About Me

Name: Frederick Meekins
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Edwards Panders For Hypocrite Ballot

Since we are all individuals marred by the stain of sin, at one time or another all of us eventually fail to practice what we preach.  Normally, this isn’t too big of a problem as most of us don’t have that much influence beyond that of our own friends and families.  However, when this tendency endemic to the species manifests itself among the ostentatiously affluent craving power, it can become a social danger as these elites attempt to assuage their consciences by extracting penance from the masses that the well-to-do are not willing to subject themselves to.

In an interview posted at Beliefnet.com titled “John Edwards: My Faith Came Roaring Back” by David Kuo, the former vice presidential nominee turned presidential-hopeful discusses the role his faith has played in his public life.  When asked what aspects of American life he thought Jesus would be disappointed with, Edwards did not respond about the 4 million unborn children butchered each year through abortion (an issue predictably ignored by a Democrat despite thou shalt not kill [especially innocent noncombatants] being a major theme of the Good Book) but rather with  “our selfishness”, our “resorting to war when it’s not necessary” and our “ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish-short term needs”.

Strategic propriety of operations in Iraq aside as one cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear and I suppose there can’t be much done to civilize a bunch of savages that would rather go about killing each other than aspire to a decent standard of living as that is another issue.  No doubt so high from the makeup and hair spray seeping into his skin that he’s succumbed to brain damage, perhaps Senator Edwards should be reminded that it was the radical Islamists that instigated the war on terror with the 9/11 attack.  And  while one may debate the best way to neutralize the terrorist threat in a constitutionally appropriate manner, even more disturbing is the remainder of Edwards’ response to this interrogatory.

Concern over what might be perceived as selfishness and “ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering” might sound forward thinking to some.  However, what Edwards really means, ladies and gentlemen, is that you who are considered members of the middle class are not paying enough in taxes and need a greater percentage of it confiscated for redistribution to those unwilling to lift a finger to provide for themselves despite being of strong body.

Of course, Edwards does not apply his condemnation to himself.  When asked about the hypocrisy of making a big to-do over what he perceives as selfishness and recently acquiring a 28,000 square foot house complete with a separate recreation building for activities the rest of us enjoy on a smaller scale in our basements (no doubt one of the numerous domiciles owned by the Senator unless he commutes daily between North Carolina and the Washington DC area), Edwards  basically responds that he, on the other hand, deserves to live in such luxury because (in a manner similar to the way Al Gore justifies his own lavish levels of consumption while expecting you to adopt a lifestyle on a level of squalor that would make an African bushman living on the savannah feel deprived) of all the work he has done for the impoverished around the world.

Like most thoroughgoing Democrats, it seems Senator Edwards suffers from a touch of liberal White guilt (referred to in previous eras as the White man’s burden) but apparently not so much that he’s not going to hand over that spacey pad of his so that the downtrodden might have a roof over their heads, divert the vast majority of his fortune to feed the hungry without turning it into a self-congratulatory media event that would make Little Jack Horner’s ego look miniscule in comparison, or forfeit his occupational station to someone of a minority group.  That ladies and gentlemen, especially the Caucasian gentlemen among you who are the Senator’s social lessers, is an obligation to be passed on to and imposed upon you.

While willing to use religion in general and Christianity in particular to beat more money out of you into the tax coffers, Senator Edwards exhibits the typical leftwing squeamishness about acknowledging that most of what makes America worth living in derives in one way or the other from ideas originating in divine revelation or somehow deducible from it.  When asked if he thought America was a Christian nation, while relenting there was a powerful religious thread running through American history, he was bothered (meaning ashamed) of the word “Christian” and would rather think of America as a “nation of faith”.

But faith in what, pray tell?  But I guess in the creedless, non-doctrinaire nation of Senator Edwards prayer would be too strong a word with non-specific mental emanations towards unspecified entities would be a more acceptable way of putting it.

Like guns in America before it was emasculated and sissified by trial lawyers such as the Senator, there use to be a time when those that claimed to believe in Christ had no problem saying they were a Christian.  Yet nowadays, every kind of deviancy either gets a handout from the government or a parade through our city streets while the devout are made to feel as if they are afflicted with one of the last recognized mental perversions.

Senator Edwards might talk a faith worthy of a Hallmark Card, but when it comes down to it, he offers us no more of a sure foundation than the secular humanism that has plagued the Western world for much of the past century or more.  When asked his opinion of the Ten Commandments being displayed in local courthouses, Edwards responds, “How would Muslims feel if they went into that courthouse, and how would people of other faiths feel, Hindus, if they were in the same circumstances?”

Senator Edwards might be a whiz when it comes to peddling snake oil, but a discerning intellect he apparently is not.  Technically, there isn’t all that much in the Ten Commandments a Muslim ought to object to as they see themselves as the corrected completion of both Jewish and Christian revelation, referring to these fellow monotheistic traditions as “People of the Book”.  And even if they did not like it, why should we really care?

Shouldn’t those from exotic lands researched our traditions and history before coming half-way around the world to settle here only to discover they can’t stand this place?  After all, we Christians were here first and the ones that opened up the shop.

Those like the Senator placing sensitivity over survival wail at the impropriety of Christians migrating to heathen lands and expecting the natives to abolish their own customs.  Interesting how cultural relativism --- the erroneous idea that it is uncouth to criticize other ways of life in their respective zones of habitation --- protects every other nation on earth except the United States of America.

