While it might not be an issue worthy of fasting over as it doesn’t look like most of the top contenders to the papal throne have themselves missed too many meals and won’t exactly be living in a state of self denial given their opulent surroundings should they get the job, offering up a quick prayer on the matter won’t hurt.

After all, the individual selected will play a significant role in steering that interpretation of the Christian faith closer towards true Biblical religion or further away into the assorted errors tempting all that call upon the name of the Lord in one fashion or the other.

What is so wrong with a Protestant praying for the selection of at least a level-headed Pope that adheres to the shared commonalities of Christian doctrine and respects the rights of existence and expression of those he disagrees with?  

I guess there are those thinking the atrocities committed during the Thirty Years War by both sides were a good thing. 

Nothing wins souls to your vision regarding Christ and His message like a good pillaging and the ravishing of a few unwilling maidens.

Some might ask the question why should Protestants, especially those of the lowly Baptist variety, enunciate an opinion as to the selection of a new Pope or elaborate an explanation as to why those of that particular theological perspective find the power and authority that ecclesiastical institution has asserted for itself as extra-Biblical and questionably dangerous.

Catholics have every right to select whomever they desire as their head honcho.

However, because that institution has assumed for itself a role beyond administering its own internal affairs and undertaken efforts to exert an influence on the world beyond its ornately decorated walls, in a free society those not belonging to this religious tradition have just as much right to speak out regarding the direction as to how this powerful world body might influence the way in which individuals are able to live their own lives and practice their own beliefs.

For though the way in which the Roman Catholic Church gets the message across might be more subtle than the way in which some Protestants do so, relying more on ceremony and glitz rather than a blunt in your face letting you know what they feel and believe regarding the issue often in a gruff and tactless manner, the opposition of the leadership to Protestantism is just as ingrained.

For example,   Pope Benedict repeatedly emphasized throughout his pontificate that Protestant churches especially were not real churches and at best could only be thought of as errant theological associations.

No big deal, many not practiced in the art of discernment and worldview implication might conclude. 

After all, everyone from the Pope down to the raving village atheist thinks the spiritual path they are journeying down is superior to all others.

However, one may need to stop to reflect for a moment what is being said here.

To the Protestant, the ideal that those of this persuasion endeavor to strive for can be found in Romans 10:13: “For whoseover shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

By this, it is believed that there is no mediator between God and man other than Christ Himself for those that believe Jesus as the only Begotten  Son of God died in our place for our sins and rose from the dead so that those placing their faith solely in Him might have eternal life in Heaven.

However, official institutionalized Catholicism pretty much holds that their’s is the only game in town determining who it is that will be rewarded with the prize or gift of salvation.

This the organization does in part through its system of sacraments.

So what the Church is really saying when it denies communion to all but those on its own membership roles is not so much that we think it’s best if you participate in this solemn event with those that can better attest to the validity of your faith experience or worthiness of character but rather that you aren’t even a fellow Christian at all.

If the new pope has called for a new evangelization effort in areas where Protestantism has made inroads, unless the campaign is confined to targeting those that were previously Catholic with those born into Protestantism or who became Protestant from a non-Catholic orientation off limits, on what grounds do Catholics have to get jacked out of shape when Protestants sweep up disgruntled and easily persuaded Catholics?

One would hope that no one in their right mind would find the violent acrimony of the past where individuals on either side of the divide were often deprived of property, opportunity, and even their very lives all in Christ’s name a worthy situation to return to.

However, neither are Christians obligated to go out of their way refusing to admit that profound religious differences still exist that are better off left in place for the sake of the entire world at least until Christ Himself returns to set hearts and minds straight and to sort out the mess we as fallen human beings have made of this world.

by Frederick Meekins

The radical environmental movement began in opposition to the growing establishmentarian attitude of mainstream environmental groups such as the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, the Izaak Walton League, the Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Defense Fund, the National Parks & Conservation Association, and the Environmental Policy Institute who are collectively referred to as “the Group of Ten (Scarce, 16).  These organizations take a relatively pragmatic stand towards the preservation of the nation’s environmental treasures.  For example, some of these mainstream groups agreed to let the government construct Glenn Canyon Dam in Arizona, and in other instances, these groups have been modest in the amount they demand be set aside for preservation.

This sense of compromise with government authorities in order to preserve at least a modicum of the nation’s natural resources has created a rift of ambiguity between the mainstream and the more radical environmentalist groups.  On the one hand, radical environmentalists oppose compromise in the name of the environment on philosophical grounds.  However, their own unreasonable demands are also part of an orchestrated strategy designed to make public officials more cooperative with the demands made by groups like the Sierra Club whose demands look reasonable in comparison to the ultimatums made by the radicals.

However, the radical environmental movement is more than a marketing ploy designed to win demands from government officials.  It is also a school of thought drawing inspiration from various philosophical sources.  One of the main philosophical schools that radical environmentalists draw upon is known as “Deep Ecology”.  According to this set of ideas, the conservation policies pursued by more mainstream environmental groups are incorrect because man is still used as the primary measure of all things, at least when it comes to environmental protection (Manes, 56).  To the Deep Ecologist, every natural thing is on equal footing.   Human beings are no better than moss or a pine cone.

Any assertion to the contrary is labeled anthropocentrism, which is an offense as allegedly as vile as racism.  While this philosophy may make one feel neighborly towards the chipmunks down at the park, this way of thinking is fraught with a number of dangers.  For example, it was asserted in one media account of a couple attacked by a rabid cougar, it was commented that no one had the right to kill the beast even though one of the mauled individuals lost several fingers in the attack.  Needless to say, the person making the comment had never faced similar circumstances.

Coupled with this bio or eco-centrism is a disdain for technological development.  Following in the footsteps of Herbert Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, radical environmentalists believe that technology allows man to dominate nature (Manes, 26).  As such, he is dehumanized by his own inventions as existence is reduced to production and consumption.  Never mind the fact that it is modern technology that allows individuals feeling this way to have the leisure time to devise and disseminates these thoughts.   If dependence on technology can be reversed, it is thought, man will be able to reestablish his proper place in the natural world.

However, there is more to this worldview than abstract thinking and philosophical posturing.  Being a physically active lot as many of the movement’s adherents are avid outdoorsmen, much of the movement’s theoretical underpinnings are based upon action and deed.

The primary action oriented text inspiring radical environmentalism is The Monkeywrench Gang by Edward Abbey who considered himself a “literary bum” destined to stand against the technological and industrial forces simultaneously arrayed against human freedom and environmental preservation (Scarce, 240).  The Monkeywrench Gang is a novel about a group of live-hard outdoorsmen who roam the countryside in an old van performing various acts of ecological sabotage such a burning billboards, driving bulldozers over cliffs, pulling up survey stakes, and yanking out railroad tracks.  The sequel to The Monkeywrench Gang, written shortly before Abbey’s death, is Hayduke Lives! in which the gang reunites for one more spate of neo-Luddite shenanigans.

While these works help define the action-oriented aspects of radical environmentalism in a highly entertaining format, they also expose the inconsistencies at the heart of the movement.  For example, throughout The Monkeywrench Gang, the characters rail against highways while tossing empty beer cans on to the side of the road; and while claiming to be at one with nature, the characters long for the showers and coffee at the Holiday Inn (Scarce, 240).

