Ingraham Insufficiently Deviant For Leftists To Defend Her Speech

The world has about come unhinged over Fox News pundit Laura Ingraham for daring to poke a little fun at a petulant youth known to excoriate with the vilest of profanities those reluctant to embrace his policy proposals demanding the abandonment of centuries of constitutional theory deemed fouler than his acute potty mouth.The font of deliberative political contemplation, GQ Magazine, has posted a column in support of the Ingraham boycott titled “Boycotting Ingraham Is Patriotic”.

Yet those assenting to this sentiment are the very sorts of thinkers that would condemn the Census for tabulating how many within the boundaries of the United States are actually citizens.

But if it is inappropriate to classify who is and is not of a particular jurisdiction — the most basic of functions in establishing the foundations of a nation/state — isn’t the concept of patriotism — the idea that a set of principles in large part derived from a particular geography inhabited by a specific sort of people is superior to all others — even more verboten?

GQ is celebrating the decentralized justice inherent to a boycott as about the purest form of free expression imaginable.

After all, consumers are not obligated to bestow their funds upon someone advocating a set of values that they find abhorrent.

Likewise, Ingraham is not entitled to be lavished with these funds.

Interesting, though, how amongst postmodernist hordes this realization is a one way street.

For would the editorial staff of GQ Magazine as eagerly applaud a boycott organized by a Christian cabal seeking to impose their particular ethical idiosyncrasies in a way that would implement comprehensive revolutionary change across the entire culture even if a significant percentage was still not amenable to such a fundamental alteration of the social compact.

After all, those now threatening social upheaval are the children of many who denounced Pat Buchanan’s culture war oration at the 1992 Republican convention.

At the time, opponents of the pious populist insisted that absolute objective values did not exist and, even if they did, it was not the place of cultural institutions to advocate on behalf of or to enforce a hegemony of values.

Of Lady Ingraham’s status within the ongoing civic discussion, the enlightened archons of GQ assure the unsettled of weak mind, “Laura Ingraham remains as empowered as ever to impart her bad takes, whether to viewers on Fox News or to passer-bys on the street, without fear of being arrested by agents of the state.” But for how long?

Already the right of free expression — deliberately enshrined among the first protections of the Bill of Rights — is restricted in the presence of those seeking an abortion — a procedure that honest jurists are compelled to admit cannot be found clearly delineated anywhere in this charter document but rather only in interpretative penumbras of it.

In the case of Lara Ingraham still enjoying her innate liberties as a free citizen despite being economically inconvenienced, how is that less of an outrage than the gay couple denied the wedding cake by the Christian baker?

In the transaction dragged before the judicial system, no one prevented the couple from the state granting its official recognition of their unnatural liaison.

The only thing they would have had to have endured was the search for a baker willing to provide it, which would have cost considerably less that the advertising revenue rescinded from Fox News.

So why are some forms of speech worthy of protection and some not the part of the most vociferously insistent that the most egregious imposition imaginable is to somehow insist that someone else’s truth might not be quite as true as initially suspected?

By Frederick Meekins

Advertisements

Does Bureaucrat Naming Youth Competition “The Hunger Games” Even Know What The Story About?

A Maryland Park and Planning Commission is holding a teen athletic competition advertised as the first annual “Hunger Games”.

As a science fiction fan, I found the Hunger Games series of films a compelling and highly plausible dystopia.

But it is a DYSTOPIA.

That means no rational individual would want to find themselves in that situation.

In spoofing the emphasis placed upon the love triangle in the story, Homer Simpson lamented, “When do we get to killing the children?”

Will this be the fate of those losing these municipal competitions?

For like it or not, that was the point of this fictionalized athletic spectacle as a form of social control and the only way to survive was to kill or be killed.

Any bureaucrat employing this name as part of what ought to be a wholesome youth activity either doesn’t understand the point of the narrative or are hoping to manipulate the population to the point where one day such blatantly homicidal bloodsports are accepted without question.

By Frederick Meekins

Southern Baptist Convention Undermined By Russell Moore’s Propensity Towards Compromise

Granted, in response to what was seen as encroaching apostasy and unbelief eroding both strong moral and sound doctrine, Fundamentalism at times presented a militant brand of conservative Protestantism that could could occasionally be construed as a bit gruff around the edges. In such circles, a soft answer was not necessarily perceived as turning away wrath as admonished by Proverbs 15:1 but rather as a sign of spiritual weakness and, even worse, possible compromise.

In what is categorized as the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention serves as an interesting sociological barometer in terms of what direction ideological winds tend to be blowing. For example early in the twentieth century, the ecclesiastical association nearly succumbed to the temptations of liberalism and modernism only to be pulled back from this brink by a conservative resurgence that coincided with the ascent of Reaganism on through the Republican Party taking both houses of Congress in the 1990’s.

Now it seems the tide might once again be receding. Those that have in a sense grown up in an environment characterized as overwhelmingly religious are tempted to surrender the ground gained as a form of repentance in their minds for certain admitted excesses and as a way to promote the peace and toleration always being yelled about in one’s ear.

In his early 40’s as of this writing in late 2017, Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Theological Seminary and now the Ethics and Public Policy Commission is often fawned over as a prominent young leader who could very likely shape the Southern Baptist Convention throughout the course of much of the twenty-first century. If that is the case, conservative Baptists mind end up finding themselves betrayed on what could very well be a sinking ship.

Without a doubt, Russell Moore professes those fundamentals of the faith necessary to assure the individual of salvation in Christ and eternity in Heaven. But it is in those areas where it is easy to compromise for broad approval and applause that Dr. Moore presents the greater spiritual danger.

I Corinthians 9:22 counsels to be all things to all men. By this, it is believed that the Gospel message can be adapted within certain parameters or presented in such a way that addresses individuals in the particular circumstances in which they find themselves.

The problem with Russell Moore and an increasing number within Evangelical Christianity in general and the Southern Baptist Convention in particular is the growing conviction that, in order to appeal to what is perceived as untapped demographics, professional religionists must go out of there way to publicly denigrate those expected to financially sponsor these outreach efforts. And in so doing, one is expected to turn one’s back on much of the foundation that was laid as the foundation that got us to where we are today.

