Hit & Run Commentary #115

A Trump appointee has resigned her position as deputy communications director of the Department of Health and Human Services over online postings made prior to her appointment that have little to do with either health or human services. A strained case could be made that categorizing Islam as a cult that has no place in America, though a personal opinion considerably more broadminded than the fate radical Islamists would impose upon Christians in lands where that totalitarian theology holds sway, is a problematic perspective to be articulated by an official of a government adhering to the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause. However, what bearing does her belief in conspiracy theories such as Pizzagate have to do with anything? The repercussions of this are chilling in terms of employment being contingent upon cognitive compliance with prevailing intellectual assumptions. For example, should a person be denied an appointment to office if they do not celebrate the findings of the Warren Commission with the enthusiasm of a creedal dogma? And just whose assumptions are to be granted preference when there is a conflicting difference of opinion? For example, should a bureaucrat in a southern state be dismissed for holding to Darwinism when most of the population likely holds to some form of Creationism from a position that is not directly related to the implementation of science policy?

For years, Democrats especially harped propaganda that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms was not the concern of the voting electorate. As such, what does it matter if a candidate dabbles in the composition of racy cryptozoological narratives? After all, numerous practitioners of mental health assure that the smut on television does not cause irrevocable psychological damage. And no matter what freak might have been gotten on with Sasquatch, it could not have been as shocking as that concocted in the mind of Senator Jim Webb whose own forays into literary carnality depicted children.

So why is it considered unacceptable for a political candidate to dabble in Bigfoot porn but a work about an eccentric billionaire that beats, ties up, and controls his concubine is considered a literary and cinematic blockbuster?

Too bad San Francisco is not as concerned about public defecation as plastic straws.

Shouldn’t those opposed to the construction of a border wall remove not only the locks but the doors as well as a form of home security? To be consistent, shouldn’t those lugubrious regarding their broadminded sentiments regarding border policy instead be required to inform each passerby of the wonderful things contained within the domicile but the only method that they should be allowed to prevent unauthorized entry be the suasion of their own words?

Shouldn’t Democrats feigning contempt at so-called “Bigfoot erotica” be even more outraged at the drama Smallville and any romantic scenes from Superman productions over the decades? For if the evolution most progressives hold as a theory of origins proves true, technically human beings and

If organized religion will allow those divorced before professing belief in Christ to remarry without penalty such as disqualification from holding ecclesiastical position, can those getting divorced after acceptance into formalized membership be granted a similar loophole to remarry without punitive sanction by insisting that they really were not saved at the time of the initial divorce or marriage to a divorced individual?

Under the direction of Pope Francis, the official catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is being updated to decree that the death penalty is inappropriate in all situations and circumstances. Perhaps even more importantly, isn’t this an admission that the Popes and magisterium under their purview that allowed the death penalty under limited circumstances in more contemporary times and certainly on a more systematic basis in previous eras where blessing was granted to the execution of opponents of the Church proof that these institutions are not so infallible after all?

Madonna has fled to Portugal. The sagging pop star conveyed this is not America’s finest hour. If that’s the route the criticisms are to take, since when was it even last Portugal’s finest century?

Outrage erupted over the Drudge Report headline “Border Battle: USA Taking In 250 Kids Per Day” accompanied with a photo of a group of children holding what appeared to be firearms. It was claimed that these were not Hispanic children but rather Syrians in their homeland and the firearms not real but merely toys. Perhaps liberals should direct their umbrage at themselves rather than Matt Drudge. Nowhere did the Drudge Report say that these were Hispanic children. Aren’t the liberals automatically doing so the ones exhibiting the sort of racism that they have taken it upon themselves to expunge from the remainder of us? For are not these liberals the ones that in any other instance rank among the first to point out that many conspiring to violate U.S. border are not Hispanic?

So will it only be in Trevor Noah’s mind, as he says of the concerns of others regarding socialism, should he one day gaze upon his pay check and see that the vast majority of it has been confiscated to be redistributed to those that did nothing to earn it or to finance programs with which he does not agree?

So why didn’t all of those celebrating the removal of Alex Jones from social media as a manifestation of the glorious prerogatives of private property and free enterprise rush as enthusiastically to the defense of the Christian baker refusing to prepare a cake for a gay wedding for nearly the same reason?