Another book with widespread popularity among radical environmentalists is Ecodefense: A Handbook For The Militant Defense Of Earth.  Ecodefense is a how to on radical environmentalist tactics.  In a sense, it is comparable to The Anarchist’s Cookbook as it elaborates how to perpetrate mayhem by decommissioning bulldozers, pulling up survey stakes, and spiking trees as well as other tactics designed to stop the hordes of civilization seeking to pillage the wilderness (Scarce, 74).

Written by Earth First! founder Dave Foreman, Ecodefense was an immediate success with it being read by young environmental radicals from around the world.  The book became so influential that the supervisor of the Williamette National Forest in Oregon testified in a Congressional hearing that he would consider closing the area under his jurisdiction if the tactics described in the book were carried out within the forest’s boundaries (Manes, 83).  And on a lighter note, “Ecodefense” was published by a firm called “Nedd Ludd Books” named in honor of the 19th century worker who participated in a campaign to destroy various forms of factory machinery.

The group that probably first and foremost put the principles embodied by this ideology into practice was Earth First!.  The exclamation point is part of the groups name and not a grammatical construct symbolizing this author’s enthusiasm for the organization

Earth First! was founded by an assortment of individuals coming from a variety of backgrounds.  Dave Foreman, who would later go on to write the aforementioned “Ecodefense”, started off surprisingly as a Republican and member of the Young Americans For Freedom as a supporter of Barry Goldwater.  Foreman joined the Marines, but eventually went AWOL.  He worked for a time for the Wilderness Society, only to leave the group disenchanted with what he perceived as the organization’s moderation.  Howe Wolke, who was considered by some as somewhat more of a libertarian, was a forestry student, bouncer, and oilfield hand, came to Earth First! from Friends of the Earth where he worked as a field representative attending public meetings and handling press relations.  He quit that organization because that organization cut his $75 per month salary (Manes, 66).  Mike Roselle was a radical involved with Abbie Hoffman’s and Jerry Rubin’s Yippy counterculture organization who himself later left that group because of its perceived political opportunism in order to establish the “Zippies”.  Other founding members of Earth First! included Bart Kochler, a former Wyoming Wilderness Society staff member with a knack for political organization as well as song writing, and Ron Kezar, a former seasonal U.S. Park Service employee who was trained as a librarian and an expert on the history of American military strategy (Manes, 68).

Groups such as Earth First! believe that the earth will be saved via anarchy which will topple modern industrialized technocratic civilization.  In such a context, anarchy is defined as, “…the maximum possible dispersal of power;  political, economic…and military power.  An anarchist society would consist of a voluntary association of self-reliant self-sustaining autonomous communities (Scarce, 88).”

However, within the ranks of Earth First! there was a rift just how much anti-Americanism that the notion entailed.  One faction led by group founder Dave Foreman held that anarchy was merely a means to an end which was the preservation of the biosphere.  As such, flag burnings, an act of defiance preferred by some in the group, was seen as uncalled for (Scarce, 88).  The other side of the dispute was led by ecofeminists, who combined the struggle against environmental degradation with the struggle against the patriarchy, and a splinter group originally called “Stumps Suck” but which ultimately settled on the name “Live Wild Or Die”.  Both of these submovements used their Earth First! activism as a broader platform to attack the wider consumer culture (Manes, 103).

Though often classified as “soft-core terrorist groups” by the FBI, many of the deeds committed by these kinds of organizations often border more on the juvenile than on the outright dangerous though still unquestionably criminal.  Since many of these groups claim to ascribe to a code of nonviolent ethics based upon their own interpretation of Gandhian principles, many of these groups have turned to alternative forms of political behavior.

For example, one group calling itself the Revolutionary Ecoterrorist Pie Brigade tossed pies at timber industry spokesman at a convention.  Another group put cow patties atop a Forest Service office building’s air conditioners in Washington State’s Okanogan National Forest (Manes, 104).  And yet a another Earth First! splinter group called the Gross Action Group staged an event referred to as a “puke in” at a Seattle shopping center in 1988 when the activists ingested a vomit-inducing drug in order to shock holiday shoppers into realizing the disgusting nature of American consumerism, no doubt prompting sales to temporarily dip at the food court (Scarce, 89).

Despite these shenanigans, not all forms of radical environmental activism can be dismissed as good natured frolicking in the North Woods.  Some of the tactics are downright life threatening.

One of the most common and dangerous activities engaged in by radical environmentalist  groups is tree spiking where nails are driven into trees often slated for sale from national forests into private hands.  The point of such an exercise is to discourage timber companies from extracting the wood because of the damage the nails could do to expensive equipment and not the mention the employees who would most likely be injured by flying nails, shattered equipment, or both.

To justify these actions in light of their “nonviolent” ethics, tree spikers often inform forestry authorities of their activities prior to harvest in order to avoid human injury.  A prominent tree spiking incident occurred in May 1987 when a mill worker was injured by a band saw shattered by a tampered tree.  Timber authorities roundly condemned Earth First! who denied involvement.  Surprisingly, the injured mill worker publicly stated his support for Earth’s First!’s goals, and in an even bigger twist of events, it was learned that Earth First! had not carried out this particular tree spiking as has been concluded earlier.  The perpetrator was actually an irate libertarian worried that timber companies logging near his property would want his land next (Manes, 11).

Despite this record, fears on the part of law enforcement are not without justification.  Dave Foreman, one of Earth First!’s founders, did say, “It’s time for a warrior society to rise out of the Earth and throw itself in front of the juggernaut of destruction, to be antibodies against the human pox that is ravaging this precious beautiful planet (Manes, 86).”  Pretty strong words, especially considering the fact than many in the group, while pro-environment, aren’t necessarily vegetarian or against hunting, with human beings being just another string in nature’s web no more important or distinct from any other animal.

Radical environmentalists have proven that they themselves are not above the use of violence.  For example, one group calling itself Direct Action blew up a British Columbia electrical substation in 1982.  A radical  Greenpeace splinter group calling itself the Sea Shepherds has no qualms about ramming what the organization considers pirate whaling ships on the high seas (Manes, 86).  Other groups get a kick from setting bulldozers and related construction equipment on fire.

The future of radical environmentalism and its accompanying deeds of quasi-violence and para-terrorism are the subjects of intense debate.  Analysts are divided over the issue.

One perspective concludes that the violence will only get worse.  A 1990 report released by the Heritage Foundation titled “Eco-Terrorism: The Dangerous Fringes Of The Environmental Movement” argues that eventually innocent people will likely be hurt by the fanaticism of this ideology that prefers moss over man (Scarce, 265).

The other side of this debate contends that, if such violent actions were taken, they would be counter productive as many law abiding citizens view environmental issues as quality of life issues.  For example, residents of both Pennsylvania and Virginia have at times thumbed their noses at assorted development projects that would impact the historical and cultural distinctiveness of geographical treasures such as Lancaster Dutch Country and George Washington’s boyhood home.  Only time will tell if the true goals of radical environmentalism are simply about raising public awareness or about tossing a wrench into the gears of the technological society they claim to loathe for the purposes of tearing it down.

by Frederick Meekins

Bibliography

Manes, Christopher. “Green Rage: Environmentalism & The Unmaking Of Civilization.”  Boston: Little, Brown & Company.  1990.