This is particularly evident in Russell Moore’s response to the Trayvon Martin incident. As someone that presents himself not only as a clergyman but as someone that also makes his comfortable living as such, one might think Russell Moore would have endeavored to remain above the fray in regards to such an issue by calling for cooler heads to prevail or to point out how quickly individual lives can be lost.

Instead, Moore came out quite publicly in favor of Trayvon Martin and against George Zimmerman. The mouthpiece of Southern Baptist public policy is quoted in the 7/16/13 edition of the Washington Post as saying, “Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong.

Perhaps we really should consider what transpired and especially what it was that Trayvon Martin was doing the moment his life ended.

From what the judicial process has been able to establish, Trayvon Martin was beating George Zimmerman and delivering blows to the head that could have resulted in permanent injury and even death. Why does the criteria Moore invokes to defend Martin not apply to protect Zimmerman in this incident as well?

For example, according to Moore, the chain of events began when Zimmerman disembarked from the vehicle. That may or may not have been the wisest course of action. However, that was probably more legal and less suspicious than Martin zig-zagging late at night in and out of people’s yards like a drunk or reefer addict up to no good.

So if Zimmerman committed a great wrong by laying his hands on Martin, why should Martin be exonerated for attacking Zimmerman who was doing nothing worse than perambulating over a public thoroughfare? However, it is apparently not enough for Moore to simply side perhaps with the party that did not have access to a fire arm in this altercation.

One can barely find a piece of direct mail promotional newsletter propaganda these days that does not go out of its way to denigrate White people for simply being white. A considerable number of these ecclesiastical functionaries have adopted a rhetoric of White guilt more typically emanating from the likes of Phil Donahue and Woody Allen that from behind a Dixie pulpit. One of the foremost practitioners of this victimization narrative is none other than Russell Moore.

To the analysis of the Trayvon Martin issue, Russell Moore added, “And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it related to African Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think makes for a huge crisis.” Moore further observes, “Most white evangelicals…are seeing [the Martin case] microscopically and most African Americans are seeing it macroscopically. Most white Americans say we don’t know what happened that night and they are missing the point.”

As dumb as Whites are depicted now by the hierarchs of the Southern Baptist Convention, it’s a wonder they are able to drop their tithe into the collection plate. But perhaps it is because of such stupidity that Whites so flagrantly mocked don’t take their religious dollars elsewhere.

Notice that nowhere in those comments did Moore ponder that Trayvon Martin might have been as high as a kite or that George Zimmerman might have taken the only course of action that would have preserved his own life. If Moore is going to be this discombobulated over matters of race and ethnicty to the point where in matters of law enforcement and civil adjudication that the primary concern is not so much that of an individual’s guilt or innocence in terms of committing a certain act but rather on the basis of the individual’s membership in certain demographic categories, Russell Moore should be asked just what is he himself willing to sacrifice in terms of comprehensive social equity.

For example, if Russell Moore on a proverbial dark and stormy night found himself confronted by a Black assailant that proceeds to perpetrate violence against this seminarian naive to how the world actually exists, is he going to do what he expected of George Zimmerman and allow himself to be pummeled either to death or into a state of permanent mental imbecility as a result of brain damage received for the good of the cause? More importantly, is Dr. Moore willing for his wife or daughters to be raped in order to balance out what Southern Baptist functionaries such as himself now consider the scales of ethnic justice?

Just as important, should these kinds of tragedies befall Rev. Moore or his ecclesiastical allies and the scumbag is apprehended by law enforcement, are these theologians then going to parrot the fashionable liberal drivel about disparities in sentencing should the perpetrator of the crimes against them be one of the minorities the denomination has come to coddle and fawn over these past few years? For in his praise of Trayvon Martin and condemnation of George Zimmerman, Moore went out of his way to emphasize this issue.

In 2013, the Convention went out of its way to enact a resolution condemning incarceration with little mention as to whether or not those tossed in the slammer might actually deserve to be there. Perhaps the denomination would instead prefer to come out in favor of more explicitly Old Testament punishments such as floggings and public executions.

The Convention also condemned former chairman of the Ethics and Policy Commission and eventually forced into retirement Richard Land for merely verbalizing what it was that the vast majority of Americans were already thinking that President Obama was “trying to gin up the black vote” and that allied racemongers “need the Trayvon Martins to continue perpetuating their central myth — America is a racist and evil nation.”

It is not only in the area of race relations where Russell Moore falls pitifully short of the kind of leadership Baptists need if the denomination and that particular theological perspective is to not only ride out the waves of the looming cultural collapse but possibly even rescue the nation from drowning in these overwhelming historical tides.

In coverage of the 2013 convention in which Russell Moore was installed as the chairman of the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission, an observer gushed in one press account that his election brought a more moderate tone. As it was explained, “The new generation is less ideologically motivated.” However, is it that the new generation is “less ideologically motivated” or simply that it decided to collaborate in implementing a more leftist ideology?

It seems Brother Moore is quite adept at implementing a don’t do as I do, do as I say mentality. For on an episode of the Albert Mohler Program broadcast sometimes around 2006 probably around the first time I had ever even heard of Russell Moore, he confessed that, while thoroughly enjoying Halloween himself as a youth, it is now wrong for contemporary Christian children to participate in Halloween.

And the point of raising this issue, some are probably asking with perplexity? After all, such a viewpoint is no doubt common among a variety of theologies found among Independent Baptist, conservative Southern Baptist, and even Pentecostal or Charismatic churches.

Indeed it is. However, the example is brought up to point out that Russell Moore and the young Turks advocating his style of social engagement are not quite of the live and let live mindset those unaccustomed to fully parsing phrases such as “less ideologically motivated” might be led to believe. If anything, it would seem Russell Moore has something of a tendency to crackdown in those areas where individual preference should be allowed to flourish while allowing things to get a bit out of line where, if one slacks an inch, assorted subversives will take a proverbial mile.

How does this represent a more moderate wind being blown into Baptist sails? I can assure you, I know first hand the sort of message has been pounded into the minds of Christian youth for nearly thirty years.

