One of the shortcomings I remember the most about the Christian elementary school I attended was how a number of the less-than dedicated educators would punish all of the students for the misbehavior of a single pupil. To this day, I remain convinced this had more to do with lazy teachers preferring not to mess around with recess than correcting actually delinquency.

As miniature societies, the dynamics of schools often reflect the processes that govern nations and countries. Unfortunately, the good students --- or rather citizens in the macrocosmic case --- are having something that is by every right their's taken away just because those in charge don't want to deal with those out to ruin things for everyone.

For nearly 15 years (or at least since I've been writing about the topic annually), Christians and allied conservatives have waged a noble effort against secularists claiming the First Amendment, through an expansionist interpretation of the Separation Clause, forbids the establishment of Nativity scenes and even less conspicuously devout Christmas symbols on public property.

Since Christmas has become a pivotal component of our culture, most Americans instinctively recoil at efforts to banish the beloved winter festival even if they are not particularly religious. Thus to be successful, secularists realized they would need to pursue a different strategy.

One of the foundational dictums (feigning a posture of sophistication, those of this mindset eschew the notion of creeds) of radical ecumenicalism is that, if you can’t beat them, join them. However, the ecumenicalist does not seek union or compromise with the more thoroughgoing traditionalist for the purposes of common ground but rather to eventually wear down the traditionalist to the point where the traditionalist capitulates to the original demands of the ecumenicalist.

For example, realizing that Americans aren’t willing to give up the public recognition of Christmas yet esteem the idea of fairness nearly as much, a number of wily atheists decided on a new strategy. These hostile unbelievers surmised, “Fine, we will allow you to have your religious display provided we are granted equal access to put up a display depicting our beliefs as well.”

Frankly, in some ways they had a point as it is often through verbal conflict one not only comes away better knowing what one’s opponent believes but what you believe as well. After all, Americans --- both devout and apostate alike --- are often complacent in regards to both theology and politics.

However, a critical populace of an analytical inclination is the last thing the government wants. And in the clamp down to prevent an outbreak of citizens thinking for themselves rather than handing the process of ratiocination over to leftist bureaucrats, even more radical academics and the media dupes of each, victory by default is handed over to the more malevolent brand of secularist.

It is pretty much the establishmentarian consensus that public displays commemorating America’s religious roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot be directly set up by the government. Rather, in most instances, a public forum is established with a mad dash being made by adherents of the respective viewpoints to get permits to sponsor the annual display or to divvy up the space equally.

Thing of it is there is only a finite amount of space in most government buildings even if the power of the agencies housed therein often is not while the number of worldviews clamoring for public acclaim in an age of pluralism is nearly infinite. The rational American at their noblest wanting to see the greatest number possible satisfied and at their most base just wanting the incessant whiners to shut up would probably be willing to accept a Nativity with a snowman, a Menorah, and possibly even a flying spaghetti monster to please the acolytes of evolutionist Richard Dawkins though most would be rolling their eyes and mumbling under their breath about it.

In an age where every viewpoint is considered equally valid, who is to say more eccentric belief systems are not as worthy of exhibiting their own Yuletide emblems? For example, upon opening their display space to both the glory and Hades bound alike, the Washington State Capitol saw the establishment of a Festivus pole, a fabricated holiday popularized by the minds behind Seinfeld, at least one of whom now thinks it is comical to urinate on artistic portrayals of Christ.

Where does it end? Since Star Wars has also weaved itself into the Christmas fabric of many that grew up during the 70’s and 80’s (just recall the fan film “Christmas Tauntauns” as well as the Star Wars Christmas special Lucas is claimed to have seldom acknowledged the existence of with its Wookie Life Festival), are we going to allow a display to this as well?

In the name of getting a handle on this, the Washington State Capitol has banned all holiday displays from the building. Leesburg, Virginia tried to pursue a similar policy, but rescinded the edict after citizen outcry against the abrupt ending of a tradition that extended back decades.

Of those of the mind that we must downplay the acknowledgement of certain statutorily recognized holidays because certain elements of the population finds them disturbing, does that mean we also eschew all other civic commemorations because a scant few find these others distasteful as well? For example, should Martin Luther King Jr. festivities transpiring on or near public property be cancelled since there a few that know this figure was hardly the godlike personage he is portrayed to be in the popular memory but rather someone with questionable Community ties and faulty theological assumptions no matter how laudable certain aspects of his philosophy might have been.

More importantly, what about Black History or other assorted ethnic supremacy months? One reason no one is suppose to mention Christmas since to do so is to be "divisive" because it is not a celebration that everyone embraces.

So because around three percent have an attitude problem, the rest of us are suppose to sit around with out lips sealed shut. Few would admit it for fear of losing their jobs or having rocks hurled through automobile windshields as I can assure you does occur when one enunciates positions on these kinds of subjects other than the one insisted upon by the diversitymongers. However, there are definitely more than three percent of the Caucasian population that, if you could assure them that there would be no repercussions, would admit to opposing these fill-in-the-flavor-of-the-month history months.

As Ann Coulter, I believe it was, once remarked the United States is not a bus stop. All should be free from violence and deliberate mistreatment even if their ideas fall outside the norm. However, as a nation, Americans should not have to cower in shame before a few disgruntled malcontents whose rights have otherwise been upheld and protected.

by Frederick Meekins

Early in American history, one was pretty much free to do as one saw fit on one's property so long as it was moral especially if one lived in a rural area where one's actions were not likely to encroach upon the sensibilities of one's neighbors. However, now it seems the landholdings of the United States in general and private property in specific are for everyone else to decide what to do with except the one to which it is titled.

As of September 1, 2009, the Virginia Department of Game and Fisheries has announced that it is illegal to artificially feed the deer through the first Saturday in January. This regulation is part of a program to keep the number of deer in check.

In other words, it is hoped that a number of them will starve to death during the winter months. If pristine, untouched nature is to be the standard by which our actions and decisions are to be judged, then shouldn't we speak plainly as to the policy's goals and intentions?

While the government has every right to set policy as to what it wants done on public lands and in state parks, private property holders should be able to do in regards to this issue on their own lots and in their own yards what they themselves believe best. Not everyone is going to feed the deer to begin with.

It should be noted that this bureaucratic mandate will go beyond regulating one single activity. According to a story posted at Harrisonburg Daily News Record titled "Deer Feeding Now Illegal", those with deer eating the seed spilled from birdfeeders will be ordered to temporarily take their feeders down.

Seems unwanted deer aren't the only extraneous animals authorities hope will die off and I am not talking about the birds. Obama's healthcare plan hopes that the aged demographic will simply throw in the towel with little resistance so that resources might be directed towards preferred groups such as illegal aliens.

Seems other public policy proposals may be furthering this agenda in a roundabout way. For you see, feeding the birds is often the highlight of the day of an elderly person who might not have anything else to look forward to in terms of entertainment now that television has pretty much been taken away from them unless they have a PH.D in electronics now that one has to have a digital converter box.

And speaking of illegal aliens and the like, it baffles the mind how environmentalists (who are usually some variety of liberal) that view human beings as being no better than animals and often of lower regard when it comes to the unborn as you can hack apart all the fetus you want so long as you don't smash open a bald eagle's egg or even touch a discarded feather for all that matter, fail to grasp a number of lessons that transcend the species barrier.

In an interview regarding the rational behind the prohibition, a wildlife official pointed out that once the deer get use to finding food in a certain place, they can become disgruntled and testy if nutritional allotments are discontinued. In other words, these ungulates loose their sense of self-sufficiency and develop an entitlement mentality.

Does any of this somehow seem familiar? During the speakership of Newt Gingrich, the Republican Congress thought they would get a handle on spending not really by cutting back certain programs such as school lunches but rather by slowing the rate of increase.

From the response to the policy at the time, one would have thought conservatives were smashing babies’ heads against concrete buildings, something a number of Obama’s closest advisors might not have all that much problem with. Likewise, one of the reasons elected officials are reluctant to do away with or eliminate many assorted handouts are the massive riots that would erupt across the country if the chronically dependent were suddenly expected to provide for themselves. Thus, one of the greatest bribes or ransom schemes in human history is basically continued for now to forestall what will one day result in history’s greatest bloodshed.

The issue of deer also provides an excellent study into other aspects of the immigration debate as well. The article says, “An overabundance of deer can lead...to increased human-deer conflicts, including vehicle collisions and disease transmission such as tuberculosis and other deer ailments.”

Illegal aliens and immigrants of dubious loyalties cannot be dealt with in the same manner as deer as one has a soul made in the image of God. However, the results are quite similar when the ratio of native born to foreign born becomes imbalanced in a similar manner.

Increased conflicts do result. Just ask Americans that have had their homes violated on the West coast.

I recall reading of incidents in California where Black families have come home only to find that illegals have moved in and staked a claim to a dwelling while the legitimate residents were out for the day. It is not uncommon for Arizonans to be awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of migrants rummaging through their refrigerators.

Secondly, though few want to talk about it since, in the eyes of the hypertolerant, being accused of racism is a fate worse than one's lungs filling with blood and festering puss, deer aren't the only ones spreading tuberculosis these days. Thanks primarily to deviants with compromised immune systems and diseased foreigners bringing in any number of previously conquered or even unknown diseases, America now faces an assortment of drug resistant pestilences.

Environmentalists are fond of pointing out that ecosystems are delicate things to balance. What they fail to realize is that one of the greatest threats to such harmony is government control.

by Frederick Meekins

Viewers wanting to see "Knowing" staring Nicholas Cage might expect a film not all that different from his "National Treasure" series or even perhaps "The Da Vinci Code" as from advertisements the story appears to center around an aged parchment with a series of numbers scribbled across it that seemingly predicts a series of disasters. However, by the film's conclusion, the apocalyptic symbolism alluded to is much more complex and potentially confusing than one might initially suspect.

