Though at one time barely considered worthy of the appellation of literature, scholars of popular culture have today established the thesis that comic books and other forms of media expression derived from these illustrated periodicals serve as a snapshot of the perspectives and assumptions prevalent at particular points in American history.

Certain characters and series evoke more reflection on certain aspects of culture and ideas than others.

For example, the Fantastic Four evoke reflection upon the loving but some times contentious relationship inside a family. The plight of the X-Men have been compared to assorted struggles for civil rights and social acceptance.

Likewise, the two characters that most epitomize what it means to be an American are none other than Superman and Captain America.

Interestingly, in recent interpretations of these characters, creators have done nearly everything in their artistic power to disassociate these characters from the nation as a whole.

For example, as almost as iconic as his bright red cape and the oversized “S”-shaped insignia on his costume is the credo summarizing his never-ending struggle for truth, justice and the American way.

However, the film “Superman Returns” poopooed those noble sentiments when Perry White instead uttered “Truth, justice, and ALL THAT STUFF.”

Given that Superman is from another planet and suppose to be the epitome of humanity (hence the name SUPERMAN), one might at least understand that the renowned Kryptonian might want to remain somewhat aloof from taking sides in the common conflicts plaguing the world and instead focus on those threats far beyond powers and abilities of mortal men.

A character named “Captain America” doesn't have such a luxury.

Even if Captain America disagrees with a policy of the United States government at any particular time such as in the case of the Marvel Civil War where a law was passed requiring costumed adventurers to publicly reveal their secret identities, the character must be identified with those values upon which the nation’s foundation rests and which true heroes must call institutions back to.

If one if going to rake in a fortune off of a character with a name like Captain America, the least you can do is not to view the word “America” in the same category as the vilest of profanities. However, producers allowed the option of dropping the name Captain America from the title in overseas markets.

This is the equivalent of not wanting to call Superman “Superman” because part of the name offends feminists or because the prefix “super” offends hyper-egalitarians and fanatic pluralists denying the existence of gradations of value.

The countries that were listed as taking up distributors on the offer included Russia, Ukraine, and South Korea.

Russia and Ukraine might be understandable.

After all, both of these countries were once part of the Soviet Union and the totalitarian tendency at the heart of Communism in that part of the world is likely not as dead as Americans have been led to believe.

South Korea is a different story.

Since the 1950's, Americans have died and put their lives on the line to protect the lower half of that disputed peninsula.

If anything, South Korea ought to be at the front of the line pledging its support for Captain America being called “Captain America”.

Sophisticates might sneer down their noses at concern being expressed over a mere comic book character and movie.

However, it won’t be a laughing matter should those responsible for these forms of cultural expression undermine the perception of this nation as a shining city on a hill that is our last best chance on earth.

by Frederick Meekins

It has been observed that often a picture is worth a thousand words. By this,
it is meant that often a witty image can more quickly convey an idea than a
written exposition.
 
Another truism nearly as classic insists that the only thing we learn from
history is that we don't learn anything from history.

A prime example of these working in tandem could be found on the cover of a
late 2011 edition of the New Yorker Magazine. Depicted violating the U.S.
southern border were migrants adorned not in sombreros but rather in what would
be considered traditional Thanksgiving pilgrim garb.

Such doodling, though admittedly humorous, displays a number of questionable
assumptions.

For starters, the cartoon assumes that the illegal aliens of today are the
equivalent of the Pilgrim settlers.

In addressing this issue, emphasis must be placed upon ILLEGAL.
The migrants coming here today are doing so in violation of the agreed upon
governing authorities of the territorial United States.

The English Separatists voyaging here aboard the Mayflower committed no such
transgression. In fact, the pioneers making that trek were so eager to see law
and order established that among their first acts was to promulgate the
Mayflower Compact. They are not to blame if the Indians did not have an as
developed sense of property as we have in our own Western tradition or that
there was not as much of a need to enforce borders back then as there is today.
The naive will likely respond but, if our Founders were all immigrants, who
are we to forbid entrance to those that come here after us?

If that is the case, should those making such a case (especially if they are
White) be forced to not only provide shelter to any minority squatter that
crawls in through an open window but also cook daily meals and provide laundered
sheets for the uninvited house guests? If not, how is amnesty and assorted
social welfare benefits going to those that have not earned them any different?

Those fawning all over the border violators of today will gush incessantly
how moral and family oriented these blatant criminals are just like the Pilgrim
settlers coming here to start a new life. Even the likes of alleged
conservatives such as Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family have at times been duped
by this as evidenced by the time he got atop his Colorado high horse and
proceeded to castigate Pat Buchanan regarding the syndicated columnist's classic
"The Death Of The West".

However, just how moral are these new arrivals when one of their foremost
weekend activities is bawdy drunkenness that often results in public urination?
It's doubtful many Pilgrims blared music until 3 AM given the solemnity and
austerity for which the rigorous Protestants of that era were renowned.
Often leftists like to harp on the decline that befell the American Indians
once the historical paths of these people groups intersected with those of the
Europeans. Then let's draw on some lessons from that episode as to why the
United States of today must curtail the numbers crossing over the nation's
frontiers.

If the migrants of today are to be construed through the prism that they are
the equivalent of the Pilgrim "foreparnets" (no need to set off radical
feminists among fanatic grammarians), it must be pointed out that their famed
work ethic wasn't the only thing the early Puritans brought with them. They also
brought a number of diseases against which the population already residing here
had little immunity.

Sadly, little can be done to prevent the suffering and death from the
epidemics that swept across the New World centuries ago. But with the germ
theory of disease that has developed since that time, shouldn't we honor those
passing in that tragedy by clamping down on our own borders by only granting
admittance to those from beyond our borders that adhere to the most rigorous of
health standards?

Don't think this is a valid concern? Then why are not only diseases once
thought conquered or at least under control such as tuberculosis but even
bedbugs as well making a resurgence?

Nation-states exist primarily for the benefit of those already living within
the boundaries of a particular delineated territory that have a proper legal
basis for being there. Once a culture loses its wherewithal to defend this
particular principle, it won't be long until it is swept into the dung heap of
history.

by Frederick Meekins

For about the past two decades, those to the left side of the sociopolitical spectrum have made such a fuss over their hostility towards traditional American holidays and celebrations that the arising disputations have themselves become an anticipated aspect of the close of each year. It was claimed such festivities promote values so vile that these sentiments must be expunged from the civic calendar and the very names seldom mentioned for fear of irrevocably harming those not participating for whatever the reason.

Though not always cognizant of the epic spiritual and philosophical struggle taking place all around them, Americans can be a remarkably stubborn and independent lot. As such, a number sympathetic to the process of communalization have realized that they might be more successful in accomplishing their goals through a subdued gradualism rather than through sudden revolutionary upheaval.

The first of the remembrances of the waning year subverted by manipulative social engineers is Thanksgiving. This holiday is despised for a number of common liberal reasons.

For starters, it is argued that Thanksgiving is racist because of the hostilities that eventually erupted between Americans of European origins and the American Indians. However, such criticism fails to recognize that, at the time of the first Thanksgiving Feast, these distinct groups were at accord with one another over the blessings shared amidst hardships and struggle.

Frankly, if you have a problem over the concept of Thanksgiving, you have a serious attitude problem. No one is saying that at points that the Indians weren't screwed over. Yet it must be remembered that some of them gave as good as they got in terms of inflicting violence upon innocent Whites not responsible for crafting or implementing policy.

So if you can't take a few moments to express gratitude for what you do have in this country as a result of the values set in motion there at the beginning even if they weren't adhered to in full at every step along the way, you are yourself harboring a degree of animosity bordering on racism.

The next and probably deeper reason as to why Thanksgiving is really despised despite all the lofty platitudes regarding honoring indigenous cultures and the like is that the day expresses gratitude towards God. In this era of postmodern enlightenment, such homage is to be directed more towards terrestrial sources, the COMMUNITY being foremost among them.

Usually when given the opportunity in a public forum such as the popular press to provide words of encouragement and understanding, those holding positions as professional clergy worthy of their hirer tend to draw focus to what God has done for us, how we have fallen short of the glory of God, and how He still loves us anyway with restoration available for those placing themselves under His mercy. Interestingly, pastors of Emergent Church inclinations would rather go along with the flow rather than prevent the nation's downward slide into tyranny and desolation.

Writing in the November 2011 edition of the Hyattsville Life & Times, pastor of the town's First Baptist Church Todd Thomason asserts that the thing he is grateful for this Thanksgiving season is not so much his God, his freedom, or even his family but rather COMMUNITY. In other words, this pastor does not value people as individuals but rather as part of the overall group.

In his analysis, Thomason in particular reflected upon a power outage following Hurricane Irene. Commenting on what took place, the pastor observes, "But I was hardly the only person offering assistance. It was a wonderful display of community at its best."

