FMeekins's blog

Legislators Too Good For Constitution's Reading Should Be Booted From Office

A number of leftist Democrats either boycotted the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives or denigrated the ceremony.

These representatives should either resign or be removed from office.

For if they think that the very thing that authorizes them to hold office and wield authority is irrelevant, shameful or outdated propaganda, they certainly shouldn't be granted a hefty salary under a system that they have exhibited so much contempt for that they can't even grant the respect to to hear read aloud.

Americans would be shocked and outraged to learn of an athlete thinking themselves too good to be bothered with learning the basic rules of the game.

Then shouldn't we be even more so when it comes to those that actually assume that they have more of a right to run and order our lives than we do?

by Frederick Meekins

Observations Regarding Christianity & Fantasy

If Christians are to avoid altogether books such as "The Lord Of The Rings" and "The Chronicles Of Narnia" because these stories contain wizards and witches, by definition does that prohibition also include the Bible since it too mentions witches and the like?

Like the Bible, don't these works warn that what we categorize as magic is not for mortal beings and in many instances depict what happens to those that succumb to this particular temptation?

In regards to Gandalf, though he is referred to as a wizard, in Tolkien's background materials, weren't the wizards beings more akin to angels in terms of their ontology?

More importantly, for hyperpious critics to condemn these books in such minute detail, wouldn't they have had to have read them or at least have had to study them closely?

If so, then on what grounds do they forbid you the opportunity to read these materials if for no other reason than to verify the conclusions that they have arrived at?

Rather, wouldn't the more respectable position be to warn the reader and to let them decide for themselves?

by Frederick Meekins

Observations Regarding Christianity & Fantasy

If Christians are to avoid altogether books such as "The Lord Of The Rings" and "The Chronicles Of Narnia" because these stories contain wizards and witches, by definition does that prohibition also include the Bible since it too mentions witches and the like?

Like the Bible, don't these works warn that what we categorize as magic is not for mortal beings and in many instances depict what happens to those that succumb to this particular temptation?

In regards to Gandalf, though he is referred to as a wizard, in Tolkien's background materials, weren't the wizards beings more akin to angels in terms of their ontology?

More importantly, for hyperpious critics to condemn these books in such minute detail, wouldn't they have had to have read them or at least have had to study them closely?

If so, then on what grounds do they forbid you the opportunity to read these materials if for no other reason than to verify the conclusions that they have arrived at?

Rather, wouldn't the more respectable position be to warn the reader and to let them decide for themselves?

by Frederick Meekins

Sell Naming Rights To Tackle Overwhelming National Debt

It was stated on Fox News that each family's share of the national debt is approximately $45,000.

In the attempt to make the amount more manageable, perhaps naming rights could be sold to various government landmarks or agencies in a manner similar to the way corporations currently purchase the ones to athletic stadiums.

For example, the Lincoln Memorial could be renamed “the Lincoln Mercury Lincoln Memorial”.

Social Security checks and statements could have boldly emblazoned across them “Brought to you by Depends Undergarments” or the name of a prominent retirement community in a given area.

The Capitol Building could have a giant Pepsi logo painted on it for the right price.

Prominent national parks could be sold off or contracted out as Disney resorts provided the Magic Kingdom agreed to leave these land holdings in a state close to natural. Given the levels to which gas prices are expected to rise over the coming years, it’s not like anyone other than the elites are going to be able to travel to enjoy these treasures anyway.

Since it has been hinted at in occultic circles that the Washington Monument is actually a gigantic phallus, it could be renamed “Trojan’s Washington Monument”.

Of course in each of these cases, steps could be taken to ensure that corporate influence would be limited to advertising and image purposes only.

Still distasteful and undignified?

Of course it is; but it less so than your children starving to death for lack resources available to feed them, being conscripted into Red Chinese slave labor factories, or having to surrender the nation’s daughters to Arab harems in the attempt to settle astronomical debt.

by Frederick Meekins

Observations Regarding The History Channel’s “Prophets Of Doom”

On the History Channel special "Prophets Of Doom", most of the talking heads assembled to discuss a number of the scenarios potentially instigating the collapse of the United States insisted that the nation must return to a system of localized agriculture.