After a series of catastrophes Cage’s astrophysicist character witnesses as a result of deciphering the cryptic document, one begins to get the impression that the transcendent presence guiding events is more of a tangible one rather than a force in the background. Hints of this are introduced when mysterious figures reminiscent of less than normal looking versions of Men In Black begin to stalk Cage’s son as well as the granddaughter of the character who wrote down the prophetic string of numbers in a flashback set fifty years in the past.

In most films one usually gets a distinct impression as to the forces overseeing mankind’s eschatological destiny. Usually they are traditionally supernatural or more in the vein of what moviegoers would consider extraterrestrial or interplanetary. Seldom do I remember a film where the distinctions were blurred or melded to such a degree as in "Knowing".

For example, viewers were first given a hint of this as Cage and one of the adolescent come across an illustration depicting Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel. The overt supernatural overtones continued to increase with interactions with the Men In Black, especially when a blinding lights emanates from one of their mouths when confronted by Cage and as Cage's partially deaf son picks up a message over his hearing aide from the "whispering people".

By the time of the movie's climactic act, Ezekiel's wheel within a wheel has descended to the rendezvous point where it has arrived to whisk the children under Cage’s care to safety away from the earth endangered by a gigantic solar flare. Not even at this point did screenwriters clarify where they came down theologically. For example, as Cage proceeded to board the craft, he was informed that only the chosen could enter.

Did this mean only those professing belief in God (about the best you can hope for from Hollywood as a positive ascent to the need for a relationship with Christ would be out of the question) since earlier in the film Cage's character hinted at lacking faith in a conscious divine power. Or more likely, were these tots suppose to be Indigo Children, a new classification of adolescent hypothesized to be the next step in human evolution as a way to explain a myriad of phenomena from such as why these children have IQ's higher than their parents to bratty teen behavior.

The distinction between garden variety extraterrestrial and angel is further blurred when these entities drop their humanoid facades to reveal themselves to be energy beings reminiscent of the Taelons from the early seasons of “Gene Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict”. The obfuscation continues until the end of the film.

As the craft carrying the two children away from the earth lifts into space, the viewer realizes that these two youngsters were not the only two saved as they join a convoy of similar vehicles. Once more, while the average viewer might be sitting their dumbfounded as to what is being depicted, the viewer peripherally in the know will wonder if they have just seen a space age interpretation of the Rapture where it is believed that the saved will be whisked away by God to safety before destruction comes upon the world or rather, as non-dispensationalists have hypothesized, or how the masses will be duped into a pseudo-rapture orchestrated by so-called “flying saucers”.

Even after all of this, "Knowing" at its end dumps even deeper metaphysical symbolism upon the viewer to wade through. For after the earth is destroyed with the elements burning up with a fervent heat as foretold in I Peter 3:12, we see the children running through a field towards a very distinct looking tree that could very well be the Tree of Life. But as with other moments in this film, we are not given any definitive answer as to whether the children are in Heaven or merely on another planet.

Those that go into “Knowing” expecting a supernatural thriller will not be disappointed. However, what they may not know about is the symbolic dialogue regarding some of the most profound spiritual issues facing the world today.

by Frederick Meekins

With Obama seeming to withdraw the so-called "public option" from the healthcare reforms being considered by Congress, many will assume that the battle is now over. However, things may be more dangerous than ever before.

Up for consideration are so-called "healthcare cooperatives" that will attempt to blend aspects of public and private systems, no doubt with the care and responsiveness that homeowner associations have become renowned for. What is to prevent companies from eliminating their insurance programs and pushing their employees into these?

This is what Walmart-types are drooling for in the propaganda where they say they won't be happy until everyone is insured. What they are really hoping for is the opportunity to drop the coverage of their own employees.

The Libyan responsible for the bombing of PAN AM Flight 103 has been set free. Since the terrorist is dieing of cancer, Scottish officials claim that he was released in compliance with the nation's values.

And what might those be; pandering to radical Islamists? No wonder the country is renowned for men who wear dresses. It is because of this spinelessness that Western Europe totters on the edge of the garbage can of history.

If someone has a life sentence or a certain amount of time left on their term, prison is where they ought to die. Isn't one of the reasons we have a CIA is to make sure human scum like this meets with a mysterious end?

I am tired of the Internet ads reading something like "Obama Asks Moms To Return To School". Especially creepy is the one with the two women marching with a brainwashed look plastered across their faces.

First, it is not the government's place to "ask you to return to school".

Second, if Il Duce only wants mom's to return to school, it is blatantly sexist. For what if he only asked dads to return to school?

Third, if anyone complies with this decree simply because "Obama asks", they are a deluded fanatic that has sold out both American liberty and independent thought.

A study finds that shorter students are "no less popular" than taller ones.

Frankly, from my own experience --- even in a Christian school at the elementary level especially --- the shorter ones were actually the snottiest brats in the class and were actually the bullies rather than the stouter pupils.

But since chubbier students don't fit in with the plans of New World Order types such as environmentalists, I guess we got what we deserved.

David Copperfield has been accused of rape in a pending civil law suit. The 22 year old woman claims she was attacked after being invited to his private island for modeling opportunities.

What else did she think was going to happen? Furthermore, what proof do we have that any of this even occurred or that his advances weren’t spurned until after the fact?

While Americans are suppose to bask in either Obama’s angelic glow or the hellfire smoldering out of his ears depending upon one’s perspective for warmth, other world powers are taking steps to secure the energy needs of their respective countries. Red China has made deals for access to oil fields across Africa and Asia. And while Americans are forbidden from exploring for oil off our own coastline, the Obama administration has extended millions of dollars to Brazil for the purposes of discovering oil off its own coast.

The financial hole Americans will not be able to get out of for generations is about to get even deeper thanks to efforts to fawn all over those messing around in holes where they really don’t belong. The Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service & The District Of Columbia in the House of Representatives has authorized legislation that would extend insurance benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees living in sin.

By Frederick Meekins

Try as the atheist might to manipulate objective data to fit their hypothesis with some evolutionists going so far as to invoke the law in order to suppress perspectives conflicting with their origins account, the assumptions of atheism fail to square with the facts of nature and with the revelation of nature's God. At one time earlier in the modern era, it was quite common for the atheist to portray himself as the true friend and ally of science. However, as impartial observational science has probed deeper onto the macroscopic realm of cosmic space as well as the microscopic world of the subatomic particle, this relationship once prided by the atheist turned out not to be as solid as originally thought.

The scientific establishment and the philosophical elites once derided the so-called "theistic proofs" for the existence of God as the outdated wisdom of a less-enlightened era. It turns out, however, that these time-honored arguments may be as relevant as the latest academic journals.

The cosmological argument, perhaps the best known, states that all finite realities and structures have a cause. Therefore, ultimately there must be an uncaused cause complete in itself in order to get the proverbial billiard ball rolling; this the theist declared to be God.

Naturalistic cosmologists steeped in atheism such as Carl Sagan once tried to dance around the issue by saying that the cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be. But it seems that the laws of physics don't exactly have a record of contributing to their local PBS station.

The Laws of Thermodynamics declare that, left to themselves, systems degrade to the maximum level of entropy; or in laymen's terms, things wear out. Employing this principle, one is forced to conclude that, if the universe is an infinitely-old closed system those like Sagan claim it to be, then the universe would have already wound down in eons past. Therefore, the universe must have had a beginning. And since something finite cannot come from nothing, the hypothesis of a divine creator provides the most plausible alternative.

It has been noted that the theistic proofs do not necessarily reveal the God of Judeo-Christian adoration but at best point the seeker in His direction. Likewise, the findings of science point the individual in the direction of a yet more definitive source of knowledge standing in opposition to the claims of atheism.

Scripture strikes the decisive blow against those daring to spit cognitively in the face of God. Psalms 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."

Until the scientist can replicate life on his own from nothing whatsoever, that verse settles the issue of whether the universe sings the praises of an omnipotent Creator or testifies to the cruel fact of an arbitrary universe devoid of plan or purpose. Some will no doubt continue to insist upon their own path of stubbornness despite what the very molecules they are breathing might be telling them.

Of those failing to be persuaded by the evidence, Psalms 14:1 says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” Webster’s defines fool as “a person devoid of reason or intelligence.” Either the educated person assents to the reality of God or his so-called “education” is not worth the value of the parchment the big-shot degree is printed upon.

If the skeptic still refuses to abandon atheism in light of the objective evidence, one is left with no alternative but to drag out the rotten fruits produced by this faulty system in terms of ruined lived and fallen nations. For instead of establishing a set of moral values resting upon a foundation apart from divine revelation as originally postulated by the adherents of early atheistic modernism, one ends up with an ethical system based upon the absolutist relativism of postmodernism where almost anything goes except daring to set forth some kind of behavioral standard binding upon all.

According to Chuck Colson in "Against The Night: Living In The New Dark Ages", in the arena where relativism reigns supreme in opposition to the law of God, there is no legitimate ground in which one can exclude the arguments and proposals of Nazis, serial killers, and pedophiles (47). From today's headlines, the nation is coming to realize in the most brutal of ways that these ideas do not confine themselves to academic journals or newspaper opinion pages. And in the case of school shootings such as Columbine High, this radical antipathy towards God can in fact turn deadly.

If the lawlessness of atheism can wreak havoc upon individual lives, just imagine its affects magnified across entire societies. The major dictatorships of the twentieth century testify to this blood-soaked historical truth. Founded upon assorted atheistic ideologies, these totalitarian regimes promised secular heavens on earth but instead dragged their nations down to the very borders of hell.