The elites jacked out of shape regarding Laura Ingraham’s courageous reflections upon the nation’s disastrous demographic changes are the same ones that reside in gated communities protected by armed sentries packing the same firearms that would be denied to everyone else. However, the rest of us are expected to not only reside in but celebrate the rapidly ghettoizing slums resulting from unbridled immigration.

Laura Ingraham assures that her articulated concerns regarding demographic change are not about race. And what if they were? Do not other ethnic groups lament their own potential demise and organize for the purposes of their own survival with the blessing of various institutional elites? For are the sorts of criticisms aimed at Ingraham targeted towards the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference when that organization agitates under the motto of “Empowering the Hispanic Church, Engaging the Hispanic Vision and Enriching the Hispanic Dream”? Such a statement does not exactly exude with the militant colorblindness imposed upon the likes of Ingraham that threatens occupational ostracism and broadcast banishment for any media personality vocalizing anything but complete acquiescence to globalist social engineering.

If churches are going to reduce the Book of Ruth to yet another tirade with which to beat congregations over the head with as some kind of condemnation regarding people marrying later, do these same ministers also intend to applaud unmarried people sleeping together in the same room as also transpired in the text.? Many hyperlegalists these day just about equate going to the movies or even out to eat together as a form of prostitution.

Regarding outrage over depiction of Apu on the Simpsons. Isn’t the point of the series that they pretty much poke fun in one way or the other at everyone?

Faux newscaster comedian John Oliver has condemned as racist Laura Ingraham for her lamentation regarding certain demographic changes taking place as a result of unbridled immigration. But if all cultures really are equal, why didn’t Oliver remain in his own homeland or move to a less prosperous and free country which would have no doubt been less majoritarian White? Most importantly, as someone that is not from here, has Oliver put his money where his leftwing mouth is and moved into an area marked by the diversity the remainder of us are expected to reflexively embrace without hesitation under threat of punishment? More than likely, he has no doubt cordoned himself surrounded by his fellow pale Morlock elites demanding we respond with nothing but celebration in regards to the fates intended for the remainder of us.

So if a girl named Heather’s mother divorces Heather’s step father and Heather’s mother marries another man yet the first husband is still considered the step father would the title of this children’s book be “Heather Has Two Daddies: The Next Iteration”?

Throughout coverage of the anniversary of the Charlottesville upheavals, Americans were constantly admonished that nowhere is there any place for White supremacism or racism. Thing of it was, seldom were we actually told what exactly does this consist of or that it was just as morally reprehensible when a similar tendency manifests itself in the heart of someone other than a majoritarian Caucasoid. A number of activists assured that, even if people treated each other respectfully as individuals, the campaign of comprehensive reeducation and social transformation would not be complete until systemic deficiencies and discrepancies are addressed. In other words, resources will be taken from those that have them to be given those that do not irrespective of whether or not these recipients have done anything to earn these beneficiences. So in order to be proven sufficiently purged of the old order’s biases, you will be condemned as racist if you stand there with anything other than sheer elation when on that day your bank account, your home, and your very possessions will be seized from you in the name of beginning the world anew.

If someone does not want to watch football on Sunday on religious grounds, that is their personal business. But isn’t that person saying that no one should be allowed to watch football on Sunday because of that individual’s convictions akin to saying that access to bacon should be prohibited to everybody to placate Adventists and Islamists?

Did those jacked out of shape about a proposed census question regarding citizenship exhibit a similar degree of umbrage over the long form’s interrogatories as to how many flush toilets could be found in the respondent’s domicile or how far they drove to work?

Propagandists are celebrating the father of White consciousness gatherings Ronald Kessler threatening to toss the rabble rouser from the family domicile. So do these liberals intend to applaud similar ultimatums made against gays violating their parents’ preferred values as well?

If access to public transportation is to be predicated upon embracing the prevailing sociological theory as insinuated by a gaggle of Washington Metro system employees outraged about a subway car set aside for attendees of the Unite The Right rally in order to prevent a riot or melee, will the next step to be to deny electricity and water to those harboring ideologies outside the social mainstream?

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

Is Grief About Healing Or Group Compliance?

It was said that when a Christian dies, other Christians should naturally express sadness but that they should also rejoice that the person has gone home to glory.

Usually the interval between these emotional responses is placed on a schedule dictated not by a person’s own rate of healing but rather on a timetable expedient so as not to inconvenience other believers .

