Megachurch Laments Results When Skimping On Sunday School Teachers

In a SermonAudio podcast, the staff of Berean Baptist Church lamented how the average Sunday School teacher does not go beyond the printed curriculum.

But isn’t that for two basic reasons?

Number one, if teachers stick to the curriculum, they have at least that to defend themselves with when the pastor comes to pepper them with a battering of Scripture references should a doctrinal or even a merely an interpretative difference arises in class.

Second, even if they love both God and pupils, the Sunday school teacher — unlike the pastor in most circumstances —- is just a volunteer.

For, to put it bluntly, the Sunday School teacher has other things in life that they also need to attend to and you get what you pay for.

If asked to do the other workaday work of the Sunday school teacher, it is doubtful the pastor could do that job without the book or operational manual either.

If these pastors want Sunday school teachers as absorbed in the nuances of Scripture and doctrine as professional clergy, pay the Sunday School teachers the wages of a pastor or staff member at a church that already has at least a half dozen pastors and compensated assistants already on the payroll.

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

Legislation has been proposed in New York that would require applicants wanting to purchase a firearm to submit three years worth of their social media postings for review as well as their previous years online search history.

The purpose of the statute would be to determine whether or not an individual has engaged in any hate speech disposed towards violence.

This ought to spark even greater outrage than if a marriage license was needed to purchase birth control; for it is inherently immoral, after all, for anyone not married to be using contraceptives in the first place.

It might be one thing if this proposed surveillance was used to interdict someone that has articulated a bona fide indisputable threat.

However, radical activists and minority supremacist front groups have expanded the definition of hate speech to include merely questioning the assorted agendas of these individuals and organizations.

For example, law enforcement might have vested interest in preventing someone from obtaining a firearm if they say it is their objective to murder as many Jews as possible.

However, is it the place of bureaucrats to deny you a Constitutional protection if you just believe Jews are not granted entrance into Heaven over denying the divinity of Christ or that the Talmund articulates criticisms of Christ bordering on the blasphemous?

An argument can be made about social media platforms allowed to block speech that they find offensive given that the Bill of Rights do not necessary apply in the same manner in regards to private corporations.

However, when government considers denying a right over another right having been exercised, there is no denying that a dangerous step towards tyranny has indeed been taken.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #119

A Huffington Post article ponders “Why White Americans Love To Claim Native American Ancestry”. Probably because they are sick and tired of being blamed for all the problems in the world from government, to media, to academia, to even assorted religious denominations such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention. Most Whites probably make such claims in the attempt to get these subversives off their backs, as a way to make a statement that they are not as dull and boring as the assorted race hustlers make them out to be, and perhaps as a way to position themselves to potentially grab a piece of the spoils accumulated as a results of threats made by the ethnic grievance racket.

A radio pastor postulated that Halloween sucks the individual into the occult the way that cigarettes pull one into the world of hardcore narcotics. But what about the millions that don’t dabble in the world of drugs beyond tobacco? Isn’t this akin to insisting that one piece of Kentucky Fried Chicken is the gateway into obesity and heart disease?

An assailant was shot trying to enter a Washington, DC TV station without authorization. In coverage of the event, detail was provided as to the layers of security an individual was required to pass through before being granted access to the building. Such security measures are probably commonplace at media facilities across the country. But if broadcast media personnel deserve such workplace security, why is the United States as a whole not deserving of the additional protection that would be provided by a Great Wall of America?

A leftist subversive interviewed on Fox News said it is unAmerican not to consider the asylum claims of the Honduran horde oozing ever closer to the U.S. border. Will this pundit speak out with similarly decisive condemnation of the deadbeats in this surging mob setting the American flag ablaze?

An article in the 11/2018 edition of The Nation is titled “White Men’s Tantrums: They’re frustrated by the prospect of their power eroding”. Does this propaganda outfit intend to publish similar exposition analyzing how when Blacks toss tantrums over disagreeable judicial or law enforcement actions it usually results in looted electronics retailers or hair care establishments?

In light of mail bombs delivered to a number of prominent political figures, policy elites are warning that the rhetoric must be toned down. But it is when people feel that their expression is being stifled that they are prone to consider violence.

In response to the mail bomb attacks, social engineers are blathering about the need for Americans to come together and set aside their differences. So just how much more are we obligated to surrender to subversive partisans that will not be happy until everything one has worked for is confiscated and squandered in the name of income redistribution and resource equity?

So Linda Moulton Howe claims that earth is the experimental laboratory of multiple extraterrestrial races but claims of the New World Order stretch the limits of credulity in her mind?