Scarce, Rik. “Eco-Warriors: Understanding The Radical Environmental Movement.”  Chicago: The Noble Press, Inc. 1990.

DC Comics plans to glorify the Occupy Movement in a new series called “The Movement”.  So will the oppressively wealthy denounced in the storyline include DC Comics itself that threatens with legal action independent graphic narrative writers and artists that unwittingly use the term “superhero”?  As Greg Gutfeld remarked on Fox News, will this hero’s powers include the ability to hurl his own feces, a tactic often utilized by activists at these protests?

Applying the principle that every step necessary should be taken to curtail firearms violence, since four were shot at Mardi Gras celebrations in New Orleans, will liberals rally to the cause of scaling back this debauched festival?

The Navy SEAL wanting his full retirement should put in his full time like everybody else.  Is it that he can’t find a job or that he’s not going to be told what to do outside the military by mere civilians.    According to the logic of a Navy SEAL, should someone get full Social Security if they theoretically applied for it four years before being entitled to do so?

In a sermon, a pastor gave an example of where Japanese volunteers were called upon to go on a suicide mission for the glory of the emperor.  On this mission, each solider would at most be able to cut one or two pieces of barbed wire before being gunned down by the enemy.  The pastor read favorably in essence how it was shameful that Christians weren’t as dedicated.  While one might be called upon to sacrifice much for the Lord, is it really proper for those in leadership to manipulate those under their authority by claiming that God told the authority figure to tell the mere lackey for the lackey to throw their life away?  Why is such fanaticism held up as the ideal rather than struggling through the mundane drudgery of everyday existence?  There is nothing really favorable that can be said about a social context where people are so brainwashed that they are unable to formulate in their minds the thought that if the emperor is this being of nearly godlike power, why can’t he cut his own wire.

A murder/suicide in a neighborhood on the outskirts of a local university will fan the flames of the national gun control debate.  However, will anything be done to curtail access to matches or fire accelerants since he also set on fire the house the shooter shared with the victims.

I guess the sterling moral character of the average Obama voter is why the watchbands are behind locked glass at the local Target store.

Unlike Marco Rubio, I suppose Obama never needed a sip of water.  The media would have us believe he is the water from which we drink and will never thirst.

A caller to WMAL said that Marco Rubio can’t relate to the average Hispanic person.  That is an euphemism meaning that he seems unwilling to lavish more extravagant public handouts on this particular ethnicity than he is already willing.

The cover of the 2/25/13 issue of New Republic consists of a blank background with words written in gray reading “The Republicans: The Party Of White People”.  Would the editors of this screed posses the backbone to publish an issue titled “The Democrats: The Party Of Black People” or “The Party Of Jewish People”?  And even if the Republican Party was the party of White people, why is that something inherently evil?  Ironically, it is only White people that despise being White that make such a fuss over such things.  Do not those of other racial backgrounds and ethnicities have political organizations lobbying on behalf of their interests?  So why are Whites expected to bend over and have what they’ve worked for pulled out of their backsides?

Regarding Marco Rubio taking a sip of water, shouldn’t Al Sharpton be the last one criticizing someone shoving something edible into their mouth?

Obama spent $900 at a swanky bar to get his wench all liquored up. Yet you are the one that is condemned for eating what you want, riding around in an SUV, and keeping your dwelling climate controlled at 70 degrees.

“Zombie Apocalypse” is a code phrase for the government plans to systematically murder those with epidemic pestilences or radiogenic poisoning.

Screenwriter Tony Kushner claimed that the ideologies promoted by the Reagan administration pose a threat to the idea of human COMMUNITY and the very survival of the species.  In other words, Reaganism undermined the notion how the collective is entitled to ever increasing percentages of your stuff.  Isn’t Kushner confusing principled individualism with the gay marriages of the type of which he is a participant?

Representative Shelia Jackson Lee insists she is a freed slaved.  If she was emancipated, it was probably because her master got tired of dealing with her leftwing back sass.

by Frederick Meekins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Frederick Meekins

Several decades later, God might very well reply, “Where is the Soviet Union?”  That nation, once referred to as the “evil empire” because of the threat it posed to human freedom, has become a shadow of its former self.  This former superpower decayed from its own internal rot resulting primarily from the regime’s rejection of the Judeo-Christian worldview as epitomized by that state’s promulgation of revolutionary Communism.

Had Colonel Gagarin and his Soviet comrades been more willing to approach the issues in a more objective manner without the rose colored glasses of their Marxist ideology (perhaps “red” would have been a more fitting characterization) and without suppressing the conclusions that such evidence leads to, the world might have been sparred a Cold War costly in terms of both dollars and human lives.  Even now nearly two decades later, the world still struggles to forge a global order and stands ready to fall into international chaos at any possible moment.

Despite what some political conservatives and Pentagon officials might think, the mentioned illustration should not be construed as arguing that the former Soviet Union was the sole source of evil operating in the world throughout the era of its infamous existence.  Rather, that one nation merely came to symbolize what happens when man tries to expunge the evidence and knowledge of God from the society and its way of life through the use of violence and intimidation of its citizens.  For while the Soviet Union and its kin in the Communist orbit may have perfected the outwardly horrific and bloodthirsty ways of suppressing eternal truths, the democratic West was itself busy finding ways to live as if God did not exist.

It could be argued that the methods used throughout Western society to suppress knowledge of God’s existence are in one manner more sophisticated than those employed by the secularist’s counterparts behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains.  For where the totalitarian Marxist utilized torture in the form of physical violence and coercive psychological manipulation, his Western counterpart simply made God irrelevant by declaring that, while belief in God was acceptable for those too weak to live without Him, this character flaw was to remain a private issue and not to impact the public marketplace.

Phillip Johnson in “Reason In The Balance” characterized this as a primary tenet of naturalism, the belief that the physical world is all that exists in the closed system of the universe and that man can only look to himself for any kind of values (8).  Applying the Protagorean ethic of man as the measure of all things with the satisfaction of natural desires as the highest objective, contemporary man has lived up to this lofty goal with all the zeal, fortitude, and ingenuity over which the secular humanists deified the species in the first place — with a trail of corpses and chaos laying in the social wake.

No sphere of human endeavor has remained untouched from this effort to remove God and His standards from civilized life.  These trends illustrated themselves no better than in the field of sexual morality.

According to Cal Thomas in “The Death Of Ethics In America”, the metaphorical death of God and the abolition of His standards causes those adhering to a naturalistic outlook to see the divinely sanctioned rules governing this sphere of existence as an illusion to be ignored by the liberated individual.  Yet in a surprising twist, those same individuals holding to a do-your-own-thing kind of ethic change their tune when it comes to doing one’s own thing when it comes to religion, especially if the belief under consideration is traditional Christianity. According to a New York Times poll, a significant number of young adults believe that belief in God is a personality disorder and that theists cannot cope with reality (Thomas, 93).

However, the rules governing these intimate behavioral matters and their Creator are not illusions to solidify the power of an authoritarian priesthood or to comfort the psychologically imbalanced.  These precepts were in fact promulgated with the goal of protecting the ultimate happiness and welfare of the beings made in the image of their loving Creator.  Mankind ignores these standards at his own peril — with abortion, venereal disease, and broken hearts the rewards of such folly.