If this represents the kind of spiritual insight available at this particular congregation, no wonder the discerning get the impression it is becoming increasingly ensnared in the clutches of communalism.

Thomason continues, "Then the lights came back on and we all went back...to our narrower, more familiar life patterns that...keep us apart."

What this misguided cleric fails to realize is that, by its definition, community does not include everyone and by its nature is necessarily exclusive. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

In a paragraph following this lamentation, Pastor Thomason lists a number of things that he views as obstacles to social harmony. These include categories such as economic status, political affiliation, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Why aren't these valid categories around which to in part derive one's social identity?

G.K. Chesterton is credited with saying that one should not take a fence down until you know why it was put up. Sometimes the best way to maintain amicable relations is to limit one's interactions with those whose values are diametrically opposed to one's own.

Rev. Thomason, on the other hand, advocates such a compulsory and contrived degree of togetherness that one ought to willingly surrender those convictions of the heart one holds most dear. For usually in those kinds of situations where the parties involved hold to conflicting perspectives, it is the party holding to the higher standard that is forced to adopt the more lax principle.

For example, in terms of religion, if this is not to be one of the categories by which we determine those from the within from those from the without, it is usually the ones that believe that faith alone in Jesus Christ without reliance upon good works is the only means of eternal salvation and not those that believe all paths are equally valid so long as our good works outweigh our evil deeds that are forced to compromise in the name of ecumenical unity. Likewise in regards to sexual orientation, when we supposedly come together setting aside our differences, in the postmodern context that does not mean the promiscuous elevate their behavior by henceforward living lives of repentant abstinence, covenantal monogamy, or at least keep their mouths shut regarding what kinky proclivities they might be into. Rather, it ends up that those espousing a traditional morality are the ones not only shamed into silence but forced to smile and applaud in affirmation under threat of punitive denunciation.

Until recently, the disputes regarding Thanksgiving have for the most part been of a more subdued or subtle nature. Some of the really great battles of the culture war have instead broken out over Christmas.

The key to winning any conflict is controlling how that conflict is expressed in terms of language and conceptualization. Those that despise Christmas and the Christ that the celebration was originally intended to honor have gone to considerable lengths to minimize the mention of the day's very name.

Occasionally this is accomplished under threat of some kind of punishment on the part of the state. More often, this is achieved by attempting to shame these words out of common usage by crafting elaborate reasons as to why the values given lip service by petty despots such diversity, inclusion, and hyperpluralism are to be extolled at the expense of those preferred by the average person.

For example, the Hyattsville Reporter insert of the November 2011 edition of the Hyattsville Life & Times lists a number of events to be held by the municipality throughout the month of December such as the "Annual Holiday Tree Lighting", breakfast with Santa, and a memorial toy drive. At no point in the announcement is the reader informed as to why these events are being held this time of year rather than in the middle of the summer as Christmas is never mentioned.

In the past, it was claimed in connection with this very issue that the phraseology "holiday" has to be utilized since not everyone celebrates Christmas. If so, then why is the word invoked in the column immediately to the left?

The heading reads none other than "We're Dreaming Of A Green Christmas". However, what follows does not so much detail what certain individuals plan to do themselves but rather what they hope to guilt trip everybody else into.

For example, in regards to gifts, it is literally insinuated "You shouldn't have." Instead of traditional gifts, the responsible consumer rather gives donations to charities or purchases locally made items. In other words, things nobody really wants.

As in the case of the blurb about domestic artificial and locally grown trees, the reason behind locally produced gift items has nothing to do with bolstering the U.S. economy. Rather, it is about reducing the distance for ecological reasons the miles goods and supplies are transported. But unless an artist or craftsman forges, smelts, or mixes their own supplies, does it really matter if the assorted petrochemicals are assembled down the street or across the country since they will still have to travel the exact same distance?

In "The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe", the tyranny imposed by the White Witch upon Narnia is categorized as it being always winter but never Christmas. It seems now the next stage of villainy has developed where the White Witches of our own time and realm instead wish to use the trappings of this celebration as a tactic in the attempt to implement their assorted agendas.

by Frederick Meekins

The next worldview examined by Geisler in "Christian Apologetics" is Panentheism. Whereas Deism postulated a God detached from His creation for the sake of transcendence and Pantheism claims that God and the world are coterminous for the sake of immanence, Panentheism attempts to conceptualize a God that is distinct from yet part of the world.

 

To the Panentheist, God is to the world what mind or soul is to the body (193). Like many of the worldviews and methodologies already discussed, Panentheism can be traced back to the days of ancient Greece.

