are both narcissists. They love themselves but act like they sincerely care about others who mean nothing to them.”
“You’d like to hit her, wouldn’t you,” Jack asks.
“Yes.  But I wouldn’t.  I don’t hit women or old people. No matter how destructive or stupid they are.  Liberals get so  indignant and ideological that they strike out at stupid demonstrations” I say. “I’m not the French rabble cutting off Marie Antoinette’s head. You see, I don’t do things I am tempted to do when they are wrong.  Obama does things he shouldn’t do if he can lie about them and make them look good.”
“David for president,” Reggie says.  John applauds.
“I’m not a good enough liar,” I say. “I’m an egomaniac but not in Obama’s league.”
“He’s a dictator who likes to pretend he’s the good guy, the saint,” John says. “He not only wants to live the high life but he wants to get credit for facilitating the poor.”
“Tell Mrs. X I don’t wish her well. That’s not nice.  I’m not nice.  It’s hypocritical.  I can’t believe I was once a liberal.  Now they’re making me into a bad person,” I say.  “See you guys later.  I’m off to Gleason’s Gym.”
“Break a leg,” Reggie says.
“Brahmin, that’s for actors.  In my case, I want to break a nose,” I say and give him a five knuckle hand shake.

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

Monday, July 22, 2013

Fox News Pundits Deride Creationists As Unfit For Public Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, July 20, 2013

$1 million Arlington bus stop breaks down in heat

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

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

Posted from

A Liberal Beat Down at the Trayvon Martin Rally in Oakland

by David Lawrence

Well, the spoiled egotists are at it again.  They have not gotten their way on the Zimmerman trial and are taking justice into their own hands.  They are beating on a filmmaker in Oakland, Christian Hartsock, similar to the way Martin pounded Zimmerman’s head on the concrete.
Are these vicious members of the crowd what we want to substitute for neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman? Are they suggesting that we substitute brutal mob behavior for morality and modest discussion?
It reminds me of the spoiled brats at Occupy Wall Street.  Like these college flunkies could create a functioning Wall Street. Criticism does not imply superiority.  It often is resentfulness for those who are better than us.
Don’t the beasts in the crowd realize that they undercut their own accusations of racism when they assault an innocent man on racial grounds?  Is stupid really this stupid?  Is vengeance so blind that it picks unjustified targets and embarrasses itself by beating innocence?
I am a Jew.  We suffered the worst tragedy during the holocaust?  That doesn’t mean that we have to side with every victim even when he might have been the aggressor.  That doesn’t mean we have to be violent when we recognize that violence was unfairly used against us. That doesn’t mean that we have to defend Trayvon Martin when a court has decided that Zimmerman was innocent.  Who are these protesters?  Lawyers?  Judges?  Or activists looking for a fight.
And the blacks who give up the pacifist card are playing with a full deck of aggression and unfair anger. 
They deal out “Go Fish,” looking for guilt in a pool of confused innocence.
The blacks and Jews should be asking for calm.  Violence has always betrayed us.  The protesters were chanting, “No justice, no peace --fuck you pigs in your sleep.” Are we supposed to get rid of our present judicial system and government to replace them by violent animals?  They are hearkening back to Charlie Manson days when his crew called the cops “pigs.”
Naïve Americans are proud of protest.  I protest.  Protest with underpinnings of violence is regress to Neanderthal times. Shakespeare said, “The lady doth protest too much.”  So do the angry demonstrators. Almost none of them even know Trayvon Martin.  They want to make him a brother for their own violent devices.

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

Thursday, July 11, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins