FMeekins's blog

Tweets Regarding Junk Touching

Janet Napolitano received a security pat down. Poor sap forced to do that deserves either a medal or hazardous duty pay.

Wonder if TSA administrator John Pistole's pistol would even show up on the full body scanner or be of sufficient caliber to grab onto in a pat down.

White House eunuchs announced they don't care whose privates are violated this Thanksgiving season.

If to be subjected to a government mandated "groin check" in an airport, dependent upon what the attendant looked like, one conducted by the opposite gender would be preferable. And if conducted in privacy, there better be candelight and soft music playing in the background.

How come a potential airline passenger merely asserting his right to genital self determination by informing the TSA screener of the penalty for sexual assault is threatened with a $10,000 fine but the same government leveling such a charge likely gives more than this in handout benefits to undocumented foreigners violating our borders? Where are the babykillers now when their mantra of “keep your laws of my body” could finally be applied in an appropriate context?

If TSA perverts are so obsessed with groins, hopefully they'll get whacked down below by one of the kids these goons are molesting with Obama's blessing.

As a former member of an organization of revolutionary Hispanosupremacists, the government approved molestation of Americans is likely the first time ever that the mayor of LA has rushed to defend "law enforcement" or orderly passage through a border checkpoint.

For now, if Americans do not want to endure the trauma of a government sanctioned molestation, they can circumvent airport security by driving to their respective destinations. However, in the future, what is to prevent this simple act itself from being categorized as an act of terrorism in a manner similar to how having a screwdriver in your possession when pulled over by police can result in allegations of harboring burglary tools? More importantly, electric cars will probably force those desiring to travel long distances to fly anyway since no automobile will have enough power to go very far from the driver's respective residence.

An overly zealous Facebook evangelist has posted that a Christian would not allow themselves to be subjected to TSA security screenings. Is it going to be insinuated eventually that a Christian that has consented to such a search is not really a Christian or has fallen into a state of apostasy? In regards to some of these matters in terms of the individual adult, don’t Christians have the prerogative to follow their own conscience?

Here is an example. In the Old Testament, the census was frowned upon by God, but in the New Testament the reader finds that it was compliance with a census that brought Mary and Joseph to the city of Bethlehem. So did Jesus spring from the womb of one heretic and was raised as the stepson (for lack of a better term) in the house of another?

Those with courage enough to stand up to these most outrageous of bodily violations should be heralded However, the hand of fellowship should not be removed from those that decide to pursue another course of action when presented with these unacceptable choices.

The head of the TSA has lamented the disrespect travelers have shown to airport screeners. Unless their groins have been stroked and their breasts fondled, in comparison to this mistreatment inflicted upon American airline passengers, these bureaucrats have very little to complain about.

by Frederick Meekins

Boob Love, Pink Cleats & The Williams Fiasco: Headline Potpourri #17

Students sue for the right to love boobs. Or at least there was a case filed for the right to wear a t-shirt attesting to such fondness in regards to breast cancer awareness. Will there be parity for testicles along with the opportunity to wear paraphernalia referencing the bawdy vernacular often used to describe those bodily organs.

If Michael Kinsley is going to look down his nose at Marco Rubio for insisting that America is the greatest country in history, perhaps in the spirit of international balance, perhaps Kinsley and his family should be sent to take the place vacated by Rubio’s family in Communist Cuba. Am sure Kinsley’s Parkinson's will get the treatment it needs under the wonders of Castro’s glorious healthcare program.

Of course it was a miscarriage of justice to waterboard Khalid Muhammad. Interogators should have instead used the same rusty knife on him that he used to hack off Daniel Pearl's head.

Obama was to visit Indonesia's largest mosque. Is it his habit to visit the prominent religious landmarks in countries with a predominantly Christian heritage as well? If you will recall, if there happens to be Christian symbols at venues where Obama is appearing, he demands that such iconography be removed. Such objects, no doubt, have similar effect upon him as they would a vampire.

All that marriage is an indication of is that a person is married. Contrary to a number of churches, ministries, and political candidates, it is not a barometer of spiritual maturity or standard of eligibility for ecclesiastical or political office. The statistics on broken and unhappy marriages alone are evidence of this truth.

If liberals can invoke tragic incidents such as mass shootings to justify curtailments of firearms ownership and even proposed restrictions on talk radio such as the Fairness Doctrine, shouldn’t the riots that inevitably follow the conclusion of nearly every championship game especially among ghettoized segments of the population justify the abolition of professional athletics?

