If All Places Equal, Why Outrage Over Asking Critics To Go Back?

Considerable hullabaloo has erupted over President Trump suggesting four specific legislators return to their respective countries of origin if they estimate conditions in America onerous beyond tolerability.

First, such outcry explicitly contradicts the very multiculturalism that such protestations purport to defend.

For if one locality is no better than any other in terms of the desirability of the culture, physical geography, and the people living there, why all the faux outrage?

Secondly, particularly in the cases of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, perhaps if this duo did not constantly denigrate America, the President would not have assumed that their first loyalties lay elsewhere.

Critics have pointed that Ilhan Omar has in fact been a U.S, citizen longer than First Lady Melania Trump.

And what about it?

Melania did not gain notoriety and political office on the basis of how much she despises America as constituted by the Founding Fathers.

Nor did Melania perpetrate a convoluted identity theft scheme where to this day a definitive answer cannot be provided as to whether or not she married her brother in the attempt to pull it off.

It is too bad that those outraged over Trump’s outbursts are not as concerned regarding the possible links of Omar and Tlaib to assorted forms of jihadist terrorism.

By Frederick Meekins

Baltimore Remarks News Cycle Going Longer Than Battery Powered Lagomorph

According to Republican turncoat Michael Steele, President Trump’s remarks about Baltimore being rat infested are like water off a duck’s back.

Such is clearly not the case.

Diversity fanatics are still jacked out of shape a week later.

Tolerancemongers are pitching a fit that Trump claimed that Baltimore’s homicide rate is higher than that of Afghanistan.

The President probably picked that up from claims beaten into America’s collective consciousness in regards to assorted gun control and anti-military propaganda efforts on the part subversive activists.

So will those invoking such concocted statistics to justify bureaucratic manipulation of the nation’s fundamental structure now be similarly castigated as purveyors of discord and acrimony?

In response to Trump’s remarks about Baltimore, the Commander and Chief is being chided that he is the President of all Americans.

That must be in the same spirit as Hillary categorizing her critics as “deplorables”, Obama denouncing rural Pennsylvanians in particular as bitter clingers unwilling to relinquish their God and their guns in favor of statism’s beatific vision, and when he urged devotees to get into the faces of the regime’s enemies who dared question his infallible decrees.

Given that these critics of the President concerned in particular with the plight of urban blight have apparently had an epiphany that the unity of the nation transcends the differences at this moment on the verge of tearing America apart, perhaps they will now renounce their incessant nagging for reparations for specific wrongs suffered directly by no one alive today and that no one alive today had any hand in perpetrating.

By Frederick Meekins

Anti-Gun Fanatics Target First Amendment

Defenders of the right to bear arms vigorously observe that the Second Amendment is the constitutional provision that ensures the ongoing viability of those freedoms guaranteed by the First deemed by many to be of a more noble or loftier character. Those with their vision clouded with aspirations of how they would like the world to be rather than how it actually is often snidely respond that a level of moral awareness has been reached where the use of force or even the insinuation of an appeal to such is no longer necessary among the COMMUNITY of enlightened individuals to safeguard those protections referred to as rights.

A bill submitted to the Florida legislature for consideration provides clarification as to the precarious and interlocking nature of the Bill of Rights where, if one of these in undermined, they are all ultimately undermined. Now that what is insisted is a consensus has coalesced that firearms in the hands of minors is so lamentable as to require in most instances intervention on the part of the state, it has been proposed that it ought also be against the law to the extent of a penalty of up to $1000 and/or a year in jail for anyone under the age of 18 to post an image of a firearm to social media.

So what other objects not inherently illegal or immoral in and of themselves ought youth to be punished for depicting in an artistic manner disseminated by electronic communication?

Youths below a certain age are not permitted to drive automobiles. Does that mean that a teen auto enthusiast that uploads the image of a vehicle to a social media profile ought to arrested in a police raid?

Given how broadly the proposed statute is written, continuing with this analogy to expose how asinine this is, the teen would not even have to be depicted driving the car without a permit or even simply seated in the driver’s seat. One would be in violation of the law for simply posting an image of an automobile. It must be seriously asked would hate crimes penalties be added if the car depicted happened to be the General Lee from “The Dukes Of Hazard”?