I remember back in my day that, along with whether or not you watched “The Simpsons”, you would speak in hushed tones about celebrating Halloween for fear of bringing the wrath of the more religiously fanatical teachers in Christian day school down upon you. It often seemed that some would even go out of their way to assign extra homework or schedule a test for the next day as a way to punish those that might succumb to the temptation of masquerading for prepackaged nocturnal confections.

This hypocrisy aside, it is not the only issue regarding which this new breed of seemingly less ideological Southern Baptist leader may actually be more ideological than ever before. Baptists might be mocked with the mantra of “Don’t drink, don’t chew, and don’t go with girls who do” in terms of the rigorous behavioral codes many adhere to in the attempt to differentiate themselves from those considered worldly and in an effort to adhere to a lifestyle that they believe would be pleasing to God. However, if there is one area in which Baptists are noted for a spirit of liberation it is in the area of food.

However, Russell Moore and his allies would likely impose an additional set of regulations upon those in their congregations and within their respective spheres of homiletical influence in regards to this aspect of existence in no way derived from Biblical principles such as those regarding booze.

On 1/2/2006, Russell Moore posted an entry on the blog of the Henry Institute at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary titled “Crunchy Cons and Veggie Tales”. The brief essay is a review and elaboration of an emerging ideology known as crunchy conservatism coined by Moore’s “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher.

In the post, Moore describes crunchy cons as, “…conservatives who are religious traditionalists and political conservatives but who are deeply suspicious of the materialism and consumerist assumptions of the reigning culture.” However, the materialism denounced here goes beyond that requiring the latest iteration of the I-Phone when the one acquired last year still works perfectly fine or having to acquire an entirely new wardrobe every year irrespective of whether or not the duds from the previous season have worn out

Rather, it is of the variety of how we mere working slobs are expected to willingly embrace with deliberation and aforethought a harsher and less convenient lifestyle because doing so makes detached intellectuals like Russell Moore that have not gotten their hands dirty in years or even decades feel so much more satisfied with themselves because they know more about how you ought to spend your miserable existence better than you do.

In the TimesOnline article referenced by Moore titled “Mr. And Mrs. Crunchy”, his “Touchstone Magazine” colleague Rod Dreher begins, “We had come to believe that the family, not the individual, is the basic building block of our society.” It depends upon what the writer means by that.

Bravo if by that he is expressing a realization that, upon having children, his wellbeing and that of his wife takes a backseat and their needs play second fiddle to those of the children. However, to those such as Rod Dreher and Russell Moore, the notion likely goes considerably beyond that.

For example, often those of this mentality having procreated believe that they are entitled to an ever-increasing percentage of the income and accumulated resources of those that do not have children, especially if such people are single. This confiscatory compensation can take on a number of forms.

The first is in the form of traditional taxation. Those of a communalist mindset believe that each additional child that they parent into the world should grant them a larger piece of the economic pie to be siphoned off as form of punishment from those not having produced children or not having produced by what in their standard is an acceptable number. One radical homeschooler has even insinuated that those not having at least four (the particular number he just happens to have) of harboring an insufficient love of children. It is about time to end manipulation of the tax code as a kind of mind game to trick supposedly free people into engaging in predetermined behavior of any kind.

In expanding that the family and not the individual is the building block of society, Rod Dreher expounded, “I heretically came to realize that Hillary Clinton was right: it really does take a village to raise a child. We conservatives, with our exaltation of consumer choice and the sovereign individual, were dismantling the village as effectively as the statist libertines we opposed.”

This notion of the village goes beyond simply perhaps curtailing the amount of smut broadcast on television. Rather, it allows for the COMMUNITY often in the guise of government authorities to have final say over decisions regarding your existence that might not really be based upon any principle clearly delineated in the pages of Scripture.

Dreher further elaborates regarding free market principles, “But they were based on fundamentally materialist assumptions about human nature which conservatives ought to have known were inaccurate and which would lead to a loss of purpose, of community, or idealism.”

But is it really the place of government (because that is ultimately what is meant by COMMUNITY to these neo-beatnik types) to police these matters in the lives of individuals and families? For what if these are at variance with what communal elites decide constitutes prevailing values and acceptable citizenship (for lack of a better term for those advocating for the elimination of traditional borders).

For example, what ought to happen when the COMMUNITY decides you as a professional baker you will provide your particular goods and services for gay weddings? Better yet, in such circumstances, what happens when the COMMUNITY decides that its vision of marriage not being limited between a single pair of heterosexual partners but rather open to any combination of consenting adult partners is the view to be taught to your children?

Granted, it is doubtful that a good Baptist like Russell Moore would applaud such social decay. In fact, overall the Southern Baptist Convention has stood for the God-ordained traditional heterosexual family even if a number of the association’s spokesfolk have been hoodwinked into public forums and dialogs where the attendees mired in that specific inclination are not so much looking to be delivered spiritually from that particular sin but are instead attempting to lure the well-intentioned but somewhat naïve Baptist into a state of ever-increasing compromise.

Russell Moore could be one of the most prominent Baptist leaders of the twenty-first century with the possibility as many as five additional decades of theological productivity before him if he is blessed with mental vitality and a long life. As such, American Evangelicals need to be cognizant where his accumulating compromises undermine what little remains of the nation’s conservative values and influence upon America’s cultural institutions.

Most would agree that a progressive licentiousness pervades much of the Western world’s media landscape. However, one of the few remaining areas in which conservatives of varying stripes have been able to hold their own has been talk radio.

Yet, if Russell Moore had his way, conservatives —- particularly of the Evangelical variety — would relinquish the ground that they hold in the media or at least moderate their tone to the extent that such voices would be indistinguishable from any other variety of broadcaster.

At the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention’s 2014 Leadership Summit, as that body’s president, Moore said that if all he knew about Christianity was what he heard on Christian radio in the Nashville area while driving to that particular conference, he would hate Christianity too. Such an allegation, in and of itself, might have merit. The thing of it is that, since then, Moore has been disturbingly vague and elusive regarding the nature of these criticisms.