Would the San Francisco Chronicle had brushed aside the World Series Riot as "joyful mayhem” if it had been the neswpaper's building vandalized rather than that of a Wells Fargo office?

If the government is authorized to shoot on site anyone violating the perimeter of Area 51, why can't we apply that same policy and spirit of vigilance to the entire U.S. border?

Interesting that Juan Williams would be done in amongst his liberal bedfellows over matters of appropriate speech. For years, he has insisted in various interviews that Whites should have greater restrictions placed upon them than Blacks regarding what Caucasians should be permitted to say.

If Juan Williams had been White, would Whoopi Goldberg have even cared about this political analyst being fired from NPR?

Would Juan Williams have stood for the free speech of someone saying that they were leery of Black hoodlums in oversized pants riding down their rearends?

Degenerates at NPR should realize that, should the Muslims ever take over, they will be among the first rounded up and eliminated.

Interesting how CAIR thinks Juan Williams is a greater threat to America than the actual terrorist groups that CAIR has associated with over the years.

Vivian Scholler should be told that saying she's sorry isn't going to pay Juan Williams' bills. Hopefully, she'll learn that lesson for herself on the receiving end soon enough.

On The O'Reilly Factor, Dana Parino remarked that the firing of Juan Williams was handled in a "ham handed" fashion. There will probably be some Islamist flying into an outrage over the mention of ham on broadcast television.

A campaign ad mocked Christian O'Donnell as being from the Twilight Zone. That ought to be considered a compliment. It must be pointed out that that program had a way of expressing fundamental truths dimwitted conformists would otherwise fail to comprehend in much the same way lesser minds have failed to understand the startling realities she was courageous enough to raise in a number of her campaign appearances.

Given that his wife called Anita Hill from out of the blue after nearly 20 years demanding an apology and given his history with Anita Hill, it makes you wonder if Justice Thomas has the hots for psychopathic mentally unstable women.

The Crystal Cathedral has filed for bankruptcy. So much for the power of positive thinking. Maybe it can be turned into a mosque since Schuller is alleged to have said he wouldn't mind if his grandkids became Muslims.

The same human rabble outraged that Sharon Angle thought that a group of Asians looked Latino are probably the same ones that have contributed to Hispanosupremacist groups that have discussed openly of their future plans to kill White people.

Unless there is a specific rule as to what color cleats must be, a student kicked off a high school football team for wearing pink ones should be reinstated because a coach’s authority ought not be allowed to extend that far. We are constantly badgered over the head how scholastic athletics teach important life lessons. If this decision is allowed to stand, the lesson is none other than that we must submit to regulations that have no basis other than arbitrary opinion. No wonder America is now on the brink of tyranny if the young are conditioned to simply do as they are told.

In the Washington Post, Ted Koppel puts his nonpartisanship on display for the public to fawn all over. Are you going to tell us that his documentary lauding the wonders of Red China was evenhanded and not onesided? But then, since the former Nightline host laments the proliferation of broadcast opinion beyond the establishmentarian party line, perhaps an authoritarian regime is exactly where he belongs.

Interesting how a number of the same Prince George's County elites that drone on constantly about the injustices of slavery centuries ago and invoke that tragedy as an excuse for the handouts going to their own constituents, even though the recipients of such public largess have never been slaves, are themselves linked to a scandal involving human smuggling.

It's like you've got to have the dexterity of a neurosurgeon now to role a long enough sheet off of these new fangled toilet paper dispensers. Eventually they will probably be monitored electronically to catch those violating the Cheryl Crowe one sheet maximum.

by Frederick Meekins

Just How Far Do Hispanosupremacist Sympathizers Intend To Take Their Biblical Analogies?

In a Sojourner's blog post titled "Abraham, Joseph and Today's Patriarchs", David Vasquez of Luther College likens the plight of illegal aliens to the epic of the Biblical patriarchs.

Let's examine the analogy for a moment.

Unlike the illegals of today, at no time did the Hebrew progentiors Abraham up through Joseph demand that those in the lands where they sought refuge cater to their preferences or change the fundamental tenets of these respective cultures in which these figures sought refuge.

Secondly, if one is going to compare the majoritarian English culture to that of the Pharaohs, it must be remembered that in the end Egyptian authorities prevented the Hebrews from leaving the empire. No one is preventing illegals from returning to their respective homelands.