 

Perhaps one of the foremost examples of Panentheism would be the Demiurge of Platonic thought. Whereas the Judeo-Christian God created matter out of nothing, Plato’s Demiurge did not create the world out of nothing but rather shaped and crafted it out of independent eternally existent matter.

 

Since the matter which coexists with this version of God is just as eternal as God, God does not necessarily have the ultimate say. As such, Panentheism is also known as finite godism or process theology.

 

According to Alfred North Whitehead, God is bipolar. No, that does not mean God is depressed though you might be if this system posited is the best man can hope for. The theology of bipolarity hypothesizes a God with one end in eternity where His potentiality and the things He hopes to accomplish are located and His other end located in the temporal world where His actuality is manifested but not always to the extent He might intend as His creations possess their own autonomy.

 

Since the world and those in it are able to exhibit a degree of independence thwarting God’s will and ends, the bipolar theory of God is also a form of process theology or finite godism. According to process theology, God changes over time, must rely on us for the accomplishment of His plans in the world, and cannot assure from eternity past that He will ultimately prevail.

In his analysis of the theory, Geisler writes, "How can anyone worship a god so impotent that he cannot even call the whole thing off? Is not such a god so paralyzed as to be perilous (210)?” If the Christian has no assurance that God will triumph, from the way the world appears to be going, one would be better off hedging one’s bets by siding with the Devil or sitting the whole thing out all together.

by Frederick Meekins

Wonder what the food fascists advocating dietary asceticism scarfed down as children. As anyone that has sat through an evangelistic missionary testimonial knows, those griping the loudest about your errant ways are usually the ones that could make a sailor blush before they came to religion. 

A Chicago school's policy of controlling what students eat is an example of the threat posed to human liberty by public education. Sad thing is many private educators are just as eager to usurp parental authority. Compounding that, if schools are religious, they'll then compile lengthy theological justifications why you are not a "good Christian" if you don't have a smile plastered across your face regarding the handed-down decree.

If babykillers insist that the government should keep its laws off the body of women wanting abortions, who in the name of Hades are these civil servants to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat for lunch? Students forced to eat food they don't want should toss it in the trash in defiance or preferably hold mass puke rallies and refuse to clean up their own regurgitation.

If educational authorities are granted control over what we eat in the name of protecting us from ourselves, where does this intervention end?

Do education flacks have the authority to tell parents what they may feed their own children in the confines of their own homes?

With each passing decade and generation, it seems the areas central planners claim jurisdiction over continue to expand and the areas over which we exercise jurisdiction and personal preference continue to contract.

A short while ago, parents would have never put up with bureaucrats telling them what they could and could not feed their children. Now the principals at schools where these kinds of policies are being implemented claim no parents have come forward to complain about them.

Thus, once today's young skulls full of mush, as Rush Limbaugh calls them, become acclimated to such detailed micromanaging of their existence at such a young age, expect that kind of command mentality to manifest itself in an array of other issues.

Think you know what career change might make you happy? Sorry, you can't change your job because credentialed government technocrats have determined you are in the position that optimizes their vaunted multi-year plan.

It might be that human liberty and large scale enterprise may not be as closely related as they have been perceived to be in the minds of those that would consider themselves as anti-statist or individualist conservative in their ideological orientation. Already, a number of businesses forbid employees from smoking in the name of keeping health costs in check and I have clashed before with those that think that corporate prerogatives take precedent over those of the individual to such an extent that private property should be forfeit to whatever party has the larger bank account.

So what is to prevent multinational conglomerates as interested in managerial social engineering as they are in raising a profit from forbidding employees from bringing their own food to work? Students already conditioned into this during their school years will think nothing of such a policy as it is extended into the workplace.

It has been said that an army travels on its stomach. Likewise, those seeking to enslave a once free people realize that the surest way of doing so is not so much through grandiose parades and theatrics but by rather by conditioning the individual to seek the approval of the state in the most mundane and personal of matters.

by Frederick Meekins

With the closing of California highway 405 for repairs, the mayor of Los Angeles is suggesting that residents evacuate the region to avoid being stuck in their homes.

But with that area of the country infamous for its gang violence, do authorities intend to assure homeowners that during their absences steps will be taken to prevent their property from being looted or to prevent squatters from seizing homes outright?

The road is no doubt in need of repair.

Social planners are also no doubt looking at this as an experiment to see if denying infrastructure access could serve as a viable strategy to voluntarily depopulate an area authorities no longer want contaminated by human habitation.

by Frederick Meekins

When someone makes a statement like "The only education we should be interested in is Christian education", it might earn brownie points with certain fanatics.