It should also be pointed out to the Senator from North Carolina that it is in nations such as the United States that acknowledge and retain a Judeo-Christian heritage primarily Protestant in its orientation in that ecclesiastical power is not concentrated in a single denominational authority that those holding to alternative religious viewpoints enjoy the most liberty.  For example, where in the Muslim world are Christians permitted to worship freely without fear of harassment.  And even in Europe where the Biblical basis of culture has been abandoned and forgotten, the native populations have to walk around on eggshells for fear of on the one hand offending Third World interlopers who will resort to violence at the drop of a hat to get their way and hypersensitive socialistic bureaucrats ready to impose hate speech penalties upon those daring to question the humanistic hegemony.

If we are to remove the Ten Commandments as the recognized foundation of Western and American law for fear it may offend outsiders, on what grounds should we even care if such people are offended?  For it is only on a solid theistic foundation that we are able to criticize anything the government or social institutions do.

Don’t care for those mass killings that went on under Hitler or Stalin (feel free to take your pick as for some reason radical statistits tend to view one as the devil and the other a hero depending upon the political orientation in question even though each was pretty much a mirror image oft he other)?  That’s too bad.  For if one is going to say that law is nothing more that a statutory mechanism agreed upon by the members of a particular COMMUNITY, who are you to criticize either tyrant since you, free thinker, are not a member of their respective regime or nation.

Interestingly, often those wringing their hands the most over how all of us live too high on the hog are the ones --- to use the language we commoners constantly have our noses rubbed in --- giving the least back to the COMMUNITY in terms of useful work.   Maybe if John Edwards had done something in his life other than becoming an ambulance chaser amassing from that a fortune surpassing even George Bush and Dick Cheney, the Senator would not feel so guilty that he feels the necessity to drive the rest of us into the impressment of mandatory voluntarism or whatever other schemes are boiling behind that mascaraed face of his.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have pretty much blown it in regards to religion in general and Christianity in particular.  Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying that the government that governs best governs least because the people govern themselves.  Instead of standing back and allowing faith founded on the Word of God to set the human spirit free, such profound ideals in the hands of both parties have become little more than just another reason to bash us over the head as to why we should have a silly grin plastered all over our faces while our pockets are being picked to fiance questionable aims and agendas we might not otherwise agree with.

A few years back a popular slogan asked, “What would Jesus Do?”  In conclusion, it is my contention I doubt He would get a $400 haircut.

by Frederick Meekins
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tolerancemongers Violate Minuteman Chris Simcox's Right Of Free Speech

Check out this YouTube expose of the violence threatened against those not adhering to the leftist open border propaganda. Note how some of the Hispanosupremacists don masks not unlike their Ku Klux Klan counterparts. Frankly, ashame the cops did not start cracking noggins.

Here is a link to a Blogtalk Radio program analyzing the attack
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Virginia School Alma Mater Of Multiple Mass Murderers

Westfield High School in Chantilly, VA is developing an infamous reputation.

Not only is it the alma mater of Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui but also of Michael Kennedy, who shot up a Fairfax Virginia police station in May 2006 where he murdered two officers in a shooting rampage.

Before dismissing these incidents as disturbing coincidences, we owe it to both the families who lost loved ones in these massacres as well as the broader frightened public to look into what role this institution might have had in shaping the warped worldviews of these deranged gunmen.

Such a line of investigation might prove more than grasping at straws if it comes to be learned that Westfield High had a death education curriculum.

According to education analyst Samuel Blumenfeld in a May 27, 1999 WorldNetDaily column titled “Death Education At Columbine High”, students at this school that has since becomes a byword for such tragic heartache and bloodshed were taught to embrace death through psychologically manipulative exercises such as writing one’s own suicide note, listing ways to die, and lying in caskets.

More than one student has reacted negatively to the exposure of such grim topics devoid of the comfort provided by a Biblical faith when confronted by the thing a vibrant and healthy person fears the most.  A number have attempted suicide and may be responsible for some of the worst incidents of school violence in American History.

Ultimately, those deciding to pull the trigger must be the ones held responsible.  However, if in the coming days we are to be bombarded with an increasingly insistent chorus about how we should all be willing to give up yet still more of our liberties (namely the right to bear arms as stipulated by the Second Amendment and state officials being granted the authority to bring in for psychological evaluation anyone preferring to stay to themselves)  in order to prevent this kind of violence in the future, shouldn’t government be subjected to the same level of scrutiny?

by Frederick Meekins

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Little Point In Voting As Fate Of Nation Already Decided.

Every two years on the first Tuesday of November, Americans go to the polls in hopes of influencing the direction of the nation in regards to matters of politics and policy.  However, the exercise of this civic duty may be increasingly directed towards deciding matters of escalating irrelevancy as the ultimate disposition of the nation has already been settled at levels that regularly ignore the will of those beneath their heals along the social hierarchy.

For the time being, those that actually run the world have decided that it will be in their best interest if the trappings of the traditional electoral system are continued for a while longer.  Such niceties are not being continued solely out of the beneficence  of our glorious leaders or merely to keep the serfs from revolting.  Rather these procedural mechanisms will be used to condition the American people into accepting a place in the pending global order by subtly subjecting them to assumptions and perspectives of which they might not even be aware of initially.

Many Americans making the pilgrimage to the polls have recently been given a small sticker that reads “I voted”.  Besides being a waste of money if paid for with taxpayer funds and like something one would give a pliant child (quite telling as to what the government thinks of the average citizen), those that truly love this country were no doubt deeply troubled that between the American flag at the top of the sticker and the words “I voted” at bottom of the sticker was the phrase “Yo vote”.

Thus, not only has our national unity been undermined though this endorsement of bilingualism, but it was subtly made known that the English population would be taking a back seat in the America sector of the pending global regime as the Spanish was triumphantly placed over the English in a position of superiority.

If the United States is to remain a nation with English the predominant form of culture and expression, shouldn’t English have been printed in the top position?  When you come down to it, no Spanish should have been on the sticker at all.