Unfettered by eternal external standards, those holding the reins of power in such societies had nothing to hamper the implementation of their most extreme policy whims, not even the value of innocent human lives. For example, Mao Zedong of the People's Republic of China slaughtered five million of his own countrymen in pursuit of his Cultural Revolution and related kinds of Communist nonsense.

While the United States has not yet eliminated that many (at least among those fortunate enough to escape the womb alive), the Orwellian day is here when good will be called evil and evil called good. Former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett aptly noted on an appearance on "Meet The Press" that, had the Columbine killers greeted one another with "Hail the King of Kings" rather than their trademark "Heil Hitler", school officials would have intervened since an affirmation of theism --- especially of a Christian variety --- is the one thing an atheistic educational system cannot tolerate. School officials did not intervene and the rest is history, with organized unbelief claiming yet a few more in its unrelenting war upon God and humanity.

As public rhetoricians are fond of pointing out, mankind stands at a crossroads. The choice, however, goes to a level deeper than the choice between Democrats and Republicans that Americans must make on election day.

The decision to be made transcends the limited purposes of institutionalized politics to embrace fundamental issues of worldview and belief. The nature of this conflict can be discovered in a comparison and contrast between atheism and Christianity.

From the fundamental postulate regarding the nonexistence of God, atheism attempts to formulate a comprehensive framework upon which to hang its understanding of mankind and the universe. Without God to account for the cosmos in which they find themselves, atheists argue that the complexity of nature arose through a process of gradual evolution governed by the rules of chance.

This process of evolution, to the atheist, serves as the dynamic against which man strives to find and determine his role upon the earth. As such, everything is thus in a state of flux and nothing is fixed as man struggles to figure things out against the backdrop of a cold and purposeless void.

Not even fundamental issues such as individual rights, personal ethics, or social institutions can afford to remain fixed and stagnant. And if innocent human lives are ruined or destroyed, that may seem regrettable at this moment along the long evolutionary chain, but mankind will ultimately get things worked out and the piles of corpses littering history’s ditches will not seem so nauseous upon further enlightenment.

Of these ideas, Proverbs 14:12 says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Any history book objective enough to attest to the horrors of the twentieth century testifies to this startling truth.

Standing in contrast to the lonely pointlessness of atheism is Judeo-Christian theism recognizing God as the fundamental proposition of the universe. Like atheism, the Judeo-Christian tradition builds its system around its conceptual foundation as well. But since its basis is drastically different from that of atheism, the conclusions drawn by Christianity are considerably different.

Christianity holds that, since the universe was created from nothing through the Word of God, all creation is dependent upon Him at all times. Colossians 1:17 says, “...by him all things consist.”

Since man is God’s creation, it is therefore God’s right to determine the standards by which man shall conduct his own affairs. And since God loves His creation, it follows that His standards are for the benefit of His children. These standards are communicated to mankind in a number of ways.

One such way is through individual conscience. Romans 2:14 says, “For when Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” While God has written the Law across the heart of man, man has suppressed this truth through sin.

God has overcome this development by making Himself known in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and through the direct propositional revelation of His Word and the Holy Bible of which II Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” It is within this framework of Law and Grace that the balance between the individual and society is found as this system and the objective standards established by it protect the individual since it recognizes the worth and fallen character of each. That is why Psalms 33:12 says, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Atheism remains one of the most serious intellectual challenges faced by the contemporary Christian. Despite its obvious scientific and sociological shortcomings, the powerful adherents of this system positioned in influential sectors of society such as government and academia have enshrined this worldview as the official dogma of civilization nearly as stifling as anything allegedly imposed by the medieval Catholic Church.

Yet despite considerable efforts to enforce this system as an orthodoxy that goes so far as to jail students daring to pray around a flagpole, like its sister system in the former Soviet Union, Western atheism is a decaying ideology. It is amid this decay often resulting in social and individual ruin that the Christian is able to proclaim the superiority of the theistic alternative and the God of its adoration.

by Frederick Meekins

Dingell berries have threatened a protestor daring to speak at a congressional townhall. According to Mike Sola, supporters of Rep. Dingell showed up at his house in the middle of the night in reference to the exchange this father had about his son with the Congressman. The nocturnal altercation was reported to police and Sola vows to defend life and property by any means necessary if the situation calls for it.

Tolerancemongers and Afrosupremacists are plotting to remove Glenn Beck from the airwaves. A coalition of Black bloggers has convinced Geico to withdraw advertising from this particular afternoon Fox News program.

Beck dared to speculate that Barack Obama might harbor racial antipathy towards Whites in light of the hasty conclusions the President drew regarding the Gate's altercation. Perhaps conservatives should respond by pressuring advertisers into dropping notoriously anti-Caucasian Tom Joyner.

Freedom throughout the Western world hangs dangerously in the balance.

The military is recruiting for concentration camp guards. A classified on the GoArmy.com and National Guard websites is seeking "Internment and Relocation Specialists".

Naive supporters of the government will claim this is only referring to detention centers set up for America's terrorist enemies. I ask you, dear citizen, just exactly who is a terrorist now? Obama supporters and allies have dropped the term in relation to Islamic militants and instead apply it to citizens confronting legislators and bureaucrats over the inadequacies of the proposed healthcare reforms.

Things don't look much better off among America's closest foreign allies either as plans are being drawn up to extinguish liberty in one of the lands that once guarded this precious flame. British officials are considering mandatory vegetarianism throughout the United Kingdom.

It is claimed such rationing measures would only be implemented in times of national emergency. However, what is being categorized as national emergencies are simply the ongoing characteristics of the contemporary world such as population growth, high oil prices, and the diverting of food crops into the production of bio-diesel.

One cannot help but ask will these measures also be imposed upon the Royal Family. But I suppose their protein intake will need to remain high in order to continue their fine tradition of whoremongery and generalized debauchery.

You might end up living in a reducation camp subsisting on a diet of sawdust and pine needles, but cheer up, imprisoned serf. Your social betters will likely continue their lavish lifestyles no matter what deprivations they may decide to inflict upon the common person.

For while Obama castigated corporations for holding conventions in Las Vegas during challenging economic times, some from his side of the political spectrum are meeting in the resort town to attend a conference on the future of alternative energy. Are you going to tell me Al Gore walked to the meeting and that Bill Clinton in Sin City is as trustworthy as Billy Graham in a booze factory?

President Obama has repeatedly emphasized the need for sacrifice throughout his campaign and now his presidency. I don't see much of it among the gang he runs with and it seems it is becoming only an expectation imposed upon those who otherwise strive to make their own way in life.

It is becoming more and more apparent that many of the nation's elected leaders think more of foreigners with no right to be here than actual fellow Americans. Congressman Eugene Green of Texas, who opposes the idea of voter ID as a measure to prevent illegals from casting illegitimate ballets, is requiring photo identification for the august privilege of him either blowing smoke up your backside or him sticking it to you (depending upon your perspective) at his healthcare townhall forum.

by Frederick Meekins

The real victim of the run in between Harvard malcontent Henry Louis Gates and officer James Crowley may actually be the poor woman making the call to police. For her efforts at being a good citizen, she has been labeled a racist and received various threats. At least the policeman is permitted to carry a gun and pepper spray. At her press conference, she should have made it clear that this would be the last time she ever lifts a finger for anyone in her COMMUNITY.

North Korea has executed a mother of three for distributing Bibles. Perhaps Bill Clinton should have made a bigger fuss over this incident than the imprisoned journalists who did, it must be remembered, violated the borders of a sovereign nation. Multiculturalists often point out how much America has to learn from non-Western cultures. Perhaps we should start by emulating North Korean policies towards illegal aliens. Instead of lavishing border violators with welfare benefits and the like, we give them harsh prison sentences.

Critics of Obama's healthcare plan should know that they are being watched. The White House is asking Americans to report to them the names of anyone spreading "disinformation" regarding insurance reform proposals. One might point out that, to a liberal, disinformation is anything they disagree with. When this call for ratting out your neighbors is coupled with the dismissal of citizens speaking out at congressional open forums as contrived activism, it seems the President is not quite the fan of "community organizing" that he heralds himself to be.

As much as he rides the issue, it causes me to wonder if there is some kind of profound unhappiness in the Albert Mohler household.

Has been my experience that the ones that nag single people the most about getting married themselves come from the worst of marriages. It is like for some reason they have to hound you into their own state of misery.

Interesting how the argument is made in such a way to actually heap as much or more condemnation upon the docile and behaved not likely to leave the church than those that can't keep their pants on parenting the tidal wave of out of marriage births sweeping across the landscape.

How about a little more of minding one's own business, Dr. Mohler?

The Mohlerites and Dobsonians lift up as some kind of ideal the past where people married in their early 20's.

Perhaps they would also care to address how many unhappy marriages were formed where the partners would have been better off had they remained single but simply got married because the parties no longer wanted to be snickered at as a fagot or a lesbian even though they were neither of these perversities.

Though it no doubt pains some of the uberpuritanical who crave to control every last detail of those around them, the Bible is remarkably silent as to by what age one MUST be married.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors have authorized the expansion of the Saudi Islamic Academy.

Shysters on the school's payroll claim the matter was about land use and not curriculum or philosophy.

Critics of the school claim the institution advocates violence against Jews and Christians, so much so that one valedictorian has been convicted of part of a conspiracy to assassinate George W. Bush.

Though one may believe whatever one wants under the First Amendment, I wonder if the fanatic multiculturalists assenting to this vote would have easily glossed over what this school teaches if the school was run by White folks from the Ku Klux Klan.

Since both the Klan and this school are both alleged to teach violence against Jews, I don't really see all that much difference between then.

