Reparations A Down Payment On National Decline

History teaches that, when candidates are swept into office largely as a result of promising the electorate significant outlays from the treasury, the particular regime in question is at its death knell and on the verge of collapse.

In an attempt to pander to Blacks in this sort of manner, Elizabeth Warren — identified by Reuters in the account of this policy proposal as White so we can be relieved that the leftist press has settled this brouhaha as to whether or not she’s actually an American Indian — has come out in favor of reparations.

In particular, the Senator is backing legislation that would assist minorities in making a down payment on a house.

But if it is wrong to deny someone access to housing on the basis of race, why is it right to assist an individual to procure housing when it is obvious that the person does not deserve to own a house on the basis of meritorious achievement?

Conversely, why is a Rustbelt or Appalachian White barely getting by as a box store cashier obligated to provide the taxes so the likes of Jussie Smollet, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson can be provided a down payment on a house?

If targeted populations were lavished with these handouts, would they shut up once and for all regarding historic mistreatments they never directly suffered or will they continue to invoke these in the ongoing attempt to extort additional concessions from gullible and easily manipulated Whites?

Providing government housing to vast swathes of the population benefits neither those it is lavished upon nor the areas in which such individuals come to reside.

The squalor endemic to numerous public housing projects is testament to this truth.

If Elizabeth Warren really was an Indian, you’d think she’d already be familiar with this sad reality.

By Frederick Meekins

Vocations Of Magistrate & Missionary Divergent At Core

For decades, secularist and religious progressives have urged their more theologically conservative counterparts to recognize a distinction between those that administer the affairs of the state and those that administer the affairs of faith.

However, with the Trump Presidency, it has become evident that what is meant by that admonition is that those that hold to traditional notions of piety are instead obligated to surrender to leftwing policy proposals.

This is particularly evident in an article posted at CNN.com titled “Why evangelicals should rethink Trump gospel”.

For example, the article says, “The Great Commission assumes the the faithful make disciples everywhere, including so-called S-hole countries.”

No Christian says otherwise.

However, the vocation of the President is not that of the frontline missionary.

The role of the President foremostly is to protect the well being of the nation he governs and those legally dwelling within its boundaries.

Nowhere in Scripture are entire nations obligated to lower their standard of living because others are insufficiently governed.

One of the most prominent critics of the Trump Presidency is none other than Pope Francis.

So before CNN gets on its high horse about Evangelical voters, if the Pope is such a fan of unbridled immigration and refugees, shouldn’t the world’s most influential media organization ask why the physical holdings of the Vatican are not being utilized to house these weary souls but instead remain open as what is essentially one of the world’s oldest tourist traps?

God is not the one that needs those finely furnished structures.

After all, Acts 7:48 assures that God does not dwell in houses built by the hands of man.

Perhaps as the alleged Vicar of Christ, it is about time the Pope did the same.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit and Run Commentary #121

Did the ones tossing a fit about the emoluments clause of the Constitution supposedly being violated by President Trump get similarly jacked out of shape over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton profiting from the Uranium One deal or contributions made by certain regimes with notorious human rights records to the Clinton Foundation?

On the one hand, one wants to rush to the defense of Veggie Tales for being accused of fostering racism. On the other, one cannot help but burst out laughing thinking their creator got exactly what he deserves for the inordinate amount of time he spends on his podcast vocalizing Emergent church style White guilt.

The Violence Against Women Act is up for congressional reauthorization. Where is the Violence Against Men Act? Are men that have scalding water thrown on them by their wives somehow not as burned as a woman having the same thing done to her by her husband? The fact that women might more often be the victims of this unacceptable sort of behavior is a moot point. For are not these progressives usually the ones that drone on about a single victim being one too many when it comes to justifying their niche and intrusive agenda proposals?

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer find walls to be so immoral and that ingress towards particular destinations should instead be encouraged, does the duo intend to advocate for the removal of physical barriers impeding access to the Capitol?

If Kapernick is so opposed for what the flag stands for that he refuses to stand for the National Anthem, why is he considering playing for the very team that his political allies indoctrinate the public into believing is the epitome of oppression and insensitivity, namely the Washington Redskins?

Diversity fanatics went ballistic over a photo of a White model wearing a Black Panther sweater. Where will this stupidity end? Applying this standard, must one possess nearly genius I Q before wearing a Reed Richards’ Fantastic Four t-shirt? Does one not only have to be a genius but also proficient in in snark and sarcasm before being allowed to wear anything with an Iron Man logo? Must one be blind in one eye before being allowed to don anything alluding to Nick Fury? Even more importantly, why aren’t those objecting to cultural misappropriation and such still not outraged over the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. being switched from White to Black in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with racial awareness is to be the utmost priority in regards to the enjoyment of speculative costumed narrative? Along similar lines, isn’t casting Idris Elba as the character Heimdall in the Thor movies offensive to the practitioners of Nordic spirituality?