In this particular tirade, Moore said, “There are some people who believe that fidelity to the gospel simply means speaking ‘you kids get off my lawn’. That is not the message of the gospel. If the call to repentance does not end with an invitation that is grounded …in the cross and the empty tomb of Jesus we are speaking a different word than the Word that has been given.”

Such a statement is accurate if the venue and/or media under consideration is the pulpit on Sunday morning. However, talk radio (even Christian talk radio) can have a slightly different methodology dependent upon the particular program under consideration.

For example, in his tirade Russell Moore said, “If all you and I are doing is standing and speaking a word, including a truthful word, about sexual immorality…the world does not need us for that. The devil is able to do that on his own. We have not been called simply to condemn. We have been called to reconcile.”

It seems that increasingly in Dr. Moore’s homiletical repertoire that “reconcile” has become a euphemism for capitulation and pandering. There is indeed more to repentance than condemnation. But in order for someone to admit that they are wrong and want to do something about that situation, doesn’t the individual need to informed that they have done something wrong?

Apparently in his attempt to garner the approval of religious leftists, Russell Moore insists that the world does not need us to stand and speak against sexual immorality. But if not Christians and conservatives of various persuasions, who will be left to do so. In light of the Duggar and Bill Gothard scandals most prominently and to a lesser extent R.C. Sproul Jr’s confession to his own carnal temptation, it seems this variety of compromise is even coming to grip those uplifted among us as supposedly the best that Evangelicalism has to offer.

For how long did Russell Moore listen to talk radio during the day in question? Shouldn’t he be required to listen to a station’s entire weekly program rotation before rendering a somewhat objective verdict that the complete Gospel message is not being presented?

Russell Moore dismisses Christian talk radio as little more than the rhetorical equivalent of “you kids get off my lawn”. But if certain people are deliberately somewhere they ought not to be doing something they definitely shouldn’t be, why shouldn’t they be told about it? Professional religionists and clergy such as Moore certainly don’t mind letting this be known when the tithes and offering slack off.

In the effort to protect their stations and privileges placing them on a rung on the social ladder higher than that of the average pewfiller, a number of ministers like to emphasize the passage found in Ephesians 4:11 stipulating that some are called to be teachers, some pastors, and other evangelists. <p>

So why cant this also apply to the various ministries and programs features on an average Christian radio station? Some shows might emphasize family life and personal relationships. Others such as Moore seem to prefer, according to his remarks, to focus upon explicitly evangelistic outreach. Others might be a bit more hard hitting (in a way that seems to turn off Dr. Moore) by exposing the doctrinal deficiencies in systems in competition with Christianity or the moral controversies eating away at the heart of American society or Western civilization.

Russell Moore is partially correct in that if all we know of Christianity came from the assorted radio programs broadcast in the faith’s name one might very well not want anything to do with this particular religion. Does the theologian articulating such scathing remarks intend to repent of the role he has played in such a development surprisingly not always so much the result of an excess of conservatism but often times as a result of his desire to curry favor with religious leftists?

For example, as previously stated, where in the pages of Scripture is the pastor or evangelist instructed to berate the Christian for acquiring provisions from large chain retailers such as Target or Walmart? Likewise, what self-respecting White person is going to want anything to do with your religion when you rhetorically flog them for things that happened nearly half a century ago when it is often the minorities that these self-loathing Caucasians go out of their way to pander towards destroying property and threatening the innocent in the blighted urban areas?

It might be one thing to strive for the Biblical admonition to be all things to all men. However, in the way in which they attempt to do so, Southern Baptist functionaries such as Russell Moore would do well to remember that those having been loyal members all along are just as much worthy of respect and admiration as those attempting to be brought into the fold.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #106

Technically, referring to some of these countries as excrement holes would be an actual improvement as to their actual conditions.

Regarding the tolerancemongers and diversity fanatics outraged that President Trump would invoke blunt earthy language to accurately describe a number of countries. Would these outraged voices continue to reside in neighborhoods with noticeable influxes of migrants from these particular regions continuing to adhere to the second rate standards of conduct sparking the decline of these respective homelands in the first place? Would those placing multiculturalist dogma over survival either vacation in or retire to these particular countries?

In Venezuela, it is claimed that the starving are feeding upon flamingos and anteaters in an attempt to satiate gnawing hunger. But the true outrage would apparently be to insinuate that this particular country is anything less than a first rate place in which to live or vacation.

For articulating earthy language to accurately describe the countries for which some of the most questionable immigrants originate, Donald Trump has been accused of taking the country to a new low. Shouldn’t the lowest point be viewed as the moment when those that govern this nation decided not to enforce immigration law with the utmost vigor and those that guide the culture decided to allow Third World squalor to take root.

Fascinating how multiculturalists are tossing a bigger fit over Trump articulating a blunt assessment to describe certain countries than that significant numbers from these places are allowed to enter or remain here for the purposes of dragging the quality of life in this country down to Third World standards.

So was the $1000 bonus granted to many WalMart employees provided from proceeds retained from Trump tax cuts or from eliminating the positions of those having lost their jobs as a result of layoffs in the company’s Sam’s Club division?

Senator Dick Durbin has said, “I cannot believe that in the history … of that Oval Office any President has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our President speak yesterday.” And are we to assume that when Monica Lewinsky was underneath the desk in the Oval Office and her head between the legs of Bill Clinton that he only spoke to her using terms found in Grey’s Anatomy or in Elizabethan love poetry?

So since the media has declared that we must only speak of other countries in the most glowing of terms, does that mean that the only thing that can be said of Nazi Germany is that the regime excelled at chemistry and the moving of large numbers of people by railway? Ironic that some no doubt complaining the loudest about President Trump articulating an earthy term for digestive effluent are part of the media elite slipping the term more and more into the dramatic dialog of their television and cinematic productions.

Religionists opposed to Donald Trump’s alleged articulation of an earthy term to describe certain countries is one thing. Because at least these folks are usually consistent about it an eschew such language in all circumstances. However, the hypocritical ones are those that any other time insist such lignuistic formulations are merely words or downplay their use in such urban or ghetto artforms, instead celebrating such as expressions of the unique truth as embodied by the artists bold enough to convey them.