Thomas points out that sexually transmitted diseases now rank as the primary form of communicable disease (93).  However, even these kinds of terrifying consequences barely phase the calloused anymore.  One student matriculated in a school near Thomas remarked, “We’re not going to get pregnant….If we slip up, we’ll get an abortion (105).”

To fall into sin is tragic and lamentable.  To do so with such a callous attitude surely invites judgment.  And when that day arrives, the God dispensing it will not be so easily dismissed.

Despite humanity’s attempts to stifle knowledge of its infinite Creator through the calculated disbelief of the atheistic philosopher or the wanton apathy of the hedonist drunken on assorted carnal pleasures, there is little that can be done to totally obliterate the knowledge of God’s existence since this truth is written across the very fabric of the universe and abides in the hearts of men if only they would open themselves to it.  Despite this centuries-old effort at suppressing this knowledge, untold masses are seeking after a higher power in record number.

Unfortunately, the same effort once aimed at dethroning the God of the universe has now turned on the rational thought process created by this very same God. The postmodernist movement argues that, at best, objective reasoning does not exist and, at worst, it is a White male imposition designed to foster the dominance of the patriarchy.

This detachment from reality and commonsense often ends in disaster as those with enfeebled mental powers regularly fall for spiritual counterfeits offering their own false answers.  An example of this occurred when Marshall Applewhite convinced his followers to commit suicide so that they might find salvation with extraterrestrials circumnavigating the galaxy.

In many instances, the so-called “Christian church” is not much better.  Some branches have veered off into a liberalism bordering on agnosticism and atheism.  And even some claiming to adhere to a more literalistic form of worship have fallen for dangerous heresies resulting in aberrant beliefs regarding God.

In “Christianity In Crisis”, Christian Research Institute President Hank Hanegraaff warns that one’s conception of God is just as important as having one in the first place.   Hanegraaff shows the destruction that can result from thinking not tethered to God’s revelation in Scripture.

One typical example of this faulty theological thinking can be found in television minister Kenneth Copeland who said God  “….stands somewhere around 6 feet 2 inches, in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds and has a hand span of nine inches across (Hanegraaff, 121).”  Copeland, however, was not preaching on God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus Christ.  He was, in fact, making these statements regarding God the Father, who according to John 4:24 is a spirit who must be worshipped in spirit and in truth.

These faulty theological formulations do not confine themselves to the seminary classroom.  Rather, they filter down to impact man’s view of himself and his relation to the divine Creator.  For example, many of these prosperity teachers have demoted the sovereign God into a cosmic department store manager by promoting the doctrine that God is to grant the Christian’s every earthly desire whether or not that is in the best interest of the individual making the request or in accordance with God’s ultimate will.  In so doing, they create an undo emphasis on material wealth when in fact Proverbs 30:8 says, “Give me neither poverty nor riches, but give me only my daily bread.”

So what is a soul searching for the truth of God or someone seeking to lead someone to the realization of these profound realities to do as they navigate between the gulfs of outright unbelief and warped forms of theism?  If the person needing to be convinced is not at the point of accepting Scripture, one can start with a set of arguments seeking to establish an intellectual basis for God’s existence through common reason.  These arguments are referred to as the “classic theistic proofs” as a number of prominent intellectuals have appealed to them over the centuries in order to establish a rational basis for theistic belief, their most famous proponent being Thomas Aquinas.  These classic proofs touch on the areas of ontology, cosmology, and teleology.

The ontological proof derives its name from the word ontology, the branch of metaphysics pertaining to existence or being.   This proof seeks to prove God on the grounds that, since God is the embodiment of perfection, God must exist since existence is better than nonexistence.

Striving to clarify the confusion, in “Apologetics To The Glory Of God”, theologian John Frame frames the argument in the following manner.  “Premise 1: God has all perfections.  Premise 2: Existence is a perfection.  Conclusion: Therefore, God exists (115).”

This proof has enjoyed a lengthy and controversial existence throughout the history of Western thought, stretching back to Plato and still captivating the imaginations of intellectuals both pro and con from this era such as Alvin Plantinga and Jean-Paul Sartre.  The crux of this debate centers around the dispute of whether or not the forms produced by human thought correspond to an objective reality existing apart from the mind.

For example, some conjecture,  because someone can think of a perfect God who must exist since existence a perfection, does that mean such a God really exists?  Theologian John Frame believes so, arguing that mental forms do correspond to objective realities.

Frame writes, “Our idea of a perfect triangle is not derived from a specific object of the senses, but it must correspond to something real; else it would not be useful as a criterion (116).”  Put another way, the ontological argument bears a resemblance to the innate knowledge possessed by each person regarding God’s existence mentioned in Romans 1:19-21.

But while this proof may have entertained the Western world’s most formidable minds, it has been pointed out that few have been brought to faith through it.  At best, it can clarify one’s thinking and re-enforce one’s position once they have made a decision for theism in regards to these matters.

Perhaps the best known of these theistic proofs is the cosmological argument.  In essence, the cosmological argument holds that every affect has a cause which itself is the affect of a previous cause.  Yet this chain cannot go on forever therefore, this chain of causality must have a mover complete in itself, an unmoved mover who is God.

This argument has gained added weight in recent times with the advents of the fields of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics.  The first points to the need for a Creator and the second establishes the need for His preservative influence.

Thermodynamics argues that a closed system will move towards maximum entropy (a scholarly euphemism for disorder and energy loss) in a finite amount of time.  This really socks it to the litany harped by metaphysical naturalists such as Carl Sagan (who claimed that the cosmos is all that was, is or ever will be) that the universe is of an infinite age.

Had the paradigm employed by these weighty academics been true, the reader would not have been able to read this sentence nor the writer able to compose it.  The universe would have ground to a halt sometime in the infinitely distant past since, by definition, the amount of time needed for an infinitely old universe to have run down would have elapsed infinite ages ago.

This reality points to a startup point — a moment of creation if you will — be it the Big Bang or God speaking the ornaments of the cosmos into existence where they now sit on the celestial sphere.  Surprisingly, many Evangelical Christians are now coming to grips with some kind of interpretation regarding the Big Bang theory which they once viewed as suspicious and scientists who once looked to it with cyclical modifications to fit their notions of naturalistic universal renewal are fleeing from it with the speed once reserved for seven-day Creationists discussing the matter.

Related to the revelation of thermodynamics in that sense that it is a scientific theory with divine implications is the esoteric field of quantum mechanics, which warns that there is more to the seemingly deterministic clockwork nature of the universe than meets the eye.  According to quantum mechanics, the substance of the universe does not operate in compliance with the Newtonian certainty perceived by the senses but is rather a realm where on the subatomic level a wide range of possibilities exist.

George Bernard Shaw remarked, “Everything happened because it must.”  Quantum mechanics responds that a particle event is as likely not to happen as happen.

Yet, if such an absolute haphazardness were the case, would not the nightly news be filled with stories of individuals discombobulating into non-existence from the loss of their very molecular cohesion?  This gulf between absolute determinism and particle anarchy allows for a creator who holds the cosmos together at all times.  Colossians 1:17 says, “…and by him all things consist.”  This is a reference to the role played by God in the maintenance of creation.