To put things bluntly, Spanish speakers that don’t know that “I voted” means that they just voted, for the sake of the Republic, should not be voting anyway.  For isn’t a workable knowledge of English suppose to be a requirement to receive citizenship?  If this standard is not being enforced, Americans have the right to know about it.

Those seeking to please their leftist masters by wearing their tolerance on their sleeves will wail, “HOW DARE YOU SAY SUCH A THING!!!!” Yet even though they are reluctant to admit it for fear of running afoul of the thought police and their speech codes, Americans worthy of the name don’t think much of the effort to bring about the end of their beloved country.

Yet no matter how much conscientious patriots might complain about it and bring the matter before the public’s attention, don’t expect anything to be done about it.  For at some point down the road if the American people have not been weaned from that annoying voting habit by then, not only will the stickers have both English and Spanish but will probably have a Mexican flag in a position of dominance over Old Glory.  There is more at stake than which country has the longest pole and a clash of colors akin to a Star Wars lightsaber duel.  Such background symbols that we don’t usually pay much attention to actually reflect the profound geopolitical realignments taking place at the highest levels.

Though much is not said about it in the mainstream media with the possible exception of Lu Dobbs, President Bush and his fellow internationalists are quietly conniving to bring about the union of the United States, Canada, and Mexico without regard to what anyone outside this small circle of moneychangers, powerbrokers, and paperpushers might think about it.  Their contempt for the institutions of this nation and the principles upon which it was founded is so complete that the proposed unification is pretty much underway without the congressional oversight  the Constitution bestows upon the legislative branch, especially the Senate in terms of ratifying treaties, to have the final decision about such comprehensive foreign entanglements.

One of the prominent themes of the history of the 21st century will no doubt be the fall of the United States from a place of prominence and the sublimation of its original culture to the interests of foreign occupants.  The second most important theme will no doubt be how this development was ignored until it was too late.

by Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Eco-Celebrities Spew Ideological Toxins

One thing about the various threats conspiring to undermine human liberty is that, even if they fall out of public view for a while, it won’t be long until they resurface with a renewed ferocity to bend the people of the United States to the will of the elites.  With the threats of immigration and the war on terror (both from foreign heathen fanatics as well as those within our own government out to use these efforts to protect the innocent from such violence as an excuse to implement measures that will do very little to actually protect the nation but only make it less free) it has been a while since most concerned Americans have given much thought to the subversive machinations of those claiming to make ecology their primary focus of ethical concern.  However, in light of statements made by those straddling that ghoul-filled spectrum between politician and entertainer regarding their environmental visions, freedom lovers would do well to once again expose the dangers that result from those with a sense of guilt for having acquired exorbitant fortunes in a less-than productive manner wanting to control your life in an attempt to assuage their own consciences.

During the 1990’s, Al Gore carved out a niche for himself in the American political landscape as a proponent of a revolutionary environmentalism that went beyond being a good steward of the earth by taking your trash with you after a picnic at the beach so that a sea turtles don’t end up ingesting plastic bags thinking they are jelly fish but rather to embrace the notion that the entire basis of our civilization had to be reconstructed from the ground up including religious, political, and family structures as detailed in “Earth In The Balance”.  Distracted by more important things such as having to invent the Internet, rehashing the 2000 election ad nauseam, and deciding whether or not to grow a beard, Gore seemed to stray from his original focus for a while.

However, this errant apostle of Mother Earth has come back to his true faith with the release of his documentary about global warming titled “An Inconvenient Truth”.  In it, Gore once again ascends the pulpit warning us ignorant slobs how we must repent of our industrialized ways or face ecological judgment.

But while the rest of us are suppose to adopt entire new modes of existence simply because someone of Al Gore’s charisma and dynamism tells us to, Gore himself does not abide by the environmentally conscientious strictures he wishes to impose upon the rest of us.

For example, throughout much environmentalist propaganda it is suggested that government should place limitations on the number of children a person should be allowed to have through a number of coercive measures ranging from fines to outright forced abortions or sterilizations for those refusing to abide by the guidelines to prevent overpopulation.  However, Gore has reproduced on three separate occasions.

Does the former Vice President care to admit to being a closet eugenicist as well?  For to go around saying that people should only be allowed to have one or at most two children irrespective of whether or not they can provide for them and then himself sire three children basically says, “Since I am superior to you, I don’t have to abide by the same standards to be imposed upon the classes of humanity inferior to my semi-divine self.”  Though the Eastern spirituality espoused by Gore is notorious for promulgating the notion of the divine spark within, it seems some of it supposedly have a bit more of it than others if some are going to be allowed to do as they please while the rest of us will be compelled to toe the line in the name of Mother Earth.

For example, while the rest of us are supposed to pearback our lifestyle by turning down the heat, eating lower on the food chain by eating less meat and more locally grown produce (how you are to avoid winter starvation by following that guidelines is conviently overlooked), and be content with smaller vehicles and living spaces, according to an August 10, 2006 USA Today titled “Gore Isn’t Quite As Green As He’s Led The World To Believe” the former Vice President has a 10,000 square-foot, 20 room, 8 bathroom (I wonder how many of them have those irritating low-flush toilets where the water level is so low in the bowl that one has to reach in with a wad of tissue and manually wipe the smears off once one has completed their business yet since Gore acts constipated half the time anyway  I guess it’s not much of an issue) as well as an additional 4,000 square-foot home in the Washington Metropolitan Area where empty nesters such as Al and Tipper could easily live comfortably in a home a third of that size if they were really dedicated to conservation and the preservation of resources).   It was also later revealed that Gore spends $3000 a month on electricity while the rest of us are suppose to turn the thermostat back and Congress is mulling over a proposal that will force a switch to fluorescent bulbs and then probably sit back and wonder why cataract rates will skyrocket.