The Leah Remini episode regarding Scientology’s infusion into the National Of Islam was interesting. However, it was a bit disingenuous in overlooking the interest in extraterrestrials shared by both sects.

It is unfortunate that an 8 year old Guatemalan boy died at the border. But if his parents refused the offered medical treatment, isn’t that their fault rather than Donald Trump’s?

Regarding those in apoplexy over Trump threatening to invoke “emergency powers” to build the Great Wall of America. Did they ever lift a finger in response to tyrannical executive orders already on the books that would allow the federal government in a time of concocted crisis to not only seize any resource it desired but to also conscript and relocate vast swathes of the population into what would amount to a civilian slave labor force?

It is a shame that the establishmentarian media is not as jacked out of shape over multiple presidential administrations failing to secure the border as over a single president perhaps mischaracterizing what his predecessors might have said regarding his proposal to address this gaping hole in national security.

If no civilization or nation is superior to any other as has been hypothesized by the ostracism of Rep. Steve King from committee life, why do the migrant hordes press ever onward to violate Western borders?

Biologically, all humans are equal. However, in terms of the way they live, some civilizations are indisputably superior others.

Now that the House of Representatives has taken a self-congratulatory stand against “White sumpremacism and nationalism”, will Nancy Pelosi be as decisive in imposing condemnation and ostracism on Rashida Tlaib for having her photo taken with a Hezbollah operative?

A California Bible Presbyterian Church has dismissed its pastor over a message on its church sign reading “Bruce Jenner is still a man. Homosexuality is still sin. The culture may change. The Bible does not.” The founder of the Bible Presbyterian movement, Carl McIntire, would be rolling in his grave. For despite his faults, Carl McIntire never backed down from a fight, especially when divinely revealed truth was on the line. Bruce Jenner might have mutilated his genitals and defaced his biochemistry with the injection of certain hormones. But that individual’s underlying genetic structure is still composed of an XY pairing of chromosomes. So what of other previously undeniable truths of Scripture or of nature’s God is this Bible Presbyterian congregation willing to surrender for the sake of social utility or cultural convenience? Will Jesus no longer be upheld as divine once the Islamists pull into town?

A Harvard panel discussion posted on Youtube is titled “The Future Of News: Journalism In A Post-Truth Era”. The moderator begins with a lament how this topic is of great urgency to the survival of our democracy. This is in large part, she continues, do to the erosion of fact. But wasn’t it just a few short years ago that academics and intellectuals of the variety lavished with endowed professorships at elite universities were at the forefront insisting that truth did not exist? Any insistence that facts as objective descriptions of reality was to impose White male heteronormative cognitive preferences upon those disposed towards alternative modalities of conceptualization. After all, just recently the darling upon whom these sorts pin their political aspirations in the hopes of setting the world right anew, Alexandra Ocasio Cortez, admonished that the facts don’t matter when you are morally right.

If the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the Electoral College in order to prevent smaller states from thwarting the will of the majority, why can’t the Constitution be amended so that smaller states can withdraw from the Union so citizens there do not have California or New York values imposed upon them against their will?

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #120

Josh Harris, the author of “I Kissed Dating Goodbye”, is now a 43 year old married father of three. He has also renounced the hardline position that made him a household name among Christians and no doubt millions of dollars. A thing to ask is how many around his age bracket as a result of his advice that became nearly gospel truth in some circles now find themselves with only cast asides, sloppy seconds, and defective goods left to pick over? And that doesn’t even touch the issue of those not wanting to be alone having to make a wrenching decision between companionship or acceptance by their church community because of the ecclesiastical blacklisting that results from daring to marry a divorced person or one outside the narrowest of dogmatic confessions.

Now that no other man really wants her, Monica thinks that President Clinton should want to apologize to her. But if Monica liked it at the time by not crying rape and apparently came back for multiple helpings, why should Bill feel that he is obligated to?

Headlines are shocked that a Texas school board might cut Helen Keller but keep Moses as part of the curriculum. But while the story of Helen Keller is an interesting historical and medical curiosity, beyond its Lifetime movie of the week appeal, her labors aren’t exactly of the sort upon which an entire civilization is based. Maybe if a school district wants to keep Helen Keller, they can always cut out some of the drivel that gets harped upon from mid January until the end of February.

At the end of a Triscuit commercial, the pitch woman assures with a wink that she is also not genetically modified. Wonder how long until articulating pride in that is castigated as a form of noninclusive hate speech.

In his defense of the mainstream media against castigation by the Trump Administration, Mitt Romney effused, “The free press dispelled the false conspiracies about the 9/11 attacks.” If Romney is referring to the lapdog press of entrenched elites, did these mouthpieces conduct their own investigations? Or, instead, did such propagandists merely reinforce what they were told by their bureaucratic or secret society handlers?