Taken together, the ideas of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics point to the fact that all individuals and structures standing as part of the created order exist as contingent units.  Quantum mechanics disproves the deist notion that God left the universe to run its course.

In fact, God plays a pivotal role in keeping the universe together.  Mortimer Adler clarifies the notion of contingency by writing in How To Think About God, “A contingent being is one needing a cause of its continuing existence at every moment of its endurance in existence (117).”

Closely related to and amplifying the cosmological proof is the teleological proof for God’s existence.  The teleological proof argues for the existence of God from the apparent purpose and design of the universe.   This theistic proof, with its emphasis upon intelligent design, has taken on added relevance in the early 21st century in light of Darwinism’s pervasiveness and the increased levels of knowledge scientists have garnered regarding the intricacies of the universe.

One could argue that these two developments have become one of the primary issues demarcating believers and those unwilling to alter their fundamental assumptions despite the compelling nature of the evidence.  Even the most diehard skeptics admits that this argument has brought more unbelievers to God than any other.

And the more mankind learns about the universe, the stronger the argument becomes.  For example, pseudo-scientists are at a loss to explain how random chance could bring about complex organic life as it now walks the earth into existence when the chances randomly aligning the twenty amino acids properly in order to form one cell of hemoglobin is reported to be 1 in 10 to the 603 power.  And mind you, this is for only an organism as complicated as a single cell.

How then, without reference to a Creator is the rest of the complexity accounted for?  Did the viceroy butterflies convene a conference to decide that they would mimic the coloring of the monarch butterflies in order to be avoided by dimwitted predators because the monarch is toxic?

Phillip Johnson points out in works such as “Darwin On Trial” and “Reason In The Balance” that evolution takes as much faith to believe in (if not more so in the light of the evidence) as some form of creation theory.  And despite their academic hegemony, the proof evolutionists point to supporting blind chance, unlike the God being argued for in this discourse, does not exist.

The beginning of this paper elaborated in some detail how the world flounders across the stage of contemporary history without the illuminating insight of divine guidance.  Related to this is what is known as the moral argument for the existence of God.

Throughout the past two centuries, mankind has striven to retain some sense of morality without reference to the Divine Legislator.  And the results have been disastrous.

The role of morality in light of atheistic assumptions was set down by Marquis De Sade who had the “foresight” to realize that, without God acting as a cosmic policemen, all acts that were natural in that they could be carried out by an individual being permissible.  The new golden rule became do it to others before they could do it to you.

Anarchy, though, is not the only social threat in an atheistic system.  In a situation where God and His precepts are not seen as absolutes binding upon conduct, dictatorship becomes an even greater likelihood as those with a lust for power are no longer burdened by ethical restraints and the people willingly hand their inalienable liberties over to such despots in an attempt to regain some kind of social order, Draconian though it may be.

Even if the sociological climate is not as repressive as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia (regimes epitomizing the brutalities resulting from political systems inherently hostile to God), what right does anybody have to tell anybody anything if God does not exist?  If the Black man is not made in the image of God, what’s so wrong with slavery as it obviously results from his own innate inferiority in the Darwinian survival of the fittest.

Francis Schaeffer once remarked that, if God does not exist, it does not matter whether one helps an elderly lady across the street or pushes her into oncoming traffic.  Yet this moral chaos is clearly not the intended moral order.  Even those not enrolled in an Evangelical seminary realize that genocide of noncombatants is wrong.  No one but the most rabid Skinhead or fanatical Palestinian supports Hitler’s pograms against the Jews.

In “The Abolition Of Man”, C.S. Lewis refers to this universal morality as “the Tao” or “the Way” (12).  Even though the way the Way is implemented changes as man’s understanding of it grows, the Tao itself represents God’s universal standards and any reform of the Way as understood by finite human beings must come from within by its loyal adherents.   To do so from without amounts to tyranny because those crafting the moral ethos in such an environment will only end up codifying their own arbitrary inclinations as law.  With society increasingly marked by crime and arbitrary rule, the moral argument for God’s existence will grow in poignancy as millions will grow weary of liberty degenerating into license and justice perverted into political expediency.

While the classic theistic proofs and other arguments such as that for moral values are intellectually formidable, they are merely a starting point as their conclusion could eventually lead to a deity wearing any number of sectarian hats ranging from historic Christianity to deism to Islam depending on the spin put on the proofs.  Furthermore, most of the proofs fail to comment on whether or not the deity arrived at intimately cares for the human creation apart from setting up some kind of legal framework, making Him more akin to some kind of metaphysical traffic cop holding the universe together like some kind of subatomic Elmer’s glue.

While quite persuasive, these arguments are just that, arguments, not unlike those bandied about night after night on Fox News debate programs where issues are never resolved and the highest goal being to get a rouse out of the opposition.  The theistic proofs also bring to mind the Wisdom/Flew parable mentioned by John Warwick Montgomery in “The Suicide Of Christian Theology” where the theist argues that, while God’s handiwork can be deduced through the magnificence of creation there is no concrete way to point out God to those that doubt (89).

It is because that these arguments present a somewhat distant God that there must be a source to bridge the gap.  For man steeped in sin to care about God, he must know that God care for him because before such an awakening man is so full of sinful pride to concern himself with his relation to the Creator.  The proof of that love and the reality of God’s existence was made certain in the incarnation and redeeming work of Jesus Christ.

Despite the power of the theistic proofs, one cannot come to a knowledge of salvation through them alone.  In order to give this intellectual starting point a solid foundation, one must turn to this God’s personal revelation, the Bible.

Wheaton Professor of Biblical Studies Gilbert Bilezikian in “Christianity 101″ points out that the Bible never tries to prove the existence of God but assumes it as a given (25).   However, Scripture does contain internal indicators as to why it can be trusted.  For starters, the Bible is historically accurate.

Paul Little of Intervarsity Fellowship in  “How To Give Away Your Faith” quotes archaeologist Nelson Gluek as saying, “No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference (Little, 77).”  In fact, the Bible had the historical record straight long before modern historians as evidenced by the controversy surrounding the Hittites, an ancient people once thought mythological but eventually proven an historical reality.  Since the Bible has proven itself historically accurate and capable of providing a code of conduct cognizant of human nature, there is little reason to doubt the existence of a God who reveals Himself in its pages and preserved them so that man might come to know Him through this special book.

But perhaps the greatest proof of all regarding the existence of God is His earthly manifestation in the person of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ, an act proclaimed in Scripture and making that book the compelling work that it is.  While not accepting His claims of deity, most religions and philosophies look to Jesus (or rather a warped version of Jesus) as an exemplary figure above the remainder of the human fray in terms of example.

Yet one cannot have it both ways.  C.S. Lewis said that either one accepts Christ’s claims to His own deity or one must think him to be a raving lunatic.  There can be none of this “Jesus was a good teacher but…” nonsense.

Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father but by me.”  He reveals that He is God as only God has the power to tell God who is to have access to God.  In John 8:58, Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am,” revealing that Jesus shares the same sacred name of “I am” telling the world that God is the pinnacle of existence.

