Thursday, August 26, 2021

Conservative Protestants & Traditionalist Catholics Find Common Cause In Opposing Statist Tyranny


An article published in the April 2012 issue of “In These Times” asks in its title “Will Catholic Bishops Be GOP Pawns?” and warns in the subtitle “The Church and Evangelicals are finding common ground”.

The author suggests that American Catholic leaders ought to concentrate more on promoting the cause of “economic justice” rather than upon so-called cultural issues that have been thrust to the forefront of the American civic dialog over the course of the past several decades dealing with matters such as abortion and homosexuality.

But what the author fails to realize is that, in terms of Christian doctrine, the shared stance between conservative Evangelicals and traditionalist Catholics are more clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture than something more nebulous such as “social or economic justice”.

For example, the Ten Commandments bluntly declare “Thou shalt not commit murder”. Murder is defined as the taking of an innocent human life.

Nefarious factions profiting from the practice, especially if they have seared their own consciences, might insist vociferously otherwise. But abortion is undeniably a form of murder.

Likewise, marriage is clearly defined in the pages of the Bible. The old adage derived from the Genesis account is that God did not make Adam and Steve, He made Adam and Eve.

Those preferring their Biblical exegesis with more of a distinction of solemnity are not left without textual support from the pages of Holy Writ. Mark 10:7-8 extols, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Revelation does not say man and man or wife and wife.

If there are those that prefer living this way that want to go off and shack up together, that raises a whole other interpretative argument as to what good Christians ought to do if anything. However, those deliberately deciding to go off into such sin should not expect religious and social institutions to extend the same degree of cultural blessing as to those entering into sanctified matrimonial partnership. And this applies also to heterosexual couples living together without authorization of either clergy or state.

The issue of so-called economic and social justice is not quite as clear cut. It is pretty obvious whether or not an individual has been murdered and which relationships are not homosexual. However, there are various interpretations as to which policies will be the most effective at ameliorating the suffering of the poor.

It is not so much that American Protestants or Catholics of a more individualist or free market orientation want to increase the misery of the downtrodden or fail to comprehend the suffering that can be inflicted by excessively complicated institutions. It is precisely because religionists of a more distinctively Americanist perspective do understand profoundly threats posed by behemoth bureaucracies that those of such a worldview endeavor to limit power from whatever social sphere such intrusions might originate.

One aphorism, possibly attributable to Rush Limbaugh, posits that it is easy to be charitable with other people's money. While one may earn a good reputation for being concerned for the poor when calling for increased public spending, it isn't really going to crimp the lifestyle of elites calling for it if their taxes are increased should such policy proposals and rhetorical suggestions actually be put into practice.

Most levelheaded people, no doubt even a few American Roman Catholic bishops among them, have a hard time swallowing and complying with these exhortations to give more sacrificially when those higher up the ecclesiastical flow chart can't seem to keep straight the funds on the books of the Institute For The Works Of Religion also commonly referred to as the “Vatican Bank”. It has been argued that over $100 million has been embezzled from or laundered through the institution in a variety of scandals.

So should globalist planners --- both sacred or secular --- be successful in compelling regular people to surrender more of what we own, in all likelihood it will no more go to alleviate the suffering of the downtrodden than it already does.

There are certain universal truths that transcend traditional divisions within the broader Christian faith. Those redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb irrespective of on what side of this divide they stand must prioritize what transgressions of the moral law are more egregious than others.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, July 11, 2021

Leftwing Religionists Applaud Godless Socialism But Not enough To Surrender Money Making Racket


Episode 41 of the Commonweal Magazine podcast addresses the topic of “White Churches & White Supremacy”.

The discussion consists of this leftwing Catholic outfit interviewing Robert P. Jones, a Southern Baptist wracked with White guilt, about his book “White Too Long: The Legacy Of White Supremacy In Christian America".

In the discussion, it is revealed that the title is taken from a quote by writer James Baldwin.

Isn't that itself an act of cultural misappropriation?