More importantly, since it is not a matter of "philosophy", I wonder if the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors will be as eager to grant requests made on the part of church groups, or does Christianity just happen to be the wrong religion?

by Frederick Meekins

If the Middle Ages are to stand in history books as the Age of Faith, it could be equally asserted that the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries will no doubt be remembered as the Era of Unbelief. Whereas unbelievers in the Middle Ages were careful in how they expressed their theological doubts for fear of befalling persecution, theists (be they Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox Jew) have today learned selectivity in how they go about expressing challenges to the prevailing lack of belief impacting fundamental cultural institutions such as government, academia, and the scientific establishment. And like the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages, the atheistic establishment of today seeks to foster a worldview influencing all aspects of society and binds all individuals whether they wish to be or not. Such an assertion will become more obvious in the following analysis which identifies significant atheistic thinkers, clarifies why some chose to adhere to this particular belief system, and critiques this worldview and contrasts it with Christian monotheism.

As an intellectual tradition, atheism has captured the minds of some of history’s most formidable thinkers. Creation science apologist Ken Ham of Answers In Genesis has astutely pointed out that social issues and public policies rest upon a foundation of thought and belief. Keeping with this analogy, atheism proceeds from a theoretical base up through a practical program designed to influence various spheres of culture such as politics and education with prominent luminaries within the movement solidifying this mental edifice along the way.

As stated elsewhere within these introductory comments, atheism did not suddenly appear on the doorstep of the twentieth and twenty-first century fully formed demanding things like the removal of school prayer and the enshrinement of evolution as biological dogma. Rather like a weed strangling the other plants around it, today's culture of unbelief sprang from the soil in which it was planted. While atheism can trace its pedigree back throughout much of human history, a number of modern thinkers have ensured this system a place of prominence within the cultural consciousness.

One pivotal intellect laying a foundation for atheism was Ludwig Feuerbach. In "The Essence Of Christianity", Feuerbach set out to undermine the claims of the supernatural by providing religious belief with a naturalistic basis postulating that the idea of God is merely a mental projection of the goodness and nobility residing within man's own bosom (McGrath, 95). Once mankind realizes that there is no transcendent deity to rely on, Feuerbach argued, his sense of alienation could be overcome by reembracing the notions of perfectibility once reserved for God as an integral component of human nature (Lawhead, 399).

Attempting to solidify these claims regarding man's position atop a materialistic universe through a veneer of science was Charles Darwin. According to "The Cambridge Dictionary Of Philosophy", Darwin was among the first to popularize theories of materialistic gradualism or evolution with a naturalistic mechanism, namely the process of natural selection where adaptations are accumulated in surviving organisms and passed on to succeeding generations (177-179). According to Darwin in "The Origin Of Species", it is through the accumulation of these adaptations in response to varying environmental conditions that biologists find the diverse plethora of organisms that inhabit the earth today. Alister McGrath points out in "Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths" that "The Origin Of Species" and its ensuing theory of evolution was not accepted as much for its scientific insight than for its justification of passionately believed ideological assumptions such as the free trade policies of the English Whig Party, various strands of socialism, and assorted theories regarding the perceived hierarchy of human races and ethnic groups (161).

Standing upon thinkers such as Feuerbach and Darwin who provided atheism with theoretical and allegedly scientific justifications were other formidable intellects pursuing the implications of a social order divorced from the influence of God. One such figure drawing upon the fonts of atheism for such a purpose was Karl Marx.

Marx served as a kind of intellectual middleman between the theoretically-inclined such as Feuerbach and Darwin and the later activists such as Lenin and Mao who would adapt Marx's own writings for the actual political arena. Borrowing from the materialism of Feuerbach, Marx believed that religion and the notion of God were devised by bourgeois elites in order to subjugate the proletarian masses. Borrowing from Darwin's theory of growth through conflict, Marx believed these religious notions would have to be swept away along side with most forms of private property in order to make a way for the pending socialist utopia. Marx's call for action and summary for analysis were sounded in "The Communist Manifesto"; his beliefs received further exposition through the massive "Das Kapital", much of which was compiled by Friedrich Engels after the death of his comrade.

Another prominent twentieth century thinker dedicated to the cause of atheism was Bertrand Russell. Though best remembered in academia as a foremost philosopher of mathematics, it could be argued that Russell's most widespread contribution remains as an influential proponent of applied atheism.

The core of Russell's objections to Christianity can be found in his "Why I Am Not A Christian", which seeks to justify his religious stance as well as highlight the ramifications of such beliefs as epitomized by Russell's sexual ethics sanctioning arrangements such as trial marriages and recreational promiscuity. Russell's views regarding family life were further elaborated upon in "Marriage & Morals", a publication whose radicalism contributed to costing Russell a professorship at the City College Of New York.

Russell's primary intellectual motivation was a burning contempt for God and His divine order for man. This conclusion can be drawn from Russell's social views, which were an eclectic mixture of totalitarian and anarchistic impulses.

On the one hand, Russell supported the establishment of a world government so intrusive it would decree who would be permitted to have children. Yet Russell participated in acts of outright civil disobedience in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, thinking that the modern state had grown too powerful and destructive for mankind's own good.

In most Christian investigations into atheism, it is common to highlight the affinity between contemporary sociopolitical leftism and religious atheism. However, the increasing popularity of intellectual iconoclast Ayn Rand proves that atheism can also serve as a temptation for those more prone to classify themselves as conservatives and libertarians as well.

Calling her philosophy Objectivism, Ayn Rand argued for the primacy of reason and the individual over all other human faculties and institutions, prompting some to characterize Star Trek's Mr. Spock as the embodiment of her worldview. However, in her quest to emancipate humanity from the dangers of totalitarianism, Rand went too far in elevating reason at the expense of faith and by characterizing the living God of the universe as just another dogma bent on enslaving the minds of men not all that unlike Marxist Communism.

Ayn Rand's thoughts find expression in a number of novels and polemical discourses. "Atlas Shrugged" is remembered as Ayn's signature work extolling the virtues of nonconformity and radical individualism in the guise of a novel about an architect bending to no standard but his own. In the novel "We The Living", Rand warns of the dangers posed by collectivism to the well-being of the individual. Rand's nonfiction works include "Philosophy: Who Needs It", "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal", and "The Virtue Of Selfishness".

Of Ayn Rand, it says in "Christianity For The Tough Minded", "her attempt to formulate a philosophy of creative selfishness will make no great impact (227)." Yet her impact cannot be denied be denied as her portrait adorns the walls of the Cato Institute and key national leaders such as former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board Alan Greenspan and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas count themselves among her admirers.

Looking at the matter from a certain perspective, the beauty and appeal of atheism can be found in its ability to adapt to the needs of those building systems of thought and seeking to justify individual behavioral practices. Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky realized that, if there is no God, anything is possible.

The diminished guilt available through atheism may serve as a greater incentive to those flocking under its banner than any of the answers the system might provide to the universal questions asked by thinking individuals. D. James Kenendy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that Bertrand Russell may have been an atheist as much to ease his conscience regarding his numerous affairs and seductions as out of a desire for alleged rational consistency (173). The idea of God posits the notion that the right to order the moral structure of reality resides in a power beyond the level of the finite individual's control.

And control is the one thing the individual atheist is loathe to relinquish. Though one can't fault her, Ayn Rand was fifty-eight years old before stepping aboard an airplane for fear of giving up control over her own destiny to the pilots and mechanics she claimed possessed a faulty "modern psycho-epistemology" (Branden, "The Passion Of Ayn Rand, 318).

Anarchist Segei Nechayev wrote in "Catechism Of A Revolutionist", "The revolutionist knows only one science, the science of destruction which does not stop at lying, robbery, betrayal and torture of friends, murder of his own family." How much easier it is to topple the tower of morality once its foundation of concrete theism has been removed.

A classic truism teaches that if wishes were horses beggars would ride, and another piece of cherished wisdom reveals wishing for something does not make it so. These same principles apply to the longing for a deity-free universe as expressed by the thinkers profiled throughout this exposition. For even though atheists have gone to considerable lengths to implement their systems, Communists going so far as to slaughter millions of innocent individuals, atheism fails to standup to closer scrutiny on a number of grounds.

by Frederick Meekins

At least my God never forgets His word. That is more than can be said of Pseudomessiah Barack Obama.

The President confessed to knowing nothing of the provision in the healthcare bill that would forbid insurance companies from enrolling new applicants once the legislation goes into effect. Thus, he is either a liar or a halfwit. Take your choice.

Walter Cronkite might have been the most trusted man in America, but that trust might have been misplaced. According to a number of retrospectives published since his passing, one could legitimately conjecture that his support for America was questionable at best.

For example, in 1999 Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award. In his acceptance speech, Cronkite called for the creation of a global planetary union usurping national sovereignty patterned after the United States government.

However, if we dig further back into the broadcaster’s past, we discover that Cronkite may have preferred a Soviet-style system. According to researchers such as Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily and Cliff Clincaid of accuracy in media, Cronkite often sided with Communists throughout the course of the 20th century’s most dangerous conflicts.

Meteoroids weren’t the only thing space station astronauts had to dodge. The toilet there backed up and overflowed.

Eugenicist theories are gaining legitimacy with the leftwing of the American government. Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced that part of the reasoning behind Roe v. Wade was to decrease “undesirable populations”. As a Jew suffering from cancer, perhaps someone should remind her that, in the eyes of many, she likely ranks high on that list.

Some might dismiss Ginsburg’s position as the bizarre personal idiosyncrasy of a mind that has seen more rational days. However, Obama Science Advisor John Holden in a 1977 book coauthored with environmentalist Paul Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience” urges government to consider assorted population control measures. And Obama himself has enunciated a position questioning the validity of extending the lives of those deemed unproductive by bureaucrats.