While one is glad that the person is no longer suffering, it often feels like one has been left with a consolation prize.

Given this sentiment holding in suspicion those having lost a loved one, it prompts one to ask are some afraid to express their true grief for fear of being hauled before some inquisitorial body?

“Sister So and So, you just aren’t your former self after the designated mourning period extended to you by the graciousness of your ecclesiastical overseers to whom you have pledged obedience and fealty. You are hereby summoned to confess before specified consistory of any doubts or reservations you might have harbored even momentarily. Failure to comply will result in the revocation of any formalized position or office that you hold in this organized fellowship. Confessions of doubt will also result in disqualification of said position or office.”

Yet if someone does express consolation that the departed loved one is in Heaven and that some degree of comfort is found in light of the knowledge they will again one day see their loved one, they should also expect to be slapped across the fingers for supposedly being presumptuous as to whom may or may not have been effectually called despite any profession of faith the departed might have made and regarding what knowledge of this transient realm we might retain in eternity.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #114

Charles Krauthammer is on the record as describing himself as a “Jewish Shinto” meaning that he worshipped his ancestors. Yet for simply wanting to protect America’s borders against a tidal wave of human debris this columnist was at the forefront of establishmentarians roundly condemning President Trump.

The Secretary of Homeland Security has been criticized by MSNBC propagandist Mika Brzezinski for the “tone deaf” decision to eat in a Mexican restaurant. So is this a form of cultural misappropriation? What this complaint is an example of is symbolism over substance. Does this network intend to renounce every public service announcement warning ever broadcast against the dangers of peer pressure? Failure to do so would be rank hypocrisy. For what is being condemned here is nothing more than failure to comply with riotous mobs.

A pastor lamented that neither party is willing to talk with one another on Capitol Hill in pursuit of compromise because elected officials must play to their respective bases. I know that sounds like sophisticated political analysis, but has the pastor making the statement actually contemplated the implications of what he is suggesting? For in terms of at least those on the right, are not Fundamentalist ministers the ones at the forefront of indoctrinating their respective audiences against the dangers of “compromise”? If you spend years conditioning people to avoid associating with Catholics and Charismatics in the name of separation and insist that women wearing pants are just a step away from lesbianism, transgenderism and abortion on demand, don’t be surprised when those that have taken what you say to heart don’t really want anything to do with those with whom they have profound worldview disagreements. So to these pastors that harp for the need for high standards when the standard being advocated is not really even something clearly spelled out in the pages of Scripture, just where is there anything left to compromise with the proponents of contemporary Progressivism?

In a discussion with Bill Kristol on the future of conservatism. Jonah Goldberg remarked that social media communities are not real communities. So what is to be done for individuals that find more fulfilling opportunities in the virtual over offline worlds? For example, churches that offer a single Sunday school class are not able to provide additional teaching opportunities. And frankly, being allowed to plop money into a collection plate as the soul extent to which one is allowed to participate in the comprehensive enterprise of Christendom doesn’t cut it in terms existential satisfied purpose.

At the Heritage Foundation Annual Leadership Conference in fielding a question assessing Donald Trump, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas lamented the he wished the President would not condemn people because such an act was inherently anti-American. But shouldn’t those professing to hold to values over party be willing to condemn people that do condemnable things? And isn’t the only reason the news-consuming public knows the name of Cal Thomas is because of his aptitude for biting amusing criticism? After all, did not Cal Thomas pull something of a John Kerry in opposing Donald Trump before supporting Donald Trump by contributing an essay to the Never Trumpers special edition issue of National Review condemning the prospects of a Trump presidency?

In Nigeria, Islamist herdsmen attacked ten largely Christian communities. Nearly two hundred were killed with a number of villages being completely burned to the ground. Did these poor souls attempt to defend themselves or were they pacified as a result of indoctrination in misinterpretations of passages regarding the turning of the other cheek? Perhaps it is about time they look to guidance from the movie The Untouchables.

So regarding the family allegedly kicked out of a church during a funeral. Were they behaving with decorum as one ought in a church or rolling in the aisles and leaping over the pews as some demographics are during fits of religious ecstasy. For how often are chalices broken in the course of normal use?

To placate special interests prone to loot property and rampage in the streets when not pandered to in regards to assorted public issues, President Trump has reversed his initial position and is now ordering flags lowered to half staff in honor of the slain Gazette journalists. So why is this beneficence not extended to all murder victims or do their lives not matter to the propagandists in the mass media?