Furthermore, just how far are liberals going to take the Biblical comparison? For if the migrants of today are to be fawned over as the equivalent of the Hebrew forefathers, perhaps we should consider what it was that this people did when they reached the Promised Land. In many incidents, the Israelites executed the inhabitants of the cities they came to occupy.

Though that may shock our contemporary sensibilities, since the Israelites were told directly by God to do this, it is not really our place to pass judgment on this historical reality. However, it is theologically sound to assume that God does not at this time or dispensation deal as directly or as explicitly as to what one nation should inflict upon another.

But if one is going to place upon one’s own shoulders or those one admires a divine mantle, shouldn’t one more clearly elaborate the parameters of this emulation, especially when veiled allusions to bloodshed are made that can be deciphered by those schooled in what to look for.

Deceptive leftists will assure the unwitting that I am out of my mind for insinuating that those on the side of illegal aliens in general and Hispanosupremacists in particularly are quietly biding their time until the day when they will launch a violent uprising against the United States. To paraphrase Gauis Baltar in the finale of Battlestar Galactica, just because I am crazy doesn’t mean I’m not right.

Already, radical groups such as MEChA and La Raza have threatened to kill when the day arrives any Whites found within the borders of the “reconquesta” they will name “Atzlan”. Essentially, the kinds of groups fawned over on the nation’s college campuses and often quoted as respectable spokesmen of an ethnic perspective in the organs of the mainstream press don’t really differ to any appreciable degree from the deadbeats of the Ku Klux Klan.

If these uninvited arrivals don’t want to think of themselves primarily as Americans in terms of nationality and view themselves as Israelites and the remainder of us as Canaanites, what makes their elitist backers think they will escape the pending carnage. After all, in the eyes of the interlopers, don't all gringos pretty much look alike?

by Frederick Meekins

Just How Far Do Hispanosupremacist Sympathizers Intend To Take Their Biblical Analogies?

In a Sojourner's blog post titled "Abraham, Joseph and Today's Patriarchs", David Vasquez of Luther College likens the plight of illegal aliens to the epic of the Biblical patriarchs.

Let's examine the analogy for a moment.

Unlike the illegals of today, at no time did the Hebrew progentiors Abraham up through Joseph demand that those in the lands where they sought refuge cater to their preferences or change the fundamental tenets of these respective cultures in which these figures sought refuge.

Secondly, if one is going to compare the majoritarian English culture to that of the Pharaohs, it must be remembered that in the end Egyptian authorities prevented the Hebrews from leaving the empire. No one is preventing illegals from returning to their respective homelands.

Furthermore, just how far are liberals going to take the Biblical comparison? For if the migrants of today are to be fawned over as the equivalent of the Hebrew forefathers, perhaps we should consider what it was that this people did when they reached the Promised Land. In many incidents, the Israelites executed the inhabitants of the cities they came to occupy.

Though that may shock our contemporary sensibilities, since the Israelites were told directly by God to do this, it is not really our place to pass judgment on this historical reality. However, it is theologically sound to assume that God does not at this time or dispensation deal as directly or as explicitly as to what one nation should inflict upon another.

But if one is going to place upon one’s own shoulders or those one admires a divine mantle, shouldn’t one more clearly elaborate the parameters of this emulation, especially when veiled allusions to bloodshed are made that can be deciphered by those schooled in what to look for.

Deceptive leftists will assure the unwitting that I am out of my mind for insinuating that those on the side of illegal aliens in general and Hispanosupremacists in particularly are quietly biding their time until the day when they will launch a violent uprising against the United States. To paraphrase Gauis Baltar in the finale of Battlestar Galactica, just because I am crazy doesn’t mean I’m not right.

Already, radical groups such as MEChA and La Raza have threatened to kill when the day arrives any Whites found within the borders of the “reconquesta” they will name “Atzlan”. Essentially, the kinds of groups fawned over on the nation’s college campuses and often quoted as respectable spokesmen of an ethnic perspective in the organs of the mainstream press don’t really differ to any appreciable degree from the deadbeats of the Ku Klux Klan.