Given the way the proposed law could be interpreted, could a child that likes to draw robots be imprisoned for posting an image of Megatron, the Decepticon leader from the Transformers who in his classic form not only transforms into a gun but has a massive canon strapped to his arm? Don’t think this is absurd?

In 2008, a passenger was booted from a flight for doing nothing more than wearing a shirt where Autobot leader Optimus Prime from the same Transfomers series was depicted holding a gun. That’s right, a passenger was removed from a flight not for carrying an actual weapon but for rather wearing the shirt with a picture of a cartoon character holding a gun that in actuality could not fire a single shot.

If today subjects of the regime can potentially face imprisonment and financial ruination for mere images that do nothing more than symbolize inanimate objects, where will this theoretically end? Might someone be subject to interdiction by law enforcement for simply posting a picture of the Cross, a crucifix, or the equivalent of a status update reading “Jesus is Lord” or “He is risen, indeed”?

Sophisticates will respond don’t be silly. Those only represent ideas or beliefs. Guns or the promotion of firearms, on the other hand, represent a tangible threat to individual well being and maintenance of a sustainable social order.

It might be one thing to enforce prohibitions against weapons conveyed in a manner that does not comply with promulgated standards. However, if one can criminalize something that is not inherently evil in and of itself as the vehicle through which an idea is transferred from one mind to another, the floodgates have been thrown open to a new form of tyranny that is nearly boundless. Should images of sugary snacks be forbidden because of the dangers these delights pose to diabetics and the obese?

C.S. Lewis once observed that the way contemporary society treats sex was analogous to those dieing of starvation gathering to catch a brief glimpse of a meal that the viewers would not be allowed to taste nor touch. One must now ponder in deliberative seriousness if a mind as formidable as his own could conceive of a time when even the image of something innocuous would be as forbidden as a behavior allowed to fester out of control as a result of the attempt to expunge the transcendent eternalities intended to protect against such horrific outrages.

By Frederick Meekins

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Refuses To Pay Reparations But For How Long?

Despite an amount of hand-ringing, groveling, and self flagellation that might make even Phil Donahue say enough already in regards to slavery and the race issue, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is refusing to fork over a hefty sum as reparations to a coalition of assorted activist malcontents.

The Seminary is correct to oppose this ultimatum.

Maybe these denominational functionaries now have an idea how the average pewfiller or frontline pastor feels constantly being clobbered over the head these past few years with this social justice tripe.

But for how long will resolve against this sophisticated form of ideological extortion remain?

After all, it did not take long to get the seminary’s president Albert Mohler from one year categorizing C.J. Mahaney as one of his closest friends to the next referring to the controversial founder of Sovereign Grace Ministries with phraseology as if the two were barely acquaintances.

If the Southern Baptist Convention is now passing resolutions praising critical race theory, before his retirement, Albert Mohler will probably have a big smile plastered across his face as he surrenders the seminary’s endowment to the equivalent of Al Sharpton who will immediately proceed to squander it.

By Frederick Meekins

Producers Hint Batman May Never Return To Television

In the Gotham series finale, viewers were provided a glimpse of the time when the characters had developed into their forms most remember either from the comics or other media.

However, according to a story posted at SyFyWire, there is a likelihood that there might never again be a Batman TV series.

That is because, DC Comics believes, Batman rightfully belongs in the movies.

So how’s that working out for both viewers and the character?

With both “Superman vs. Batman” and “Justice League” underperforming, Ben Affleck has already, as they like to say, hung up his cowl.

This do not necessarily have to be this way.

There is no reason that there cannot be a cinematic Batman along with a small screen Batman that we are given more of than a glancing shot of as the screen fades to black.

After all, DC gatekeepers apparently have little issue with presenting the media-consuming public with two widely varying interpretations of the Flash.

Time to time, Superman makes an appearance on the Supergirl TV series and now Lex Luthor has been added as an ongoing antagonist.