How is the deplatforming of the entire Gab social network over the actions of a single member appreciably different from the sort of prejudice our multiculturalist overlords demand that we reflexively oppose to the point of infringing upon the spirit of traditional understandings of free expression if not technically its letter?

Apu is being excised from the Simpsons over concerns about stereotypes and cultural sensitivity. So does that mean something similar can be done about Ned Flanders, Rev. Lovejoy and the mockery of Christianity presented by those two characters?

The Synagogue Shooter is on the record as opposing Trump over his support of Israel and the Jewish community. As such, isn’t blaming the President for the massacre as much an outrage as blaming a scantily clad woman that she got raped?

If Halloween is so evil, isn’t slipping a tract in with the candy akin to slipping a tract along with a dollar into the thong of a lapdancer?

In condemnation of Vice President Mike Pence appearing with a Messianic rabbi, the Yahoo headline accuses the sect of this religious functionary of cosplaying as Jews. Couldn’t the same thing pretty much be said regarding a variety of religious leftists hijacking Jewish terminology to advance a particular liberal agenda? For most of that persuasion seldom abide by the rigors of Old Testament custom or theology but rather invoke the concepts as a shield to protect their militant secularism and anti-Christian prejudice from scrutiny by those easily cowed by political correctness.

If we are all obligated to come together irrespective of our theological differences in light of the tragic synagogue shooting or face assorted curtailments of civic participation opportunities such as the expression and dissemination of verbalized thought, shouldn’t those shouting this the loudest actually be complaining the least as to whether or not the rabbi appearing with Mike Pence was one that denies the divinity of Christ or embraces Jesus as the Messiah?

How is the call not to politicize itself not an act of politicalization? What this really translates as is one does not want to hear an interpretation one does not agree with as to the hypothesized causes of a particular event or tragedy. The ones perpetrating a particular event are ultimately the ones responsible. However, failure to examine the ideology motivating the deeds alleged to be perpetrated in the name of a certain cause, religion, or philosophy or even where these ideas were implemented in a way not intended by the initial expositor is to exhibit an appalling level of stupidity as to how the world works that will only serve the perpetuation of such tragedies.

Interesting. So church people get reamed a new one if they talk things other than church before church. Then I’ve heard them get reamed a new one for talking something other than church after church. Then they get reamed yet again if they do not befriend people that they really aren’t allowed to say much of anything to in the only place where these said people would really encounter one another as frankly they possess no other shared interests or even in the same stage of life.

If suburbanite WOMENNNNN turned against the Republican Party because they did not like President Trump’s tone, let’s see how they will like that of their daughters’ and granddaughters Islamist harem masters in about 25 years.

If a middle school displays propagandistic artwork depicting a celebrity whose primary reason for renown was refusing to comply with commands issued by organization administrators contradicting the preferences of the individual in question, should educators be surprised or respond with anything but praise when pupils exhibit a similar spirit of recalcitrance in responding to directives issued by government educators indoctrinating young minds in the glories of civil disobedience?

So will all those celebrating high voter turn out be as ecstatic when it will be Republicans or even more specifically Tea Party types turning up at the poles? That is when we are usually beaten over the head with ponderous reflections about there being “too much democracy’ and how we are better off if distant elites plot the minutest details of our lives.

President Emmauel Macron of France denounced President Trump’s promotion of nationalism. But doesn’t France administer an entire government agency for determining which foreign words may or may not be assimilated into the language? Don’t many French go out of their way to make it known just how much they despise the American way of life? Most importantly, wasn’t it the French that inspired President Trump’s semi-idiotic idea of a military parade where tanks would have rolled down Washington, DC streets?

By Frederick Meekins

Cuomo Christmas Consternation

In most instances, leftwing propagandists do everything within their power to banish the lessons derived from traditional religious sources such as Biblical narratives from exerting any sort of influence upon public policy and awareness. However, if one of those cherished texts can be distorted for the purposes of advancing a particular agenda, these skilled manipulators have few qualms against doing so.

In one particular closing argument segment of his program, CNN mouthpiece Chris Cuomo declared it rank hypocrisy for Christians who celebrate Christmas to not fling the border gates wide open for the caravan swarm amassing along the U.S./Mexican border. Cuomo pontificated, “No small irony that Christians are getting ready to celebrate the story of Christmas, which is the exact story that we are trying to celebrate here. The poor and unwanted who wound up bringing the savior into this world in a stable, rejected. Just as we are doing now. This is who we are now and it must be exposed.”

Such exegeted buffoonery is to be expected from a theological ignoramus who also revels in the delights of sodomite matrimony and the unbridled infanticide of abortion.