Sonoa Sotomayor apparently has no problems with hacking unborn babies to pieces. However, in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, this font of Latin wisdom couldn’t arrive at a position as to whether or not you have a right to defend yourself. Wonder if she’ll forgo any of the security protections extended to Supreme Court Justices.

Obama and his minions can’t wait to bust down your door and snoop through your stuff. Under his so-called “Cap & Trade”, government thugs will barge into your homes to conduct so-called energy audits demanding that certain repairs and upgrades be implemented.

This is not the only measure ripping asunder the sanctity of private property like toilet paper of which Cheryl Crowe insists we use only one sheet. One provision of the healthcare reform bill approved by the Senate Health Labor & Pension Committee authorizes government prickers to weasel their way through your door and to vaccinate your family against your wishes.

by Frederick Meekins

Barack Obama has taken on the role of chief booze peddler. Hoping to smooth over the controversy that has erupted over the arrest of Henry Louis Gates, the President has invited the professor and the arresting office to the White House for a beer. Given the professor's temper, is it really a good idea to get him all liquored up?

Henry Louis Gates is hardly the harmless professor the media is making him out to be. Frankly, Gates is to the Ivy League what Jeremiah Wright is to ecclesiastical circles. ,

At Harvard, Gates is the director of the W.E.B Du Bois Institute for African & African American Research, named after a known Communist. According to a WorldNetDaily profile of this academic subversive, Gates has lured other leftist rabble rousers to campus such as Cornel West and advocates Afrosupremacist positions such as Affirmative Action, reparations, and liberation theology. If one is known for the company one keeps, Americans should be very concerned about what they have let into the White House.

Michael Jackson wanted to be cloned by a UFO cult. According to Jackson's chauffer, the King of Pop became obsessed with creating a duplicate of himself after attending with Uri Geller a conference hosted by Clonaid. Clonaid is the research arm of the Raelians, a sect that believes human beings are the result of extraterrestrial genetic experimentation.

Life is apparently no circus for Ringling Brothers elephants. PETA operatives have obtained footage of handlers allegedly beating their pachyderms as a matter of course rather than when simply out of line.

Hopefully, some as intrepid videographer will capture footage of the mistreatment of animals known to go on at the hands of this animal welfare front group. It has been conjectured that PETA would rather see animals dead than in human hands.

Freedom of thought and descent have been dealt another blow during these days of the Obama regime. According to Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, search engines such as Google are quietly dropping or downplaying links to articles questioning the validity of Obama’s birth certificate.

Some will respond that, as private enterprises, search engines should be able to establish criteria as to what information they will present as legitimate. However, should such a perspective continue to expand, what makes these tactics any more moral than those employed in Communist China were access to certain viewpoints is blocked in the name of the good of the social order?

More importantly, how long will it be until not only access to websites questioning the government disappear but people as well? Certainly an awful lot of trouble to go to if our exalter Caliph has nothing to hide.

Many no doubt think that I have gone too far by insinuating that things may get to the point where those criticizing the government in general and Obama in particular might meet with, shall we say, expedited ends. However, the foundation is now being set to neutralize in an efficiently permanent manner one segment of the population no doubt seen as being an impediment to the kind of policies Obama represents.

Tucked away within the chapters of the Obama Healthcare Bill is a provision for “end of life counseling” referred to as “Advance Care Planning Consultation”. This clause requires the elderly to meet every five years with medical authorities to determine whether or not the individual’s life is worthy of continuation.

Supporters will insist that such an assessment is simply to clarify the patient’s preferences regarding these complicated matters. However, in light of statements made by Obama and a number of his closest advisors, one must ask will medical professionals simply implement the wishes of the patient or rather pressure the patient into complying with the prerogatives of social engineers.

For example, White House Healthcare Policy Advisor Ezekial Emanuel is said to believe that public resources would be better directed towards arts spending than extending the lives of the elderly. Likewise, Obama has suggested the elderly might be just as well off simply given pain medication rather than treatments that might actually improve their conditions.

At the heart of each position is a philosophy known as utilitarianism, which determines an individual’s worth based upon what they contribute or give back to the COMMUNITY. For example, illegal aliens are valuable and deserving of healthcare for their labor as near slaves. Sodomites are valuable to the state because of their deep pockets and for eroding traditional morality and religion.

Conversely, under such a system, it is in the state’s interest to quickly shuttle the elderly out of this life. This is for the following reasons.

For starters, since they are infirm, the elderly are unable to tangibly contribute to society’s perceived economic needs. However, more importantly, the radical statist feels an overwhelming need to eliminate the elderly since, for the most part, as a bloc they represent the greatest opposition to the totalitarian agenda.

Even though I am still a relatively young man, I remember several years back receiving a comment over something I had written where the commenter remarked that they were glad people like me were eventually dying out. Before it is all over with, don’t be surprised if the healthcare you end up receiving is proportionally linked to your support of an Obamaist agenda.

by Frederick Meekins

In one of the climactic scenes of the conclusion of "Battlestar Galactica", Gaius Baltar remarks that an unseen hand had been guiding events all along up until that point. Just as the characters were propelled by something from beyond themselves, the producers behind this show may have been driven by ideas originating from sources other than their own fertile imaginations.

Even in the original "Battlestar Galactica" from the 1970's, one of the underlying premises of the saga was that "Life here began out there with forefathers of the Egyptians, the Toltecs, and the Mayans. There are some who say there may yet be brothers of man who fight somewhere to survive among the heavens." In the series finale of the contemporary retelling of the sci-fi classic, viewers got to see a bit of how this vision might have played out.

Though most can watch these compelling dramas unaware of the underlying worldviews of the authors and not be impacted by them to any appreciable degree, there is indeed a philosophy being presented that if nothing else impacts the authors' approach to the material at hand.

In the original with the narration provided by Patrick Macnee who went on to play a devil-like figure in that versions mildly Mormonesque mythos, one assumes that, when mankind arrived here on earth, there was no other intelligent life.

However, in the recently concluded version, we realize that it is prehistoric Earth (not even the actual Earth in the reimagining and if you add a third you'll have to have a crossover show with the Thundercats) that the Galactica fleet has arrived at.

To the casual viewer, either version does not seem all that different. It may comes as a surprise, therefore, that each depiction presents a slightly different viewpoint as to how civilization originated here on Earth.

In the original "Battlestar Galactica" with Earth being the home of the lost 13th tribe of man, it could be said that human life here is the result of an anthropocentric panspermia, meaning we came from elsewhere and are not native to this planet. This has a number of implications, especially for those embracing the perspective of Deep Ecology.

Going beyond a traditional environmentalist standpoint, Deep Ecology holds that mankind is an invasive species infesting the planet. As such, ripping it out through any means necessary including mass death is perfectly acceptable. Prince Phillip, whose primary accomplishment has been marrying someone else who never had to work a day n her life, basically wishes he could be reincarnated as a killer virus to wipe your family out because his own was a total drain on world resources.

The view taken by the new Galactica is much more complex and seems to ape (or at least hominid) so many other science fiction narratives these days that if one was a conspiracy theorist one might easily conclude that some kind of interplanetary catechism was trying to be conveyed to the masses. Once the Galactica fleet arrives, one sees a crouching survey team consisting of the shows primary characters such as Admiral Adama and Dr. Baltar.

These two proceed to banter back and forth about the odds of human life originating at two distinct places in the universe with Baltar remarking how the humans of the twelve colonies were genetically compatible with those there on this planet that would come to be known as Earth. It was also noted how these humanoids had not yet developed language and how the new arrivals could bestow this rudiment of civilization upon their less-developed counterparts.

Thus, in this version of "Battlestar Galactica", the scenario presented is closer to that of the "Chariots Of The Gods" hypothesis. According to that theory, culture and technology were not developed over time by earth's native inhabitants but rather something bestowed upon us by an advanced civilization "from beyond the heavens".

Even more interesting, in the final scene of the series, the bottom of the screen flashes "150,000 years in the future". We then see the "angelic" versions of Six and Baltar reading a National Geographic article over the shoulder of producer Brian Moore about "Mitochondrial Eve", the earliest known ancestor from whom all human beings can trace our ancestry. Discussing the article between themselves, Baltar and Six reveal that the human race walking this earth today is actually a hybrid one the result of interbreeding between humans and genetically engineered Cylon synthoids.

A number in the viewing audience will conclude what an imaginative way to resolve the destructive Human/Cylon conflict with both sides getting what they want as prophesied with each of these civilizations being saved or continued through the hybrid child Hera. However, those more attuned to these messages will notice that this theme of human-”extraterrestrial” amalgamation has shown up in so many examples of speculative fiction the past few years that one would almost say it was cliché if it did not serve some higher propaganda purpose.

by Frederick Meekins

With the passing of Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy along with the dissolution of the Center for Reclaiming America and the Center for Christian Statesmanship, the issue has arisen once again as to whether or not conservative Evangelicals should participate in political activity. Since things have not gotten any better and if anything continued their downward spiral since the advent of the contemporary conservative Evangelical movement popularly referred to as the "Religious Right", it has been suggested by some that politically interested Christians should be herded back into their pews to once again await the Apocalypse.

Interestingly, one of the foremost voices now opposed to conservative Evangelical political involvement is none other than columnist Cal Thomas, who at one time served as a Falwell underling as vice president of Moral Majority and spoke at Dr. Kennedy's Reclaiming America for Christ conference. Thomas, in a column analyzing the passing of his former colleague titled "The Legacy of Jerry Falwell", concludes of the Religious Right, "The movement also had its downside, because it tended to detract from a Christian's primary responsibility of telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ."