Interestingly, though, none of the gathered researchers and theoreticians looked like they would be all that much into manual labor.

So I guess in their thinking, it will be up to you to give up your standard of living. They, on the other hand, will get to become the new feudal lords still sitting around thinking what by then will be useless kinds of thoughts while you will be the one toiling away in the fields.

Though an intellectually stimulating program and discussion, one couldn’t help but notice the hypocrisy of the analysts filmed driving around in their automobiles lamenting how human beings should have never been allowed to advance to the level of technology that we now enjoy.

Interesting how the old bald guy with the earring gripping about the decline of fossil fuel supplies never said a word about part of that crisis resulting from legislative and bureaucratic prohibitions against exploring for and developing new sources of oil within our own borders and off our own shores where other world powers are beginning to stake a claim.

If those assembled were suppose to be such experts about the threats that could lay west to modern civilization, how come not a single word was raised regarding electromagnetic pulse weapons?

by Frederick Meekins

Tweets Regarding The Arizona Shooting Tragedy

An assassination attempt was made against an Arizona Congresswoman. What freedoms will Americans be coerced into surrendering as a result? In a press conference, the sheriff there has already blamed talk radio for the tragedy.

A Fox News talking head made a fuss about Gabrielle Giffords being the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Arizona. Would the assassination attempt be less tragic if it had been on a Christian man?

In analyzing the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, blame is not placed on the gunman for this evil deed but on politics becoming “too personal”. But aren’t the liberals the ones that made it that way in their efforts to control every facet of existence?

Maybe political rhetoric would not have grown so intense if the government had done its job of securing the borders and minding its own business as to what type of toilets we have in our homes, what kind of lightbulbs we decide to illuminate them with and what kind of food we decide to stick in our mouths.

The shooting of Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords is tragic. Too bad there isn't as much outrage over illegal aliens murdering, raping, and looting the average citizens of that state. Perhaps the Speaker of the House ought to make a statement that an attack on any run of the mill American is an attack on all Americans, not just when these horrors befall the ruling elites.

An ABC news report reveals that the shooter of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords listed The Communist Manifesto as one of his favorite books and didn’t make it past the urinalysis in his attempts to enlist in the military, essentially meaning he was strung out on dope. It has also been learned that the gunman had constructed an occult altar on his parents' property. Seems he has more in common with Obama voters than members of the Tea Party.

A fuss is being made that the gunman's Satanic altar was in a camouflage tent. Would the hyperfeminized media have pointed out its coloration if it had been pink with lacy frills?

If all men are created equal, the murderous Arizona scumbag deserves no more of a stiffer sentence for killing the federal judge than he does for the young girl or senior citizens he murdered.

Is Congress really postponing scheduled business to focus on the tragedy or merely using this as an excuse for an extended weekend that few will have the gonads to question?

Will the tragic AZ shooting serve as the Reichstag Fire in the attempt to abolish the Internet, Talk Radio, and the First Amendment? Of course, in the New World Order that will likely spring from this, merely raising such a suggestion will likely get one incarcerated in the near future.

Stenny Hoyer claims Gifford's astronaut husband wants the nation's political rhetoric toned down. News flash to Hoyer, while sympathetic to the Congresswoman's plight, this isn't the 1950's anymore. There is no reason compelling Americans to defer without question to the preferences to an astronaut.

If astronauts are going to preach to us from the Space Station as to what we can say, does that mean preachers can now run the space program from their pulpits?

And what if we refuse to "tone down our rhetoric", which means conservatives are expected to silence ourselves. Not many ways legitimately around "Congress shall make no law..." unless you plan to repeal it.

Does the government intend to establish a Bureau of Verbal Tone & Infliction to objectively determine what rhetoric "needs to be toned down" or has crossed the line?

An Associated Press story claims the scumbag shooter was noted for being "confrontational, nonlinear, and obsessed with how words create reality". So basically, he was indistinguishable from the average postmodernist university literature professor.

If Congresswoman Giffords had been 15 to 20 years older than she is now, the policy wonks behind the Obama healthcare legislation she voted for might not see her worthy of the heroic actions taken to save her innocent life.