It would be one thing if this eccentric behavior confined itself to a single kook such as the former Vice President as Al Gore isn’t exactly known for possessing the kind of charisma necessary to inspire revolution alone, or in other words, to get the lemmings off the cliff all by himself.  Unfortunately, as an inherently egomaniacal lot, numerous entertainers have bought into a similar mindset that it is their destiny to live as lords of the dawning cosmic era by shaming the rest of us into adopting a mandatory neo-primitivism.

One of the most irritating harpies deluding the ignorant with the banshee’s wail of pending ecological catastrophe is Barbara Streisand  Several years ago, to get Californians to do their part to alleviate that state’s energy shortage, Streisand suggested residents hang their wash on a clothesline while she continued to illuminate the exterior of her mansion with bright lights.

However, the environmental hypocrisy does not end there for the megastar, of whom it was pointed out on Hannity and Colmes that she forbids the staffs of the hotels where she stays from gazing upon her visage as if she was some pre-WWII Japanese monarch (but maybe then again she is so ugly maybe she’s afraid they will turn to stone if they look upon her like those looking upon Medusa in Greek mythology.

Streisand announced that she is embarking on a twenty concert tour in part to combat “dangerous climate change”.  So while you as a grubby commoner are suppose to dry your clothes on a line, Streisand plans on expending fossil fuels and expelling toxins into the atmosphere to go around telling the nation why we should be shamed if we exhibit the audacity to do the same.

This is about as dimwitted as Arianna Huffington response to an inquiry by Sean Hannity when he exposed that, while she was heading a campaign against SUV’s, she was hopping rides on private jets.   She responded that “The planes were going there anyway.”  

At least Huffington is easier on the eyes than Streisand’s gnarled countenance. Americans should do their part for the environment by boycotting the Streisand concerts.

Hypocritical travel is not the only environmental double standard wallowed in by the entertainment elite.  For while you as a harbinger of bourgeoisie middle class values and expectations which by definition makes you a despoiler of the earth who must eventually be confined to specific zones of habitation which will ultimately mean the forfeiture of privately owned automobiles in favor of more closely monitored public transportation, the confiscation of individual single family homes in exchange for communal-style barracks, those in the overclass will be allowed to despoil Mother Nature all they want in pursuit of gratifying their own egos in ways mankind could really do without if these self-anointed crusaders actually did care about the environment.

In the future, many structures that facilitate access to public parks for the average citizen will be removed to prevent enjoyment by all with the exception of the best equipped and dedicated of hikers, usually rich people with too much time on their hands that spend all kinds of money to look like as if they hadn’t seen a comb or taken a bath in months.  Usually for men, this manifests itself in men in the form of a lice-infested ponytail and in women an appearance so malnourished as to lack any of the physical characteristics making a woman pleasurable to look at.

In the ecologically-minded world of tomorrow, most will be expected to bow to the alleged needs of Mother Earth.  However, if one happens to be an internationally renowned celebrity, then nature must by all means take a back seat.

In a move that even upset a number of environmental groups, to show just how much he values the environment, famed rocker Sting planned to headline a concert in a park in Spain titled “Musicians For Nature.”  Sounds a bit like the old military tactic of destroying a village in order to save it.  

One does not have to be a prophet or a clairvoyant or a prophet to foresee that rockfans (not exactly known for being a tidy bunch to begin with) would no doubt trash the park as they went about letting everyone know just how much they support it.  One time a friend was dragged to an Earth Day Celebration on the Mall in Washington where he saw more than one participant toss their rubbish onto this semi-hallowed piece of American ground rather than into its proper receptacle.

If this lunacy confined itself merely to entertainers and deluded also-rans at the edges of the American political landscape, things might not be so bad as the average citizen might be able to weather such mental irritation as something mildly amusing, even deriving a small laugh from these hypocritical inconsistencies.  However, these faulty assumptions are no longer a source of comic relief when elected officials begin to take them seriously as the basis of future policy decisions.

At one time, much of this nonsense could be dismissed as fringe hooey.  It now infects holders of respectable public office.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, for whom Humvees were first made available in part to the general public to assuage his neurosis to have the biggest toy on the block, is now on the bandwagon to reduce emissions as part of an initiative spearheaded by the Western Governors.  And while the governors expended fossil fuels to travel to Sedona (a New Age resort town where those gathered for this coven no doubt reveled in the luxury found there while you are suppose to feel guilty for turning on the air conditioner),  a number of them handed down an expansive definition of what it means to be an environmental criminal.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is recorded by the Associated Press as saying, “Unless you’re living naked in a tree eating nuts, you’re part of the problem, and I’d like to hear your solution.”

What such a statement essentially means is, that since you do not live in a mythological state comparable to Rousseau's “noble savage”, you have no right whatsoever to complain about what plans the global elite have in store for you.  Even if that includes starvation as the minimalist diet mentioned above was no doubt an assumption held by many environmentalists such as himself that the masses dare to eat foods other than those native to their respective regions even though the elites have the finest delicacies airlifted to these neo-pagan confabs such as at an Earth summit convened in South Africa where delegates dined on steak and caviar while denouncing the evils of the indoor flush toilet.

Nothing like a crocodile taking a bite out of those taking a dump along the river side as a way to cut down on the excess population.  But then again, you wouldn’t actually want to improve conditions in these backwards lands as that would do away with the excuse allowing these foreigners to swarm into the United States.