While there is a degree of truth to that as during the early to mid 90's at times it seemed Falwell's ministry did place too much emphasis hawking videotapes exposing the criminality of Bill Clinton and replaying week after week snippets of homosexual excesses to the point where one had to send children out of the room or have to explain why mommy and daddy's faces were turning red, some of this is more the fault of how the Evangelical subculture is structured sociologically than the result of Christian political participation per say.

All throughout Sunday school and the Christian day school environment, those spending most of their lives in this branch of the Christian faith are conditioned with the assumption that those holding professional ministry positions such as pastors and missionaries are some how a cut above the remainder of the congregation even though the traditional Protestant position held to the priesthood of all believers and that all moral work was as equally holy. As such, it is no wonder most believers are paralyzed unless there is a so-called "man of the cloth" there on the scene to direct their every movement. Thus, it was only natural that clergy such as Falwell and Kennedy would have to play prominent roles in these movements.

Ironically, at earlier stages in his career, Thomas was one of the most eloquent voices urging Christian youth to consider callings in fields other than professional ministry such as government, politics, and the media. He even one time quipped he did not recall any Christian being called to serve Christ part time.

However, now that he's had his career, Thomas concludes that "...a Christian's primary responsibility is telling people the 'good news' that redemption comes only through Jesus Christ." If that's the case, is Thomas going to repose himself from commenting on sociopolitical matters in favor of more monastic or missional undertakings or is it part of a more natural inclination of not wanting to share notoriety. For in another column Thomas lamented the rise of consumer choice as exemplified by the growth of talk radio and the blogosphere and instead enunciated a preference that the masses all sup of the same information from the swill placed before them by traditional journalists as the nation's media gatekeepers.

When Thomas chastises Christians for participating in politics and the media since this detracts from time that should be spent directly sharing the Gospel, is he also going to level this charge against Christian physicians if they take the time to perform surgery rather than only praying for the patient's recovery? Likewise, what about the farmer that toils away all day in their fields as this is also time that could be spent in more religious pursuits.

I Corinthians 12:28 says to some God gave to be preachers, some evangelists, others government. Not everyone is cut out for the same purpose in life. As such, their level of interest and the way they contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of God will varying by kind and degree.

Thomas writes, "But Christians must first understand that the issues they most care about --- abortion, same-sex marriage, and cultural rot --- are not caused by bad politics, but are matters of the heart and soul." While Thomas is correct that these problems won't ultimately be solved until people have a total renewing of the mind found through Christ's shed blood, it does not follow nothing else should be done to ameliorate the social impacts of these manifestations of man’s sin nature.

All it takes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing. In certain communities across the United States, whether or not I steal your car at a stoplight, plug your head with a bullet, and rape your mother as you lay their bleeding to death there on the pavement are as debated as the propriety of abortion and sodomite nuptials are in others. Does that mean in such jurisdictions those of good conscience should not insist that laws against these infractions should not be enforced since, well, the unrepentant apparently have few qualms or taboos against such alternative lifestyle choices?

The tendency of the human species is to take things to extremes. Luther remarked that man is like a drunkard banging his head into one wall and then the next. Granted, many believers have come to expect too much from politics as David Frum has remarked that the debate is no longer about reducing the size of government but rather about divvying up the fiscal spoils.

Many Christians probably did become dupes of the Republican Party at one point. Frankly, though, where else were they going to go?

At least the GOP would consider individualism construed through the prism of a Christian worldview. The Democratic Party has pretty much given itself over to debauchery and collectivism. If one tries really really hard one can count the number of worthwhile Democrats such as Zel Miller on one hand.

Though some Christians are loathe to admit it as they have been conditioned by overly pacifistic interpretation of passages such as turn the other cheek, sometimes Christian involvement is not about bringing the reprobates to a saving knowledge of Christ as fundamental and essential as that mission is. Rather it is about keeping these ravenous jackals away from you and what is rightfully yours.

Some might respond “But didn’t Jesus say to give them your cloak?” My friends, these blatant communalists want more than the shirt off your back. For they will stop at nothing until they not only have the souls of you and your children, but also the very house that you live in and the automobile that you drive if we adhere to the recommendations of the radical pietists if we as believers refrain from political matters such as property rights and environmental policy.

And if some preacher gets up there and blabbers on about how these are just material things we should give up willy nilly, see if he ever forgets to pass the collection plate or how antsy he gets when the IRS considers tweeking something in its code not even remotely related to the survival of religious liberty in this country such as exemptions on pastoral housing allowances. If the rest of us get hosed by revenuers, why not the clergy as well? Maybe then they won’t be so quick to bend their knee before the state’s Baphomet.

While some such as Cal Thomas seem to counsel disinvolvement from sociopolitical activism out of a sincere desire to retain doctrinal purity and separation, others embodying what in Fundamentalist circles is known as Neo-Evangelicalism do so for other reasons. Seeking to get along with other theologies for the sake of getting along, this perspective is endeavoring to take hypertolerance and unity to a whole new level even if it means downplaying or overlooking some of Scripture's most obvious mandates.

Ironically, though the word “mandate” means something else, one of the issues the Christian in the pews is being urged to keep quiet about is none other than “man dates”. For in the March/April 2007 issue of The Plain Truth Magazine, in the article “I Kissed Religion Goodbye”, Greg Albrecht lists as one of his complaints is that many churches expect members to “Vote and politically agitate in absolute, lockstep with pro-life and anti-homosexual views exactly the way your church promotes and endorses them”.

Unlike the war against terror over which sincere Christians can have differing interpretations as to how to best approach the issue, there is not much wiggle room there as to abortion and homosexuality. There is not really anyway around “Thou shalt not murder” and injunctions against carnal relations with members of the same sex unless Albrecht wants to come out and say that the unborn really aren’t human beings and that God did not create marriage to be between a man and a woman.

To many, these issues probably do seem to attract an inordinate amount of attention from conservative Evangelicals. But whose fault is that?

Would most believers even give buggery all that much thought if the gay rights movement was simply about what one did in the privacy of one's home. Seems to me, activist gays are the ones trying to get up in everyone's business as they attempt to penetrate the media, education, and now even ecclesiastical institutions.

Though opposition to such perversities should not become the sole focus of any balanced ministry as Christ died for these individuals also and one wants to avoid becoming unhinged like the Fred Phelps cult, if the churches of America are not going to stand up for the traditional family and marriage as being between a man and woman as the only legitimate form of marriage out of fear of whom they might offend, then they might as well empty the baptismal font and close up shop. For if they do deny the true nature of these fundamental human relationships, it won't be long until the true nature of the

God that instituted them will be denied as well.

In the opening of his article, Albrecht laments the "mudslinging and negative rhetoric that ridiculed 'Democrats' and lavished unadulterated praise on all things Republican." Of this, the discerning Christian must ask was this an outright political endorsement of a particular candidate or party (as today I have a hard time imaging there are that many pastors with that much of a spine left willing to jeopardize their tax exempt status as a friend relayed to me how he was pressured to drop the word "liberal" from an article written for the newsletter of what is suppose to be an Independent Baptist Church).

If believers and churches can no longer mention in a nonpartisan context where the Christian faith lines up with the conservative Republican agenda nor condemn those things traditionally thought of as being more liberal Democrat in nature, how much longer until we are counseled by those whose fortunes and notoriety are derived from holding lucrative positions of ecclesiastical leadership to downplay more fundamental aspects of the Christian faith. Already, operatives of Rev. Moon have convinced a number of churches to remove crosses. Those caving so easily will no doubt next downplay the need to be saved from our sins and eventually the need for Jesus as Lord and Savior all together.

However, don't think Albrecht is calling for the complete expunging of politics from the socio-ecclesiastical enterprise all together. For the influence he would see taken out of the hands of conservatives, he gladly places in the hands of more liberal causes.

In a bullet point list of what he perceives as the errors of more conservative or traditional congregations, Albrecht writes in a flippant attempt at humor, "Don't worry about the environment, the poor, or global warming --- those liberal, do-gooder churches have programs for those kinds of things."

What Albrecht is criticizing here are believers who do not necessarily think spending more money and who do not think more government intervention into our lives is going to solve certain problems, that things are as bad as elites would have us believe, or think that people do not necessarily bear some responsibility for their own problems.

As to the poor, it has been my experience that often the most conservative or Fundamentalist of churches of the "old school" variety probably spend larger percentages of their overall incomes on missions and outreach to the individual poor in their immediate vicinity than more leftist evangelical and mainline churches that probably spend a greater percentage on making sure everyone else sees what they are supposedly doing for the poor.

As to the environment and global warming, frankly the jury is still out on this issue as to the following reasons. (1) Does global warming actually exist? (2) If it does, what is its exact cause? So by edicts handed down from on high without these questions being answered, does this mean the average person should forfeit much of their physical mobility just because of some whim of someone further up the bureaucratic hierarchy?

Of course, such restrictions do not apply to the self-appointed such as Greg Albrecht since such figures are so much more important than the rest of us as we Neanderthals would be lost without such guidance.

As to both the environment and poverty, it is questionable that mass scale approaches are the best approach for solving these issues. Often the aide sent to Africans ends up hindering their plight.

Likewise, the best way to save the environment is not by necessarily cordoning it off necessarily into untouchable preserves and by regulating the life out of property to the point where one cannot do anything with it as most sane people tend to care for something best when they are the ones that own it and have the largest say in how it is used.

While no Christian in his right mind advocates dirty water, to a growing number of Evangelicals this concern for the environment goes beyond keeping trash off the shoulder of the highway. Though I cannot speak to Greg Albrecht's views on the afterlife, from one of the snippy remarks made in his sarcastic bullet points one could come away with the impression that he is trodding dangerously close to embracing some of the assumptions of the Emergent Church crowd that the Kingdom of God is not so much a promise of a new heaven and a new earth but the continuation of this one in its current state. Frankly, if this world is all we've got, Christianity is a big waste of time and those snookered into it deserve a refund.