However, it really needs to be clarified before the wider scope of the Church can endorse it.

For example, does the person making the statement include the entire breadth of human knowledge derived from reflection upon the creation and applications deduced from such cogitation?

If so, the statement can be endorsed.

If the postulator means that the true believer should only concern themselves with those areas carved out as exclusively as "religious", they are sadly mistaken.

For while the decree would seem to highlight the piety of the person making it, it is woefully inadequate to the complexity of the epistemological realities in which we find ourselves.

This is especially brought to light when the person is making such a proclamation over Internet technology in general and Facebook in particular.

For while the scientific advances making such wondrous technological breakthroughs possible are based upon principles established by God, I am not sure these devices would have come into existence by those that only sat around having the Scriptures drilled into their heads in a manner reminiscent of cultic brainwashing.

By Frederick Meekins

Yahoo has promulgated a list of manners that it insists all children should know and abide by.

Many of these such as saying "please" and "thank you" or sending a "thank you note" are important courtesies. Others are simply a reminder just how much certain adults despise children.

Some of these serve no other purpose than to condition the individual into docility so as to be easier to control as adults.

For example, though a child ought to be trained to express their dislike of something in a polite manner, rule number six insists that "the world is not interested in what you dislike. Keep negative opinions to yourself, or between you and your friends, and out of earshot of adults."

Are adults so delicate that their world is going to be shattered should they hear that a child doesn’t like something? If society is that weak, no wonder the Muslims are about to take over.

Furthermore, if this is harped upon as an absolute, at what age does it end?

As an adult, might the person forced to live by this dictum then develop an inhabitation to speak out against anything imposed upon them by a self-appointed authority figure?

Most dictatorial regimes view governing institutions as the adults and the citizen or subject in the role of the child.

If one never speaks up to vocalize what is commonly referred to as a complaint, how will things ever change or improve?

Adults should try to get children to eat a healthy variety of foods, but there are some items you are just never going to like. I will have to pretty much be on death's door before I'll eat beets.

So if a child is never to inform an adult as to a food that the child does not like, should the child's gag reflux be adversely stimulated, will the adult clean up the regurgitation likely to result? Or will the child be duly beaten and told what a wretched example of original sin and unwillingness to submit to authority that they are?

Parents that insist upon slavish adherence to what has been agreed upon as good manners that force their children to consume all kinds of rotgut swill underaged taste buds and digestive tracts aren’t accustomed to should not be shocked fifty years from now when Junior or Sally are eager to toss them in the cheapest nursing home they can find and never look back.

I just might be rude. Some things I simply refuse to eat. Since you're not going to be there in the middle of the night holding my hand as I attempt to soak away a stomach cramp in hot water at 2 am, I don't really care how offended you are I didn't eat the slop you consider a culinary masterpiece that will no doubt taste as bad coming up as it did going down.

I one time remember reading a Gospel tract that the young Christian was obligated to eat whatever any authority figure put on their plate in order to prepare them for their future careers on the mission field. Newsflash: though it is a sacrilege to say so in some circles of Fundamentalist education, not everyone is called to go to the foreign mission field, especially if you can’t stand the site or smell of what the savages stick in their mouths. Besides, most of them want to come to America now anyway where we have decent tasting food.

My great grandfather use to threaten my grandmother that, if she or her siblings didn't eat something, he was going to shove it down their throats himself. So don't tell me the parents of centuries past were by default superior to the parents now.

As a society, we've gone too far into permissiveness, but neither is an overcorrection something to be desired. Treating your children with respect and dignity is the best guarantor that they will emulate these qualities in the years and decades to come.

by Frederick Meekins

A story posted at Yahoo News detailed the steps taken in Washington, DC to prepare for a retaliatory attack on the part of Al Qaeda over the death of Osama Bin Ladin. Among the measures included increased police protection of synagogues and mosques.

What about Christian churches?

Aren’t these structures as worthy of protection?

However, they were not mentioned in the article.

If not, shouldn’t the DC government admit that they are not as concerned about any Christians that die in an attack as they are Jews or Muslims?

Those that properly recall their history will remember that one of the things that turned Bin Ladin against the United States initially was the presence of “Crusaders” in lands deemed sacred and holy by devout Muslims such as Saudi Arabia.

“Crusaders” is a term some Muslims utilize when speaking of Christians in reference to the conflicts during the Middle Ages where Roman Catholic authorities attempted to liberate the Biblical Holy Lands from Islamic control.