An ongoing series of movies with installments released every two to three years are not enough to do a mythos as complex as Batman the justice and detail that would be possible with a TV series.

By Frederick Meekins

War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

One of the fundamental axioms of politics and policy is to never allow a crisis to go to waste. By that, it is meant that, if at all possible, a tragic event should not only be invoked in reference to limit the circumstances surrounding it, but also to taint one’s opposition with the ensuing heartache so as to make their own defense against the allegations directed towards them seem callous and insensitive.

An article posted 7/26/18 on the Washington Post website is titled “Why Some Christians Don’t Believe In Gun Control: They Think God Handed Down The Second Amendment”. The analysis opens, “We’re now at a point when Americans are killed or injured in a mass shooting almost every month…Despite this, resistance to gun control in the United States remains fierce.”

However, blame is not placed on those actually perpetrating such horrific acts of violence. Instead, blame is aimed at those nebulously referred to as “Christian nationalists”.

The author defines Christian nationalism as an ideology that holds to the inseparable bond between Christianity and American civil society. Adherents of the philosophy are accused of believing that America should remain broadly Christian in terms of underlying symbols and policies with the nation’s foundational liberties to be understood in terms of a literal and absolute meaning.

Interestingly, the authors of the study point out that adherents of Christian nationalism do not necessarily adhere to a singular interpretative theological tradition. Rather those of this perspective are not only conservative Evangelicals but also traditionalist Catholics or even those that construe existence through a religious lens but do not necessarily practice their faith through formalized church attendance.

Such a definition raises a number of issues and questions perhaps even more important than the right to bear arms. Among these rank why certain technocrats want to eliminate this particular liberty and, conversely, why Americans must not allow this precious freedom to be taken away if they desire to retain those more obvious such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The first presupposition denigrated as going “beyond merely acknowledging some sincere religious commitments of the Founding Fathers” is that America should always be distinctively Christian in terms of national identity. But if the majority in the nation are Christian at least to the degree that they have no problem identifying the institutions of such in terms of origin, why are these obligated to be altered to placate a small cabal of disgruntled secularists?

The next issue raised by the authors of the study that ought to be of concern is opposition to enumerated liberties understood as being divine, literal and absolute.

If rights are not understood as being divine in origin, it follows that these protections must derive then from being bestowed upon the individual by the state as the ultimate authority answerable to nothing higher in a materialistic or naturalistic universe. After all, even if for a moment the institution decides to grant those subject to it a degree of leeway referred to colloquially as “rights”, there is nothing preventing these from being revoked at a moment’s notice because of the near monopolistic use of force utilized by the state. For even in a situation where the population has access to basic firearms, these are minuscule in terms of the sorts of munitions available to the state in the era of total war.

Only when rights are construed as being bequeathed upon mankind by God apart from the state can they be perceived as absolute and unchanging. For such a gift would be a reflection of God’s absolute perfection and unchanging goodness.

Nor would an honest or descent person want it any other way. For if rights are granted by an individual or institution that is fallible by nature, who is to say that these rights were not mistakes to begin with.

This concern is evidenced in the case of Alex Jones. It has been concluded that a controversialist such as himself must be “deplatformed” for the sake of the social good because of his propensity to disseminate ideas contradictory to the narratives concocted by globalist puppet masters determining what will or will not constitute acceptable factuality.

Most people, even his admirers, will eventually admit that Jones has said shocking and outrageous things over the years. But what if this government that can adapt the scope of the allowable in order to calibrate what the technocrats conclude is the sort of society that they desire decide to contract the boundaries of permissible utterances further?

Believe that Jesus is the only path to Heaven? But if rights do not exist above the material world, what if a government concludes such cannot be said for fear of undermining the sense of equality of those residing within its jurisdiction? Unless the people are allowed to retain some kind of tangible check on such power run amok.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit and Run Commentary #123

In an interview about artificial intelligence and transhumanism conducted by the Singularity Weblog, philosopher Peter Singer let it slip that he did not particularly love animals. He also revealed that, while mostly vegan, he did not think it was that big a deal if he did occasionally consume animal products, As such, given that he does not think human beings are to be valued above animals, does that mean he doesn’t have any problem with cannibalism?