Outrage eruptted over Corey Lewmandowski allegedly mocking a Down syndrome child separated from her mother at the border. The headline ought to have ben that liberals have finally met a sufferer of that affliction that they did not think should have been euthanized. For as unsettling as the Trump regime’s treatment of these individuals might have been, it’s still a whole lot better than that endured by Down syndrome fetuses in Iceland. So where is the leftwing condemnation of such policies in these European social democracies to which America is expected to aspire?

Attorney Alan Dershowitz has been ostracized by liberals on the grounds of being a Russian operative. Didn’t they used to adore him for similar reasons?

Steve Ditko, the co-creator of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, has passed at the age of 90. One cannot help but admire Diitko’s approach to the craft. Unlike Stan Lee’s more affable and outgoing shtick, Ditko had not given an interview or made a public appearance in decades. Instead he allowed his body of work to speak for itself. And while fans of graphic sequential narrative owe a debt of gratitude to the role played (some might argue usurped) by Stan Lee as a sort of ceremonial head of an industry that was not always extended the respect it deserved as a legitimate art form, as much appreciation should also be bestowed upon the unassuming professionals that actually turn out this ongoing work.

Tolerancemongers are ecstatic about a number of nations having fallen to multiculturalst hooey such as Australia and Great Britain banning or expelling proponents of enforced border security. But if these leftist regimes should be applauded for guarding what remains of their soiled and fraying social fabric by barring those seeking entrance in accord with established procedures, why is the United States frowned upon for staking similar steps to preserve its own civic identity by barring those that did not grant this nation/state the most fundamental of courtesies of coming through the proper entrance in the manner that a sovereign people requests?

So why is it acceptable for Christians to admit to watching “The Greatest Showman” on home video but not in a movie theater? Doesn’t the purchase of a DVD still send proceeds into the coffers of producers? Don’t the costumes worn by lady circus performers usually show more flesh than women wearing pants? And why is it apparently acceptable for unmarried men and women to be grabbing all over each other on the flying trapeze but fundamentalist pulpit exegetes explicitly condemn ballroom dancing?

It was said in a sermon that it is not up to us to decide who is and is not a valid Christian. An insightful observation. Too bad it was contradicted by a significant portion of the homily that followed that proceeded to castigate and impugn those that garden on Sunday and not only women that wear pants but also have short hair.

ThinkProgress, the news portal for the Center For American Progress, is outraged that Pizzagate truther Jack Posobiec was issued press credentials to cover the Trump/Putin summit one behalf of One America News Network. For those that don’t recall, Pizzagate was the conspiracy theory that a Satanic peophile ring was masterminded from a DC pizzaria noted for its occultic decorative motif. However, it must be noted that the Center For American Progress was founded by John Podesta. Podesta is on the record of engaging in a serious email exchange with former astronaut Edgar Mitchell about the steps that would be required for the United States acquire zero point energy from a non-violent extraterrestrial intelligence from the “contiguous universe”. Sort of makes the Pizzagate allegations not seem so wild-eyes or off the wall after all, doesn’t it?

Nine times out of ten when a minister drones on about something not being in Heaven it is usually euphemism in his personal opinion as to why we should not be allowed to enjoy whatever it is here on Earth as well.

If Discovery Channel’ Shark Week now intends to emphasize celebrity shark encounters over solid documentaries, this may be one programming block that has itself jumped the proverbial shark.

If Disney rehires molestation aficionado James Gunn, shouldn’t the conglomerate also rehire Roseanne Barr? After all, much of what she was terminated for was speculations about George Soros that are probably true. Doesn’t the advocacy of child abuse deserve greater punishment than ethnic humor that fell flat?

By Frederick Meekins

Why Not Lady Church Ushers?

In the 5/23/14 edition of the Sword of the Lord, editor Shelton Smith lists those undersung yet essential ministries in the church in an article titled “The Preacher’s Best Friend”. The first enumerated on this list are ushers.

Of these functionaries, Smith writes, “The men meet the folks coming in.” Smith then proceeds to list a number of responsibilities assigned to this position such as the distribution of bulletins, the finding of seats and the collection of offerings.

The wording itself raises a particular question. Must those filling this position be men? Why can’t these individuals be a women?