As such, if you wanted to strike back at an enemy that you thought was attacking your religion wouldn’t the Washington National Cathedral or the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception --- prominent structures admired and beloved not only by native Washingtonians but by enthusiasts of religious art across the county --- be better targets?

A fundamental principle of American jurisprudence is equal protection under the law. When a terrorist bomb explodes, the projectile shrapnel of the device can just as easily take out the lives of bystander Christians, Jews, or even Muslims.

by Frederick Meekins

Featured in a twitter post I stumbled across was a promotional by a church promising to give $100 to every single mother that shows up at the congregation for Mother's Day.

If a family lives as some of these fundamentalist churches demand, with dad working and mom at home, they are bringing in no more income than a household headed by a single mother In many instances, single mothers are no more necessarily deprived materially than an intact single income family.

So why doesn't a church handing out $100 to every single mother also give the reward to families that have stayed together as well?

If a church plans to give $100 to every single mother on Mother's Day, do they plan to give $100 to every single father on Father's Day?

Likewise, if a pastor is going to use Father's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary father, shouldn't they use Mother's Day to bash the shortcomings of the contemporary mother?

Why is anyone deserving of a reward in most instances on the basis of their failed relationship status? Jesus can forgive if you ask, but sometimes you must live with the consequences of your actions.

For example, where an associate of mine works there is a woman that has procreated multiple times with nearly as many men. Both my associate and his coworker make around the same amount, with her perhaps a bit more. So should my associate be punished because he has made proper decisions in life and as a result have to subsidize someone that has made less advantageous ones?

Perhaps on Mother's Day in churches where this kind of commemoration is taking place, singles that have not yet reproduced and couples living in the context of intact unbroken marriages should consider withholding their tithes from the collection plate for that particular week.

Scripture says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As such, anyone feeling a tugging on their heart that they are in need of forgiveness should be welcomed in a church.

Often it is insisted that at the foot of the cross all are equal and that one repentant sinner cannot look down on what another did before coming to Christ. If so, then do not extend a tangible reward to those that have engaged in particular behaviors while withholding it from those that have in good faith lived by the expectations of the group.

by Frederick Meekins

Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. A million plus terrorists to go.

The death of Bin Ladin ends the war on terrorism the same way the capture of Saddam ended war in Iraq.

Now that Bin Ladin is supposedly dead, expect Qaddaffi to attempt to regain his crown as king of all terrorists.

Bin Ladin's compound is surrounded by 18 foot walls. Can't help but admire his taste in architecture and real estate.

Bin Ladin is said to have died amongst his wives and children. Given enough time, Albert Mohler and radical homeschoolers will eventually speak more highly of this mass murderer than Christian singles that have never married.

Obama says Bin Ladin was a mass murderer of Muslims. What about the Christian and Jewish victims of Islamist terrorism?

Obama insisting that Bin Ladin is a murderer of Muslims without referencing victims of other religions will certainly assure America that the President is a Christian and not a Muslim as he insists.

Interesting news of Bin Ladin's death announced on a Communistic/occultuc holiday.

Guess Bin Ladin was given up as a Beltane offering by globalist elites. An article linked to on the Drudge Report points out Hitler also declared dead on a May 1. The dark hidden powers of this earth must demand the sacrifice of their favorites on Beltane.

Mark these words: don't know of what ideology the character will be; but 66 years from now on this very day, the world will be celebrating the death of another figure that will be considered the great blight of that era in history. Hence forward, that proclamantion shall be heralded as the Meekins Prediction.

Bin Ladin's wives taken into custody. US will likely dish out larger social security checks to them than the average American under 45 will ever see

Bin Ladin's body was disposed of in compliance with Islamic customs. It should have been dragged down the street by a wagon pulled by pigs driven by Hooters girls and then buried in women's underwear.

If Osama really wasn't a legitimate Muslim as Obama insists, why was Bin Ladin's body treated in accordance with Islamic custom?

At least Bin Ladin had a body of dispose of. That's more than the families of 9/11 victims were given.

Wonder if the federal government was as respectful of the killed Branch Davidians or the Randy Weaver family.

If Bin Ladin is supposedly buried at sea, what proof do we have that he is really dead?

Fifty years from now, some History channel producer will make a fortune broadcasting documentaries whether or not Bin Ladin actually perished at the hands of American military personnel.

Apparently not one dimwitt in the White House realized chucking Bin Ladin overboard is going to contribute to the greatest conspiracy theory of the 21st century?