Trump assures that he is in no hurry to denuclearize North Korea. So like numerous Presidents before him that he no doubt criticized, he is kicking this ball down the corridors of time for some future commander and chief to deal with.

A comic book is being published featuring the superheroic adventures of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, A portion of the proceeds are supposedly going to charity. However, to truly embody her spirit, shouldn’t 75% of the profit derived from sales be seized and squandered on bloated government programs aimed at expanding tyranny and human misery?

Apparently Trump is nearly as naive as Dennis Rodman in regards to the North Korean dictator. Will similar capitulation on the border wall be far behind?

If the Peace Cross memorializing specific World War I veterans is to be removed as symbol of Christian belief, shouldn’t the Washington Monument also be removed as an obelisk is a symbol of pagan ritual?

Cory Booker has introduced legislation to legalize pot on the national level. Yet this Senator, if given the opportunity, would curtail the access of the average American to meat.

If corporations can now determine access to goods and services on the basis of how they will be utilized in propagating particular wordviews, what is to prevent individuals from being denied access to utilities, transportation and food supplies for failure to ideologically comply with prevailing herd mentalities?

If it is bigoted to vocalize concern about the deleterious impact of dual loyalty in politics, how long until votes in Congress are taken to condemn those holding that Christ as part of the divine triune Godhead is the only valid path to salvation because adherents of certain other world religions harbor their own animus to such a theological proposition?

Simpsons producers have agreed to essentially expunge the episode guest starring Michael Jackson from the collective consciousness. It will no longer be available in streaming, syndication rotations, or as part of DVD box sets. So just how far should this cultural manipulation extend? Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson as well as other characters in the series, is a Scientologist. Does that mean the existence of the entire series must now be erased from the space/time continuum?

In a jab believed directed at President Trump, Obama lamented how people want their own facts. He patted himself on the back that his own administration was successful because he believed in things like facts and logic. So what exactly constituted a fact during the Obama regime: that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor? Does Obama also renounce his multiculturalist allies that for the past three decades conditioned generations of students into denouncing logic and facts as White heterosexist modalities of cognition?

In a homily posted at SermonAudio titled “Understanding Cults” a pastor lamented that those that study about cults and share this information are not really doing much. But is this not along with familiarizing oneself with the tenants of sound theology the first step in developing a defense against these sects? How does the minister know that this passed along knowledge won’t be what frees a soul from this variety of spiritual entrapment?

A Christian lad forfeited a wrestling match because, he told the media, it violated his conscience to get aggressive with a woman in such a manner. If a woman wants the snot knocked out of her, that is her business. However, the more important question it seems that the spineless media is afraid to ask is, if a male is tussling with her on the mat and has an erection, will he be accused of a crime or harassment?

A missionary reflected that when he commenced his career in 1986 that there were sixty people in the orientation class sponsored by his missions board. However, this year, he lamented, there were only ten. So why are believers obligated to feel guilty if God is no longer leading souls to minister through a particular organization mentioned nowhere in Scripture? Can the missionary produce statistics that the decline in numbers for one organization have not been made up for by another or more are not being reached through more efficient technology and deployment of resources? As Ann Coulter remarked about missions, is there not enough that needs to be done here in the United States?

The Wall Street Journal reports that fewer men are purchasing suits as business casual becomes more the fashion norm. A female WMAL host lamented the trend because she liked how a man looks in a suit. But if a man really has no real prospects of getting ahead and if this form of clothing isn’t even any longer required and if an individual is overlooked by women in the first place, why ought they even to care? Secondly, would it be tolerated on early morning drive time radio if a male broadcaster handed down similar condemnations of female frumpiness?

Jussie Smollett is a reprehensible individual. But so is a policy that attempts to stick with the cost of a police investigation an accused individual that has not been found guilty in a court of law. What is to prevent the government from employing this tactic to seize funds from other unsuspecting citizens?