In many independent and Fundamentalist churches, the deacons carry out these tasks. If so, such a gender specific pronoun would be understandable.

Such churches hold to the simplest interpretation of the text that the diaconal office should only be held by men according to I Timothy 2:12. However, by his own admission, Shelton Smith does not necessarily view deacon and usher as being synonymous.

He writes, “Our soul winners, bus workers, teachers, deacons should not feel left out here.” One might respond that in using the term “men”, Brother Smith was being a linguistic traditionalist in that the term “men” can grammatically include both men and women.

The other two church support ministries mentioned in the article are sound technicians and nursery workers. However, in connection with these, neither is referenced with gender specificity.

For example, sound technicians are referred to as “they” (a term that can include both men and women). Nursery workers are praised as “These men and women are the saints who attend other people’s babies during Sunday school and church time.”

In defense of male-only ushers, it could be argued that these servants of the church might be called upon to carry out tasks best fulfilled by men. Ushers are on the front line of the church interacting with the public.

As such, limiting the position to men only cuts down on the possibility for hanky-panky on the part of flirtatious visitors or even sexual predators coming into the church. So if we are to be so uptight about untoward interactions between female ushers and male visitors, shouldn’t we be as concerned about improper attraction or spats between a male usher and a female visitor or some lawsuit gold-digger attempting to make a buck off harassment or abuse allegations?

If the threat of this kind of scandal or outrage is to be a foremost preoccupation, then why would Shelton Smith approve of men being allowed to serve in the nursery? For is not molestation a greater evil than a momentary passing tingle or thrill someone might experience from a passing glance or smile in public with someone other than one’s spouse.

If anything, wouldn’t these potentialities necessitate female ushers to interact with female visitors and male ushers to interact with male visitors. Others will respond that only men should be ushers because it is commanded that women are to remain silent in church according to I Corinthians 14:34..

Verbal communication is at the heart of the usher’s ministry as they great people and direct them to where they need to go. If that is the case, should women be forbidden from choir membership and (perhaps even more importantly) musical solos? For along with the pastor’s sermon and Scriptural readings, music plays a pivotal role in conveying the doctrine and teaching of the church.

An additional argument could be made that only men should be ushers since these officers and volunteers are usually responsible for the collection of the offering. I am aware of no Scripture that forbids women from handling finances and currency. From the list of virtues and enterprises elucidated in Proverbs 31, it would seem that women of godly character would excel in just such an arena.

It will no doubt be retorted that money is dirty. As such, only burly, gruff men should handle something as filthy. If that is the case, why does it usually fall to women to toil in the kitchen before, after, and during the church suppers?

Scripture does indeed teach that men and women are distinct creations that each exhibit the creative nature and purpose of God in an unique manner. However, when determining what exactly that entails, the exegete must be careful to distinguish what exactly is there in the text from what may be a sincere yet single interpretation among several within a spectrum of acceptability.

By Frederick Meekins

Pleiadian Republican No Different Than Other Ranking Thought Leaders

The Internet is having a good laugh at the Miami Herald’s endorsement of a candidate running in a Republican primary claiming she was abducted by extraterrestrials.

Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera believes that since she was a small child she has been visited numerous times by Pleiadians sharing with her a message that God is not so much a person as a universal energy.

Before carting her off for psychiatric evaluation, how is what she is professing appreciably different than what is constantly espoused by the media-political establishment?

On Friday’s, the History Channel broadcasts nothing but programming insisting that world religions and ancient cultures were founded by beings from that very portion of the celestial sphere and now that programming block has been replicated to repeat Sunday evenings on A&E.

George Lucas became a household name and made a boatload of money in the process producing blockbusters for the purposes of emphasizing this very same worldview about the nature of God.

Sophisticates will reply that such ideas are acceptable in the world of entertainment.

However, when it comes to actual political power, it should only be handed to those whose minds are down to earth and not so much lost in the stars.

Then perhaps these advocates of sanity will be as forceful in their opposition to federal money going to sponsor conferences in posh resorts where academics discuss the ramifications of extraterrestrial intelligence not so much as topic of dispassionate scientific curiosity but rather to propagandize how traditional theism is the philosophy that must be eradicated if the human species is to ever advance beyond our terrestrial limitations.

Mainstream journalism cannot have it both ways.

It cannot treat Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera as a pariah yet not compel Mitt Romney to come clean about the astrotheological presuppositions of his own Mormon faith positing that God was once a man from the planet Kolob and that you too can one day become the deity of your own little corner of the cosmos.