To further authenticate His claims, Scripture records the accounts of hundreds witnessing Him after the Resurrection.  Surely, that many people over a series of different occasions could not all have been hallucinating and, from the persecution they faced, it seems these loyal disciples had little to gain from lying about the issue.

From the arguments presented,  it can be concluded that God does exist and that He has placed a sufficient number of indicators to this reality throughout the layers of creation so that man might come to this knowledge.  It has been seen that some of this knowledge can be arrived at through common logic.

For example, through the theistic proofs man can conclude that a God exists through an analysis of the creation.  The fact that man can engage in this intellectual quest at all points to a rational Creator seeking to imbue His most cherished creations with a finite portion of His own rationality.   The scientific understanding of the cosmos also points to God’s existence.  Even the most simple components of the universe testify to a complexity beyond human comprehension.  This is even the case with the so called “simple” organisms such as bacteria and viruses.

Even more importantly, this complexity testifies that God is not beyond the pale of legitimate conceptual discussion.  Mortimer Adler argues that, if man can expound on theoretical constructs such as blackholes and subatomic particles without having directly experienced them, then God is therefore not necessarily off limits conceptually.

The contemporary social climate testifies to God’s existence as civilization becomes more chaotic with anarchy and tyranny gaining ground simultaneously.  Without Scriptural principles under-girding the nation’s laws, one can kill their child through abortion but can be sent to jail for disciplining the child should the child be privileged to see the world outside of the birth canal.

Despite the power of these proofs to any unprejudiced individual with any degree of mental acuity, the best proof for God’s existence is His revelation to man in the form of Jesus Christ as detailed in Scripture.  The only begotten Son of God, whose claims cannot be legitimately dismissed by His enemies, predicted His own resurrection in Matthew 12:39.  And unlike the false prophets, hucksters, and shysters who refuse to subject their claims to verification, the risen Christ was authenticated by over 500 witnesses.  One of these witnesses was so skeptical that he insisted on sticking his hands into the Lord’s wounds in order to be convinced otherwise.

One’s alignment in the debate of whether or not God exists is the most important position one will ever take as it will ultimately impact every facet of one’s existence.  And while this decision is ultimately up to the individual in consultation with the Holy Spirit and cannot be made for them by longwinded apologists attempting to persuade them, they should know that their final decision in these matters will dramatically impact their eternal destinies.  There is much more at stake in this conflict than where one will be spending Sunday morning.

By Frederick Meekins

For example, one of the cardinal principles to understanding contemporary liberalism is that the policies that they initially enact as voluntary will ultimately be enforced as mandatory..

Gaining in popularity in large cities and metropolitan areas across the United States is an occasion called “Car-Free Day.”  It is pretty much as it sounds.  For no other reason than that they have duped most into believing that they are better than everybody else, social planners have told us that we are suppose to voluntarily forego the use of our personal automobiles for a day in favor of public transportation and bio-locomotion (forms of transit such as walking where we want to go or riding a bike).

Eventually, this will go from occasional and voluntary to mandatory and permanent.  Some will denounce such a conjecture as typical conservative and conspiracy fearmongering.

But is it?  It seems more like rational analysis of the mass media.

In a Washington Examiner column titled “Car-Free In DC In Your Future”, Harry Jaffe makes this very proposal.  Specifically he contends, “Why not make Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House to the foot of the U.S. Capitol car-free on Sundays?  Imagine the inaugural route, America’s Main Street, a peaceful parade of strollers, bikers, and walkers.”

Another law of human nature is that what is called for (especially when the demand involves extending control over the lives of other human beings) is never enough.

Those opposed to the automobile won’t be satisfied with Pennsylvania avenue closed on Sundays.  Eventually the call for it to be closed everyday will go out and ultimately this policy will engulf larger and larger portions of the city.

Such a policy could very well come to engulf much of the population of the United States.  Impossible, the skeptical scoff.  But once again, is it?

Already in the most blighted portions of Detroit and in Katrina-devastated New Orleans, a protracted campaign of systematic low grade depopulation has been underway for sometime.  For instead of sending in SWAT teams to interdict  and remove criminally recalcitrant segments of the population, municipal authorities need only deny those utilities necessary to enjoy a technologically advanced standard of existence.

The argument is made that too many resources would be expended to maintain or repair such infrastructure.  Residents would be relocated to areas of higher population density where police and bureaucratic operatives do not have to exert themselves to as a great of an extent (we wouldn’t want to interrupt those coffee breaks and doughnut runs).   The abandoned properties would be reforested or whatever the lovely sounding word of the month happens to be for infringement of property rights in the name of the environment.

Yet another law regarding how liberals tend to behave manifests itself in regards to the car free issue.  That is none other than that liberals tend not to abide by the rules imposed upon and the deprivations expected of the rest of us.

For example, one enthusiastic supporter of Car Free Day so much so that he extended the festivity to an entire week is Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.   In 2011 on the very first day of the commemoration, however, he was caught riding in an automobile wherever it was he needed to go.

Those that have surrendered their free thought in return for what Mark Levin refers to as the proverbial government cheese will respond, “But a governor is so much more important and must get wherever it is that he needs to go in a safe and timely manner.”

But in terms of your own life and in the lives of your family members, aren’t you just as important and in many ways even more so than the assorted governmental figureheads and functionaries?

For example, if you are fired for getting to work late or too far geographically from the places of gainful employment, is this governor going to put food on your table?  If you are unable to get to your progeny quickly after school, will the youngsters be given a police escort home to ensure they are not victimized by child predators?

Celebrations are about much more than having a good time.  Such commemorations also convey the values those holding them want to build civilization and morality around.

For example, Mother’s and Father’s Day uplift the importance of children honoring their parents as well as parents providing the kind of nurturing care deserving of such respect.  Christmas and Easter remind that there is a God who so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten Son.  And in its own dark way, Halloween reminds that we only get to enjoy the life in this world for a brief while so we had better get thinking about what lies beyond.

Throughout much of the modern and now into the postmodern era, the value of the individual has been increasingly downplayed.  It is only to be expected that the celebrations commemorating what these epochs herald as the ideal would reflect as such.  By discerning this, the astute patriot is better able to comprehend and counter these exact threats to our liberty.

Frederick Meekins

Shouldn’t one’s respect for the Constitution be higher than one’s respect for the Presidency?  Then how come a statement reflecting such is seldom enunciated?

If a school does not allow a student to decorate their notebooks, an exception should not be allowed for a student decorating her notebook with photos of her brother in the military.

Will those whose commutes were interrupted and their jobs possibly threatened as such by the 9/11 Memorial motor cycle convoy be fawned over and their backsides kissed? Or is this merely an honor reserved for skuzzy unwashed bikers?

Those on the 9/11 Memorial bike ride should be required to wait at gas stations like everyone else and the regular customers NOT required to hurry out of their way.

If there is little fuss made over Rep. Barney Frank rubbing his privates against another man’s backside, what’s the big deal about Rep. Ken Yoder skinny dipping in the Sea of Galilee?

If Nancy Pelosi can giggle about Paul Ryan’s washboard abs on late night television, can he sneer about her sagging bosom?
Perhaps self-appointed male leaders should also formulate a list of things women should be forbidden from saying under pain of banishment from public life and loss of position.