If these uninvited arrivals don’t want to think of themselves primarily as Americans in terms of nationality and view themselves as Israelites and the remainder of us as Canaanites, what makes their elitist backers think they will escape the pending carnage. After all, in the eyes of the interlopers, don't all gringos pretty much look alike?

by Frederick Meekins

Towns Regulating Trick-Or-Treat Need To Go To Ghenna

In keeping with the spirit of the celebration, youngsters should tell towns passing ordinances forbidding Trick or Treating for children over 12 years of age or six feet of height to "go to Ghenna".

It is claimed that the regulation is justified on the grounds of the fear felt in part by single mothers confronted by trick-or-treaters nearly six feet tall. However, isn’t that the fault rather of whatever reason or moral shortcoming as to why the mother is single in the first place?

For starters, since most adolescents don’t have official ID’s prior to obtaining a driving license, on what grounds can a child be compelled to reveal their ages to law enforcement and (more importantly) how can age even be legitimately proven? After all, it seems foreigners can’t be compelled to reveal their identities, so why ought actual Americans be forced to?

The hyperpious will snap that any law that restricts what they consider to be a heathen practice is a good thing. However, if that is the case, what is to prevent other statutes from being promulgated that will arbitrarily forbid activities that ought to be of an ethically neutral nature in the eyes of the state such as at what age one can be given a Bible or at what age teens are permitted to date?

Those not wanting to deal with Halloweeners beyond a certain age or size are perfectly free to ignore the knock at the door and to have prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law those that get destructive over not having been rendered the coveted confections.

The passage of yet another layer of regulation to which once free citizens are required to bend the knee a bit more is not always the answer. Those failing to realize this rank among the most frightening boogeymen of all.

by Frederick Meekins

Lessons In Apologetics #5: Deism

The tests or methodologies of epistemology are just the first step into the realm of Apologetics. These, in turn are applied to the assorted worldviews.

The first worldview examined will be Deism. As with Christianity, Deism believes that God created the universe and set it up to operate in accord with a system of natural laws both physical and moral that are discoverable by mankind. What sets Deism apart from Christianity is the extent to which each believes God intervenes in the affairs of both nature and man.

Often, Deism is described as the watchmaker view of God. Those holding to this view believe that, while God created the world and set it into motion, the natural laws He established were so comprehensive that God no longer intervenes in or on His creation’s behalf. This assumption puts it at odds with orthodox Biblical theology on a number of points.

As a system, it could be said that Deism served as a transitional set of beliefs between two great epochs of Western intellectual history. Following the upheaval of religious conflicts such as the Thirty Years War, in a sense Deism was a recoil to the horrors of dogma that had been exorcised of the doctrines of compassion and moderation.

Deism also softened the shock to those wanting to turn their backs on a Biblically-based understanding of life but not yet ready to embrace the rampant secularism characterizing the more recent contemporary era. Deism was also the end product of the scholastic undertakings of the Renaissance and the Age of Exploration whereby European thinkers had to come to grips with the realization that a world, a goodly portion of it consisting of cultures as at least as complex as their's, existed beyond the borders of Christendom.

The Father of English Deism was Herbert of Cherbury. In his book “On Truth“, Herbert established the following principles as common to all men: that there is one supreme God, that he ought to be worshipped, that virtue and piety are the chief parts of worship, that we ought to be sorry for our sins, and that a divine goodness dispenses rewards and punishments both in this life and the hereafter (153).

At a quick glance, the list does not appear all that controversial and there is not much there the orthodox Christian would disagree with. However, it is what is not on the list that Deists following after Herbert of Cherbury expanded upon that brought this worldview's anti-Christian underpinnings to full fruition for all the world to see.

One thinker that most have at least a cursory knowledge of connected to Deism was John Locke. According to Geisler, Locke in “The Reasonableness Of Christianity” endorsed the Deist unitarian view of God and denied the deity of Christ.

Among early Deists, the average Christian would really have to be on their toes to detect the subtle attacks against the faith. Often then the attacks were carefully aimed at other religious systems rather than directly on the Bible itself. However, as society became more accepting as to the amount of dissent that could be openly expressed, a number of Deists more bluntly stated their antagonisms with varying degrees of success.

For example, Matthew Tindal in “Christianity As Old As Creation” argued that, since God is perfect by definition, the revelation of God in the created order is so complete that the idea of the Bible is superfluous and is actually inferior as Tindal considered the Bible to be full of errors anyway (160). And by the time of the founding of the United States of America and the early years of the Republic, Thomas Jefferson edited a version of the Bible exorcising the Scriptures of their miraculous content. Our third president ended the Gospel with “there laid they Jesus, and rolled a great stone in front of the sepulcher and departed”, thus causing this version of the good news not to be all that good as Jesus had not risen according to this act of censorship (165).