Feeding whoever it was captured quickly to the sharks certainly cuts out the possibility for independent verification.

Even in attempting to do something on behalf of the United States, Obama has to insert his nose into the rear ends of the ragheads

I guess Daniel Pearl's and Nick Berg's severed heads were treated with all the respect due the adherents of the Western monotheistic tradtions.

Those turned off by the "celebrations" regarding Bin Ladin's demise should be asked their opinion of the Palestinians celebrations that erupted regarding 9/11.

Bin Ladin is supposedly dead. As any comic book or history reader knows, this is just the opening chapter of the next story.

Wasn't Megatron buried at sea in the first live-action Transformers movie. Look how long that lasted. More than one alleged supervillian popped back from his alleged demise. In the 1980's G.I.Joe comic, readers thought Cobra Commander had been murdered but wasn't. Lex Luthor cloned an entirely new body which he downloaded his consciousness into.

I guess a burial at sea is appropriate for Bin Ladin. He'll need all the water he can get where he's at most likely.

Bin Ladin, whom Obama insists isn't a real Muslim, was given Islamic burial at sea. Often, naval regulations forbid actual Christians from praying in the name of Christ.

If WWII era Italians had all these qualms about respecting a tyrant's body and such, they'd still be living under Mussolini's Fascism.

Shouldn't our border have been secured before removing Bin Ladin unless globalists in office are hoping the death of Bin Ladin will result in mass retaliation?

God might have loved Bin Ladin, but Bin Ladin hated both God and free society to such an extent that he was no longer worthy of the protections of either.

In pointing to the death of Bin Ladin as "an example of what Americans can do when united", social engineers are laying the conceptual framework to have stigmatized as the next Bin Ladin those that disagree with expanded welfare programs and curtailed constitutional liberties. Apart from killing terrorists, there isn't all that much Americans need to be of the same mind of in terms of being imposed by centralized authorities.

One of the lessons to learn from the Bin Ladin incident is that, given the chance, your wife will ultimately be the one to rat you out.

by Frederick Meekins

Another brilliant move on the part of the Obama Administration.

Officials have let it slip that the CIA has operatives on the ground in Libya.

Shouldn't the proper response be when such a question is raised "neither confirm nor deny"?

Better yet, what is so wrong with outright prevarication in regards to such a matter? Some truths are not necessarily owed at the time they are initially raised.

Doesn't the discerning individual already realize that the great powers, by default, have operatives at work in nearly every other great nation around the globe?

In his speech to the American people, the President assured that the Libyan resistance could be trusted since the ranks of the movement consists of lawyers and doctors.

In other words, these people aren't the common street rabble employed as greeters at the Bengazi Walmart or Tripoli Target (the store that is, not the air strike coordinates).

Interesting how Obama applauds these desert nomads for clinging to their guns and their God but thinks it is somehow a threat to the Republic when the armed theists in question happen to be from Pennsylvania.

In regards to the alleged moral superiority of doctors and lawyers over we mere common laborers, weren't a goodly percentage of Nazi managerial functionaries drawn from the professional classes?  As Mark Steyn remarked while filling in as a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh program, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara not only rank respectively among modern history’s most famous lawyers and doctors but also among the discipline's most bloodthirsty revolutionaries as well.

Interesting in the case of Libya how in Obama’s mind doctors somehow rank without investigation among the noblest of civil servants that sacrifice willingly for the good of the broader society.  But here in America during the healthcare debate, the President depicted the practitioners of medicine as so lecherous as a whole that such wanton avarice had to be contained by layer upon layer of new bureaucracy.

If Qaddafi threatens to go house to house killing Libyans to put down the revolt, what makes him any worse than Prince Phillip who wants to be reincarnated as a killer virus to decimate world population?

Considering they consider themselves enthusiastic members of Qaddaffi's retinue, Americans must ask if given the chance would Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan inflict here the kind of bloodshed their patron is in enacting in Libya.

The propriety of intervention in Libya is now sort of a moot point.  Given the Lockerbie Bombing, Qaddaffi must now be taken out if for no other reason than to prevent another similar tragedy.

Guess those Americans living in Libya being interviewed by Geraldo realize now living in the trashpile nations of the earth isn't so glamorous after all.

Qaddafi has been a plague upon mankind for decades.  This human pustule has been allowed to fester ignored for so long that, no matter what action is taken, the aftermath will infect the world for a long time to come.

by Frederick Meekins

David Frum has mocked Glenn Beck from the standpoint of the 295 million Americans that don't watch Beck. Wonder if Frum realizes that the number having no idea who David Frum is surpasses even that figure?