An U.N. spokesman has denounced President Trump’s categorization of certain countries as excrement receptacles as “shocking and shameful”. Perhaps U.N. elites would be willing to surrender the organization’s prime New York real estate and instead set up headquarters in one of these lovely locations the foreign policy establishment apparently feels compelled to deny the prevailing conditions of.

Charlie Daniels is correct in reflecting upon the Taco Bell commercial spoofing concerns regarding the globalist conspiracy that the Illuminati is no laughing matter. So does this often insightful country singer refute the frivolity of his classic “The Devil Went Down To Georgia” suggesting that a mere human could best the Old Deluder at Satan’s own game?

In the President’s Martin Luther King Day proclamation, Americans were told to use the day off to perform acts of service. Given that the employed will be serving the public the other four remaining days of the week, how about directing that imperative at the deadbeats on public assistance that never get off their rears to do anything productive?

Lindsey Graham has denounced President Trump’s characterization of certain Third World nations as “blank hole” countries. Yet in 2013 Senator Graham referred to similar places as “hellholes”. Is one acceptable because some do not even believe that the modifier describing one type of hole doesn’t even exist while proof for the other presents itself whenever someone drops a proverbial number two in the toilet?

Regarding the pastor that got up on his moral high horse regarding what the minister characterized as Trump’s “dehumanizing and ugly” remarks pertaining to certain Third World nations while Vice President Pence was in the audience. Interesting that the church (and most likely the pastor’s residence) is located in the part of the county celebrated the world over for higher than average minority income rather than the part of the county where immigrant squalor and gang infestation predominate to the point that it rated recent coverage by the Washington Post.

The White House website on Martin Luther KIng Day featured an essay the title of which characterized the civil rights figure as a “Model Of An American Patriot”. Will those that regularly get jacked out of shape about President Trump’s past praise or associations with questionable entities of the AltRight pitch a hissy fit just as loud about this? It must be admitted that King’s philosophy of judging by character rather than color is admirable. However, can someone without reservation be celebrated as a “model patriot” if there are documented instances of him working in close affiliation with people and organizations agitating on behalf of Marxist upheaval?

Outcry has erupted over the deportation of a 39 year old father of two residing with his family in Detroit who has been living in America as an illegal since he was 10 years old. This raises a number of questions. First, if his family is not accompanying him by choice, doesn’t that mean that they love the American standard of living more than their father? Do religionists such as Russell Moore and even James Dobson have anything to say about that? They certainly don’t mind invoking alleged Hispanic family values when these can be invoked to bash the rest of us over the head as supposedly being morally superior to those of the average American. Second, if it is not the American legal system that will not allow his family to accompany him back to his homeland, shouldn’t humanitarian and related bleeding heart types be as vocal in their condemnation of Mexican immigration law as they usually are of that of the United States?

A Christianity Today article is titled, “What Student Ministry Really Needs? Homework”. Maybe so. But how is a church or youth ministry going to compel such? If students don’t do the homework assignments of their formalized schooling, they will fail which will prevent them from entering college or even obtaining a desirable job. But if church gets too pushy about assignments, the student is simply not going to return to the church.

According to the Federalist, actor Kevin Sorbo — best known to genre fans as Hercules from “Hercules: The Legendary Journeys” and as Captain Dylan Hunt in “Gene Roddenberry’s Andromeda” and to Christian audiences from the film “God’s Not Dead — has been preemptively banned from East Coast ComiCon. Interestingly, this is news to the actor as he revealed to the Federalist that he had no plans on attending that particularly convention in the first place. In the article, others claimed to have been similarly blacklisted by Marvel over matters of ideology. Seems the company has more in common with Hydra than Captain America. Perhaps it is about time for conservatives of assorted varieties to organize their own pop culture conventions or even zine and small press festivals.

In an article titled, “Moralism Is Not The Gospel (But Many Christians Think It Is), Southern Baptist Theologian Albert Mohler points out this important observation. But there is no self-reflective criticism in this essay where he points out where his own ministry has fallen short of this noble realization. For nowhere in the Scripture does one find the condemnation Mohler himself propagates of those not having married by the time they are 25 years of age. What he teaches in this regard is merely personal opinion that has no place in a pulpit claiming to stand for Sola Scriptura.

In an op-ed, Senator John McCain has issued a warning about President Donald Trump’s constant attacks against the media. It is the Senator’s concern that these will harm democracy. As if his own McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act with its own suppression of free speech raised to the level of statutory law with threats of severe punishments did not. While concerning, about all Trump has really done thus far is to shoot off at the mouth. Like it or not, that is still an act protected by the First Amendment.

By Frederick Meekins

Would A Dung Pile By Any Other Name Smell As Sweet?

Responses have poured in over President Trump’s use of blunt earthy language to describe a number of countries from which migrants of dubious quality have poured across the border often with little regard for various immigration laws.

A spokesman for the African Union remarked, “Given the historical reality of how many Africans arrived in the United States as slaves, this statement flies in the face of all accepted behavior and practice.”

That translates as how dare a White person contradict the threatening ultimatums of a vaunted minority.

It’s rather ironic that a propagandist from an organization once controlled by Muamar Qaddaffi would lecture America regarding “accepted behavior and practice”.

For just how are we going to define that?

In many parts of that continent, slavery and the mass murder of religious dissidents are still considered “accepted behavior and practice”.

And the way women are treated there such as property to be bought and sold and their genitals mutilated make Harvey Weinstein look like the proverbial gentle and solicitous lover.

So when can we expect the MeToo movement to educate the public about the horrors that transpire in these cesspool nations we are threatened with retaliation regarding if we classify them as anything other than picturesque vacation and real estate investment locations?

President Trump’s critical assessment of the world might be jarring to those that prefer a genteel approach where certain realities are downplayed nearly to the point of denial.

However, it was this sort of tendency pursued as regular practice by the Foggy Bottom diplomatic-industrial complex that has resulted in a global situation where America is no longer feared and regularly taken advantage of.

By Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #105

Bette Midler is demanding an apology for Geraldo groping her in the 1970’s. But if she liked it so much at the time that it led to an affair described as torrid and as her being insatiable, he should refuse to apologize.

If Bette Midler was really so traumatized by what transpired between her and Geraldo back in the 70’s, wouldn’t the time to have expose or refute such been when he was bragging about it in his sleazy memoir?

Sexual assault is a terrible thing. However, an act that was apparently not considered such at the time to the point that it has become part of one’s comedy shtick doesn’t quite rise to the seriousness of such a violation retroactively approximately forty years later.

The use of such is morally questionable. But these radicalized WOMMENNNN had better rethink categorizing nearly every social interaction with men as an assault or most men are going to conclude these threats are not worth the risk and instead seek to fulfill their assorted companionship desires with sexbots.

Is the outrage in Bette Midler’s mind that she was groped in the 70’s or that, as an aging hasbeen, most American’s have not given her much thought in years or perhaps even decades? In the 11/13/17 edition of “America: The Jesuit Review Of Faith & Culture”, an editorial criticized the Trump administration for calling into question the patriotism of NFL players refusing to stand in honor of the National Anthem. Would this publication praise the piety of an individual for refusing to abide by assorted protocols and gestures observed in the presence of the Pope?

Mitt Romney referred to Roy Moore as a stain upon the GOP. To be consistent, shouldn’t he refer to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as stains upon world religion? For at least Moore seemed to at least prefer his adolescent maidens one at a time.

Proponents of theocracy and Christian Reconstructionism insist it would be improper to vote for a woman running for elected office. That is because, in their view, the magistrate is also to be viewed as a minister of God and Scripture forbids women from such formalized ministry activities. If that is the case, wouldn’t they also be forbidden from backing Roy Moore as well? For he is apparently married to a divorced woman. And, in most of the churches such theocrats attend, that would disqualify this particular senatorial candidate from ecclesiastical office just as if he was a woman. About all that he would be allowed to do in church is to drop his tithe, of course, into the collection plate.

Regarding NewsMax’s list of the 100 most influential Evangelicals, religion columnist Terry Mattingly seemed to lament on an episode of Issues Etc that he was told that there was only a handful on the list that would not be seen on Fox News. In the interview, Mattingly seemed to suggest that even Billy Graham was uncomfortable with this term straddling the boundaries between theology and sociology because of the cultural connotations that have accrued to the concept. This is because, Mattingly suggests, the term has come to describe White Republicans. Why is it that White Republicans need to apologize for their values? Are Black religionists, Muslims, or Jews also expected to articulate such self-reflective loathing on command?

The NAACP is objecting to President Trump visiting the civil rights museum. Had the President not appeared, these racialist agitators would have raised a fuss about that as well. The propaganda office of this subversive front group had probably prewritten two versions of the story to foment faux outrage over either contingency.

Fox News pundit Greg Gutfeld has publically stated that he hopes Roy Moore loses. Thus far, the has been little definitive proof offered that Moore actually violated any laws. The allegations are that he violated the rules of decorum as imposed by an increasingly shrill and uptight cabal of WOMENNNNN that just this time last year getting ready to don their cranial haberdash depicting female anatomy. If this is the case, shouldn’t Gutfeld himself be cautious before his own near constant litany of wisecracks making lighthearted jest about abduction, sexual slavery, and serial killing get him banned from the polite company of the broadcast airwaves as well?

Roy Moore’s wife is being asked to account for anti-Semitism because she publicly noted one of the staff attorney’s is Jewish. In a spirit of ecumenical awareness, are Jewish individuals aspiring to elected office going to be asked to renounce the explicit anti-Christianism of the Talmund?

It is argued that it is unacceptable for a 30 year old Roy Moore to date even a 17 or 18 year old because such young minds are impressionable and easy to manipulate. Then why is it acceptable for those of that age to go into the armed services for the purposes of giving their lives in their country’s wars? Is not the government making promises of providing education and enlistment bonuses not much different than a man promising to lavish assorted material niceties on a compliant young woman?

Liberals are outraged that Roy Moore has not yet conceded defeat in the Alabama senatorial campaign. But so long as his followers are not threatening to take to the streets as an excuse to loot hair care product retailers and electronics establishments, does it really matter? That’s more of an assurance than is provided by these leftist agitation rackets when they don’t get their way.

Rep Mo Brooks announced on the floor of Congress that he has prostate cancer. How long until one of these delicate marms that was rampaging in the streets this time last year decked in a head covering symbolizing female genitalia flies into a tizzy that references to the male anatomy violates her safe space and sparks anxieties regarding patriarchy and rape culture?

So are these WOMMMMMENNN that now insist that social interaction with a prominent or positioned man automatically constitutes an abuse of power irrespective of whether or not he pitches a little woo before trying to cop a feel willing to settle for a variety of dude where a weekend get away consists of dining off of the fast food extra value menu and an occasional run to Ollies or perhaps even Walmart if he is feeling particular extravagant?

A number of Christian leaders are getting on board the sexual harassment bandwagon where not only are unsolicited touching or comments are out of line but apparently any non-professional fraternization is now as well. Many of these same thinkers would then turn to hyperpiety insisting it is unacceptable to pursue romance in a church setting since one is to be there to contemplate nothing but God. Online dating is frowned upon because, well, that’s not the way it was done in the 1800’s and you might stumble upon someone beyond the narrow doctrinal proclivities of the exegete on this sort of tirade. These ministers then get in the pulpit and beat singles over the head because they have not gotten married by the time they are 40 (25 if the speaker is Albert Mohler who stands with draw dropped at Roy Moore’s past even though the jurist’s behavior epitomizes the sort of approach Mohler would have applauded most likely this time last year and certainly nothing compared to the scandal of C.J. Mahaney whom Mohler recently assured still had thousands of Evangelical supporters).

In commenting on the sexual harassment scandals, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that women do not react well to powermongers. Yet they are supposed to go along with the sort of system he advocates where young women are to be discouraged from pursuing higher education and should be married off at the first signs of biological maturity.