By Frederick Meekins

Elites Mock Those Taking The Threats They’ve Harped Seriously

Liberals hate no one more than those that take the implications of progressivist ideas seriously.

Advocates of that particular ideology no doubt ranked among the foremost ridiculing President Trump’s proposal of a new branch of the armed forces for now referred to as the “Space Force” that will be dedicated to defending against threats from beyond the Earth’s atmosphere.

But are not Hollywood leftists the ones making significant livelihoods promoting the message that the foremost security challenges will eventually originate from that particular operational theater?

Space-centered invasions or conflicts have been the topics of some of cinema’s greatest blockbusters.

The History Channel has become so identified with extraterrestrials that one episode of South Park spoofed a documentary on the network suggesting that Thanksgiving actually commemorates a meeting between the Pilgrim forefathers and ancient aliens.

Sophisticates will sneer that Trump’s Space Force is not intended to take on an unidentified flying saucer menace but rather America’s own earth-based geopolitical adversaries.

Fair enough, but are not our own Progressives the ones harping what a renewed threat Russia poses and how President Trump before now did not take that particular regime seriously?

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #113

Apparently part of the stink surrounding the Roseanne Barr kerfuffle is that George Soros is a Holocaust survivor. He survived it allegedly by ratting out his fellow Jews.

Too bad the elites jacked out of shape about Roseanne Barr’s George Soros tweet do not get as upset about the machinations of Soros to collapse the global economy and remake the world order in his preferred image.

So if we are to have sympathy for women that kill their babies during drug induced stupors, why not for Roseanne Barr who might have been experiencing a similar sort of mental compromise?

So if ABC is taking a hardline stance that the distinction between humans and apes is inviolable and sacrosanct, should we expect the promulgation of anti-evolution creation science in all of its programming?

If man is nothing more than an ape as is propounded in the minds of children from the first day of pre-school up through the final PhD exam, wasn’t Roseanne’s remarks a simply statement of ontological fact rather than intended insult?

So if Roseanne can be fired for equating Valerie Jarrett with an ape, shouldn’t ABC’s corporate overlord Disney renounce ever penny it has made from Marvel Comics? For as part of their philosophical foundation, that entire fictional universe holds that man is nothing but an ape advanced to the level of intelligence by extraterrestrials unable to mind their own business.

So is ABC really outraged that a verbally uninhibited comedian equated a human being with just another sort of primate or are they afraid of a Black Lives Matter horde rampaging through the corporate headquarters?

If Supergirl producers hold that guns are not necessary to make a person powerful and more importantly right, doesn’t that actually make Lex Luthor the hero of the Superman saga in attempting to warn humanity of the danger to Earth posed by Superman? Though it is a different company, applying this logic, isn’t Iron Man’s pro-Zachovia Accords position correct over that of Captain America’s in that no unsupervised civilian should be allowed to run around with superpowerss?

If men are no longer supposed to like women in swimsuits and evening gowns, shouldn’t women be forced to settle for men with Duck Dynasty grooming habits? Similarly, no longer should Leonard and Penny on “The Big Bang Theory” be the material of comedic fodder but instead the social norm if these wenches insisting appearances shouldn’t matter want to be consistent.

Outrage has erupted over Roseanne Barr retweeting a negative comment regarding Valerie Jarrett after promising to make amends for what she had done. Given that there is no likelihood that Roseanne will be reemployed by ABC, why shouldn’t the comedian feel free to speak her mind in regards to what she perceives as a legitimate point of public policy? The retweeted comments had nothing this time to do with race but rather dealt with the ideological repercussions of Jarret’s pro-Islamist sympathies.

In light of Paige Patterson’s controversial comments, Baptist functionaries are urging abused woman to leave the house and call the police. Will they be offering similar advice to abused men as well? Critics will respond that not that many men are abused in comparison to the number of mistreated women. But in regards to these sorts of intrusive public awareness campaigns we are constantly beaten over the head with the refran that one is one too many. And apparently one instance of bad advice that boiled down to a difference of opinion was enough for Paige Patterson to lose his job as seminary president.