If we are to buy into the premise that White Christians are guilty for deeds from the past deemed by Woketopians as racist on the part of organized religion, why shouldn't Baldwin and his contemporary acolytes be held responsible for the bloodshed, death, and destruction of property linked to the socialist ideology of which Baldwin was a proponent?

And if the correspondents at Commonweal and Robert P. Jones want to invoke admiration for James Baldwin in their crusade against “White Christians”, don't they owe it to their readers to explain why they are downplaying or even concealing the ultimate conclusion of Baldwin's ratiocination that the concept of God should be abandoned altogether?

If Christians are to derive their social philosophy from thinkers that deny the existence of God, why are we to side with those advocating revolutionary upheaval over those such as Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman that advocated a more individualistic approach to life?

After all, in a world without God, no set of ideas is ultimately superior to any other.

Could it be that, unlike Baldwin to the acclaim of critics, these propagandists do not have the creative wherewithal to continue their scam without what would be considered a crutch or opiate of the masses if they were being more philosophically honest about the worldview that it is that these alleged intellectuals actually profess?

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, June 26, 2021

Joint Chiefs Chairman Sides With America's Enemies


Chairman Of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff General Mark Milley at a congressional hearing likened studying Critical Race Theory to reading works by Marxists such as Lenin and Mao. It is one thing to know your enemy.

It is another to read and assimilate these works as a sycophantic convert as Milley has obviously become.

For if the high ranking Pentagon functionary was the objective strategist he parades himself as before the American people, he would have spent as much time warning about the concrete threat posed by Antifa and Black Lives Matter as he did the amorphous “White rage” he never bothers to define or even accurately describe.

For while he was visibly discombobulated regarding the Capitol Kerfuffle of January 6th, looting and rioting of other people’s property is not that much of a concern to him. It is claimed he verbalized the vilest of profanities (perhaps language he picked up from the leftist theoreticians with whom he seems quite enamored) when a Trump advisor observed that protests had turned American cities into war zones.

Wonder if the General would have been as dismissive if it had been the Pentagon or the officers’ club on the verge of being burned to the ground.

By Frederick Meekins

Sunday, June 6, 2021

Hit & Run Commentary #133

It's been said your first murder is always the hardest. So what is to stop this level of microdictatorship every time there is a flu or disease outbreak?

Does social distancing really prevent disease? Am not really that close to that many other human beings other than immediate family yet in the past still picked up colds and such mostly likely that did not originate with them.

If we are to be subjected to public service announcements urging us not to touch our faces, how about some targeting certain demographics on the importance of wiping their rear ends properly and washing their hands afterwards?

It has been hypothesized that those that do not submit to a future coronavirus vaccine complete with bio-tracking capabilities could be prohibited from travel. But if such a vaccination really does provide immunity for those that take it, what does it matter regarding those that do not?

It has been suggested that even if risk of the Coronavirus subsided to a reasonable level, those over 55 should remain quarantined indefinitely. Will that be a personal choice or imposed by the state under threat of violence which is how any governmental edict or law is ultimately enforced? Will those with elderly in a long term care or even independent living facility be allowed to see them ever again? So would one’s 55th birthday become a ritual like the trip to Carousel in “Logan’s Run” or the episode of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” where a scientist had to abandon his work that would have saved his planet just because he had reached a certain age?

The remark was made on Fox News that once the initial Coronavirus lock down ends, the elderly should continue their social distancing while the rest of us move on. Wonder how long until this results in the elderly being excluded from society and then eventually eliminated preemptively against their will? The threat of this disease lurking in the background even if no one is actively suffering from it is going to be used to justify all sorts of cultural deprivations and infringements of liberties. Sort of like how those Japanese Americans had to be placed in those facilities for “their own good”. This would also be a good way to get many of the more doctrinally solid churches shuttered as well. Wonder how much property will end up being seized before it’s all over with to finance these Coronavirus relief programs.

Wonder how long, in the name of compassion of course, until the elderly are herded against their will into quarantine colonies where they will never again be allowed to see their loved ones?