Like the forces of nature they so highly venerate to the extent where things that should be appreciated end up being worshipped, the environmentalist threat cycles in and out of the view of the public already overwhelmed by the buzzards of tyranny incessantly picking at freedom’s dieing corpse.  But as with all opportunistic scavengers, just because this parasitic ideology does not always attack out in the open that does not mean it is not always stalking its prey and eager to send the accomplishments of the West into a death roll from which this civilization might never recover.

by Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Pre-marital Hanky-Panky Reaching 95%; Ministry Suggests Extreme Measures In Response

While Generations Radio is to be commended for exposing on its March 12th broadcast the alarming trend that up to 95% of those surveyed admit to premarital sex and the even more disturbing development that this phenomena is so widespread that little is being said about church leaders shackingup, I think their solution to the problem goes to the other extreme and itself borders on ecclesiastical tyranny.

By the end of what was an otherwise informative broadcast (around the 18 minute mark), it is suggested that those courting one another should be so monitored as to have phone numbers withheld from one another and only allowed to have prearranged conversations with one another under the surveillance of a church elder regarding a preapproved topic.

It was further stated that one should not develop feelings for one's prospective partner until the engagement is announced. Frankly though, what's the point in getting married if you are getting along just fine without the person in your life to begin with?

Such guidelines might have their place within a family context to underage minors, but isn't that going a bit far for young adults pushing into their 30's?

Frankly, if the church you are going to demands that much control over your life, it's time to hit the road before the tainted Kool-Aid is dished out.

by Frederick Meekins 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Review Of Salvaging Civilization By H.G. Wells.

To most Americans with a recollection of the Cold War, it was assumed the global superstate would be brought about through military conquest.  However, in “Salvaging Civilization,“H.G. Wells suggests how this planetary political organization could be brought about through education and the management of public opinion.

According to Wells, the future of mankind is dependent upon the establishment of world unity in order to protect the human race from social disintegration and physical destruction.  However, instead of blatantly imposing this new world order from without, Wells suggests conditioning the masses into accepting the world state through targeted forms of intellectual manipulation.

While Wells claims to have the best interests of man at heart, it is clear he does not think all that much of the common individual as in his view it is the place of such people to simply go along with the will of the elite.  Wells writes, “It is often forgotten, in America, even more than in Europe, that education exists for the community, and only for the individual only so far that it makes him a sufficient member of the community.  The chief end of education is to subjugate and sublimate for the collective purpose of our own kind the savage egoism we inherit (24-25).”

Thus, education in the proposed global society is not so much about empowering the individual to think for himself as it is to condition him to take his place as a docile member of the group.  As such, the early stages of establishing a world government will not be as much about changing politics itself as it will be about influencing the minds of the young.

The freedom Wells grants with one hand by liberating the individual from traditional authorities he takes back with the other.  Wells writes, “The world state must begin as a propagandist cult, to which men and women must give themselves and their energies regardless of the consequences (35).”

Furthermore, the future world state won’t simply be an institution in the background keeping the peace and making sure the trains run on time.  Rather, it is to be in the forefront in molding what the good member of the community is to think and believe.

Foremost among the methods for keeping order in the New World Order will be what Wells calls ‘The Bible of Civilization”.  However, this is not to be the famed Good Book that has guided mankind in religious and ethical matters century upon century.  Rather, this new Bible is to consist of an anthology of the best in human literature and learning selected and periodically revised by “a few hundred resolute and capable people”.

But as a renowned atheist, what Wells failed to realize is that the thing that has granted the Bible such sway over the minds of men and cherished in their hearts is that it was handed down by the hand of God or at least that is that is believed by those that honor its precepts.  All Wells leaves us is a committee working paper with the proviso that the documents findings are subject to change at a later date.

If God says something like thou shalt not murder, like it or not, I don’t have much room to argue about it.  If some sanctimonious committee with no other authority than that which it has bestowed upon itself and duped the masses into abiding by for the time being makes grandiose pronouncements it claims we are obligated to obey , why should I have to comply with its dictates and decrees?

Despite claiming to stand for human freedom by abolishing traditional prohibitions on sex outside of marriage (no doubt in part because he was himself a profligate adulterer), Wells’ behavioral codes would be far more extensive and binding than anything elaborated upon in the pages of the Bible.  Wells writes, “One of the first duties of a citizen is to keep himself in mental and bodily health in order to be fit for the rest of his duties.”

Thus, to translate Wells’ position into something we can understand, go out and have as many affairs as you want (no doubt to lessen the bonds to a particular spouse or family so that identity comes instead to be derived from the larger group).  Just don’t get caught smoking a cigarette or enjoying fast foods since that might hinder the revolution and the glorious expansion of the motherworld.

To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today.  However, upon contemplating his proposals in “The Salvaging Of Civilization” such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech when he writes “We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial.  We must ask  ‘What have you done to...help or hinder the peace of mankind?.’ A time will come when a politician who has...willfully promoted international dissension will be...much surer of the noose than a private homicide (40)” we are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.

by Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Oprah’s School Run Like Prison Camp

Found this story from a link posted at the Drudge Report. Just too good to pass over.

According to the story, Oprah’s school for girls in Africa is run along the lines of a prison camp as students are barred from calling home but once a week and are forbidden from “unhealthy snacks” even though Winfrey has no doubt gorged herself over the years as evidenced by her see-sawing weight.

This should cause anyone thinking this broadcast personality should be granted power beyond that of her daily gabfest (such as elected office) to pause and ponder for a moment just how authoritarian and intrusive she would be in the lives of average Americans.

For while her highness and her closest acolytes will continue to enjoy the lives of luxury to which they think they are entitled, in terms of the proposals being considered now to curb and monitor the diets of the lower classes, it would not be too much of a theoretical jump to suggest that an Oprah administration would view the American people as children in need of strongarm guidance not all that different than these destitute pupils.

by Frederick Meekins
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Review Of Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands

Few discussions will provoke opinions among believers as heated as whether or not Christians ought to enjoy works of popular fantasy.