The key to the most complete understanding possible (for no human is capable of understanding all of it) is to take all of the canonical text (both Old and New Testaments) and to synthesize these together rather than to rely upon a single textual portion isolated from the comprehensive whole. On this account, Chris Cuomo is as woefully lacking as his reflections upon the Bill of Rights as evidenced by his pronouncements regarding free speech and the right to bear arms.

First, Mary and Joseph were not the unwanted migrating for the purposes of expecting to find a more prosperous residence in a land in which they possessed no ancestral ties or against which they had a legitimate claim. From Luke 2:1-6, the objective student of theology reads that Mary and Joseph traveled from Nazareth to Bethlehem to comply with the decree of the Roman census for the purposes primarily of taxation. Thus, this narrative had nothing to do with immigration policy.

If a pulpiteer wanted to connect the account with something to make it relatable for contemporary audiences, the homily ought to have referenced the disturbingly intrusive census questions (since that was why a pregnant woman was required to plod across rugged countryside (tradition often depicts, on the back of a burro) or overly burdensome tax regulations such as those threatening small microbusinesses to submit proceeds to every conceivable local revenue jurisdiction in a country that spans the breadth of an entire continent.

Chris Cuomo is correct that Scripture does require compassion. However, he is even more exegetically negligent in failing to point out that this quality is circumscribed with boundaries and requirements not only on the part of the party obligated to extend it but also on the part of the ones considered to be receiving it.

Leftists love to point out how Scripture admonishes fair treatment of the stranger dwelling amidst the children of Israel. Interesting how those exhibiting an enthusiasm for the detailed oracles of God in this particular instance grow noticeably silent or even dismissive of the obligations expected of those not hailing from the Covenant people but extended the blessing of being allowed to sojourn among them.

For example, these aliens were not allowed to carry on in their heathen customs in a manner that would have polluted the sanctified culture. Those granted sanctuary would have been required to comport themselves by a body of standards far more restrictive than anything that would be imposed in Trumpist America.

Leftists priding themselves somewhat as Bible scholars will no doubt respond that these statutory rigors are part of the Old Testament covenant. These provisions do not apply to the New Testament which is based upon forgiveness and love.

So is that really how religionists of a more progressive outlook want it? So in an exaggerated Jim Carrey mannerism, “ALLLLLRIGHTY then!!”

It follows that the parameters of God’s fulfilled covenant are circumscribed by the portion of Scripture referred to as the New Testament. Those wanting to invoke its protections are just as obligated to abide by its regulations.

As such, Romans 13:4 says of the magistrate, “For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” Therefore, if Chris Cuomo is going to admonish compliance with the whole counsel of God, shouldn’t viewers expect to see the broadcaster deliver an exhortation urging those wanting entrance into the United States to comply with all duly enacted regulations and policies deemed necessary by the American people as enacted through their government as established by a ratified constitution?

In the conclusion of his remarks, Cuomo equated the migrant caravan at the border demanding entrance into the United States or threatening an undefined “or else” with the Holy Family. These two demographic quantities are nothing alike in terms of the responses to their respective circumstances.

For example, the most basic characteristic one cannot help but notice about the caravan is its incessant and forceful making of demands. For it was not the orderly way in which the throng went about filing petitions for entrance that prompted border enforcement personnel to respond with the strategic deployment of the compound colloquially referred to as “tear gas”.

The Holy Family, on the other hand, are not on the record in Scripture as to making any demand whatsoever. The account is not even clear as to whether or not they told anyone else of their plight.

In dramatic interpretations of the Gospel account more likely to give the kids more charismatic than those relegated to the role of shepherds but not quite the apple polisher of the lad usually selected to play Joseph, the innkeeper is made out to be a bigger equus africanus asinus than the one Mary is depicted as riding into Bethlehem on for sticking a pregnant woman in a barn. However, an innkeeper is not even mentioned in terms of explicit divine revelation.

There is next to no background provided as to how it was that Mary and Joseph ended up in the stable. All theories speculating as to whether it was at the suggestion of the innkeeper because of Joseph’s pleading or because the sanctified couple quickly dashed in for a modicum of privacy because Mary couldn’t any longer keep the blessed event contained within her virgin womb with the alternative being not to lay down the head of the little Lord Jesus gently on the hay but rather letting the crown of glory plop onto the dusty streets of Palestine.

It can be stated with near certainty that Mary and Joseph acted nothing like the migrant horde amassing along the border with Mexico or even the typical hipster millennial mother that demands accolades and extravagant concessions for simply having procreated. At no time did Joseph hurl rocks at the inn, threatening to burst through the door uninvited. At no time did Mary demand that those within earshot alter their routines to accommodate the circumstances in which she found herself or provide her with a lactation room more extravagantly furnished than a five star resort.