Source: Geisler, Norman. "Christian Apologetics". Baker Academic, 1988.

by Frederick Meekins

Historian Distorts Past In Praise Of Secularism

In the 4/19/10 edition of USA Today, religious antiquarian Phillip Jenkins, by comparing extremist Islam with assorted atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the centuries, details from an historical perspective how any religion can be co-opted in the name of violence. Though his warning is in part a timeless one that needs to be considered in all ages, Professor Jenkins' case overlooks a number of important points.

First, it must be remembered that, though horrible, the lynching and dismemberment of Hypatia and the abuses perpetrated by Cyril highlighted by Professor Jenkins occurred centuries ago. The violence committed by Islamic extremists is going on today.

That does not diminish the evils inflicted so long ago or repudiate the lessons that can be learned from such ancient accounts. However, the danger arises when this sense of scholastic detachment is then applied to the issue of contemporary terrorism.

Secondly, it must be remembered that such violence perpetrated solely for expansive religious purposes in the name of the Lord by human hands is not endorsed by Christ during the dispensation of grace. In Acts 17, Paul debated and dialogued with the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill; he didn’t crack open their heads.

For Christians, Jesus during the time of His first advent and Paul are to serve as examples in regards to faith, practice, and missiological strategy. It could be argued that Muhammad serves a similar function in the life of the Muslim.

It would be factually incorrect to say that all Muslims are prone to fanatic violence. However, those using violence for socioreligious ends are more faithful in emulating the example set by Muhammad and the text he promoted than supposed Christians committing violence are in living up to New Testament standards.

Professor Jenkins would no doubt argue that those emphasizing violent manifestations of Islam while neglecting violent expressions of Christianity are doing a disservice to history. He has committed this very offense by insinuating that violent atrocities are a phenomena exclusive to unhinged religions and not something plaguing other social institutions.

Jenkins writes, "Out-of-control clergy, religious demagogues with their consecrated militias, religious parties usurping the functions of the state --- these were the common currency of the Christian world just a few decades after the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion. He continues a paragraph or two later, "...given a sufficiently weak state mechanism, any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism."

Are you going to tell me that an historian of Phillip Jenkins' repute is not aware of the countless deaths that result not so much from a "sufficiently weak state mechanism" but from a state made too strong at the expense of other cultural spheres? For example, Jenkins writes, "Between 450 and 650 AD, during what I call the 'Jesus Wars', inter-Christian conflicts and purges killed hundreds of thousands, and all but wrecked the Roman Empire."

Such conflict is tragic. However, it could be argued that the Roman Empire was, to use a highly technical historical metaphor, heading down the toilet well before then and for a number of additional reasons.

Frankly, the Roman Empire wrecked itself. Christians didn't instigate the debaucheries for which the waning years of the Empire have become infamous such as gladiatorial combat, rampant orgies, and even incest among the ruling elite.

History is as much a reflection of the values of those writing it as it is about the past era being written about. As such, Professor Jenkins needs to be asked why he thinks the violence perpetrated by warring bishops is somehow worse or the victims any more dead than the Christians slaughtered by Roman authorities for little more than quietly adhering to their own convictions.

It would seem that the most important lesson to take away from the great tragedies of history is that innocent human lives are lost when institutions of authority assume power to extents and over matters they were never intended. The regimes more blatantly hostile of Christianity such as Nazism and Communism were actually the regimes that turned the slaughter of the innocent and dissidents into an exact science.

It has been said that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Concentrating power in the hands of government at the expense of other social institutions in the name of preventing tyranny is one of the surest ways of bringing about that particularly undesirable state of political affairs.

by Frederick Meekins

Historian Distorts Past In Praise Of Secularism

In the 4/19/10 edition of USA Today, religious antiquarian Phillip Jenkins, by comparing extremist Islam with assorted atrocities committed in the name of Christianity over the centuries, details from an historical perspective how any religion can be co-opted in the name of violence. Though his warning is in part a timeless one that needs to be considered in all ages, Professor Jenkins' case overlooks a number of important points.

First, it must be remembered that, though horrible, the lynching and dismemberment of Hypatia and the abuses perpetrated by Cyril highlighted by Professor Jenkins occurred centuries ago. The violence committed by Islamic extremists is going on today.