On the one hand, some claim believers should avoid these realms of the imagination.  On the other, there are those Christians so desperate to justify their interest with a veneer of spirituality that they try to establish one to one correlations between these entertaining stories and Holy Scripture.

“Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands: A Christian Dialogue With Harry Potter, Star Wars & Lord Of The Rings” by Russell Dalton endeavors to provide a balance between these competing outlooks.

While highlighting the parts of these works that appeal to enduring values, Dalton also admits that neither are these stories themselves Scripture.  Rather, he writes, “This book takes an approach that goes beyond a ‘thumbs up’ or ‘thumbs down’ evaluation of fiction and film.  It gives the reader a chance to reflect whether or not the behaviors and beliefs of the characters in today’s fantasy stories are consistent with the Christian faith, but it also looks at the questions these stories demand of our faith by entering into a dialogue between these fantasy stories and the Christians story (7).”

Rather than condemn The Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars, or even Harry Potter,  “Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands” prudently counsels that the problems  that arise in reference to these stories often lie not so much in the stories themselves but in those that read them.  For example, most that read Harry Potter are not going to end up sacrificing goats or taking oaths of unending allegiance to Satan.  Thus, Dalton suggests, parents must decide for themselves how much exposure to Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord Of The Rings their children should receive.

Though for the most part balanced in his approach, the reader will no doubt detect a hint of political correctness seeping into Dalton’s exposition.  For example, he does not use the phrase “Kingdom of God” but rather “The Reign Of God.”  Likewise, Dalton does not refer to Jesus as “the Son of Man” but rather as “the Son of Humanity”.

Dalton also gets all maudlin that the characters in these stories are primarily White.  But since Middle Earth is said to correspond to some kind of pre-historic Europe and Hogwarts is a British alchemical school, what does he expect?

If Aragorn had had such vacillating attitudes, Sauron would have still been ruling over Middle Earth by the end of the third film.

Even if one disagrees with the conclusions drawn by “Faith Journey Through Fantasy Lands“, one has to admit Dalton approaches the issue in an overall even handed manner carefully respecting the opinions on each side.

by Frederick Meekins

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

People’s Republic Of Maryland Taxing Its Subjects Into Submission

One of the nicknames for the State of Maryland is “The Free State”. However, since the power to tax is the power to destroy, perhaps it is about time a more accurate slogan was selected.

In an attempt to hop on the global warming bandwagon, the state legislature is considering a bill that would require auto dealers in that jurisdiction to sell vehicles meeting California emission standards.

While this might look good on paper and allow elected officials to pat each other on the back as to how progressive and enlightened they appear to be, as usual, it will be up to the average citizen to pick up the bill so that the politicians can feel good about themselves. For it has been estimated that these upgrades will add as much as $3,000 to the price of a new automobile.

Though most of us aren’t as smart as our overlords in the government, one is forced to ask what is to prevent consumers from going elsewhere to make their automotive purchases such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, which have traditionally had better selections to begin with as certain Maryland areas often exhibit outright hostility to the automotive industry? In Prince George’s County, officials even considered zoning car dealers out of the overly-vaunted Hyattsville “arts district” (a fancy name for a government-subsidized area designated for beatniks and other unemployable undesirables unamenable to regular work) without the compensation required under any eminent domain action.

The vitality and morale is already just about drained from many Maryland residents as they are clearly not getting the quality of life they are forced to pay for and it is doubtful that they can take much more. Already in some counties tax bills are over $3,000 dollars annually and are expected to rise to as much as $6,000 by 2010.

Electoral politics is already a game of the idle rich with too much time on their hands. If those of this occupational classification wish to make such grandiose gestures, perhaps such restrictions should only be imposed upon those openly seeking these positions of prestige and influence. One could be assured that the nation would then see far less of this kind of nonsense.

By Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Review Of Storming Heaven by Kyle Mills

Incidents such as Waco, Jonestown, and the Heaven’s Gate suicides prove the unique challenge such sects pose to contemporary society because of the threats they represent to both life and liberty while having to balance the need to protect the innocent from this danger yet recognizing these organizations have a right to operate under the First Amendment provided they have not committed what most reasonable people would consider an actual crime.  In Storming Heaven, Kyle Mills examines a number of these issues in the form of an action novel.

In “Storming Heaven“,  FBI Agent Mark Beamon must rescue the granddaughter of a deceased cult leader before she is sacrificed to ensure that power within the group remains within the hands of those already running the show unbeknownst to even the late sect leader.  But even though this race against the clock provides most of the suspense within the novel, readers will also be riveted by the extent to which some will go to seize control in the name of religion.

Though Mills concludes the novel with a disclaimer implying that his story should not be construed as picking on any one sect, it doesn’t take too much effort to deduce that the novel reflects concerns regarding Scientology in that the group in the story has a keen interest in courting the influential and its run ins with the German government are central to the plot.

The fictional religion featured in Storming Heaven is known as the Church of Evolution.  According to its doctrine, the messenger of God comes to earth at regular intervals throughout history to update His revelation to mankind as humanity’s understanding and comprehension expands.

As such, God’s spokesman to the present age is Arthur Knesis, who is dying and plans to take his own life and hand leadership of the church over to his granddaughter.  However as with such groups here in the real world, self-proclaimed omniscience isn’t what it use to be as Knesis’ second-in-command Sara Rensiler has secretly taken control of the church to further her own agenda.

“Storming Heaven” provides a fascinating portrayal of what can happen when the ambitious deliberately turn their backs on enduring values in pursuit of fanatic objectives.  The Church of Evolution goes so far to achieve its goals as to set up its own long distance carrier in order to ease drop on and ultimately entrap prominent figures for blackmail purposes and to frame the group’s opponents with unfounded accusations such as pedophilia.