So if the New York lock down applies particularly to those with underlying health issues, does that mean they are snooping through the medical files of those detained?

Cuomo says “social distancing is needed EVERYWHERE.” Does that include our bedrooms where it was once insisted what two consenting adults did was their own business?

In regards to the enforcement of social distancing decrees, are we to assume that law enforcement is so superhuman that they can estimate the difference between six feet and 5 feet 10 inches? If this is going to be the racket through which governments finance assorted plague relief efforts, the least that a citizenry subjected to such an intrusive degree of scrutiny deserves is for these assessments to be determined accurately rather than as a result of someone not having gotten their doughnut before hypoglycemia sets in.

Apparently a number of prisons are releasing convicts over fears of the Coronavirus spreading among the inmates and even to the staff. So why would it be acceptable to detain those accused of violating social distancing decrees (at this point can these even be considered actual laws) and possibly even those over 55 now daring to show their unmasked faces in public?

Ironic. The states now inclined to crack down the most vigorously against the Coronavirus in terms of imposing near police state conditions were the most lackadaisical in enforcing immigration laws that could have played a part in curtailing this plague.

It was remarked, “Tim LaHaye made millions of dollars with his 'Left Behind' series and his movies. Personally, I think that it is junk. Can it be explained to me why Tim LaHaye's prophecy works are to be condemned for a more literalistic interpretation of eschatological portions of Scripture yet this same online theologian is noticeably quiet or perhaps even accepting of Pat Robertson's prophetic announcements? Both of these ministers are Premillennial with works published teaching that the Tribulation period is to be understood as foretelling events that will take place. So why is Tim LaHaye to be condemned for having been a workman worthy of his hire? At least unlike Robertson, LaHaye's fortune would have been made for the most part from the actual selling of books and not begging for it through questionable broadcast tactics with those proceeds going in part to pay for race horses and his own private jet and Virginia Beach air landing strip. Unlike Mrs. Robertson, I bet Beverly LaHaye never had to fear being kicked to the curb in favor of a younger replacement had she been stricken with dementia.

As of late, a popular theme among Gospel Coalition type churches is that what we have does not belong to us but rather to God. Technically, that is true. However,, it is hoped that such conceptual repetition will make it easier to manipulate the pewfiller into more pliantly surrendering the targeted financial resources or even acceptance of compulsory income redistribution commonly referred to as increased taxation. But if we are to view ourselves as mere stewards rather than as owners, don’t we have an obligation to look to the needs of our own households just as rigorously so that we won’t be a burden upon God’s people.

In a prayer, a pastor lamented the divisive politics “polarizing our nation at this time.” So just how many more fundamental liberties are we obligated to surrender and compromise? Does the income that should be redistributed also include the accumulated wealth of the church and the pastor’s housing allowance? Or do the higher tax rates to be arrived at in the name of compromise just apply to the dimwitted saps filling the pews? Should the compromises also include the bill like the one being proposed in Virginia where religious schools would not be allowed to fire crossdressers? The pastor lamented that partisan politics is now linked to the message of Christianity. But wasn’t that initially the fault of progressives going out of their way to blatantly curtail the expression of religious liberty and traditional values to the extent that those holding to these could not help but come to the conclusion that the only viable alternative in this country was some degree of participation in the Republican Party?

Jim Bakker hawking 5 gallon survivalist buckets of pinto beans. No wonder some folks need so much toilet paper.

Given that Prince Charles contracted Coronavirus, wonder if his father Prince Phillip remained as keen on the prospect of plagues wiping out vast swaths of humanity.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, May 14, 2021

Setting Ablaze Paraphernalia Of False Belief Not The Best Outreach Strategy

In a video posted on Facebook, a legalistic evangelist set a flame of a pair of Mormon ceremonial undergarments. The evangelist claimed that the action was Biblically justified.

Acts 19:18-20 reads, “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds. A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly.... In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power.”

