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