Will Democrats deploring Trump’s rhetoric as stoking the possibility of nuclear war articulate criticism of their colleague insinuating the mass murder of actual Americans in a similar manner for failure to comply with an anti-Second Amendment agenda?

In the sci fi drama “The Colony”, a New World Order-style dictatorship with the assistance of extraterrestrial overlords would eliminate entire metropolitan areas perceived as hindering the implementation the planetary authority’s policy directives. Skeptics might dismiss such a plot as highly unlikely. But is it in light of one Democratic legislator threatening mass murder for failure to comply with any draconian firearms confiscation proposals?

Instructive and revealing. Radical Democrats are comparing border enforcement personnel to the KKK while letting it slip that they have no problem murdering in the most horrifying way imaginable Americans that refuse to comply with totalitarian plans to eliminate the Bill of Rights and infringe upon liberties endowed by the Creator.

Amy Powler in a commercial for some Google contraption says she only wanted women at her Thanksgiving Dinner this year. Would a commercial saying no women or minorities allowed be deemed acceptable for prime network viewing time?

In a commercial for one of its gadgets, Google has Amy Powler vocalize a line about not wanting any men at her Thanksgiving meal this year. Shouldn’t the writer of this remark receive the same punishment as the Google functionary stating in a company memo that the alleged discrepancies in technology fields are the result of inherent gender differences?

In an analysis of the Star Wars worldview, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson criticized the franchise in part from the political theory he perceived the series as espousing. According to Swanson, the films are ungodly because the plot focuses upon two ideologies jockeying for power in order to implement their particular vision of large interstellar government. Mind you, in his analysis of The Hunger Games, Swanson condemned characters in that movie for resisting the prerogatives of empire. It is doubtful a film about a two hour prayer meeting is going to sell many tickets. Likewise, there isn’t going to be much of a story if both sides of a conflict are already comporting themselves by Christian standards. The films are, after all, called “Star Wars” not “Star Hallmark Channel”.

If intruders bursting into Nancy Pelosi’s office would justifiably be tasered or sprayed, why not migrant swarms pouring over the border without authorization?

Parents not wanting their children pepper sprayed shouldn’t cross delineated borders without authorization.

Those condemning the use of tear gas to repel border violators interestingly probably have no issue with the heathen savages that murdered an interloping missionary.

If one is obligated to ascent to the principle that men and women are equal in all things, why all of a sudden is it an outrage to douse a woman threatening law enforcement personnel and international border integrity with pepper spray?

If women are such delicate creatures that they cannot endure U.S. border protection officers deploying pepper spray as a deterrent, why ought we to think that they can handle the full wrath of the Russian, Chinese, or assorted Islamist militariess on the battlefield?

Analysts from both the left and the right are pretty much in agreement that the missionary murdered by the heathen savages on a remote Indian island pretty much got what was coming to him. So what then is so wrong with radical Muslims killing Christians or the Red Chinese harvesting Christian organs? One insisting that one is acceptable but the other inappropriate has, perhaps unwittingly, embraced Rousseau’s foolishness about the so-called “noble savage”.

Will Democrats jacked out of shape that Roy Moore dated young women still over the age of consent or that Brett Kavanaugh laughed at a flatulence joke while in high school get as discombobulated over Mike Espy rendering services on behalf of an African dictator accused of slavery and mass murder? But those outrages pale in comparison to the Charlie Brown Christmas special.

On Fox News, Rep Jim Hines said that there is no way to know who in the caravan threatening to violate the nation’s borders is criminal or not. As such, the Congressman seems to admonish, the President should not speak or or treat these individuals as if they are. If that is the case, perhaps he should allow the general public to ramble the halls of Congress unscrutinized without having to stop at assorted checkpoints.

Greater fuss seems to be made that James Hodgkinson published anti-Trump letters to the editor and remarks on social media than that he actually shot people. So how are these literary undertakings different than those of the New York Times, MSNBC, or increasingly CNN? We are constantly beaten over the head about the necessity of voluntarism and on giving back to the COMMUNITY. So why does it sound like this variety of civic engagement will land you on the do not fly list?

In a sermon, Independent Baptist Stephen J. Anderson claimed that atheism is often the result of having watched too many science fiction movies and television programs. How about a number of science fiction authors pushed towards atheism as a result of churches too legalistic in terms of their application of the Bible?

President George H.W. Bush passed away at his home in a Texas gated community. Yet the Bush family stands among the foremost of establishmentarian Republicans that would deny the nation a similar degree of protection through their ongoing opposition to the construction of a border wall.

Contrary to George H.W. Bush, “community” is not a beautiful word. It usual becomes nothing more than whatever group you are required to belong to for the purposes of survival getting in your business not because of some distinct moral reason but because those in charge of the group wish to perpetuate their own power by justifying the existence of the group as an end in itself.

By Frederick Meekins

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