A brawl erupted among lingerie aficionados in front of a Victoria’s Secret at a mall in Florida. A concurrent investigation has been launched over allegedly racist remarks posted by a sheriff’s deputy’s wife on social media. Shouldn’t that expenditure of police resources outrage feminists? After all, it does not view her as her own person but rather as little more than livestock that her husband failed to control.

Liberals are outraged over potential Trump tax cuts. Senator Bernie Sanders in response lamented that the treasury is being looted. Rosie O’Donnel offered to donate $2 million dollars to any Republican Senator willing to vote against the legislation. For questioning the legality of such a gesture, the no longer funny comedian told columnist Ben Shapiro to perform oral gratification on a bodily appendage she does not possess as a woman but probably wishes she did as a lesbian. If fiscal solvency is truly a conviction of these assorted ideologues, why don’t they simply continue to pay the amount to the government that their taxes have been reduced by? Since they like nothing more than to propagandize, they could turn this into a movement where those like them believing ultimate meaning is derived from the state can continue to render their financial oblation of their own free will whether it is required or not.

An Atlantic headline reads, “The Intrusion Of White Families Into Bilingual Schools”. First, if Whites are paying taxes, they have every right to be there. Second, if this is now the attitude of the prevailing liberal elites, on what grounds do they pitch their annual February fits about the Southern governors that blocked school integration?

An Atlantic headline reads, “The Intrusion Of White Families Into Bilingual Schools”. And if White payments complained or took action to keep their children out of such schools, the liberal media would pitch a fit just as loud about that.

A&E was advertising a program that was to feature Father Pfleger. Will his relationships with anti-White subversives such as Louis Farakhan, Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton be exposed and critically examined? Or do liberals merely agitate to prevent religious controversialists from being broadcast on the network when they are Duck Commander?

If the countries that the media are condemning President Trump for describing as excrement holes are so wonderful, why are so many from these particular lands swarming here?

A whelp at a public meeting in Carroll County, MD insists that she is unable to concentrate in school sitting next to a classmate adorned in Confederate battle flag attire because such an act promotes division. So should the prohibtion being proposed also apply to Black students wearing clothing telling everyone that they are Black (as if such an assessment could not be made from looking at the individual) as well as hijabs, and yalmulkes since these also promote the message of “Look at me. I’m better than you.”

by Frederick Meekins

Hit & Run Commentary #104

Donald Trump is accused of being unstable and thin skinned. As if Hillary was any better emotionally? Say something she or one of the gaulieters in her biddy brigade didn’t like and you are accused of being a predator on the level of Harvey Weinstein. Furthermore, how many that have crossed Trump have met with “mysterious ends” in comparison to the Clintons? And how is Trump’s skin any thinner than Obama’s? Tick Obama off and you’d feel like an Israelite in the desert having an “I am the Lord thy God” judgment handed down against you in terms of how loud Obama would get. Would remind one of Loud Howard on the Dilbert cartoon.

It was said in a revival sermon that the multiple hurricanes to hit the southern United States this past season were surely judgment from God. So if the pattern returns to normal and there are no major storms for the next several years, ought we to therefore conclude that sufficient contrition and repentance has been offered to mollify the Almighty?

So if we aren’t supposed to believe J. Edgar Hoover regarding the dirt he had on Martin Luther King, why should we automatically believe what the FBI Director is now revealed to have said regarding the Kennedy Assassination?

In a sermon on II Chronicles 7:14, it was said that the Christians of a nation are at fault for the evil and decay in their respective lands. So when the House Church in Red China is persecuted, if we follow this revivalist’s logic, are we to assume that the oppression is their own fault?

In a sermon, it was said that things were different in the nation’s schools just a few short decades ago. To an extent, this is correct. But in terms of the doctrine taught, weren’t the seeds of upheaval actually being planted then?

A pastor in a homiletical illustration claimed that a relative’s home repair project failed because it was undertaken on the Lord’s Day. Given that the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day are two different occasions, where does it say in Scripture someone cannot make home repairs on Sunday? Especially if church is over by noon?

Devoted Papalists are seething with anti-Luther animus over the celebration of the Protestant Reformation. It seems that the mutual respect called for by the likes of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is apparently only a one way street. For some, it has become something of a hobby to point out the ethical and theological shortcomings of this particular religious figure under consideration. As if Lorenzo de Medici was elevated to the Papacy solely on the merits of his devotional piety and theological acumen. Perhaps a more level headed Reformer might have stepped forward if institutional Catholicism had not been so insistent about upholding doctrinal and organizational conformity at the edge of a sword.

How is condemning from the pulpit those not doing more than they are comfortable with different than the Osteenism that fundamentalist expositors often rail against? So would this same sort of minister be as supportive if what a person felt the Holy Spirit was nudging them towards was another sort of church altogether?

If God is omnipresent, who is to say that those that remained in the pews during revivalistic theatrics were not as much communing with God as those kneeling at the “altar steps”?

Where does it say in the Bible that it is a manifestation of the sin nature not to do something that the pastor wants that is merely a matter of opinion or procedure rather than something clearly delineated in the pages of revelation? There’s definitely saying you are obligated to give up a free weekday morning for prayer meeting.

It was said in a sermon that it is hurtful for members to run from small churches into megachurches because the pastor of the small church simply wants to preach the word of God. Maybe so. But where is the mere pewfiller supposed to find the sorts of opportunities that they want to experience just as much as the small church pastor? So are we supposed to put our lives on hold just so such a pastor can be fulfilled in terms of career and ministry? And when the rare opportunity becomes available in these small churches, will the person that has been forced to sit there never be allowed to do anything that they might have a desire to such as teach Sunday school be allowed to because they have never been granted an opportunity or are these opening going to be bestowed upon someone that gained the experience in one of these megachurches? And in regards to some of these small churches, if the parishioner dutifully remains, is that person going to be made to feel less than fully human or Christian if that person never marries as often occurs in hardline congregations because there are no other singles in that church?

If someone has the tune “Tomorrow” from Annie playing in their head as an earwig, is that really something that needs to be confessed during testimony time like it is some sort of grave shortcoming?