That does not diminish the evils inflicted so long ago or repudiate the lessons that can be learned from such ancient accounts. However, the danger arises when this sense of scholastic detachment is then applied to the issue of contemporary terrorism.

Secondly, it must be remembered that such violence perpetrated solely for expansive religious purposes in the name of the Lord by human hands is not endorsed by Christ during the dispensation of grace. In Acts 17, Paul debated and dialogued with the Athenian philosophers on Mars Hill; he didn’t crack open their heads.

For Christians, Jesus during the time of His first advent and Paul are to serve as examples in regards to faith, practice, and missiological strategy. It could be argued that Muhammad serves a similar function in the life of the Muslim.

It would be factually incorrect to say that all Muslims are prone to fanatic violence. However, those using violence for socioreligious ends are more faithful in emulating the example set by Muhammad and the text he promoted than supposed Christians committing violence are in living up to New Testament standards.

Professor Jenkins would no doubt argue that those emphasizing violent manifestations of Islam while neglecting violent expressions of Christianity are doing a disservice to history. He has committed this very offense by insinuating that violent atrocities are a phenomena exclusive to unhinged religions and not something plaguing other social institutions.

Jenkins writes, "Out-of-control clergy, religious demagogues with their consecrated militias, religious parties usurping the functions of the state --- these were the common currency of the Christian world just a few decades after the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion. He continues a paragraph or two later, "...given a sufficiently weak state mechanism, any religion can be used to justify savagery and extremism."

Are you going to tell me that an historian of Phillip Jenkins' repute is not aware of the countless deaths that result not so much from a "sufficiently weak state mechanism" but from a state made too strong at the expense of other cultural spheres? For example, Jenkins writes, "Between 450 and 650 AD, during what I call the 'Jesus Wars', inter-Christian conflicts and purges killed hundreds of thousands, and all but wrecked the Roman Empire."

Such conflict is tragic. However, it could be argued that the Roman Empire was, to use a highly technical historical metaphor, heading down the toilet well before then and for a number of additional reasons.

Frankly, the Roman Empire wrecked itself. Christians didn't instigate the debaucheries for which the waning years of the Empire have become infamous such as gladiatorial combat, rampant orgies, and even incest among the ruling elite.

History is as much a reflection of the values of those writing it as it is about the past era being written about. As such, Professor Jenkins needs to be asked why he thinks the violence perpetrated by warring bishops is somehow worse or the victims any more dead than the Christians slaughtered by Roman authorities for little more than quietly adhering to their own convictions.

It would seem that the most important lesson to take away from the great tragedies of history is that innocent human lives are lost when institutions of authority assume power to extents and over matters they were never intended. The regimes more blatantly hostile of Christianity such as Nazism and Communism were actually the regimes that turned the slaughter of the innocent and dissidents into an exact science.

It has been said that those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Concentrating power in the hands of government at the expense of other social institutions in the name of preventing tyranny is one of the surest ways of bringing about that particularly undesirable state of political affairs.

by Frederick Meekins

Utah Polygamists, Donkey Obama & Congress Gives The Byrd: Headline Potpourri #16

Utah police are investigating the stars of a reality series glamorizing polygamy over allegations of bigamy. If the queers, the shacked up, and chronic fornicators are going to insist that what we do in our bedrooms is our own business, and in terms of legal benefits, there is only one valid marriage among this group, on what grounds does the state turn around and prosecute consenting adults? So in Utah, do you face a possible five year prison term if you get caught cheating on your wife and she doesn't know about it, or does the sentence only apply to those who have their wife's blessing?

A prominent Christian Reconstructionist invalidates President Obama's profession of faith on the grounds of its alleged Arminianism rather than over its failure to mention salvation from sin. More importantly, the analysis shows that Reconstructionists would likely deny Arminians or Non-Calvinists the right to vote or run for office since they don't view the adherents of non-predestinarian soteriology as Christian.

Pictured on the cover of the 8/12/10 issue of Newsweek Magazine is a portrait of Al Sharpton. To the left of the infamous rabble rouser's visage, the title reads, "The Reinvention Of Reverend Al: From Tawana To Obama (What Sharpton's Longevity Says About Race In America)." What it says is that White Americans have been so beaten over the head with the threat of being labeled "racist" that most are too afraid to expose this huckster for what he is. At best, Sharpton should only be brought out occasionally as a semi-entertaining buffoon to serve as a foil on media interview programs rather than as any serious kind of policy visionary.