The hyperpious might begin to hyperventilate at such a bold proclamation; however, it is essentially a Biblical sentiment. I Corinthians 15:19 says, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

One can deduce that Albrecht and those of like mind in the Emergent, Purpose Driven, and Church Growth movements don't place all that much importance upon the afterlife. For while certain eras of Church History such as the Middle Ages often placed too much emphasis on what comes next, these contemporary theologies don't emphasize it nearly enough.

In his tongue-in-cheek bullet points, Albrecht writes, "You need to believe in the hottest hell with billions being tortured. And you need to believe in the Rapture, the time when members of your church (at least those who are in good standing) escape hell on earth. Some call this time 'The Tribulation' --- a time when so many who richly deserve it will 'get their's'."

Sincere souls can disagree about the sequence of some of these foretold events. However, what they cannot do is deny that one day there will be some kind of ultimate accounting.

Though it has changed considerably, as a leader in the Worldwide Church Of God, frankly, Albrecht ought to be the last one to criticize an interest in eschatology as his sect or denomination was at one time infamous for their obsession with the topic. But like a former glutton that has lost all kinds of weight now telling everyone else that they eat too much, Albrect condemns as a fanatic anyone daring to suggest that there is an eerily increasing similarity between certain portions of Scripture such as Daniel, Thessalonians, and Revelation and certain political and technological developments.

Often those that run in Emergent Church circles foment the assumption that the image of a God of justice and wrath is somehow at odds with the image of God as a God of love. It is because He is a God of love and mercy that He must also be a God of justice and wrath.

he prospect of no eternal punishment for those outside the parameters by which God allows men to be saved (namely believing that one's own good is insufficient to accomplish this and only belief in the Lord Jesus Christ is going to get one to the Pearly Gates) in fact actually tarnishes those gates and makes the streets of Heaven all the more dim. For if God ends up letting anyone in irrespective of whether or not they are sorry for what they did even though God was willing to go to the extent of sacrificing His only begotten Son in order to make a spot for them with Him in eternity, that would make for a very weak God.

Though we as human beings have an innate tendency to avoid pain at all costs even if it means denying its existence, that does not eliminate it if we are unwilling to take the necessary steps. For example, if someone diagnosed with a horrible disease simply decides to say the disease of an uneducated and overactive imagination, that is not going to prevent it from ravaging the patient's body.

Then why do Modernist, Postmodernist, and Emergent theologians waltzing along the ledges of apostasy keep thinking that wishing away Hell's flames is going to make them any cooler? It has been estimated that Jesus spoke more about Hell than He did heaven; therefore, if we are to say that on this matter He is just plain wrong, then why are we to turn around and assume He's anymore correct about Heaven, His coming kingdom, or even the forgiveness of sins?

As to whether or not some Christians are vindictive about Hell has no bearing as to its existence. To say that it does is akin to saying the police department should be abolished entirely and criminals allowed to pillage through the streets simply because a few officers have abused the powers that have been vested in them.

It is only because the most orthodox of Christians believe that Hell as an actual place of torment exists that it seems to play such a prominent role in conservative theologies of varying stripes. While as fallen human beings it is easy from time to time for our anger to get the best of us and to wish someone to that dreaded realm that has ticked us off, those on the right side of the theological continuum do not emphasize the reality of Hell out of some perverse desire to see the unrepentant tossed into the Abyss but rather so that the greatest number might be able to avoid this destination of unimaginable torment.

Thus in recap, among Evangelicals such as Albrecht wanting to look cool in the eyes of the world, Heaven is downplayed in favor of a utopian kingdom. Relatedly, Hell is downplayed for fear of casting bad PR on a loving God and because it makes the unbelieving uncomfortable. Kind of makes you wonder the point of giving one's life to Christ if some saintly grandmother that loved the Lord her entire life is going to endure the same fate as Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin since it is highly doubtful these genocidal reprobates pleaded for mercy on the Blood of Christ before leaving this world.

Over the past few decades, at times Evangelicals have taken political activism to extents that can understandably cause concern among the discerning. However, to disengage to the extent some now suggest would also prove equally disastrous.

By Frederick Meekins

One might say the future is here --- and we might want to send it back for a refund. Having waited years and wondering at times whether mankind would even survive to see the day, the world now finds itself on the other side of a new millennium. In some ways, it is everything optimistic futurists dreamed of in terms of faster modes of transportation, improved forms of medicine and almost instantaneous global communication. However, one would hardly consider it the quaint but technologically sophisticated world of George Jetson whose most formidable challenges consisted of navigating Mr. Spacely's fickle temper and making sure Rosie the robot maid stayed adequately oiled. Instead, inhabitants of the early twenty-first century worry if their children will even return home alive from school in the evening or how much longer they have until turbaned fanatics turn the accumulated glories of Western civilization into a smoldering atomic wasteland.

Somewhere along the highway leading from intentions to actuality society seems to have taken a wrong turn and gotten lost along the way. When finding oneself in unintended surroundings while road-tripping across the country, one pulls over to the shoulder of the road to look at a map to determine where one's navigation went astray. Likewise, when a culture begins to display signs of being out of kilter, the time has come to examine the sociological roadmap in terms of the philosophies, beliefs, and ideas individuals use to live their lives and those in authority employ to oversee events.

The observer of intellectual trends might note the contradictory nature of today's philosophical scene. For while proponents of the status quo purport to be characterized by a considerable latitude of conscience, such professed flexibility ultimately turns back on itself and bears down harshly upon any dissident daring to question the system's most cherished assumptions. The prevailing outlook can be characterized as a pragmatic Postmodernism.

Postmodernism can be looked at as a worldview holding that truth as an objective overarching reality does not exist and is instead a subjective linguistic or conceptual construct adopted by an individual or group for the purposes of coping with existence. As such, no single explanatory narrative is superior to any other. In light of such characteristics, Postmodernism is pragmatic in the sense that ethical propositions are judged by how well they work rather than how they stand up to standards of right and wrong. Postmodernism is relativistic in that each propositional expositor is self-contained since it is inappropriate for an individual to judge someone else or another group by the standards to which he himself subscribes. James Sire notes in The Universe Next Door that to the Postmodernist the use of any one narrative as a metanarrative to which all other narratives must submit as to their authenticity is oppressive (181).

As is deducible from its very name, Postmodernism is more a response than a set of original insights. Sire argues, "For in the final analysis, Postmodernism is not 'post' anything; it is the last move of the modern, the result of the modern taking its own commitments too seriously and seeing that they fail to stand the test of analysis (174)." In other words, Postmodernists are basically Modernists having grown tired of maintaining the illusion that things such as values still matter even when the issue of God does not. Therefore, one can gain significant understanding into the Postmodernist mindset by examining the outlook's Modernist roots and where these systems ultimately diverge from one another.

As a derivative of it, Postmodernmism shares a number of assumptions with its cousin Modernism. Thomas Oden observes in Two Worlds: Notes On The Death Of Modernity In America & Russia that both outlooks embrace autonomous individualism, reductive naturalism, and absolute moral relativism (33-35). Both systems are naturalistic in the sense that in them all reality is reduced to and originates from physical components; nothing exists separate or independently of matter. As such, man is an autonomous being since, without God, man can rely only upon himself and his institutions to provide purpose, guidance, and meaning for his life. Since this is the case, all ethical and social thought is predicated on finite human understanding and therefore subject to revision in light of changing circumstances or the accumulation of additional data.

Even though the Modernists sought to set out on their own without holding God's hand, many of them endeavored to maintain a system of behavioral standards and social norms reflective of the Judeo-Christian ones embedded in the cultural consciousness but now resting on an alternative foundation. Rather than seeing the niceties governing civilized conduct as arising from the character of God and discoverable through the study or application of His Holy Word, these courtesies were seen as coming about through the unfolding of trial and error, a process most akin to biological evolution. While most Evangelicals are aware of the links between Darwinism and Nazism and Communism (both vile forms of totalitarianism), most are not as cognizant of the links between this theory of origins and what many would consider stereotypical British traditionalism. Alister McGrath writes in Intellectuals Don't Need God & Other Modern Myths, "Darwinism achieved popular success in England...because Darwin's ideas happened to coincide with advanced Whig social thinking relative to matters of competition, free trade, and the natural superiority of the English middle class...Darwin's science provided a foundation for Victorian liberalism (161)."

It did not take long for the hopes, dreams, and promises of Modernism to break down and disappoint many of its enthusiastic adherents. Psalm 127:1 says, "Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain (KJV)." Instead of utopian brotherhood as promised by Marx, millions found themselves enslaved behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. Instead of the sexual liberation promised by the likes of Freud, for tossing aside restraint and embracing the wilds of passion, just as many found their bodies rotting under the curse of diseases unheard of just a few decades ago. Still others discovered that a life of constant entertainment was not quite as entertaining as originally intended. As John Warwick Montgomery so eloquently summarized through his courses in Apologetics at one time offered through Trinity Theological Seminary, in the nineteenth century God was killed and in the twentieth century man was killed.

Thus, with the realization that finite man was incapable of establishing any enduring standard, the Postmodernist decided that the best that could be hoped for was a kind of compulsory hypertolerance all must ascent to and embrace in order to be recognized as full members of the community. Not unlike the Roman Empire where citizens and subjects were pretty much free to practice whatever religion they wished so long as there was room enough within their beliefs for the emperor as an object of worship, those existing under hypertolerance's prevailing rule find themselves free to believe whatever they would like provided they are publicly willing to admit that what the next fellow believes is just as valid, no matter how strange or unorthodox it might seem to be.