If the Arizona Tragedy is to serve as justification for additional gun control, does that mean Gabrielle Giffords should have her gun confiscated because someone else shot her?

The crazed Tucson sheriff claims that the shooting of Representative Giffords was a result of the Arizona ID law intended to crackdown on illegal alien criminals. So basically, citizens thinking that those the world doesn’t come to a screeching halt over when befalling a horrible tragedy are as valuable in terms of their basic humanity and thus worthy of the same protection as the vaunted members of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are the ones responsible for this act of terrorism.

It has been projected that energy bills are expected to triple. Before it's all over with, overheated rhetoric is about the only warmth Americans may be left with as no one will be able to afford gas or lights.

by Frederick Meekins

Pseudoephedrine Restrictions Nothing To Sneeze At

in

Each winter without fail, the flu sends millions to the local pharmacy in search of some kind of relief. However, it won’t be this pesky virus that will give you a headache and make your stomach churn.

In order to purchase pseudoephedrine, consumers must now produce a photo ID (something that is apparently an outrage to require illegal aliens to do when accused of a crime) with these details added into a computer database tracking how much and often you purchase this perfectly legal substance. It is claimed that this procedure is necessary as a result of the meth epidemic sweeping across the country since pseudoephedrine is an ingredient used to make this drug.

While methamphetamine might be illegal, pseudoephedrine is not and is available over the counter in smaller doses. If the nanny state wants to restrict access to this substance, why not make it unavailable in its entirety without a prescription or enact an outright prohibition all together.

It could be argued that there are already restrictions on other products deleterious to bodily health such as cigarettes and booze. However, the regulations stipulating how these products are to be dispersed are not part of the Patriot Act nor are (as far as I know since I have never purchased either) the details of the photo ID necessary to purchase them entered into a computer database.

And at least with a six pack of beer, you can actually caresses or fondle the package before finalizing the purchase. Simple cold pills are now concealed behind the counter and one must bow and scrape before authorities in order to be granted access to them, no doubt as part of yet another training exercise to further condition a once free people into acquiescing control over additional areas of their lives to the technocrats wielding power.

What is to prevent these kinds of restrictions from being applied to additional legal products “our betters” have deemed communally irresponsible? For while shoppers have to surrender their most private information just for a bit of sinus relief, condoms hang on the wrack just a few aisles away with anyone free to thumb through them.

Americans are constantly reminded that we must endure these embarrassing indignities for the sake of public health. If that is the case, then why shouldn’t we be required to produce a marriage license before being permitted to purchase a prophylactic?

After all, in the case of decongestants, we are being inconvenienced because of the small percentage that abuse a legitimate product. Then shouldn’t similar safeguards be put in place in reference to a product that, whether we want to admit it or not, all of us could be tempted into using illicitly? After all, in terms of the costs, fornication likely surpasses the expense caused by abused Sudafed tablets as evidenced by the lives shattered by sexually transmitted diseases, welfare payments to unwed mothers, and the conception of the next generation of meth addicts who will end up strung out on this chemical trash because their parents are to busy out whoring around rather than raising the babies they have made.

Some may not care one way or the other if the government steps in to regulate either of these errant behaviors, thinking that their own exemplary character will prevent them from falling under the surveillance of government operatives. However, even though at this moment this manner of draconian regulation is directed towards behaviors most would consider social pathologies, it won't be long until this kind of bureaucratic procedure is applied to other basic human behaviors no sane person would have any qualms about.

According to a piece of legislation at one time submitted to the Mississippi legislature, it would be illegal for a licensed restaurant to serve obese patrons. Some are quick to point out that the measure quickly died in light of the public outcry against it.

Maybe so for now. But does anyone honestly believe that this will be the last time we hear something like this?

This measure or something like it will be proposed again and again in legislative bodies across the country until it is no longer news and is quietly enacted without much fanfare. Or, as in the case of homosexuality and assorted abridgments of liberty such as high taxes and government agents interrogating you over how many toilets you have in your home, most Americans will still oppose the advance of these policies within their own hearts and minds but their resistance will be so eroded that the will just accept the regimented status quo without much protest. The dispirited will conclude there is little point in speaking up anyway.