Yet it is this sense of skepticism and suspicion that also is also the novel’s greatest drawback as the motives of this particular cult’s leadership are used to basically call into question all religious movements throughout history without taking the time to test the veracity of any of their claims.  Despite being motivated by the noble goals of saving the young girl’s life and unfurling the vast conspiracy of the Church of Evolution, other than his own existential wherewithal, one gets the impression that FBI Agent Mark Beamon does not have much of a moral support structure to fall back upon to say that the cult is really wrong in its action since all throughout the story it is insinuated that the real danger is any firmly held belief.

Despite a tendency to employ more profanity than is necessary, readers will no doubt enjoy this thriller providing a perspective on a topic seldom examined by authors in the secular branch of this genre.

by Frederick Meekins

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Statue Of Liberty Should Be A Liberated Woman

One of the most comic irrationalities to come out of the Vietnam War was that a village had to be destroyed in order to save it.  Half a world away, the comment has become something of a joke ever since epitomizing government stupidity; however, as similar logic begins to be used here all in the name of national security, such an observation won’t seem as amusing anymore.

Most responding to my column about efforts to permanently bar the American people from the upper reaches of the Statue of Liberty agreed with my position.  However, one response reflected the kind of thinking that will not only end up getting the remainder of our freedoms taken away from us but also lectured as to why it is our civic duty to have a smile across our face while it is happening.

In the response, the government toady writes that, since the Statue of Liberty is a target because of its symbolic value as an artistic representation of America’s values, any and all measures should be taken to protect the landmark.

However, since Lady Liberty’s function is primarily symbolic, by closing her off aren’t we sending the message to the world that liberty is not an inalienable and immutable but rather contingent upon circumstances and the malleable whims of those holding power.

If the American people so easily cede control over something symbolic, what is to prevent them from handing over the more practical manifestations of their liberties should authorities whip them into a sufficient frenzy or panic?

For example, in his conclusion, this Department of Homeland Security booster remarks, “If it is OVERDONE, tis better me thinks so long as no place is given to the evil ones.”

Should we place armed troops on every street corner allowed to manhandle passerbys at random?  Better yet, should entire neighborhoods be relocated to designated civic detention facilities where authorities can keep better tabs on the population and thus protect them better; after all, if it prevents terrorism according to the Overdone Doctrine, on what grounds may we object?

Don’t think proponents of security beyond that which is necessary wouldn’t be above curtailing those rights that have little bearing whatsoever on preventing mass destruction.

The critic writes, “To use her as your soapbox issue to point your finger and denigrate government simply out of your own opinion of its motivation is counterproductive, and limited it its veracity.”

Frankly, the government denigrates itself when it directs so much effort at closing down one of America’s most cherished monuments rather than closing down the border.  Maybe if the government did its job there, the Statue of Liberty wouldn’t need to be closed.

Yet, to those yearning not to live free but rather to have every facet of their lives monitored by authorities, pointing out such shortcomings and inconsistencies that compromise both our safety and our quality of life is no longer characterized as the act of a concerned citizen but rather as deeds “counterproductive” that “undermine the population’s confidence”.  In other words, freedom of expression is something that will have to be curtailed as a threat to national security even though pointing out the shortcomings and fallacies of those wielding power threatens no one other than those incompetently wielding the power the people have been gracious enough to grant them under the Constitution.

As an American icon, one’s attitude towards the management of the Statue of Liberty says a great deal about one’s perspective.  Either one believes in the basic principles the Statue stands for and believes the American people should be granted access to it or one believes that people are better off having the government control the minutest details of their lives and that common citizens are not good enough to caresses this special lady.

by Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

English Need Not Board

Rosa Parks earned her place in American iconography for refusing to go to the back of the bus.  But at least she would have been permitted to remain on the bus, which would have been more than is being allowed for three Saint Paul school children who were kicked off a bus, they were initially told, because they were no longer good enough to ride the bus because they spoke English.

According to a KSTP.com titled ‘Kids kicked off a bus for speaking English”, bus service along the route in question was now reserved for students other than those speaking English because of the importance of keeping the non-English speaking pupils together.

Illegals are often of the mind now that since they supposedly pay into the tax system, that should somehow earn them a slot at the government trough.  But what about boring, run of the mill citizens born here and who don’t get special holidays and entire months set aside celebrating what they happened to be upon emerging from their mother’s birth canal, aren’t they just as deserving of the services they are having increasingly high taxes taken from and assessments levied against them to pay for?

Those enamored by all things foreign and repulsed as equally by all things American will respond that these children must be kept together since they might get lost since they don’t speak English.  If that’s the case, perhaps it should be the non-English speaking parents that are leveled with the responsibility of taking their children to and from school rather than the English-speaking citizen.  For if we are to constantly have it thrown in our faces how those coming here came from such far-flung corners of the world, they shouldn’t have too much of a problem getting their children to school on time since they have obviously demonstrated a mastery of geography.

Scheming bureaucrats  in the St. Paul case appear that they will be able to wiggle out of this one over the technicality that the aggrieved family is no longer eligible for bus service since it has been discovered that they had moved beyond the boundaries of this particular school.  Interesting how this fact was not made an issue until after the pupils were kicked off the bus for the outrage of verbalizing in English.

Sticklers and regulation fetishists will drone on how the students no longer had any business on the bus and maybe they are right.  However, I wonder just how many of the non-English speaking students live beyond these inviolable frontiers enforced upon the utterers of American idiom and diction; more importantly, I wonder how many have parents that aren’t even here legally.