Such an approach of live-and-let-live might work between neighbors who agree to keep their differences on their own respective sides of the fence for the sake of community tranquility. However, there are instances in life where matters cannot be glossed over simply by closing the door behind you and retiring to your living room, especially when how controversial issues are approached will end up impacting the way in which people live.

After all, the idea of absolutist tolerance exists for purposes beyond mediating athletic rivalries among coworkers and arbitrating those heated debates as to whether chocolate or vanilla is the better flavor of ice cream. The concept, to the Postmodernist, becomes the central organizing social and cultural principle. Harold O.J. Brown notes in The Sensate Culture, "...postmodern man is beginning to create for himself a world filled with...all manner of beliefs that would have been dismissed as absurd superstitions only a few years ago (55)."

Since Postmodernism seeks to rest asunder traditional dogmas and orthodoxies, it inevitably ends up emphasizing outlooks and perspectives not regularly brought before the public's attention. Sometimes this can be beneficial in the sense that information once overlooked is brought to light that provides a more fully-orbed picture as to what really happened such as when historians expand the scope of their research outward from diplomatic or military concerns to embrace the social realm as well. However, the approach has often sparked more trouble than what it is worth in terms of the conflict that has arisen and the rights that have been trampled upon as activists jockey for position in this moral and intellectual free-for-all.

It is this propensity for Postmodernism to deny the existence of established objective truth that makes the system so dangerous. However, it can also be this aspect that works out to be the Christian's unwitting ally in the apologetic struggle.

To the Postmodernist, what we construe as knowledge is in reality mere interpretation; the fact is, facts do not exist. Chuck Colson writes in A Dance With Deception: Revealing The Truth Behind The Headlines, "The carelessness about factual accuracy didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a shift in educational theory...Educators began to downplay facts and focused instead on changing students' values to solve social problems (47)."

The result of this has been the ascension of increasingly bizarre academic theories and assertions more about promoting trendy causes than expanding the horizons of human understanding. For example, one Feminist professor contends that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is actually about pent-up sexual energy that "finally explodes in the...murderous rage of the rapist"; others of similar mind oppose the scientific method as an approach to acquiring knowledge, claiming the method is based on the subjugation and control of sexual domination (Colson, 55).

Some of this might be cute for a good laugh if it confined itself among a few lunatic professors who were trotted out before the students for an occasional lecture or to write articles for publication in journals barely read by anyone. Like most thinkers, Postmodernist scholars hope to exert influence over minds other than their own. Postmodernists, however, want to do more than alter the focus of classroom textbooks. Dr. James Kennedy warns in Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul, "In fact at the bottom of the 'change' movement is a deep desire to dismantle this nation and to sever average Americans from their heritage of faith and freedom (74)."

It is said nature abhors a vacuum. Something will eventually step in to take the place of something else that has been removed.

In the film "The Neverending Story", the amorphous adversary known as "the Nothing" operates on the assumption that those without hope are easy to control. Postmodernists might claim to be creating a community of tolerance and inclusion free of artificial hierarchies, but end up imposing a regimen more doctrinaire than anything even the most tightly-wound Fundamentalist would devise.

This is because of what Francis Schaeffer termed "sociological law", defined in A Christian Manifesto as "...law that has no fixed base but law in which a group of people decides what is sociologically good for society at the given moment and what they arbitrarily decide becomes law (41)." This principle results in a mass of seemingly contradictory policies that are unified only in their opposition to the divine order of innate human dignity. The individual is reduced to the level of a mere cog to be tinkered with to improve the engine of the overarching societal machine.

For example, in the name of elevating minorities, certain programs such as campus speech codes and preferential employment practices turn around and infringe upon the traditional rights of those just as innocent as those these convoluted regulations claim to protect. Conversely, those justifying this social manipulation by such utilitarian standards could just as easily alter their position and justify the wholesale slaughter or detention of entire ethnic groups as in the case of Nazi Germany.

According to the Washington Times, Professor Noel Ignatiev of Harvard argues for the abolition of the White race. So long as Western institutions continue to embrace such blatantly pragmatic standards, one can no more count on the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the precepts of liberty in the end than the Chinese Community Party since, no matter how much we try to dance around the issue, both ultimately draw upon the principle of the state as the final authority. They only interpret it differently at this given time.

by Frederick Meekins

The story by Karin Zeitvogel of a Washington, DC Episcopal Church paying for the wedding of two homeless people raises a number of questions.

First, I don't care how much they love each other, if these two cannot afford to care for themselves, should they really be getting married?

As my grandmother's sister use to say, "Love can fall in a bucket of sh--."

By this she meant that while important, love was not the sole determining factor upon which one should make critical life decisions especially when one is existing at a minimal subsistence level.

For even though no one wants to say it for fear of being branded a hatemonger and the like, since these two are of prime breeding age, who is going to pick up the tab when babies come along as that use to be what married people did even though nowadays it seems the stork can arrive at any time either before or after the wedding date without an eye being raised by the hypertolerant.

Neither of these people are employed. Why should the rest of us pick up their bills when they bring unnecessary expenses into their lives when they are already in a state of being unable or unwilling to provide for themselves?

Furthermore, as Rush Limbaugh use to say, liberalism is easy; it is conservatism that's hard.

Analyzing this story, one has to wonder if the wedding is not so much for the couple as it is to make the congregation providing it feel good.

For at the end of the day, while it might be more glamorous to throw a wedding, is it really what these two people need in their lives to make it better or to face its challenges?

by Frederick Meekins

Some traditions should be so hallowed that they should not be sullied by political controversies or used as a vehicle to manipulate the participants into embracing perspectives and policies they might not otherwise be exposed to or willing to accept. As a celebration of profound cultural significance at one of America's most solemn and historic venues, the annual Easter Egg Roll at the White House ought to be just such an occasion.

Unfortunately, not even this event gets to remain one where kids and families can have a day of fun without being bombarded by a litany of questionable values. Ironically, the ones that ought to be the most vigilant about protecting the event's integrity are among those most eager to see it bastardized.

To the average American mired in outdated notions such as individuality and privacy, one would think tickets to this event would go to the first to apply for them irrespective of attributes such as race, creed, or sexual preference. However, to the Obama administration, who you like to roll around in the bedroom with should be one of the factors considered to determine whether or not your child is worthy of rolling eggs on the White House lawn.

According to an Associated Press story posted at Boston.com titled "White House Invites Gay Families To Easter Event", the Obama Administration set aside and funneled a percentage of the tickets to Sodomite front groups such as the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. The executive director of the Family Equality Counsel said in the article, "The Obama administration actually reached out to us as an organization and said we want gay families there, and they are an important part of the American family fabric."

It is not so much that gay people want to attend the Egg Roll and have been barred in the past as gays have participated in years past. Rather, it is now they not only want to tell everybody about it but also for authorities to fawn all over them.

Are those mired in this brand of sin so guilt-ridden that they cannot simply attend this event quietly in support of the children without having to blab about their personal kinks? If a family of polygamist breakaway Mormons showed up at the Egg Roll, should White House staff ooh and ahh over them as "an important part of the American family fabric" as not all participating in this deviancy are child molesters like in the Warren Jeffs cult.

Though the attention of those interested in these kinds of cultural battles will be focused primarily on this skirmish as to what constitutes a family, this was not the only ideological struggle taking place at the White House Egg Roll. Though less likely to garnish headlines, the information families were exposed to at the event no doubt nudged many in the direction of increasing how much government control and influence they would allow over their lives.

The theme of the 2009 Egg Roll was "Let's go play". In pursuit of this policy, children were encouraged to live healthy and active lifestyles complete with cooking demonstrations (I wonder if any of the St. Louis pizza chefs flown into the White House to appease our New Lord were on hand). No doubt, much of these efforts are to get the youth fit for Fuehrer Obama's proposed mandatory service programs and work camps.

At least in regards to homosexuals infiltrating the White House Egg Roll, the Associated Press Article observed, "Some conservatives accused gays and lesbians of trying to crash the event and turn it into a forum for ideological politiciking."

Some might conclude unseemly forms of propaganda were not allowed to sully the innocence of the Egg Roll before the reign of Barack The First was unleashed upon the American taxpayer. Frankly, I heard about it last year as well under the regime of George W. Bush but didn't get around to writing about it in a timely manner as (at least until Obama pulls the plug on the Internet which is being considered in a variety of ways in the name of special emergency executive orders, the fairness doctrine, and now even online civility) a blogger's work is never done.

The theme of the 2008 Egg Roll was ocean conservation. Frankly, other than an hard boiled egg tasting good with a pinch of salt sprinkled on it, what does the ocean have to do with an Egg Roll?

This propaganda went beyond having a nifty touchtank on hand with a horseshoe crab crawling around inside. The White House declared, "Through education and volunteerism, all families can make a difference in keeping our oceans clean."

Seems, when being brainwashed, it's noy simply enough to dutifully assimilate the material our keepers expect us to. We must also pledge ourselves to manually labor without remuneration.

More importantly, we are also reminded by this story that the manipulation of the American people into indentured servitude was not something sprung upon us totally with the election of Barack Obama. Rather the erosion of liberty has been slowly put into place over a succession of presidential administrations and getting to the point where many no longer notice the noose tightening around our necks or actually have grown to accept it as a comforting embrace.

There is no reason whatsoever why an egg roll must have a theme other than being an egg roll. If the American people allow the state to draw the focus away from the higher truths these celebrations were established to commemorate in favor of extraneous policies and propaganda, eventually the state will take the place of the One such festivities were originally intended to honor.

By Frederick Meekins