Preventing drug abuse is an important health policy concern. However, no legitimate interest is served by treating the entire population as potential suspects without a single hint of probable cause.

by Frederick Meekins

Does Prison Fellowship Give Christmas Gifts To Crime Victims' Children?

The annual Prison Fellowship Angel Tree direct fundraising letter has arrived in the mailboxes of Christians across the nation.

On a positive note, the ministry didn't role out the organization's usual sob story letter supposedly written by a convict, incarcerated for a sentence of about nine years, asking for a handout for his daughter.

I guess if they had continued repeatedly sending the same plea as they have done year after year since at least 2005, the discerning would have realized it was nearly time for this deadbeat to be released.

Thing is, this year's appeal still left much to be desired.

One woman is quoted as saying, "It was hard to see...him [her father] in prison...Angel Tree just showed us that he was thinking about us while he was there."

Perhaps all well and good. But what is Angel Tree doing for the children of victims no longer able to let their children know that they are thinking about them thanks to a number of the very same convicts Prison Fellowship no doubt depicts as being put behind bars by an inequitable criminal justice system rather than by felonious misdeeds?

by Frederick Meekins

Innkeeper's Bad Press Not Necessarily Deserved

As the opening act of the Greatest Story Ever Told, each character mentioned in the Christmas narrative has had a number of literary traditions and homiletical assumptions added that may or may not be directly traceable to the text of the Holy Bible. One of these is none other than the Innkeeper.

When we are confronted with the dichotomy of the Second Person of the divine Godhead, enthroned in Heaven throughout all previous eternity, being born into a filthy barn with the stench of feces and urine all around, knowing this account not from the standpoint of the characters within but rather as the beneficiaries of the complete Good News of the Gospel message, we are horrified on an instinctive level and look for someone to blame for this apparent breech of cosmic protocol. Often, the Innkeeper is thrust into the role.

But is such an outrage warranted? Though literature and tradition can be useful tools of instruction, enlightenment, and illumination if they are kept in check by the foundation provided by the Word of God, it is to the Word of God that the investigation must turn if we are to distinguish undisputed fact from what may turn out to be nothing but well-intended imagination.

The text reads in Luke 2:7, “And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.” With that passage, one has exhausted the corpus of Biblical references regarding the Advent Inn though definitely not the speculation or debate surrounding the figure that no doubt tended this mentioned structure.

Technically, there isn’t even an innkeeper directly mentioned. One can conclude that the expansion of the role that he played in interpretations of the Christmas Story is more about giving pageant parts to kids who, to put it bluntly, don’t quite measure up to the charisma of those selected to play Joseph and Mary but who are a cut above those selected to play shepherds and animals in terms of intelligence.

The Innkeeper also becomes a foil through which assorted ministers, church music directors, and aspiring ecclesiastical playwrites make assorted points that these respective thinkers feel either need to be made but are not explicitly spelled out in the portion of Scripture under consideration or even placed as hints to draw applause to their own vaunted sense of holiness or spirituality.

The first misconception construed about the Holy Family and tossed at the Innkeeper is that these wanderers were homeless and that this particular businessman typifies the attitudes exuded by commercial interests towards the destitute. This line of reasoning was popularized years ago by Jesse Jackson and is no doubt widespread today as assorted charities often capitalize on these kinds of sentiments prevalent this time of year in order to shame the general population into complying with solicitations for donations.

Racemongers such as Jackson constantly hold their ears to the rails of the public discussion ready to pounce on any thinker daring to make the error that all within a protected demographic happen to partake of a certain characteristic not inherent to what makes an individual part of the particular group in question. Then why isn’t this same care of thought applied to those finding no roof over their heads?

As Rush Limbaugh astutely rejoineded at the time, Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem to pay their taxes. Thus, their state of lacking a domicile was merely a transient one. Technically, they were no more homeless than someone going to the beach and finding nothing but “No Vacancy” signs lit along the boardwalk.

The dilemma faced by the Holy Family in no way justified the increased social spending Jackson was calling for at the time nor infuse the most debauched among indigents, unwilling to lift their own fingers in the effort to elevate their status, with a sacredness or purity with which they should not be esteemed. Unlike Mary and Joseph, many of the homeless end up in this lamentable condition because of their willful refusal to pay their bills rather than because of an eager compliance in seeing that their obligations are met.