From the text, readers can deduce a couple of things. To set down such a decree regarding such requires the believer to look at both the context and content of the passage. Only then can a more definitive policy be put in place.

Because of this account, those figuratively on fire for God insist taking the flame to any doctrinally dubious object is not only permissible under Scripture but actually required.

These items were not snatched by authorities out of the hands of those wanting to keep them.

Rather, it is emphasized that those bringing the occultic works forward for destruction were those once owning them that no longer wanted this dark influence in their lives.

Furthermore, what we see in the passage of Acts is an historical account of how a specific set of believers decided to implement a particular set of Christian principles.

Though in particular circumstances their example would be a noble one to emulate, the account is not presented as that of a command that must be adhered to in every circumstance where the Christian finds himself confronted by religious paraphernalia with which they are at doctrinal odds.

For others, it may simply be enough to dispose of the object if they are its owner without raising considerable hoopla or fanfare.

It is usually admonished that Christians hold to the principle that Paul is to serve as the Christian's example in terms of ministry. As such, though the customs and traditions of unbelievers troubled him, it is debatable whether or not he would be that deliberately abrasive in attempting to persuade in regards to matters of error and truth.

The approach used by Paul in dealing with competing belief systems is found in Acts 17:16-34. In this passage, the Apostle is disturbed by the amount of idolatry he sees around him in the city of Athens.

To confront this distressing situation, Paul sets out to present the saving knowledge of Christ in those places in the foremost city of the Western world whose very name is synonymous with discussion and argumentation. In verse 17, we learn that Paul did not shy away from controversy as he took the Gospel into the very hearts of Mediterranean cultural life such as the synagogues, marketplaces, and forums.

We are not privileged to have a comprehensive transcript of the exact dialog that took places in those learned circles. However, we are given a summary with quotes of what Paul talked about and the response of the Athenians to it.

Upon hearing Paul's message, a number of Epicureans and Stoics inquired, “What is this babbler trying to say?... He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” Scripture then clarifies, “They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.”

From what the Holy Spirit decided to preserve of that encounter in the pages of redemptive history, one does not get the impression that all that much time was spent criticizing (at least in a condescending way) the shortcomings of Greco-Roman mythology. Instead, the Apostle to the Gentiles emphasized the distinctive particulars of the Christian faith.

However, Paul's homiletical approach did not avoid the beliefs he hoped to persuade as to the error and insufficiency of. If anything, Paul actually utilized aspects of Classical thought to show how all truths that humans might deduce or stumble upon are ultimately God's truths.

One might dispute this from the way in which Paul began his oration before the learned gathered on the Aereopagus. Paul pronounces in Acts 17:22, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.”

From where we stand along history's unfolding drama, both the triumph of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Scientific Revolution are behind us in terms of being events that have forever altered the way entire civilizations perceive reality.

As such, to our ears, to be labeled “too superstitious” sounds almost like an insult. However, a number of other versions translate the text as Paul commenting on the religious nature of the Athenian intellectual class. Irrespective of where numerous exegetes come down on this interpretative issue, from that point forward there is virtually no debate as to the approach Paul takes.

Those whose missiological approach consists of literally setting ablaze whatever paraphernalia offends their religious sensibilities would have had Paul rip to shreds the inconsistencies and shortcomings inherent to paganism in general and polytheism in particular. There is certainly Biblical precedent for such a strategy where, in Romans 1, Paul holds nothing back regarding how forsaking worship of the one true God to worship nature rather than nature's Creator leads to the most pronounced of carnal sins.

Yet in Acts 17, the Apostle shows that the message can be tailored to fit the nature of the audience addressed. Paul went about this by pointing out the commonalities between Biblical beliefs and Greek philosophy. In terms of apologetics, this phenomena is known as a point of contact.

Paul shares in Acts 17:23, “For as I passed by ... I found an altar with this inscription, 'To the unknown God'. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him I declare unto you.” From that point, Paul proceeded to point out other commonalities between Judeo-Christian and Greek thought.