 

Al Sharpton held a rally against the Congressional investigation into radical Islam. Amazing dupes such as him fail to realize he will be among the first eliminated should an Islamist revolution (or any kind of leftist revolution for that matter) ever takes place.

 

Even if the government gave every ghetto youth a laptop and an IPOD as Jesse Jackson Jr. suggests, they wouldn't use the devices for educational purposes.

 

Obama is having his own beer brewed at the White House. Guess it is revealed after all that the thing wrong with homebrewing is not so much the health concerns but rather that the government might not get its cut if you sell it to some friends or neighbors. You let it out that you brew your own beer and see if they don't torch your place like the Waco compound in the name of public safety.

 

A true cowboy wouldn't want the federal government to finance their poetry festival.

 

If you think it is mean spirited to cut Public Broadcasting, just think how mean spirited it will be when Americans are forced to live in conditions reminiscent of Mel Gibson's "Mad Max" or Kevin Costner's "The Postman".

 

Castro’s Twitter account breaks 100,000 followers. His regime heralds it as the first Cuban themed account to reach that plateau. Most Cubans probably don’t even have access to electricity and any with Twitter accounts are probably sent to labor camps or executed before being allowed to attract such a following.

 

A state park has celebrated Pancho Villa’s attack. Only in America are those out to destroy us lavished with government funds and public accolades.

 

Representative Keith Ellison broke down during Congressional hearings into radical Islam in recounting the plight of a Muslim rescue worker that perished in the attack on the World Trade Center. Wonder if Rep. Keith Ellison shed any tears for any non-Mulsims that perished on 9/11. Rep. Ellison notes 29 Muslims died in New York on 9/11. I guess adherents of other creeds perishing that day aren't worthy of this esteemed legislator's mention. With the name “Keith Ellison”, it’s doubtful the Minnesota representative was born a Muslim. Wonder if a Muslim converting to Christianity would even be allowed to remain alive in an Islamist society much less serve in its legislature. Wonder how many tears Keith Ellison has shed over Muslims killed for converting to Christianity. How come its an emotional act of courage for Ellison to weep but a lack of manhood when the Speaker of the House sheds tears?

 

Religious fanatics have already categorized the Japanese earthquake as God's judgment and insinuated the victims got what they deserved. Unless one of the victims was conducting seismic warfare experiments that got the best of them, isn't such a conclusion a bit presumptuous? It's not like the Almighty promptly issued a press release as to why this particular tragedy was allowed to occur.

 

A British mother claims her premature baby was tossed into a room to die. Struggling in his mother's arms as life slipped from his one-pound body, hospital staff did nothing (as stipulated by hospital policy) to save his life. Apparently there is no money to save you if you have a solid English name like "Godwin" as did this child. However, no doubt bags of cash will be tossed your way if your name is "Akmed" or "Hasan" and intend to defecate all over the Union Jack.

 

A Florida school has implemented a virtual police state, including gastronomical prohibitions and low tech breathalyzer checks, over the peanut allergy of a single student. Wouldn't responsible parents instead simply homeschool the child, acquire a tutor, or send their offspring to a special facility? So if a school can ban peanuts because even the aroma of this particular legume might send a single student into fatal apoplexy, if American students are sickened by the stench of the swill eaten by foreigners, will these kinds of victuals be banned as well?

 

Wasn't aware votive candles could be eaten. If not, why are they in the aisle listed as "Hispanic Food"? I don't remember there being an aisle demarcated as "Redneck Food" dedicated to Anglo dietary peculiarities.

 

On the 3/24/11 episode of "Radio Liberty with Stan Montieth", privacy advocate Katherine Albrecht warned that electricity rates could go as high as $1,000 per month for those not upgrading their appliances and utilities to "smart grid" technologies.

 

Farrakhan explicitly insists that Americans (especially the White ones which his sect believes are the result of an ancient experiment in genetic engineering) are beasts and not human. This is so when his minions start killing, in their eyes it won’t be construed as murder since that is a crime committed against human beings and not animals.

 

Scientists from Harvard and MIT are developing instruments to confirm their preconceived hypothesis that life on Earth actually began on Mars. Yet if one believes the Genesis account as literal, they are laughed out of academia. This is being done for no other reason than to lay the foundation for declaring humanity the greatest invasive species of them all & to justify what will become history's most notorious campaign of genocide. Mark 13:20 reads, “And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

 

by Frederick Meekins