Since GOP insiders have cut off financial support for Rep. Akin, perhaps we mere common folk should financially cut off the Republican Party.

Ironically, those yammering the loudest about Akin’s gaff probably don’t have to worry about any man wanting to touch them anyway.
If the GOP surrenders to a bunch of shrieking banshees over poorly spoken words, how can these leaders to expected to stand up to the likes of homicidal ragheads, expansionist ChiComs, and resurgent Neo-Soviets?

Interesting leftists want a candidate out of a race that enunicated an incorrect viewpoint regarding rape but have little problems granting amnesty to illegals that probably actually committed rapes.

To be consistent with the message propagated by the Hirshorn Museum, administrators shouldn’t feel one way or the other regarding the workplace suicide of a staff member.

Obama insists that men ought not to be making healthcare decision for women.  Then perhaps they ought not have to pick up the bill either.

The cover of the September/October 2012 issue of the Humanist Magazine warns “Here Comes The Secular Women.”  That usually means excess weight distributed in a less than alluring fashion (as could be possible) or more flat chested than the average man.

The cover story of the September 2012 issue of Christianity Today is titled “Saving The Sojourner”.  It is essentially a sob story on how valiant believers are aiding and abetting illegals until amnesty is inevitably granted.  Does this publication also plan to feature a cover story detailing those lives and communities that have been ruined by immigrants that refuse to obey American laws, brutalized by criminals with no business being in this country, and by freeloaders that refuse to adopt an American way of life that includes learning English and keeping their yards clean?

The September 2012 issue of Current History insists that North Korea has the only functioning concentration camp system in the world.  This raises a number of questions and observations.  Primarily, what is being done with those detained in China for various social offenses that in the Free World would not rise to the level of a crime?  Are you going to tell me they are now enjoying an acceptable level of treatment?  Perhaps such prisoners aren’t being detained for very long on their way to organ harvesting.  It must also be asked, given the amount of money being tossed about by the Red Chinese in comparison to American’s declining economic power, are academics and analysts being pressured financially or ideologically to turn a blind towards the human rights abuses perpetrated by this rising global power.

At a stop along the campaign trail, Romney gushed that women start more businesses than men.  If so, no wonder.  Most men undertaking such an endeavor have to do so all on their own.  The assorted government and leftist front group hand outs are specifically targeted at WOMEN starting their own enterprises.  Also, women often have their husbands incomes to fall back on if the venture fails whereas a man might not be able to forgo traditional employment in pursuit of more ephemeral ends such as success and job satisfaction if he has a wife and children to support.

If women are the backbone of America as Ann Romney suggested in her speech before the 2012 Republican Convention, then why do men get hosed for child support and alimony if all they are is, well, a male appendage?

I guess Ron Paul was too old and White to be allowed to speak in person. Maybe if he had changed his name to Paulio he would have been allowed since Rubio is no darker than he is.

The Republican convention held a prayer led by a Sikh. Wonder if they would allow a prayer by someone that publicly professed that belief alone in Christ was the only way of salvation.  So how many Evangelicals are fawned over at political rallies in Punjab?

So by claiming in his nomination acceptance speech that he was away from home often, isn’t Mitt Romney admitting that fame, fortune, and position are more important to him than family?

If assorted conservative personalities are going to paint the impression that retired government employees are to blame for the current economic crisis, perhaps at least one ought to ask how much Clint Eastwood got for his Super Bowl commercial that no doubt was paid for in part by auto bailout funds.

How can Obama not be considered a bad person?  According to Jill Stanek, after being told the details of a partial birth abortion, Obama’s placid countenance did not change nor his support for such a butcherous procedure.

If one doesn’t have to have a photo ID to vote, then why does one require one to enter the Democratic Convention?

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell once condemned the cancellation of professional athletic event in that student and the residents that did not attend because of a sever ice storm.  It was his contention that the Chinese would have attended while doing advanced math calculations along the way.  As such, Americans ought to willingly risk life and limb as well to attend such an event in the name of the COMMUNITY.  So will he also heap criticism upon the Democratic Convention for moving Obama’s acceptance oration inside over threat of evening showers?

Would Antonio Villaraigosa, a former member of an Hispanosupremacist aspiring terrorist group, been permitted to speak at the Democratic convention had he been a former member of the KKK named Timothy Smith?

Michelle Obama is being heralded as the Mother-and-Chief. That implies she has within her policy portfolio the authority to order all parents how to raise their children. Similar to that “federal family” blather bantered around last election cycle.

Apparently some of Obama’s first furniture came from dumpster diving. Once run out of office, he can go on Storage Wars where Dave Hester can bore him a new one.

If Michelle mentored Barack at the law firm where they met, doesn’t that make her a sexual harasser and predator?

Frau Obama claims not to care about material things. I guess that’s why the pizza was flown in from Chicago rather than the Momma Celeste picked up at the local supermarket.

If we are all members of the government as has been suggested at the Democratic Convention, on what grounds does one member of the government coerce under the threat of imprisonment, property confiscation and even bloodshed compel another member to pay taxation?
Democratic Convention propaganda insists that the government is the only thing we have in common. English use to be another thing until it was undermined by a lack of border and enforcement and the propagation of educational policies frowning upon cultural assimilation. A second thing use to be an acknowledgement that we were created by God, and it now seems that has been removed from the platform of the party whose mascot happens to be an ass.

At the Demoratic Convention, a pill-popping Tom Brokaw was rushed to the hospital.  It seems he had a bad reaction to a sleeping pill.  So if he touched the hem of Obama’s garment will he be healed?

By saying that without birth control most women would not have been able to finish school, isn’t a Planned Parenthood hood saying most women are a bunch of whores?

Prince William County, Virginia schools have stopped serving peanut butter out of concern for allergic students.  Instead, sunbutter made from sunflower seeds will be served as a substitute.  Who would have thought the sunflower lobby would have deeper pockets than the peanut interests.  You don’t see the entire educational establishment grinding to a screeching halt over those that might be allergic to sunflower seeds.

Five Dematha Catholic High School athletes have been accused of soliciting prostitutes while attending an overnight event.  Had these students been matriculated in a public school, would this story have even made it into the news?  Are we going to be told the educational backgrounds of the harlots they solicited?  The names of the students have been withheld because they are minors.  So will the trollops involved be charged with indecent acts with the under-aged as if the ages of the genders had been reversed?  Leftists often insist there is nothing inherently sinful about carnal acts outside of the bounds of marriage.  If so, why is the media leery at this incident?

Apparently Gabby Giffords is the Democratic Party’s equivalent of the retard that greets you as you walk in the door at Walmart and is expected to chase down criminals when the inventory theft scanners go off. If not, would she have been selected to recite the Pledge of Allegiance if she hadn’t been shot in the head? And under the Obama healthcare plan, would those befalling a tragedy such as hers even been granted the privilege of continued existence?

If America really is a voluntary union of 50 sovereign and independent nation states and not one nation indivisible as I have seen asserted in a Facebook post, what is to prevent some states from barring Black folks from the lunch counter without the others interfering?   Why don’t we take these implications a little further?  Under this theory of 50 independent nation states, what is to prevent particular ones from forbidding interracial marriage or even authorizing the involuntary servitude of those failing to live up to certain racial criteria?   Let’s take the idea a step further.  If there is no overarching set of principles to which the states are bound in union, what is to prevent Michigan from declaring Sharia law where those converting to Christianity from Islam and women refusing to wear veils are subject to public execution?