In verse 26, Paul declares, “And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell upon the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation...:” He emphasized that this simply wasn't the ramblings of a crazed Hebrew babbler Rather, as we are told in verse 28, “For in him (God) we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, 'For we are also his offspring.'.”

As such, in his conclusion Paul does not ridicule the Greeks into capitulation and compliance. Instead Paul commends what the Greeks got right in their philosophy as a reflection of the law written across the heart as spelled out in Romans 2 as to what the Greeks ought to set aside of their pre-Christian thought as they come to Jesus in repentance.

The act of setting ablaze the revered and venerated object of a faith outside the parameters of Biblical Christianity is without question a very provocative act. Even if one opposes the faith, worldview, or creed that the object represents, only the most fanatic would fail or refuse to admit how such a deed does more to alienate rather than woo those one is taking such a course of action to gain the attention of.

For example, it is doubtful many Christians are convinced to the alleged doctrinal error within their own positions of faith when ACLU lawyers descend upon nativities across America and abscond with the ceramic baby Jesus.

Often many a Scripture verse is invoked to justify all kinds of shocking actions.

For once, it would be edifying to hear a minister of solid reputation to go out on a limb emphasizing those passages extolling individual conscience and determining for oneself those things not quite so clearly spelled out in stone.

By Frederick Meekins

Friday, April 30, 2021

Dogmatic Pluralism Results In Operational Intolerance

An old adage contends that it is all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Something quite similar could be said regarding living by the “live and let live” philosophy espoused by many early twenty-first century relativists thinking they are too cool and hip to be stifled by any one religious creed.

In a letter to the editor regarding an 4/27/2010 USA Today article analyzing the tendency of young adults not to be devoted to a particular faith, a respondent observed this trend is the result of being more educated than previous generations and “exposed to the realities of life in the twenty-first century.”

But rather than thinking for themselves, what may be taking place among the youth such as the letter's author is their indoctrination or brainwashing by those educators the young are spending record time around.

The correspondents on this topic claim to applaud and embrace an iconoclastic eclecticism. But in reality such souls do little more than parrot the notions expounded upon and bandied about the typical college lecture hall.

The author writes, “Who seriously believes that an infinite God, who created the vast complexities of the cosmos, can be understood by finite humanity, let alone be reduced to a statement of faith that's subject to the limits of human understanding?”

Some of humanity's greatest minds actually. It's actually a concept not all that difficult to get one's mind around.

The assumption that finite man cannot fully comprehend an infinite God is (to use a much maligned term) absolutely correct. Isaiah 55:8-9 says God's thoughts are not our thoughts.

However, though we cannot fully know God, it does not follow that God cannot fully know man. Since the infinite is beyond the finite, it is not beyond the realm of the possible for the infinite to reveal of itself what it knows the finite is capable of comprehending of that which is beyond our meager understanding.

In the New Testament, God's only Begotten Son Jesus Christ took on human form by being born of a virgin so that He might dwell among us, die upon a cross for our sins, and rise from the dead so that we might have eternal life if we admit that we are sinners and accept His free gift of forgiveness and salvation. In essence, God condescended to our level so that we might know Him.

When asked why evolution caught on as a theory of origins among the intelligentsia, a popular anecdote posits that Julian Huxley responded that Darwinism supported the sexual morays of that particular social class. Thus, all the grandiose proclamations against the dogmatism of the Almighty and the seeming existential nobility of the libertines ends up being a cover to sleep with whomever you want with the hopes of no regret the next morning.

One of the letters to the editor reads, “Beyond that is the nasty habit of many Christian fundamentalists to deny basic human rights to those who don't agree with them theologically.”

And what “basic human rights” might those be? Just about nowhere in the United States are “fundamentalist” Christians denying anyone the traditional rights such as freedoms of speech, creed or property where an ACLU media whore is not before a network news camera within a hour of such an alleged transgression transpiring.