The career of Southern Baptist functionary Paige Patterson has largely been destroyed as a result over things that he has said that are for the most part a matter of opinion considered to be bad advice. Foremost among these alleged statements is that an abused spouse ought to remain with and reconciled to the partner perpetrating such mistreatment. Following the royal wedding, Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry is being heralded as a foremost homilist on the topic of love. But if the prelate threatens to sue congregations wanting to withdraw from the Episcopal Church over doctrinal reasons, shouldn’t he be viewed as bad as Patterson for insinuating that a spouse ought to remain at all costs with a partner that beats them and denied basic support should the partner actually muster the courage to leave an unhealthy situation?

Southern Baptist Convention President J.D. Greear critically tweeted of the Vice President’s oration before that particular ecclesiastical association that its identity is found in the Gospel and its unity in the Great Commission, not in political platforms. Perhaps Pastor Greear could point out where where anything the Vice President articulated was at variance with the dictates of Scripture. If the Convention’s renewed rallying cry is to be no identity but the Gospel and no unity but the Great Commission, does Greear intend to put the smackdown on the likes of Russell Moore when the preening ethicist veers off into his promotion of minority identity politics and bashing of elderly Whites?

Lawyers in the Parkland school massacre are insisting that the aloof deputy was not under a legal obligation to intervene. As such, isn’t that validation that the greatest number possible in general and educators in particular should be allowed to publicly carry concealed firearms?

Why are violations of U.S. immigration law the only crimes over which there is discernible outrage regarding the separation of children from parents?

Do Vatican functionaries intend to berate the Mexican government as well if that nation does not allow children allegedly born in the U.S. to return to Mexico along with their parents? As a predominantly Catholic nation, one would think that an institution that constantly harps against the corrosive moral effects of materialism (except in regards to its own posh holdings) would find that actually the preferable solution. Unless of course that interferes with that globalist organization’s centuries old objective of undermining the American people as a defensive bulwark against that elite’s particular variety of planetary tyranny.

Too bad liberals are not as concerned about busting up American families as they are about illegal immigrant families. For urban populations (and increasingly ones that could be referred to as trailer park trash as well) have essentially procreated themselves into squalor largely as a result of a welfare system that lavishes resources upon fecund relationships where frankly poppa was a rolling stone.

Regarding these liberals jacked out of shape about children separated from illegal alien parents. Do they complain as loudly about these WOMMMMMEN’s shelters that despise men so much that they separate sons in their early teens from their mothers?

A school in Virginia once named after Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart is to be renamed in honor of Barack Obama. So if the new name were to offend a miniscule segment of the population known to destroy other people’s property until they get their way (for this is ultimately why the name of the school is being changed in the first place), will educational authorities decide to change the name yet again?

If there are no excretory orifice countries as we were admonished following one presidential exclamation, why is there now a horde of families we are now expected to extend a welcome to irrespective of whether or not established procedure was adhered to?

If it is acceptable to heckle an a Secretary of a federal agency outside of a restaurant, why is it not acceptable to behave as boisterously outside of an abortion mill?

Did planetary elites get as worked up into a froth over a German homeschool family denied asylum fearing European authorities would seize their children?

It might be one thing to require online businesses to pay sales tax to their respective states. However, in light of the Supreme Court decision just handed down, does this mean someone that sells over Ebay, Etsy, or Amazon will be required to file for tax licenses in every jurisdiction now where someone might be living that buys a second hand trinket from your trashpile?

Pastor Chris Sonksen is suggesting that up to 80% of those that attend church should up and quit because they take organized religion far to casually. He writes, “…What if everyone served in their God’given purpose?” That might sound ideal. But what if the church you attend is so small that there is no opportunity for you to be allowed the opportunity to fulfill what one believes to be their God-given purpose other than that of a wallet to be emptied into the collection plate?

This kicking out of a business a patron where the product offered and requested does not violate directly the beliefs of the proprietor and propagandists justify the action on the grounds that individuals holding to beliefs at variance with those imposed by elites should not be welcomed in society is an early manifestation of the Antichrist spirit that will refuse to grant the essential provisions of existence to those refusing to bend a knee to the globalist regime by refusing to take the Mark as foretold in Revelation 13.