Romney said people of good conscience have chosen different sides of the abortion debate. Same thing used to be said about Black folks at lunch counters, whether Jews had a place in German society, and whether the Kulacks as a class should exist in the Soviet Union
Scripture might admonish the Christian to attend worship services. However, there is nothing indicating that they are currently forbidden from going to Walmart or the flea market later that afternoon.

Should Bob Woodward ever lose his position at the Washington Post or give up journalism, it is doubtful he will be the auctioneer on one of those Storage Wars shows or become the new Micro-Machine Man.

At the Democratic Convention, Sandra Fluke denounced invasive ultrasounds. Funny she doesn’t mind a good probing any other time.
It takes 18 pages in the federal tax code to define what constitutes a full time employees. Likely one of the primary reasons why there are fewer of them.

If the State Department is speaking out in condemnation of those that offend Islam, do they plan to issue a statement against Frau Obama speaking at the Democratic Convention bare armed and without a bag over her face?

Since the annual bribe to Egypt no longer seems to be a guarantee to prevent violence, it’s about time it is cut out.

If Christians rampaged at every movie that insulted that faith, there wouldn’t be a world left standing.

Put a Ron Paul bumpersticker on your car, you are a suspected terrorist. Loot U.S. embassies and assassinate ambassadors, you are just part of a “savage group”.

The Pentagon is behind schedule in establishing offices to assist military personnel in voting matters. Fear not. I am sure the offices overseeing gay marriages and getting big-chested, wide-hipped women aboard submarines are fully up and operational.

If these Turd World nations are so sophisticated that they know of Internet videos no one has ever heard of, perhaps they are not as in much need of foreign aide as we have been led to believe.

In the introduction to an episode of The Avengers animated series, it is insinuated that AIM (the Advanced Idea Mechanics, not Accuracy In Media) was a villainous organization because it utilized technology in pursuit of profit.  So I guess Disney, which owns the rights to Marvel characters, will eliminate exorbitant admission fees to its amusement properties and that Stan Lee originally created these characters merely for the sake of tickles and grins.

The September 2012 issue of Extra!, the magazine of Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, laments that Hispanics make up 16% of the population but no more than 4% in many media professions such as broadcast news directors and CSPAN book reviewers.  Before being extended such opportunities, shouldn’t they have at least an average aptitude with the English language?  It’s bad enough to go into a McDonald’s and have to ask repeatedly what it is that the cashier said.  One shouldn’t have to endure a similar frustration when trying to catch the evening news.

In Rhode Island, the ACLU has had father-daughter dances abolished as unconstitutional.  A single mother found the events to be discriminatory.  One must ask.  Was a compromise even sought where a child without the eponymous parent listed might be allowed to attend with the parent that they do have or was ruining every one else’s enjoyment all around the primary motivation for the ACLU involvement in the case?

So if a man takes a woman out to dinner and they engage in fornicative whoopie following the ingesting of nutritional sustenance and said female does not claim the meal on her taxes, how is that different than prostitution?

Scripture indicates Christ’s suffering centered around His Crucifixion.   The text doesn’t say anything about Him being married.

Hillary Clinton was seen applauding at the Book of Mormon Broadway musical.  The world awaits news of Utah riots.

If the Obama administration tried to pressure Youtube into removing the video allegedly sparking violence across the Turd World, shouldn’t it speak out as vocally against the museum planning to put back onto display the cross submerged in urine?

It took nearly two weeks for the U.S. government to declare the assault on embassy staff in Libya a terrorist attack. No wonder Bin Ladin evaded capture for almost a decade.

The US government might have had nothing to do with the movie trailer ticking off the adherents of a particular religion. However, its hands are all over the cross in the jar of urine.

Doubt you ever heard Andy Williams cuss like a sailor during a concert while endorsing a presidential candidate.

Madonna at one point did not allow her children to watch TV.  Apparently they’ll learn all the profanity they will ever need from their mother.

Wonder if William Howard Taft ever referred to himself as “eye candy”.

Piers Morgan calls foul-smelling homicidal Iranian dictator charming. The way Morgan asks Makmood if he has ever been in love, makes you wonder if Morgan is attempting to ask the pissant out on a date in an emotionally stilted British fashion.

Obama said that all who respect a common humanity must reject the movie trailer sending adherents of a particular religion into a homicidal rampage.  So does Obama to speak as forcefully against the crucifixion of converts to Christianity in Egypt?

There is a proposed pill that promises to keep your hair from going gray. You’ll probably run the risk of blowing out your kidneys or ending up on the liver transplant list if you take it, but at least you’ll look fabulous while you do it. Might as well be the best looking corpse as humanly possible.

Parents shouldn’t have to answer questions as to what birth control is during an afternoon broadcast of a Transformers cartoon on the HUB Network.

If Obama really is concerned about red tape as he claims in the video released by the DailyCaller, does he plan to abolish the healthcare reform legislation he pushed through Congress along with whole sections of the U.S. tax code?

In his rhetorical refrain of “take the bullet out”, isn’t Obama responsible for the climate of violence leading to the shooting of Gabby Giffords?

If Barack Obama can mention bullets, how come Sarah Palin can’t mention targets?

In a speech at Hampton University given during his first campaign for the presidency, Barack Obama insisted it is the role of government to train those unable to function on their own how to dress and behave in the workplace.  Given the genetic down payment placed on Monica Lewinsky’s dress, it sounds like Bill Clinton might have benefited from such remedial instruction.

While touring the National Mall in Washington, WMAL host Chris Plant said he saw a sign at a Smithsonian Institution parking garage that a 100% ID check was conducted before access could be granted.  How does this prevent terrorism?

Under the ruling handed down regarding the Pennsylvania Voter ID Law, those showing up at the poles will be asked to present election judges with a photo ID.

In a 2007 speech Obama references the 1992 LA Riots. That is a gap of 15 years. So this speech is still fair game to criticize since it falls well within that temporal window.

According to Obama, apparently if someone is shot during a riot instigated by hooligan Blacks, it’s still Whitey’s fault.

So if we are suppose to ignore Obama’s Afrosupremacism, why doesn’t David Duke get a free pass?

Obama says it is up to government to teach us how to dress ourselves and set an alarm clock. It’s like he wants to turn the whole nation into a New Jersey gas station where it is assumed all motorists are too inept to pump their own petrol.

Under the ruling handed down regarding the Pennsylvania Voter ID law, those showing up at the poles will be asked to show identification to election judges.  The thing is, though, they are not required to do so.  Try being defiant like this when you are so ordered by police or even doctor’s office personnel.  The League Of Women Voters claimed that the law would be an undue burden upon the disabled.  But don’t those suffering from these kinds of afflictions harp the rest of the time about being treated the same as everybody else?

An MSNBC propagandists insists that Elizabeth Warren stretching the truth about being an American India should be overlooked.  For who are we to criticize how individuals decide to categorize themselves.  If so, what is to stop White folks from claiming they are actually Black in order to get their hands in the racial set-asides cookie jar?

Frederick Meekins