When articulated by a progressive, the phrase “Fundamentalist Christians denying basic human rights” is actually a euphemism for daring to stand in disagreement of the trend towards sodomite matrimony or refusing to enforce preferences for certain groups simply because they are favored minorities. If anything, Christian “fundamentalists” are the ones having their “basic rights” curtailed and infringed upon here at home in America and most certainly around the world.

One cannot name a single regime around the world today where the rulers hold to an explicit traditionalist Christianity that abuses its power by persecuting its population. If anything, Christians unwilling to give up and compromise these truths that they hold dear by refusing to participate in the rejection of moral absolutes are more likely to be the ones persecuted (ironically by the ones that whine the loudest about the church's curtailment of postmodernist understandings of human liberation.

For examples, secularists and radical ecumenicalists applauded the decision on the part of the Department of Defense to disinvite Franklin Graham to the Pentagon's commemoration of the National Day of Prayer over his comments that Islam is an evil and wicked religion as evidenced by the 9/11 attacks and the treatment of woman in lands where that creed prevails.

For you see. Franklin Graham made the mistake of concluding that the First Amendment is something to live by rather than a abstraction to talk about in vague generalities. As Chesterton is credited with saying, the problem with the freedom of religion is that people end up discussing everything but religion.

It is of this fear of appearing impolite and offensively stepping on someone's toes in a manner that delicate psyches will never recover from that our society has come to such a screeching halt that it can become an act of considerable courage to simply state the obvious. And this is something the enemies of this great nation have learned readily.

For example, Eboo Patel, founder of the Interfaith Youth Core, in a 5/10/10 USA Today column titled “Graham's Anti-Mulsim Jabs Hurt Islam and America” applauded CAIR's public statement emphasizing the American value of “differing faiths united in shared support of our nation's founding principles” rather than the “message of intolerance that Graham advocates.”

But while CAIR puts forward a public face espousing tolerance and cooperation, the groups and individuals the organization supports behind the scenes advocate something else entirely. For example, CAIR has supported Islamic extremists such as Hamas who not only advocate a form of religious exclusiveness that goes far beyond anything advocated by Franklin Graham but also endorse violence against those with whom they disagree.

An old country song admonishes that you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. Should Americans continue down the path imposed by cultural agnosticism, the result will not be a relaxed, easygoing paradise. Rather, the result will be the establishment of a sociopolitical milieu where the deceptive will manipulate the weak to undermine the liberty of all Americans.

By Frederick Meekins

Thursday, March 18, 2021

Russell Moore's Tirade Targets Wrong Youth

 In an episode of his podcast, Russell Moore interviewed Senator Ben Sasse regarding how perpetual adolescence hurts the church.

One might immediately snap what's so wrong with that?

Nothing if by that one is referring to 25 year olds still on their parents' health insurance as authorized under Obamacare or having never worked a day in their lives by the same age.

However, that is apparently not what this phrase is referring to when articulated by certain professional religionists.

Moore states in the opening of his remarks that, no matter how hard his 16 year old lads work in their grocery store jobs, it is nothing in comparison to Sasse's own sons bailing hay and birthing cattle.

But doesn't Moore rank among this contemporary breed of Evangelical that condemns those that would retreat from concentrated areas of population, no doubt going so far as to call “racist” Whites preferring a more reclusive and less urban lifestyle?

Often what these religionists mean when they complain about “perpetual adolescence” is not being married off by the age of 23.

Perhaps Moore and Sasse's time would have been better spent condemning the perpetual welfare recipients that can't seem to keep their pants on and their legs together in terms of an unending litany of out of wedlock offspring where as in the case of potato chips many can't seem to stop at just one.

By Frederick Meekins

Monday, February 15, 2021

Democrats In Uproar Over Rightwing Conspiracy Theories No Issue With Leftist Tyranny


Representative Marjory Greene has been removed from her committee assignments in the House of Representatives not so much for anything that she has done but rather because of what she believed.

It was claimed that the so-called conspiracy theories she is accused of professing cannot be countenanced because of the “festering malignancy” of such ideas. Nothing similar was done to punish Raphael Warnock for questionable notions the pastor has peddled or lent support to over the years of his ministry.