The ones yammering the loudest about the proposal to cut federal funding for Special Olympics are the same ones that often insistent that the Special Olympians should have been denied the right to be born in the first place. If you think the lives of the disabled will be diminished without the opportunities provided by Special Olympics, just think how miserable they are going to be when the entire economy collapses because of shyrocketing debt.

Apparently the push now is for the issue of reparations to be studied. In other words, significant money will be squandered on how to squander even more money.

Will the likes of Bernie Sanders advocating imprisoned felons voting still support the proposition if the convicts vote Libertarian?

The March 27, 2019 cover of The Nation Magazine reads “What all parents can learn from Black mothers”. Because as of late they have been doing such a superb job. From the wanton procreating with any dude that comes along irrespective of quality to the failure to control the offspring that happen to elude the abortionist’s hacksaw as these tramps are out having additional tykes by as many fathers often with so many potential fathers that Maury can get repeat appearances by the same core guests. So will the Nation have an accompanying article titled “What all parents can learn from White mothers” or gasp, White fathers?

Outrage erupted over Fox News posting “Aid Cut To Three Mexican Countries”. But aren’t radical multiculturalists in part at fault for creating the impression regarding the interchangeability of Latin American countries and cultures?

If Judge Jeanine is obligated to articulate nothing but adulatory praise over legislators adorning themselves in the garments of Islamist oppression, why should tolerancemongers give a flip if a Fox News correspondent wore a bulletproof vest while reporting from the border? Isn’t it his body, his choice?

A number of individuals having lost family in mass shootings have committed suicide recently over their grief. Wouldn’t the gunmen bear more responsibility for that than an organization such as the NRA?

By Frederick Meekins

Caravan Response Highlights Extent Of Progressive Hypocrisy

So many illegals are pouring over the border that Immigration Services are releasing the throngs onto American streets.

Local authorities are being asked to assist in the care of these undocumented transients.

But shouldn’t enlightened progressives be outraged at this policy request?

They, after all, tossed conniptions at Sheriff Joe Arpaio taking it upon himself to enforce federal laws that were not.

The vigilante patriots of the Minute Man Project were condemned for doing nothing more than monitoring the border and reporting violations to law enforcement.

Activists are lamenting that the holding area for the horde of illegals swarming over the border resembles a concentration camp.

But unlike the case of the historical facilities alluded to, no one was forced into the ones the United States is accused of administering in this instance.

No goons banged down the doors of these people and dragged them here.

How many making these complaints are going to grant these migrants shelter in the gated communities from whence those making these sorts of allegations usually ensconce themselves with luxuries they would deny those deemed less enlightened in terms of espoused ideology?

By Frederick Meekins

Diversity Fanatics Manipulate History Not For Education But To Advance Agenda Narrative

There is no pleasing diversity fanatics.

These subversives constantly harp the shortcomings of the past in the hopes of disgusting the otherwise undiscerning into going along with the pending revolution to collapse what remains of America’s constitutional liberties.

Now, the First Lady of Virginia Pamela Northam is accused of a thought crime for handling a legislative page a piece of cotton during a tour of the Governor’s Mansion and asking the student to imagine what it would be like to be enslaved and forced to pick that all day.

Is not that the entire point of history, to try and better understand as much as possible what those in he past endured?

One must ask then what exactly was it that Mrs. Northam did so wrong?

Try and prompt someone to try and think for themselves rather than reflexively respond in a manner as commanded by social engineers?

A complaint letter — not even written by one of the students to whom the cotton was handed which also included Whites as well —- states that the First Lady of Virginia’s presentation made one of the delicate snowflakes within eartshot “uncomfortable”.

So how is that worse than what the average American feels every time these regrettable transgressions of the past are invoked to justify developments such as looting after unpopular trial verdicts and the expansion of social programs that will plunge the nation further into a debt spiral from which it will likely never recover?

So what is it going to be?

Are we going to reemphasize the negativity of the past to the point where the positive things we do have as a country are forgotten or are we to ignore them entirely because some have so pandered to the aggrieved so spoiled by unmerited concessions that the fawning attention demanded now overwhelms them?

By Frederick Meekins