The grandson of a deceased medal of honor winner was denied entry to the West Wing of the White House, despite being invited, because casual dress is not permitted there. I guess Bill was in his formal wear when he slipped it to Monica. The office can't be any more defaced by a tike in a t-shirt with his grandfather's picture on it than it already has been by a number of its contemporary occupants.

A Maryland county is to hold a lottery for 390 taxicab licenses. Why should government be permitted to restrict free enterprise to this extent? Authorities might have a role in making sure for the sake of public safety that drivers are sufficiently trained and vehicles adequately maintained. However, it is not the place of government to determine or protect profits of an economic system characterized by considerable liberty.

If Meg Whitman's hired help deceived Whitman as to immigration status, why should Whitman help her? If this scrubwoman is committing an act of criminal deceit being here as an illegal alien, why ought the public believe the allegations against Whitman?

A man randomly shot at motorists along a highway. In the eyes of some, that is not as bad as a hate crime targeting members of a particular protected minority class.

Louisville schools plan to integrate along income rather than racial lines. This should spark even greater outrage. In most cases, you can look at a person and tell what race they are. However, to hand down decisions as to financial status, one has to dig into private matters that the education establishment has no business asking or make the kinds of exaggerated stereotypes that tolerancemongers always assure us are inaccurate when they disadvantage their particular special interest or front group.

International Walk To School Day might have a place if its goal is to raise awareness of motorists to be on the lookout for perambulating pupils as well as remind tikes to look both ways as they cross the street. However, if the occasion is promoted from the standpoint of brainwashing students as to the evils of automobiles or to track those least likely to comply with handed-down directives, it is not the business of educational authorities how a child gets to school. Maybe officials want more children run over or abducted so as to have statistical justification for additional surveillance of the American people and curtailment of any number of basic liberties.

Congress is on the verge of approving a National Women's History Museum, which critics such as Concerned Women of America claim will glamorize the practice of systematized baby killing referred to as abortion. Seems now every group with the exception of White males has a federally sanctioned museum explicitly named in their honor. Perhaps one day there will be a museum or at least a memorial to fiscal solvency. Future generations in chains or the decrepit elderly on their way to mandatory euthanasia could be filed through catching a glimpse of murals or displays of what life was like when responsible spending was one of the pillars of character ensuring freedom and prosperity.

Rush is absolutely correct. Obama is a jackass. For those going into vapors now, let's not forget leftists called George W. Bush things far fouler. For those still in a tizzy, lets see if a prim propriety is going to keep you warm in either a relocation camp or after the government has seized all of your private property.

If those behind on their real estate obligations are no longer being foreclosed, why should the rest of us pay our mortgages either?

The Senate intends to bestow upon the late Robert Byrd's family compensation equal to a year's salary. If you croak before the end of the month, your family is expected to return the Social Security check.

Statisticians claim that half of deported illegals are criminal. Technically, weren't all of those deported criminals since they were here in violation of the law?

By Frederick Meekins

The Obama Nag, Body Armor Disparities & Dobsonian Maoists: Headline Potpourri #15

MSNBC denounced the Tea Party as overwhelmingly White. Will the network denounce illegal aliens as overwhelmingly Hispanic?

Cops should have probably shot the owner along with or rather instead of the dog at a DC street festival. As with people that drag newborns out into extreme cold or heat, often those that have to drag their dogs to mass gatherings unless they are seeing-eye type dogs merely want attention for themselves and don't really care about their animals.

First Nag Michelle Obama believes restaurants should serve more apples and less butter. And that is from someone that's probably barely cooked a meal in her entire adult life. Her mother lives with here and she has had a chef on her staff back when she was a nobody just like the rest of us. Frankly, if one goes out to eat, one is going out for the slop. One can eat healthy at home.

The government is deploying X-ray vans to gather intelligence of motorists. The stated purpose is to find contraband such as weapons, narcotics, and human smuggling. But given the Obamas' propensity to control every aspect of your existence, what is to prevent them from determining what kinds of foods you are purchasing at the supermarket?

Bob Schieffer condemned John Boehner for smoking. Did the CBS correspondent ever go after with similar vehemence Ted Kennedy's boozing, whoremongering, and generalized subservience to Moscow? Is Bob Schieffer going to point out the medical drawbacks to Barney Frank of the alternative lifestyle wallowed in by the lisp-speaking Massachussetts Congressman?