For example, Warnock has downplayed the atrocities of Fidel Castro, calling the Cuban dictator’s legacy complex.

Yet it’s doubtful the Georgia radical would be that judicious in his assessment of the Trump presidency despite the administration having a significantly smaller body count in terms of citizens eliminated for merely expressing an ideology at variance with that preferred by regime functionaries.

Warnack is a bit more explicit in his admiration of the late theologian James Cone, whom Warack describes as his mentor and whom Warack eulogized at his funeral.

For those not as familiar with James Cone as they might be Fidel Castro, Cone is renowned as the developer of Black Liberation theology.

As part of that interpretative school of thought, Cone equates Whites or “Whiteness” with Satan and/or the Antichrist.

His acolytes will quibble that “Whiteness” is more about the way in which such people act rather than the people themselves.

Would a renowned theologian of the contemporary era be allowed to equate “Jewishness” or better yet “Blackishness” with the most vile works of evil and be permitted to retain their endowed chair or posh ministry position?

More importantly, if the Biden Autarchy and the regime’s legislative allies in the People’s Assembly (also known as Congress in times before the assent of one party rule seemingly intent on squelching as much dissent as possible) say nothing in condemnation it must likely mean that these powerful institutions support these forms of tyranny and oppression perceived as originating from the left side of the political spectrum.

By Frederick Meekins

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Collectivist Utopians Won't Stop With Social Media Suppression

 Utopians, especially of the revolutionary variety, are never satisfied.

That is an undeniable truth of history.

One only needs to read an account of Jacobin France, Nazi Germany, Bolshevist Russia, or Maoist China to draw such a conclusion.

In the future, one must ask, will Biden's America be added to that infamous list?

It has been pointed out that one does not have an inherent constitutional right to social media.

Since those are private corporations viewed as individuals in the eyes of the law, to compel such would be to infringe upon its rights in a coercive manner.

Perhaps fair enough.

But it must be asked will the matter stop there in regards to those commodities or services that don't quite rise to the level of government but without which the individual's quality of life is profoundly hampered?

For example, most electricity is provided through what is ultimately private enterprise.

So what if in the future an electric company does not like how its commodity is being utilized in pursuit of a perfectly legal but ideologically unacceptable values or agendas such as to light a church opposed to homosexual marriage marriage or that professed the belief in Christ alone is the only path to obtain a beatific afterlife?

In the future, sophisticated computers and Artificial Intelligence will play a role in the way in which personal vehicles are piloted.

Should individuals known to express or even be suspected of harboring certain opinions have their ignition systems shut down entirely so as to inhibit their ability to travel in a manner not unlike the interlock system imposed upon drunk drivers?

Don't laugh.

It has already been proposed that those at the Capitol Kerfuffle should be placed on the don't fly list without even having been convicted of a crime.

And who before this time thought steps would be taken to silence former presidents and seated senators who did not actually call for violence but rather whose words were not those preferred by the gatekeepers of the means of communication?

By Frederick Meekins

Saturday, January 9, 2021

For What Other Reasons Can Civil Society Be Suspended?


Across America, governments are invoking the power to essentially suspend civil society when hospitals are occupied at a predetermined numerical threshold.

So why does the same sort of emergency intervention not apply in other situations where human life is at stake?

For example, if there are a certain number of auto accidents for a particular period should most forms of vehicular travel be suspended for a spell?

Likewise, if the number of heart attacks and incidents of cardiac disease rise above a certain percentage in a jurisdiction, should most of the fast food establishments --- especially Starbucks --- in a given area be closed and supermarkets allowed only to sell an assortment of rudimentary vegetables?

If a particular number of domestic abuse incidents occurs, should liquor stores be closed until such an epidemic is gotten under control?

And if a state's adolescent obesity rates rise above a certain level, should Internet and smarthphone access be switched off in order to get the youth probably spending a considerable amount of time on these devices active outdoors?

By Frederick Meekins