A related criticism of the Innkeeper accuses the Innkeeper of being insufficiently religious or spiritual. Those out to find fault with him will respond, “He should have been able to find room for the birth of the Messiah by either kicking out another paying customer or by giving up his own bed.”

This suggestion makes a number of assumptions that cannot necessarily be supported one way or the other from the text as it was inspired by the moving of the Holy Spirit.

For example, no where in the Gospel account is the Innkeeper explicitly portrayed. Mary and Joseph may have learned by other means than directly from the proprietor’s mouth that the inn was full and they wandered about the town looking for an alternative place to stay until the blessed event transpired and there was no where else where they could get off the street.

If sufficiently secluded and in dire enough of an emergency, Mary and Joseph might have dashed into the nearest stable without even notifying the owner or caretaker. The manger in question might not have even belonged to the innkeeper.

Even if Mary and Joseph interacted directly with the Innkeeper, there is no proof that the couple even told the Innkeeper of their unique plight. As difficult as it may be to remember, the Nativity took place in pre-Internet times when pregnant women didn't go around posting pictures of their bare bellies with stretch marks and protruding navals for all the world to see.

Joseph was initially of the mind to hide Mary away privately all together away from public view in Matthew 2:19 and Mary's cousin Elizabeth went into seclusion for five months following the conception of John the Baptist according to Luke 1:24. As such, if the Innkeeper even met Mary and Joseph, he might not have even known that she was pregnant if the couple went to extraordinary measures to conceal that she was with child.

Since, according to tradition, the Innkeeper placed Mary, Joseph, and the Baby Jesus in a livestock sty, the Innkeeper must not have been an overtly devout individual if that is the way he treated the Messiah and the human vessel through which the Son of God entered the mortal realm in human flesh. But even if Mary and Joseph pulled rank (something they would not have likely done given what we are told in regards to their character), why should the Innkeeper have believed them at the time?

To pious ears, that may sound shocking. However, it must be remembered that at that point in history, Mary and Joseph were no more renowned than any other Israelite.

Before going into the stable, Jesus hadn't even been born. Mary knew that a miracle had occurred within her. However, even Joseph was disinclined to believe his espoused's account until he was persuaded otherwise by no less than the intervention of God Himself.

As an Israelite, the Innkeeper could have been aware of prophecies that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. However, short of a detailed anatomical examination or divine encounter of his own, how would he have known Mary was telling the truth or simply pulling his leg to swindle something out of him as religious charlatans have been known to do throughout history. If we are going to add extraneous details to the Christmas story, perhaps we might as well applaud this willingness to assist while keeping the potentially deceptive that we can't verify at arms length.

Living 2000 years after the events chronicled in the Gospel accounts, we are privileged to know from beginning to the end this particular portion of the Story of Stories. There is more than enough to meditate and ponder upon in those pages without having to drag through the mud the character of a character that what is known of is little more than historical conjecture and literary speculation.

by Frederick Meekins

Salvation Army Bells Deemed Offensive

Giant, a prominent Washington DC area supermarket chain, has curtailed the number of days that the Salvation Army will be permitted to solicit donations this Christmas season outside of the grocery retailer’s locations.

In a number of media reports, it was claimed that the bells were offensive and irritating to a number of shoppers.

So what about those food solicitation campaigns where the grocery chain doesn't simply set out a receptacle for those wanting to contribute food items to charity but instead gets broadcast news outlets involved?

Spokesmen from both institutions not only smooch their own rearends in letting the public know just how progressive both the media outlet and food distribution corporations are in bringing awareness to the plight of the supposedly malnourished but also castigate the viewing consumer if they do not comply with the demand for a contribution.

Why isn’t this deemed offensive?

Or how about the recipients of such charity who are not really starving per say but rather simply not receiving the quality of food they think that they otherwise deserve but are unwilling to work for in order to acquire?

Isn’t it offensive to be lectured to by such types or rather their benefactors?

But perhaps the greatest outrage of all occurs when the price for food the average consumer is forced to pay is jacked up with the goods not being sold often simply being tossed into the dumpster.

by Frederick Meekins

Syndicate content