As an inherently emotional season, many are prone to turn off for the holidays those defenses that usually protect the discerning from being taken advantage of during other times of year. However, it is in such moments that those bent on undermining both our heritage and our liberty are prone to be at perhaps their most deceptive.

By Frederick Meekins

From Whence Cometh Christmas Conniption?

Over the past several decades, the culture war animosities that arise in response to the condemnation of Christmas and the vocal response rushing to the defense of the celebration have become so predictable that these have about taken on the status of traditions in themselves akin to decked out halls, trimmed trees and marathon broadcasts of “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “A Christmas Story”. Those realizing that it will probably be futile to expect to eliminate this beloved festival and, more importantly, the worldview that this holiday represents through a direct frontal assault are now starting to insist that the war against Christmas doesn’t exist at all.

In one essay titled “Time For Truce On ‘War Against Christmas’”, Leslie Handler goes as far as to call this annual Yuletide dispute “fabricated”. She proceeds to equate those outraged to the point of articulated disagreement against this annual campaign to undermine American culture with the perpetrators of “shootings on ball fields with lawmakers or places of worship filled with people praying or bars filled with our youth who perhaps have not yet learned to hate.”

The sort of naiveté thinking that youth in their early twenties likely to be found in a bar have not already figured out how to hate is proof enough why a number rushing to the defense of the Christmas cause think that these attacks against the holiday serve as proof that Western civilization may be closer to the point of collapse than many realize or are willing to admit. The reasoning is little better elsewhere in the column.

Leslie Handler insists that the movement to expunge the most explicitly sectarian examples of Christmas commemoration from government sponsored venues is based upon the separation of church and state which Handler insists the country is built upon. But from this errant soil springs equally errant fruit.

Though it might be part of the jurisprudence imposed under threat of Waco-style law enforcement for failure to comply, the sort of separation of church and state as advocated by Leslie Handler is found nowhere in the First Amendment as enumerated by the Founding Fathers nor imposed upon the states through the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. What the First Amendment says is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”

What that means is that a non-Christian student cannot be compelled to accept or affirm Christian doctrine against their will under threat of punishment. Nowhere does the Constitution say that the vast majority should be forbidden from articulating their most sincerely held beliefs or that entire aspects of the nation’s heritage should be ignored to the point of suppression because a minuscule but highly-organized activist few demand such at the hands of radical secularists or combustible pyrotechnics at the hands of the militant adherents of certain heathen creeds.

In the name of faddish ideologies such as multiculturalism, diversity and inclusion, it is argued that those holding to any number of bizarre notions no matter how far outside the mainstream or even inimical to public order, mental stability and bodily integrity should not only be allowed to have their say publicly. Those within earshot had better not respond with anything but gleeful enthusiastic acceptance if they do not want to face catastrophic consequences such as the loss of employment or the opportunity to advance academically.

Leslie Handler writes in response to a caller of a talk show suggesting that if a parent does not want their children singing “Oh Holy Night” perhaps the child shouldn’t be in the school chorus, “Would this woman really want her child singing a religious song honoring a faith other than hers? Would she believe it was OK for her Christian child to sing a Muslim song praising Allah?”

Christian have been forced to do the equivalent of this for quite awhile now. This has been going on for years if not decades.

For example, in Virginia in 2015 and in West Virgina in 2018, students were forced to copy in Arabic the shahada, the ritual proclamation indicating that those that recite the creed have been initiated into the Islamic faith. At least if an atheist whelp reneges on what he sang during a Christmas carol, even among the most die hard of contemporary Christians, the urchin is not viewed as fair game for execution unlike in the eyes of certain Muhammadean sectarians.

Some time ago in Prince George’s County, Maryland, pupils studying a unit on ancient Egypt did not simply review the beliefs from the realm of the Pharaohs from the standpoint of “This is what the ancient Egyptians believed, class.” Rather the students composed letters to pagan deities beseeching advice (one might argue that is the essence of prayer) and crafted amulets for the purposes of warding off evil spirits. One must ask would the ACLU let it quietly slide if on a segment on the Middle Ages students would have nonchalantly been allowed to bead their own rosary or paint their own icon?

With so much allowed to take place in the public schools sounding more like something out of the Defense Against The Dark Arts course at Hogwarts rather than the technologically sophisticated curriculum of the twenty-first century public school, it is only natural that Christian parents and students are going to be a little agitated when all manner of heathens, deviants, and subversive foreigners whose primary loyalties lie with the homelands they fled rather than the one lavishing them with an assortment of handouts often denied to those forced to provide these luxuries to newcomers and others refusing to lift a finger are glossed over when the time comes to speak allowed their own truth.