Given that Allison Mack has been accused of being what amounts to a priestess in an abusive sex cult, shouldn’t the reference to her Smallville character Chloe been removed from this week’s episode of Supergirl if precedent regarding other thespians accused of similar offenses is to be adhered to?

Apparently any attention directed towards a woman is now harassment. The sorts of women now raising a fuss are the very same ones that then turn around and pitch a fit when men of discernment come to the conclusion that these gals aren’t worth it and turn to lives of seclusion and solitude to wait out the Apocalypse or at least the collapse of civilization.

Didn’t the same liberal culture elites lamenting the antics of Harvey Weinstein and now making unprovable allegations against Roy Moore at one time foist upon the culture propaganda insinuating that, if you are still a virgin at 40, you are somehow even more defective than Forrest Gump because even that cinematic retard sired a bastard by the town whore?

Do Evangelicals such as Russell Moore eager to condemn Roy Moore for his unconventional courtship practices also plan to condemn their theological colleagues insisting that young believers should be married by the time that they are 23 years of age or that a girl is on the verge of being an old maid if she’s not married by the time she’s had her first “monthly”? Wasn’t Roy Moore simply living out the sort of worldview advocated by Phil Robertson of “Duck Dynasty” who suggested girls out to be married by the time they are 16 years old?

If one of the targets of Moore’s pitched woo is quoted as saying that she in part felt flattered, that means at one point she liked the attention. In regards to the allegedly forced kiss, if the outcome is that men no longer kiss short of a notarized affidavit, these sorts of wenches going to refrain from criticizing such men as passive or unassertive?

According to the Guardian, a Christmas card depicting a redbreasted robin has been censored from Facebook for being allegedly “adult themed”. Will Kentucky Fried Chicken be similarly banned from from the social media platform because of the perennial quandary it forces consumers to make in favor of breasts or thighs?

The desiccated marms tossing a fit over Roy Moore attempting to date young women still over the age of consent are likely the same skanks that just a few short months ago that went ballistic over Vice President Mike Pence refusing to dine alone with a woman other than his wife or being in a room without his wife where alcohol is served.

Mitch McConnell suggests that Roy Moore should step down as a Senate candidate largely on the basis of unproven allegations over conduct on the part of the seemingly devout jurist some might find objectionable but that likely was not illegal. So should McConnell himself be required to step down largely on the basis of a rumor on the part of a disgruntled female? After all, having been divorced once and married twice, there has got to be at least one woman out there claiming he did something overwhelmingly unacceptable which can consist of nothing more than a raised voice or a single misemphasized word in a sentence these days. That’s usually enough to get the feminist goon squad worked up into a frenzy just about calling for a public castration.

I fail to see an inability to remember the reference coordinates of a particular passage of Scripture indicates an insufficient level of gratitude for it. While the numbering system is a useful tool in locating specific texts, these are man made division and not divine in origin.

Perhaps people living in the twenty-first century shouldn’t stand in judgment of the past. But that said, neither should those in the distant past figuratively stand in judgment of those now living in regards to issues not clearly spelled out in Scripture. Just because something was done a certain way “back then” does not necessarily make it correct by default.

In a sermon, it was insisted that one must thank God for misery and suffering. Apparently it is not enough as Scripture counsels to be thankful in all things. If such is as the homilist insisted, wouldn’t it be wrong to pray for suffering to end? After all, one does not pray for things considered blessings to end or be taken away. For example, one never prays, “Lord, we thank you for this food, but please prevent it from nourishing our bodies.” I am thankful that my dad and brother are here with me to go through this and that my mom is no longer suffering and is in Heaven. But no, I am not thankful that she died. If we are to express gratitude for all things, why do clergy never express gratitude for collection plates being lighter or for their being fewer rears in the pews for Sunday School or the Sunday evening gig?

Almost as disturbing as PBS propagandist Charlie Rose cavorting naked before fellow employees is that apparently is so gripped by a secret society mentality apparently bordering in Bohemian Grove levels that no one jumped at the chance to break the sort of story that they should have been chomping at the bit to publish even if initially anonymously in a tabloid or gossip website.

A pastor is taking guff for suggesting that Roy Moore dated younger woman for their moral purity. Frankly, nowadays a man is probably better off assuming that the young are just every bit the skanks (and possibly even more so) that the older ones are. However, if Roy Moore did not begin dating until older in life, why is he obligated to settle for sloppy seconds? Jesus might forgive, but for whatever reason in this life He doesn’t remove STD’s.

An episode of Generations Radio is titled “Did Moore Commit Sexual Sin?” Did this program broadcast an episode explicitly asking such addressing why its former cohost Dave Buehner suddenly vanished for allegedly similar reasons?

The Canadian Prime Minister has apologized to the so-called indigenous population there for in the past snatching such children for the purposes of indoctrination. Wonder if he will extend a similar sentiment to parents (particularly Christians) there refusing to go along brainswashing their children with the contemporary prevailing orthodoxies in regards to multiculturalism, the acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and even vaccinations.

A story published in the 11/24/17 edition of Newsweek makes note of the “Far Right’s Pedophile Obsession”. The article is subtitled “Why are pro-Trump provacetuers are using allegations of pedophilia to smear the left”. But aren’t the ones on the left making a fuss that Roy Moore’s antics permissible under Alabama law ought to result in the sorts of raised eyebrows getting the attention of law enforcement and the placement of the accused offender on some sort of registry?

The owners of a Maryland farm rented for a conference shut down the proceedings mid event upon learning that racialist Richard Spenser was the organizer. As such, shouldn’t this venue be subjected to the same penalties that befall Christian bakers refusing to prepare cakes for gay weddings?

Some of Matt Lauer’s ribald shenanigans were alleged to have taken place at the Winter Olympics. Perhaps the next sexcapade that needs to be detailed is how the Olympic village is usually as debauched as the Playboy Mansion.

Interesting how no one has actually refuted the accuracy of the controversial videos retweeted by President Trump of Islamist violence but rather have fired back with “Kneel before Zod!” pronouncements about inclusion and divisiveness.

By Frederick Meekins