Time magazine's 2010 annual national service issue insists to "Teach Is To Serve". So if government teachers can get paid upwards around $45,000 to $50,000 and still be considered to be engaged in public service, why should the rest of us be continually hounded about "giving back to the COMMUNITY" for free when the occupations we are engaged in are as every much a social and economic necessity as the teaching profession?

According to the 9/14/10 edition of USA Today, Colorado provides a free school breakfast for all students. From the text and photo, it seems this meal consists primarily of a carton of milk and a prepackaged serving of cereal. If parents can't afford this at home, THEY OUGHT TO KEEP THEIR PANTS ON AND REFRAIN FROM PROCREATNG!!!

Because the preponderance of students achieved standardized assessment benchmarks, the principal of Bladensburg Elementary dressed as a giant wiener and allowed students to squirt condiments such as catsup, mustard, and relish all over her. Perhaps the taxpayer-subsidized school lunch program needs to be curtailed since no one enrolled there is near starvation if food can be spared for such deliberate waste.

Those that go around burning books or flags at mass rallies have too much time on their hands. A sizeable percentage of these probably live on some kind of welfare --- be it government (Food Stamps or foreign aide) or ecclesiastical (handouts collected by threatening congregations how they will incur God’s wrath if they don’t pony up into the collection plate).

Maybe if thousands of Afghans were as enthusiastic about going to work and actually taking care of their families as they are about rampaging in the streets, that nation wouldn't be one of planet earth's toilet bowls.

Are these hayseed clergymen so bereft of rhetorical and homiletical aptitude that they must resort to pyrotechnics in order to exort as to the dangers of false teaching?

Before threatening to resort to pyrotechnics, did these pastors actually take the time to teach their respective congregations as to the dangers posed by Islam or its methods of ensnaring minds and cultures?

A Tennessee pastor stepping forward to burn a Koran needs to be asked exactly how does burning one make you a better Christian as he insists.

In his Sept 11th remarks, Obama insisted Americans need to "give back to their COMMUNITIES". You'll be doing plenty of that in more ways than you realize come January when tax rates are expected to rise.

For supposedly being among the toughest people to walk the earth, the NFL certainly gets its collective athletic supporter in a jumble in regards to every politically correct cause that comes down the pike.

Wonder if cashiers at Aldi's more foo-foo line of Trader Joe's stores also toss the food in the cart as if the customer is a piece of gutter trash.

An immigrant woman in line proceeded to pay for eggs and such with WIC credits. She then paid for chips and such out of her own pocket. If she has enough for the extra snacks, she essentially doesn't need the government "entitlements" to provide necessities.

So if Focus on The Family has altered its abstinence curriculum to curry the favor of Chinese Communist overlords, does that mean there will be an episode of the audio drama "Adventures in Odyssey" assuring the kiddies its OK to compromise your values and to deny the Lord when it suits your pragmatic agenda?

Salvatore Giunta is the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War. Wonder how many other soldiers named John Smith have acted as valiantly but whose names were not alluringly exotic enough to merit such public accolades.

A kook suspected of threatening the President is being charged in part with illegally possessing body armor. So basically, the police are allowed to protect themselves from homicidal miscreants but we as citizens are not allowed to protect ourselves from homicidal miscreants which easily include errant police. Since no one is harmed if an individual owns a bullet proof vest since the vest alone cannot be used as an implement of violence, a free citizen would be allowed to own a bullet proof vest.

In coverage of a lunatic possessing body armor believed to be a threat to the President, it was remarked one should not be allowed to threaten the President. And that is absolutely correct. But shouldn’t it be as much a crime to threaten all of America as a whole? As such, the Ground Zero Imam should be taken into custody as well.

Interesting how the leftist media will ridicule someone for having repented of witchcraft as if it doesn't exist but will herald it as an alternative, enlightened form of spirituality when it is advocated in mainstream cultural dialogue. You don't hear them snickering at J.K. Rowling. If Obama used dope as a youth, technically in terms of Biblical definition, wouldn't that make him a greater sorcerer than Christine O'Donnell likely ever was?

Obama removes mention of Creator from recitation of Declaration of Independence. Makes you wonder what else liberals expunge from the historical record.

By Frederick Meekins

Syndicate content