At a Capitol Hill press conference, Nancy Pelosi opined that it is immoral to build a border wall. Instead, she insisted, it is better to build a bridge. Such would facilitate rather than impinge upon access In previous decades, Americans could pretty much roam the Capitol corridors as they saw fit without being confined to some visitor center. Now access is severely restricted. In light of what could be considered a spirit of glasnost, does Pelosi intend to advocate legislation or alterations in internal policy negating such restrictions or to remove barriers inhibiting access to the facility’s grounds? After all, Americans have more of a right to the Capitol they pay for and from which are promulgated so many of the directives controlling their lives than non-citizens failing to comply with duly constituted statutes to violate the border with impunity.

By Frederick Meekins

Should Those Bucking Public Opinion Be Banished Unto Utter Desolation?

Acolytes of tolerance and inclusion are applauding one Indiana town where these values are not to be extended to a congregation daring to exercise its First Amendment rights with a sign simply reading “LGBTQ is a hate crime against God.”

For nothing more than summarizing a basic Christian doctrine or moral presupposition, the congregation has been kicked out of the structure in which its services were convened.

Those holding to an absolutist libertarianism will likely respond that the individual should be able to evict any tenant that advances values with which they do not agree.

Perhaps so.

So should landlords be able to remove from their premises leasees that are practicing coupled homosexuals or heterosexual shackups that romp in the sack without benefit of matrimony?

In response to this message, one activist little better than a graffiti vandal rearranged the letters to read “Stay open minded”.

If private property is now to be upheld as the inviolate standard, will there be as much hue and cry over this particular individual imposing their preferred morality upon a means of public expression that does not belong to them.

For unless we have indeed descended into mob rule, property rights are not predicated upon compliance with the herd mentality.

By Frederick Meekins

More Off Target With Moonie Offshoot Than Firearms

On an episode of A&E’s “Cults and Extreme Belief”, correspondent Elizabeth Vargas profiled an offshoot of the Unification Church called the World Peace and Unification Sanctuary.

Instead of detailing how the sect’s theology differed from that of orthodox interpretations of Christianity or even the questionable recruitment techniques utilized by Moonie organizations, the episode spent an inordinate amount of time harping upon the sect’s admittedly idiosyncratic incorporation of firearms into certain aspects of its liturgy.

While such might not be a normal part of spiritual practice, such is not without historic precedent.

As such does Elizabeth Vargas intend to broadcast similar exposes with accompanying ominous voice over narration asking do Sikhs really need those ceremonial daggers and just why does a sword play a role in certain Masonic rituals?

Not once do I recall anything said as to the legality of the guns depicted which had been deliberately emptied of ammunition.

Instead, a lengthy reflection dwelt upon the tragedy that could result should the firearm end up being misused by a less rational adherent of this theology.

For as you know, the line of argumentation continued, anyone that doesn’t embrace the transgender movement and believes that legitimate marriage can only be between a man and a woman is by definition well on their way to being diagnosed as mentally deficient.

As proof, the plight is followed of a former Unification member whose mother was paralyzed when she was accidentally shot by his brother because the youths in the sect enjoyed recreational shooting.

One cannot help but sympathize with a family that has experienced such a tragedy.

But isn’t it the fault of the one that shot her, her own child?

Off all of the abridgments of human decency perpetrated over the years by the Unification Church and now apparently its offshoots, this incident really isn’t one for which these parties bear responsibility.

Elizabeth Vargas has been open regarding her struggles with alcoholism.

As such, because some people can’t control themselves around alcohol to the point that they are a danger to themselves and others, does that mean no one should be allowed to utilize the substance in ways otherwise considered legal?

If not, then why this journalistic production where one constitutional liberty is invoked for the purposes of subverting another?

By Frederick Meekins

Warehouse Criminal Migrants On Properties Of Open Border Propagandists

Professional religionists spanning a broad theological spectrum along with a number of prominent public figures have joined forces in criticizing migrant detention policies blamed on President Trump perceived as splitting up family units.

A number of these such as the Roman Catholic Church and Southern Baptist Convention also hold sizable properties such as universities and denominational headquarters.

So have any of these leaders, as well as the First Ladies joining in this chorus, that any other time crave as much media attention as possible to share just how much “social justice” concerns burden their respective souls ever offered to shelter these people under their collective roofs?

If not, why not?

It will probably be responded that such a gesture would likely inconvenience the vital work of these important leaders, compromise their safety and diminish the value of their real estate holdings.

Then why is that a burden that must be borne by the neighborhoods and lives of those that don’t get to make the decisions as to whom is granted entrance to this great nation in order to placate the assorted open border rackets?

By Frederick Meekins