Often the beneficiaries of this public largess are even applauded as superior to those retaining loyalty to the values that made America great in the first place. This sting is made even worse in the cavalcade of diversity when traditionalist, instead of being given their turn in the spotlight that insists no viewpoint is more important than any other, are told to sit down and shut up over alleged atrocities that those alive today had no role in perpetrating.

In the Brave New World in which we find ourselves, Heather has two mommies. Entire classes are often expected to miss recess for an entire month to symbolize solidarity with the Akmed’s and Omars of the world during Ramadan. White kids are compelled to feel bad all through the month of February over injustices and that long since been overcome. Female students are now the ones punished over biological males taking leaks trousers down in from of them standing in the little girls’ room. These parents ought to be incredulous over claims insisting that somehow the child of the village atheist is irrevocably harmed by lyrics hoping for peace on earth and goodwill to all men.

Leslie Handler in her column admonishes, “Take a moment to listen to someone else. Learning new perspectives can be a good thing.”

Both objective surveys and man on the street comedy interview routines alike prove the disturbing widespread ignorance regarding American customs, institutions, and cultural practices. As such, the education system would doing all children a favor by at least pointing out that there is more to the holiday season than a week off at the end of the year.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #118

Given the number of cast members that have died as a result of drug overdoses over the decades, isn’t Saturday Night Live about the last TV program that ought to poke fun at enthusiastic imbibers?

Would a man whose life had been ruined by fallacious or overly burdensome child support obligations have been allowed to interdict a Capitol Hill elevator for the purposes of verbally berating a United States Senator? If not, then neither should have an hysterical woman suffering an emotional break down over unproven allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.

In his analysis of the Kavanaugh/Ford testimony on “The Glenn Beck Show”, Bill O’Reilly said that he no longer watches cable news because even Fox News pundits say that which they think will get them money. As such, does O’Reilly renounce the fortunate he accumulated as the public face of that network for nearly two decades along with that from hawking the “Killing Nearly Everything Under The Sun” line of books night after night on his network broadcast?

A Washington Post column is absolutely correct. The Brett Kavanaugh debate is a perfectly valid barometer to determine whether or not someone is worthy to date. Because how can a man trust a woman that believes that one doesn’t need actual proof to move forward with abuse allegations and why risk end up siring such dimwitted offspring?

Contrary to Fox News’ fawning praise of the Trump of regime, is ISIS really “utterly destroyed”? For the danger of Islamist jihad is that it does not need much of a centralized headquarters in order to present a formidable continued threat.

On SermonAudio, a pastor against Halloween said that he gives out bags of candy containing a gospel tract. But isn’t that the moral equivalent of slipping a tract along with a dollar into the thong of a stripper or giving a jihadist a discount on fertilizer if we are to believe Halloween is as evil as these homilists insist?

In an anti-Halloween homily posted at SermonAudio, it was stated that, if those in Hell could return today, these souls would plead with us “not to celebrate the things we do today”. That is a euphemism for trick or treating. What the pastor is preaching is a form of works righteousness. How is that different than what the Catholic church (which the pastor deliberately bad mouthed earlier in the sermon) allegedly teaches? If the damned returned from Hell, it is doubtful the primary thing they wished to convey would be their regret about accepting a few autumnal confections filled with nougat while cavorting in costume. If we are to believe Baptist theories of soteriology, wouldn’t the message instead be believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved?

In a Halloween homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor condemned churches that hold Trunk or Treat but conveyed that he hands out bag of candy with a tract. But isn’t that the equivalent of condemning visitation of the local brothel but seeing nothing wrong with inviting over a call girl from an escort service.

Are pastors that admonish avoiding Halloween celebration on the grounds of the potential harm that can befall children that night such as molestation also going to suggest a similar policy regarding church functions given nearly the same horror known to be perpetrated against the carnally innocent in numerous ecclesiastical venues?

Regarding shrill banshees jacked out of shape about the HimToo movement. A man can’t be compelled to want to spend time with a woman that doesn’t know her place.

Regarding shrill banshees jacked out of shape about the HimToo movement. If a woman has an inherent right to say “no”, doesn’t a man have just as much an inherent right not to ask in terms of refusing to interact in the first place?

Ridicule has erupted over the HimToo hashtag over men refusing to date in light of abuse allegations that fly too quickly and believed too easily. The mockery is proof that this alleged call for justice is not about eliminating questionable behavior but rather a euphemism for the confiscatory redistribution of resources and power not unlike the other concerns hijacked throughout the history of leftwing revolutionary upheaval. For just as no man has the right (to utilize the sort of Biblical language these sorts of Marxist reprobates usually despise) defraud the body of a woman, no woman has the right or legitimate expectation to defraud the pocketbooks or bank accounts of men that don’t deem these skanks an acceptable risk.

When CNN propagandist Don Lemon insists that protests should be allowed to take place anywhere, does he intend to be consistent and advocate that sidewalks in front of abortion clinics be considered one of these acceptable venues?

In an anti-Halloween exposition, a Baptist minister pointed out that the Puritans did not want anything to do with Halloween. As I recall, they didn’t cotton up to well to Baptists either. So should we similarly still be opposed to Baptists now because the Puritans did not like them back then?

But does Elizabeth Warren possess more Native American DNA than any other average American? And don’t such DNA tests prove that there is more to race and ethnicity beyond that of a mere social construct leftist social engineers only seem to insist must be set aside if it buttresses traditionalist American assumptions and perspectives?

Donald Trump’s refusal to donate to charity if Elizabeth Warren could prove she was Native American is still a less devastating broken promise than “Read my lips. No new taxes” and “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”

There’s still more proof that the little Black kid might have sexually assaulted a woman than Judge Kavanaugh having done anything illegal in terms of taking carnal liberties.

Propagandist Trevor Noah laughing at footage of a White person calling another Caucasian a “White lady”. And that is different than Blacks like President Obama having to constantly remind us of his color how?

Regarding those opposed to dating in favor of “courtships”. So it is inappropriate for an unchaperoned couple to go out to dinner, bowling, or a movie but apparently Ruth can spend all night alone with Boaz in his bedroom and this is supposed to be the ideal Christian love story?

Meal kits. Aren’t these just a marketing trick to get hipsters to prepare their own food? How are these any different than how people eat that have made the vast majority of meals at home except for the jacked up price?

By Frederick Meekins

Romney Downplays Danger Of Out Of Control Press

In a campaign blog post republished as a column by USA Today, Senator-elect Mitt Romney criticized President Trump for “vilifying” the press.

Interesting how we the common rabble often have to swear near-feudal oaths of fealty that our own remarks submitted as letters to the editor have not been published elsewhere before such content will even be considered.

Instead, Romney extols, Americans ought not look to the press as an enemy but rather as an essential component of democracy.

At times, the President has not only gone overboard in his attacks on the mainstream media but crossed over that boundary into the territory of scathing remarks of little bearing on the issue at hand directed at particular correspondents.

But neither should the danger of journalistic outlets claiming to report Joe Friday’s “nothing but the facts” spinning those in a way more befitting admitted opinion commentators to subtly advance an agenda or even parading outright fallacies for this purpose be downplayed.

In his own column, Romney (probably unwittingly) shows how this is possible without even realizing it.

Romney writes in gushing praise of establishment journalism, “it opened our eyes to the sexual abuse of children by priests”.

Interesting how he doesn’t even reference similar abuses at the hands of his own beloved Mormon Church that interjects itself into the lives of families creating barriers between parents and children that no members of any legitimate religion ought to put up with or allow.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #117

Those now outraged over the shennagains alleged to take place at high school and college parties were the same ones just a few years ago insisting that teens should have access to as many condoms as they want because they are incapable of controlling their base impulses, that those waiting until marriage are somehow insane, that parents refusing to allow their offspring to attend these sorts of orgies are borderline abusive, and that 40 year old virgins are an acceptable topic of cinematic ridicule.

Would these bigshot women now making a fuss about the antics that take place at teen and college parties settle for the sorts of men that did not attend such functions now in second rate occupations because they do not succeed in those professions that require a more predatory nature that would be able to provide the posh lifestyle these sorts of women usually demand?

So if allegations of sexual misconduct without proof are to now serve as the basis of blocking the accused from public office, why can’t claims of what transpires at places such as Bohemian Grove be used to remove elites from positions of influence?

So what is it going to be? When Judge Kavanaugh was initially nominated, critics responded that they preferred a jurist with more “real world experience”. By this, it was meant that they did not think he was necessarily debauched enough with a number of aborted fetuses left in the wake of a lifestyle embracing the spirit of the age with gusto. But apparently now neither is he acceptable for perhaps having wallowed in the might makes right, if it feels good do it mentalities we are expected to endorse for the purposes of eliminating the traditional morality that prevents the species from achieving greater evolutionary heights and levels of consciousness.

If a pastor never calls on anyone to pray nor solicits volunteers to do so, is it fair to condemn from the pulpit the amorphous unnamed in the congregation with allegations about being afraid to pray aloud?

So if hardline Baptists can look down their noses at those that don’t wear ties to church, what is so wrong with Catholic, Anglican or Lutheran clerics looking down their noses at Baptist ministers that do not wear vestments or collared clergy shirts?

If we have come to the point in society where it is now deemed inappropriate in an open judicial or legislative forum for a man to ask at a respectable physical distance questions regarding the validity of an alleged incident, isn’t that pretty much an admission by those making this demand that women are too mentally unstable or fragile to handle the pressures of policy and government? For if one is going to crumble before an inquisitive Senator, why do we think those of that gender would be able to handle the ruthlessness of an Islamist, Red Chinese, or Russian Neo-Soviet interrogator as a prisoner during a time of war? Dr. Ford is, after all, supposedly an academic used to the rigors of intense discussion and not a laundry room scrubwoman or sheltered debutante.

Leftwing propagandists are having a hearty laugh at a Russian wench tossing a concoction of water and bleach onto the laps of guys she finds manspreading on public transportation. Wonder if this would be found so funny if a similar kind of low grade chemical warfare was conducted against WOMMMMMMEN exposing enough cleavage to make a baby hungry or a skirt yanked up to, as my mom used to say, their who-ha.

So if it turns out two others assaulted Dr. Ford as is now being reported, will this become about pursuing justice wherever that might lead or will this incident quietly drop from both media and judicial attention given that the intended target can no longer be destroyed by these allegations?

If a woman over the age of consent did not like what was transpiring at a particular party to the point that the worrisome activity ranked of criminality, why would she return to similarly administered soirées on multiple occasions if she otherwise comported the rest of her existence with no evidence of coercion? And if a college age dude that hung around high school parties ought to be castigated as a pervert, deviant or sex addict, shouldn’t the same suspicion be directed at a college aged female as well?

Apparently media snowflakes are gripped with mental breakdowns over President Trump’s articulation of the phrase “con job”. Yet these are the same sorts that can’t go three words without uttering a profanity and have little problem with raunchy novels about women that get their kicks being chained up or flogged by rich men.

Judge Kavanaugh likely isn’t a sexual predator. However, what other manner of psychosis grips his mind to have propelled him to have made and kept a calendar that detailed?

In the fall 2018 edition of the Eerdman’s Academic Catalog is a book titled “Burying White Privilege: Resurrecting A Bad Ass Christianity” by Miguel A De La Torre. Torree is a Professor of Latinx Studies at Iliff School Of Theology and apparently an ordained Southern Baptist. One chapter within the work is titled “The Fallacy Of Whiteness”. So would Eerdman’s allow for the publication of a text by a Professor of “White Studies” to badmouth the racial grievance industry (particularly those wings of it derived from Hispanosupremacism)? Just as important, would such a scholar be allowed to retain his ministerial credentials with the Southern Baptist Convention?

In an analysis of the encounter between Marco Rubio and Alex Jones, it was dismissively quipped on BlazeTV that Jones believes that space aliens knocked over the World Trade Center. Even if Jones did, would that be any more bizarre than the Mormonism that Glenn Beck professes, a religion holding that God was once a man from the planet Kolob and that you too can one day become a god of your own world if you refrain from coffee and warmed tea?

The legislators now outraged at flatulence jokes probably back in the day supported government grants for “artworks” depicting crucifixes submerged in urine, portraits of the Virgin Mary smeared with dung, and photos of men with whips protruding from their backsides

Propagandists feigning concern over Judge Kavanaugh simmering with anger certainly don’t seem to mind the expression of that sentiment when Black Lives Matter insurgents loot electronics outlets and hair care establishments.

If you believe the Comcast Internet Essentials for deadbeats commercial that students are using the net to complete calculus assignments, I have a bridge you might be interested in purchasing.

An Atlantic Monthly Magazine article is criticizing Mormons for once desiring to be a “White and Delightsome people”. Will similar condemnation be heaped upon Jews seeking to retain a distinctive ethnic or racial component of their spiritual identity?

It has been argued that, because of his combative responses during his Senate confirmation hearing, that Judge Kavanaugh does not have the temperment to dispassionately adjudicate the conflicting claims of the cases likely to come before him on the bench. Then why can’t the same be said of the shrill banshees hysterically accosting Senators about his nomination on Capitol Hill elevators or mobs threatening reporters upholding traditional presumptions of innocence without any preponderance of evidence?

By Frederick Meekins

Pastor Fails To Acknowledge Democrats Fomenting Discord

In a homily posted at SermonAudio, a pastor warned that the problem with Donald Trump is that he alienates nearly every ethnic group with the exception of White people.

And Hilary’s categorization of those that disagreed with her as “deplorables” ought to be construed as a term of admiration and consensus building?

So what this pastor is saying is that the church ought not strive to view the moral landscape through the principle of their being neither Greek nor Jew.

Rather, pulpit pronouncement must be formulated in such a way as to pander and cater to favored minority agitators as predetermined by manipulative social engineers.

If a pastor is going to suggest that Donald Trump is to be blamed for disturbances because of his rhetoric that unruly protesters should be roughed up a bit, doesn’t that pastor also have an obligation to admit that President Obama should be blamed in part for Antifa hijinks when he urged his supporters to “get in the faces” of those that dared articulate opposition to him and when he explicitly declared that those disagreeing with his immigration policies should be considered “enemies”?

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #116

Pastor Sean Harris of Berean Baptist Church said that, if you love silver, you can’t love your neighbor. That is because, when the neighbor is in need, you will hoard the silver rather than meet the neighbor’s need. Firstly, shouldn’t you providing for the need of your neighbor be dependent upon why the neighbor is supposedly in need in the first place? Secondly, for a church where the pastoral staff is repeatedly on the record at SermonAudio as to how much contempt they harbor for the American flag, why is there more than one flag in the SermonAudio profile picture for Berean Baptist Church? Wouldn’t those funds have been better spent providing for one’s neighbor?

Interesting the number of periodicals hinting at Trump’s dictatorial aspirations with a caricature of him adorned in Roman regalia. Did the mainstream media depict Obama in a similar fashion? After all, was he not the presidential aspirant that delivered his nomination oration amidst Grecian columns and to whom school children sang what amounted to worshipful choruses? I don’t believe that was Donald Trump threatening the fundamental transformation of America from the standpoint of explicitly denigrating the Founding and to send around government agents door to door to forcibly access your weight. Nor was it Melannia threatening that we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.

An episode of Generation’s Radio analyzing the history of homeschooling glamorized the socioeconomic situation where sons continued in the vocational callings of their fathers. Note that the emphasis is on the callings of the fathers. That does not translate as that necessarily being the callings of the sons. For all we know, given that people died at notoriously young ages back when the described situation was the typical career path, they probably weren’t as satisfied or fulfilled as this podcast would try to lead listeners to believe. Most back then were probably quite miserable. It’s just that if anyone dared express how they felt, mob justice would have probably hung them for being demon possessed or as a homo if a man dared mention anything about his emotional state.

Does the mainstream media praising Senator McCain for being an independent thinker ever intend to praise President Trump for also being an independent thinker? Most of what McCain advocated was rehashed establishmentarianism. A number of Trump’s insights actually are bold and innovative.

In response to those banned or suspended from assorted social media platforms for posting content not necessarily obscene in the traditional sense but for being at variance with prevailing herd mentalities, it is correctly observed that these are private companies not necessarily bound by traditional understandings of free speech. However, what is to prevent this perspective from being applied to other commodities provided by the private sector such as food, shelter, clothing, and transportation?

It has been proposed that the Russell Senate Office Building be renamed in memory of John McCain. Senator Richard Russell, after whom the building is named, opposed a number of civil rights initiatives. So forty or fifty years from now when something sticks in the craw of whatever activists then are constantly mollified for fear of stoking a riot over what John McCain did, should his name in turn be removed from the structure? What if radical feminists decide that the memory of John McCain is no longer worthy of such an honor because of dumping his first wife in favor of a younger, leggier, and less crippled upgrade?

Many outraged over comedian Norm McDonald’s remarks referencing Down Syndrome most of the time rank among those suggesting the sufferers of that affliction should be denied continued existence.

Had Judge Kavanaugh not attempted to cop a feel as a youth, the reprobates now tossing a fit that he might have would turn around and insist he would be unfit to sit on the bench for lacking existential appreciation for the evolution sexual standards and morays.

Hank Hanegraaf posted a podcast episode titled “The Dangers Of Fundamentalism”. While a legitimate topic of apologetic reflection, does he also intend to record an episode as critical of the shortcomings of the Orthodox church as well?

Vacuous thespian Anne Hathaway in an oration denounced “white, straight, cisgender privilege”. As such, does she intend to forfeit the fortune she has accumulated for being about as White as you can get?

Even if Judge Kavanaugh got a little hands on as a teen, it’s not like he left a woman to die in a car crashed into a body of water and conveniently forgot to notify public safety officials until some time later.

Unless there is a photo of the incident, why ought allegations of Judge Kavanaugh’s indecent exposure over thirty years ago be believed?

The Baltimore Sun is downplaying the multiple casualty incident perpetrated by a transgender shooter. It is repeatedly emphasized throughout the report that the individual suffered from “emotional distress”. Wonder if such sympathy would be extended to a man resorting to a similar manifestation of outrage as a result of an inequitable divorce settlement or outrageous child support obligations beyond his means to afford.

By Frederick Meekins