As the nation’s schools increasingly come to resemble the linguistic confusion at the Tower of Babel where the non-English speaking come to predominate and the handouts and preferences they militate for proliferate, I wonder how many other American children across the country have been denied access to school transportation because of what manner of language flows from their lips but the parents have not stepped forward to expose the conniving of bilingualism for either fear of some kind of retaliation by multiculturalists or as the result of higher order cognitive conditioning (brainwashing) where he have had it pounded into our heads that only “racists” oppose the obliteration of America’s socio-linguistic identity.

With Black History Month just around the corner, in the coming weeks we will hear on and on about various civil rights protests such as lunch-counter  sit-ins and of valiant souls asserting their God-given rights by refusing to give up their seats just because someone with a bit of authority in his belly wearing a uniform told them to. The next time a child is told they cannot board a bus or ordered to disembark for any reason other than misbehavior such as, oh lets say, because they happen to speak English or not belong to a specific ethnic group being granted an accommodation denied to every other child at school, they should simply refuse to comply with the order.     What better way for students to learn of the importance of standing up for themselves even when its not popular with those wielding power?

Dutiful statists will shriek “How dare you instruct a fellow American to disobey non-police authority!!!!!!”  But aren’t I merely encouraging them to follow the example set by either Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King?

For if you think it was OK for these Black leaders to disobey authorities that have transgressed legitimate boundaries but inappropriate for a member of the majority being disadvantaged by the ruling elite to do so, it must be pointed out that it is you, my hyperpluralist colleague, that may be the one suffering ethnocentric prejudice.

by Frederick Meekins
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Review Of Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics

It has been said that we have come as far as we have only because we stand on the shoulders of giants.  One of the strengths of ethics when studied as part of a survey of Western civilization has been the discipline’s emphasis on consulting the accumulated wisdom of the past.  However, in doing so one must not fail to apply these principles to the situations arising in our own time.
    
‘Talbot School of Theology Professor Scott Rae in Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics maintains this balance by not only analyzing the foundations of this field as set forth in Biblical and historical sources as well as more contemporary systems but also by examining a number of issues arising from advances in technology.
   
Moral Choices is an excellent resource for believers to investigate the complexities of this field of study since Rae does not overly advocate any one particular position per say but rather examines both sides by comparing where each either measures up to or falls short of either the outright teachings of Scripture or the traditional ethical norms derived from sacred revelation.  The student will also come away with a better understanding of the legal or scientific developments giving rise to these disputes.
   
For example, some of the issues examined in Moral Choices include abortion, reproductive technology, human cloning, and physician assisted suicide. 
   
In regards to abortion, Rae builds a Biblical position on the topic centering around the Fifth Commandment (Thou shalt not murder) by showing how this injunction applies to the fetus since the child in question retains a distinct personhood from conception onward until death.  Rae also goes into the background of a number of court decisions establishing the legal framework for this procedure in the United States such as Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.
   
C.P. Snow lamented in The Two Cultures And The Scientific Revolution of the widening gulf between those educated in the humanities and those schooled in the hard sciences.  Moral Choices does a commendable job of bridging the gap.
   
Often average citizens shy away from these complex issues for lack of understanding the science involved.  However, by defining terms related to reproductive technologies and genetic engineering such as somatic cell gene therapy (the addition of a gene), somatic cell nuclear transfer (the taking of cells from an adult and placing them in an egg in order to grow a clone), and an overview of various infertility treatments such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection and intrafallopian transfer, Moral Choices won’t qualify the reader to be a Doctor Frankenstien but will certainly give the concerned laymen a better idea of what exactly goes on in the lab late at night.
   
Like stage magicians, often scientific and philosophical elites prefer to dazzle the common man by keeping much of the process by which they arrive at their proclamations shrouded in secrecy.  Moral Choices by Scott Rae not only applies fundamental ethical principles to the daunting challenges facing society today but also provides the steps helping one to arrive at an informed decision.
   
The steps are as follows: (1) Gather the facts. (2) Determine the ethical claims. (3) Determine what principles have bearing on the case. (4) List the alternatives. (5) Compare the alternatives with the principles. (6) Consider the consequences. (7) Make a decision.
   
Moral Choices: An Introduction To Ethics begins with the question “Why Be Moral?”.  From considering the ramifications of the issues examined in the text, the reader will conclude how can we afford not to?

by Frederick Meekins

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Boozing Epidemic Among Young Adult Church Groups

In discussing her book Thrill Of The Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On on the Albert Mohler Show, journalist Dawn Eden made an observation that many young adult or singles ministries are centered around drinking.

This author is to be commended for exposing what is probably a little known and shocking fact.

I myself came across this startling truth when I was visiting a PCA Presbyterian Church (a supposedly more conservative denomination) off and on a few years back.

Though I never attended any of the functions since I could just as easily stay home and feel like less of a total outcast since hardly anyone in the Sunday school class would hardly even speak to me at church so why bother elsewhere, it always seemed an inordinate number of the e-mail invitations for class social functions mentioned alcohol would be present.

Interestingly, this shortcoming was never brought up in class even though I was reamed a new one in discussion and in an email exchange with the Associate Pastor of the church that led the Young Adult class about my short coming of exhibiting"individualistic tendencies" and not becoming a dutiful member of the COMMUNITY, and one student from China was excoriated on the listserv for questioning the propriety of holding a babyshower for a member of the class that spawned outside of marriage.

However, the blame cannot be placed solely on the indiscretions of youth.

After all, for in this case, they are only mimicking the behavior of their elders.

And in this case, I literally mean elders. For eventually pictured on the pages of the Washington Post in a story about a men's book discussion was a photo of two elders of this church in question boozing it up in some bar.

Though one does not like to see people injured or maimed, can you imagine the almost comic irony of a headline reading something like "Family Killed By Drunk Driver Leaving Church Function"?

by Frederick Meekins


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive