Faith in Christ Lives

Hit & Run Commentary #129

2020-07-12T05:59:00.002-07:00

Apparently women that don’t cook from scratch are failures for violating Biblical admonitions regarding taking care of their families because processed foods and preservatives are not mentioned in Scripture. Utilizing such logic, does that make one a failure as a man if you cannot get his woman to comply with this objective? More importantly, aren’t you a failure if you propagate your decree by any method other than the sort of parchments upon which the original canonical texts were written upon? It is at this point where the condemnation starts rolling in for hashing out where such presuppositions end up.

To keep the flames of racial animosity and resentment stoked, the Washington Post published a supplement 9/4/19 titled “Teaching Slavery”. An interesting fact contained within was that at one point in his life Ulysses S. Grant owned slaves. As such, shouldn’t all statues of him on public land and in parks be removed? And if Andrew Jackson must be removed from the twenty dollar bill over his shortcomings in terms of race relations to be replaced by Harriet Tubman, shouldn’t Grant be similarly removed from the $50 and replaced with someone like Frederick Douglas or Sojourner Truth?

National Review has published an analysis titled “Walmart’s Retreat On Guns Means Woke Capitalism Is Here To Stay”. Ironic that those supporting this use of corporate policy to alter the ethical landscape by denying access to perfectly legal products used to rampage the most about the impropriety of someone imposing their morality upon someone else.

An infant changing table was erected in the stall of a men’s room. On it was a warning reading, “Never leave children unattended.” Yet neither of these things were that worthy of note. What leapt out about the situation was that the warning was printed on the hygenic fixture in Braille. The blind of course need to change their children like anybody else. But are you going to tell me that they are going to run their hands all over the changing table in pursuit of that message?

Home school activist Kevin Swanson admonished believers not to grumble about persecution and tyranny. No doubt he would have also believed the wrought iron words on the camp gate “Work set you free”.

So are these global warming brats going to surrender their posh lifestyles and pursue careers of subsistence agriculture rather than degrees in useless academic majors such as minority or gender studies?

Outrage has erupted over anyone that has responded to Greta Thunberg and her brand of Young Pioneers with anything other than abject acquiescence. WiIl similar condemnation be leveled at the pedagogues and propagandists that manipulated her into such a froth in the first place?

Outrage has erupted against those that have given anything but the benefit of the doubt to Young Pioneer Greta Thunberg. Yet these are no doubt the same ones that rhetorically called for the scalp of the Maga hat Catholic lad that did nothing more than look on with a perplexed smirk on his face as some American Indian beat a drum in his face like some sort of lunatic.

If at 16, Greta Thunberg is apparently too young to handle criticism of her call for planetary revolution and the upending of the contemporary socioeconomic system, why ought we to assume that those of the same age are capable of deciding matters of abortion and contraception for themselves?

If Greta Thunberg and her band of Young Pioneers are really all that concerned about pending environmental collapse, why did they nor prevent the unnecessary expenditure of fossil fuels by addressing Congress and the United Nations through virtual telepresence rather than by personal appearance?

If authorities across Europe punish Christian parents homeschooling their children over violating compulsory attendance laws, why aren’t the parents of Greta Thunberg as vigorously prosecuted for being even more neglectful for allowing her to miss academic instructional time in favor of subversive activism?

If Comrade Thunberg is going to invoke autism as an excuse to deflect analysis of her policy proposals, what is so wrong with pointing out she has a mental illness? Doesn’t her sort constantly remind the general population of their neurological state when attempting to get their handouts denied everybody else and at times even why they should not be required to abide by the standards of conduct by which the remainder of us are expected to comport ourselves?

Outrage has erupted over a Michigan ruling deciding that faith-based adoption agencies can refuse to place children with gay prospective parents. Will those feigning concern over the civil liberties implications of such a verdict get as jacked out of shape over religious foster parents and assorted childcare providers forbidden from teaching the youth in their care as to what constitutes a morally proper family and carnal relations?

In criticizing the feminist criticism of the Joker film, Rush Limbaugh closed his morning update remarking in regards to comic book movies that these productions are signs that people need to grow up. What about himself? Limbaugh is the one that has had four wives, the latest nearly thirty years younger than himself. Limbaugh ridicules entertainment derived from comics. Yet he is on the record as being such a fan of the series 24 that there exists a photo of him just about playing tonsil hockey with the actress that portrayed the character Chloe when both appeared at a Heritage Foundation panel discussion examining the conservative fan base that developed surrounding that drama. Can it explained how Jack Bauer is any different than Batman or at least the Punisher?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Greatest Story Ever Told's Opening Act Tweaked To Advance Leftwing Agenda

2020-01-20T15:11:00.000-08:00

In the frantic effort to co-opt all of culture to advance the cause of comprehensive revolution, not even the symbols of the sacred and solemn are immune from being hijacked for the purposes of advancing the agenda. In fact, it is often the only time that otherwise intended for destruction will be tolerated by those already having pledged their loyalty to the one bent upon toppling the Most High.

According to a story published in the 12/9/19 edition of USA Today, a Methodist church in California erected a Nativity depicting Jesus, Mary, and Joseph as detained refugees. Apparently, this is not the first time the congregation has utilized what ought to be a reverent display to propagandize on behalf of a faddish social cause.

According to the pastrix, the previous year's addressed the California homeless crisis. The 2019 version wanted the beholding to imagine Mary, Joseph, and Jesus separated at a Trumpian detention center in juxtaposition with the presupposition that “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.” It seems this holiday display compounds the factual and philosophical fallacies and omissions one year to the next.

The first of these needing to be addressed is the issue of California's homeless problem. Foremostly, Mary and Joseph were not homeless. The couple anticipating the Messianic child were ordered by Roman decree to travel from their home in Nazareth to the town of their ancestors for the purposes of registering with the census and paying their taxes.

If the congregation wants to do more than posture, preen, and virtue signal as to how bad they feel about the homeless epidemic, perhaps they would do well to reflect upon what is causing this lamentable crisis. They might be surprised to learn that the sort of progressivism likely embraced by many attending this sort of church has exacerbated the situation.

For example, since easing the restrictions on cannabis across America (supposedly for so called “medicinal purposes” even for patiences not suffering metastasized cancer, seizure disorders, or glaucoma but usually for nothing more than lazy ass syndrome).homeless rates have skyrocketed noticeably. For often those for whom the consumption of this intoxicant has become the central organizing facet of their existence find it a challenge to keep themselves satisfactorily employed and domiciled.

One can legitimately debate the role to be played by government and/or charity in addressing this issue. However, it will not be resolved --- something that elites might not even want to see transpire as a number paradoxically have a vested interest in seeing that the problem remains ongoing ---- unless individual responsibility and choices are recognized for the role they play in terms of ruined lives.

Though the Holy Family was not homeless in the terms of having no designated locality of habitation once their business with the regime had been concluded, if we want to take the presuppositions as expressed by the interpretative spin of this particular Nativity to their logical conclusion, do the statists possess the conviction to point out the implications of California's infamous taxation and regulatory bureaucracy upon the homeless situation?

For if the taxes and level of government intrusion beyond basic safety becomes too great, businesses will either close or leave California. In turn, those working for these enterprises will end up losing their jobs. That could result in the forfeiture of their homes if there are not a sufficient number of open positions in which the occupationally displaced can find reemployment.

Often in America, if one found themselves in a situation where they could not find employment to their liking, there was always the possibility of making one's own job through some sort of entrepreneurial undertaking. However, given the extent to which government has come to exert punitive influence over nearly every aspect of life to the point that in order to sell doodads at a flea market one has to beseech a permit and then often have to preemptively estimate before hand how much revenue might be generated from such transactions one could easily be discouraged from pursuing the very forms of basic commerce that could have prevented one's plunge into destitution.

The reflection put into the display depicting the Holy Family as detained refugees is no better than the narrative casting them as typical homeless. The press statement referring to the figurines depicted in this manner states, “Jesus grew up to teach us kindness and mercy and a radical welcome of all people.”

Jesus did emphasize kindness and mercy. However, He just as much emphasized that these qualities can only be extended when certain conditions are met. For the same corpus of divine revelation proclaiming the salvation found in Christ also just as explicitly extols “let all things be done decently and in order.”

It is because kindness and mercy play such a central role in Christian ethical thought that the nation is justified in exerting stringent oversight in regards to whom it will decide to grant entrance.

In terms of kindness, a government of a particular territory is obligated to extend this firstly and foremostly to those residing legally within the confines of its accepted borders. This is accomplished on the most rudimentary level by making sure those seeking to enter the territory under its protection intend that territory and those residing within no harm.

To those accustomed to living a comfortable existence in a nation relatively safe when compared to numerous others, detaining and separating families might not seem very kind or merciful. But given the circumstances, the United States should be commended for the merciful restraint that it does extend as a nation.

For example, if kindness and mercy were not priorities, the United States could very easily plant a minefield along the border without concern for what happens to any daring to cross it, with snipers standing ready to pick off any survivors happening to make it across such a daunting obstacle. But America is such an upstanding nation that the country has decided not to defend itself in such a manner out of a concern for the innate dignity of all human beings.

Relatedly, it must also be asked was it an act of kindness and mercy to create a situation where droves are apparently under the impression that all they had to do not only be allowed admission but also lavished with extensive (and the case could be made even extravagant) benefits was simply showing up with an outstretched hand? Such lawlessness is a boon to neither newcomer or longstanding citizen alike.

Given that, overall, Americans are a kindhearted and sympathetic sort, those skilled at manipulating the narrative in the direction of predetermined ends have made use of images depicting children ---- a number appearing to be quite young --- detained in locked cages with nary a parent in sight. Admittedly, such a situation is far from ideal. Yet in light of the circumstances, the policy could very well be the kindest and most merciful thing that can be done in this particular circumstance.

Firstly, there is often little proof that these children actually belong to the adults that are just about using them as human shields in the hopes of sneaking them past what are assumed to be dimwitted and softhearted border patrol officers. For all we know these urchins could very well be in transit by human traffickers to lives of sex slavery and prostitution.

Thus, do not the mercy and kindness called for on the part of Claremont United Methodist Church demand that these identification and relationship claims be proven and verified? After all, were not actual Americans put through similar wringers when forced to authenticate themselves before being granted documents in compliance with the Real ID Act required in order to continue their lives as fully recognized residents and citizens of the territorial United States?

It could be responded but why must children be separated from their parents during the detention process? But would it be an act of kindness or mercy to leave these vulnerable individuals even with their alleged parents in facilities just as likely to contain the perverted dregs as well as the noble destitute from the society from which both classes are fleeing?

Those naïve as to how the world actually works would likely reply, “At least allow these children to remain with their mothers even if they have to be separated from their fathers to protect children from predatory men.” Like it or not, at this time under United States law to enter into the country without proper authorization is still a crime.

As such, if the children of those accused of this act get to remain with their parents throughout detention, why do not actual American children get to remain with their parents then they are taken into custody for other criminal violations? Do these so-called “human rights” activists intend to articulate a similar degree of outrage over parents arrested for failing to comply with vaccination requirements or on behalf of the German family arrested there for homeschooling and denied asylum by the Obama regime because the family happened to adhere to Christianity rather than one of the forms of Third World heathenism lavished with accolades by the otherwise godless adherents of secularist multicultrualism?

The Reverend Ristine's comment closes in the article with the remark “a radical welcome of all people.” But just how radical is the welcome that would be extended by Rev. Ristine and the Claremont United Methodist Church?

For example, some churches along with others in their areas on certain nights in the winter allow the homeless to shelter in a designated building to get these individuals out of the cold. So what if Claremont United Methodist Church agreed to take in a certain number and a dozen more than planned forced their way into the building, proceeding to use the facilities in a way that was wantonly deleterious or even explicitly disrespectful of the graciousness extended by the hosts? Would the congregation be required to allow these souls to urinate in the baptistry or defecate in the pews since interdicting such behavior might be interpreted as contradicting the “radical welcome of Jesus”?

The Claremont United Methodist Church is first and foremost a church. As such, central to its identity is a scheduled weekly time of worship where the agreed upon leaders of the congregation provide a didactic oration usually accompanied by music of a style those assembled deem appropriate.

Thus, what if a group came into the sanctuary without prior authorization and proceeded to drone on incessantly about the imperative of reelecting President Trump? Better yet, what if the uninvited interrupted the otherwise orderly execution of the liturgy (particularly during Rev. Ristine's homily) with an exegesis elaborating their understanding how certain Scriptural texts are correctly interpreted as forbidding women from the ranks of the ordained clergy?

A church has the right to say, “Look, we will allow you to enter our arms welcoming you. But there are rules you will be required to abide by. If not, we are going to have to ask you to leave and you won't be allowed to come in.” As such, does not something similar apply to other social institutions as well?

It might not be the place of government to decide complex questions of theology. Yet inversely, as part of its mandate, the state has the obligation to be not quite as welcoming as the church as its primary function is to ensure that those existing within specified boundaries do not pose a viable threat and that a set of objective standards are adhered to in order to prevent widespread social breakdown.

There can be debate as to how stringent these ought to be in a society endeavoring to balance the needs of liberty and security. Yet to argue that the welcome must be so broad as to allow all arrivals irrespective of intent is to invite nothing but the destruction of what made this land a relative oasis amidst a troubled world in the first place.

Often President Trump addresses the hard truths that face the nation in a manner that some might construe as blunt or inartful. It must be admitted ---- something that he himself at one point refused to do when he insisted that he had never done anything in need of divine forgiveness ----- that he suffers (as do we all) from any number of flaws. However, his sincerity in wanting to see the borders of the United States protected for the benefit of all cannot be denied and should be applauded by all that profess to love America.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

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

2019-06-16T05:57:00.003-07:00

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

The Seminary is correct to oppose this ultimatum.

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

War Against Second Amendment Salvo In War Against The First

2019-05-14T19:19:00.002-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit and Run Commentary #122

2019-04-10T20:11:00.002-07:00

Students at a Minneapolis high school are under investigation for holding a “patriotic black out” where the participants adorned themselves in red, white and blue regalia while a number also clung to a Trump 2020 reelection banner. The complaint was instigated by the coach of the visiting team that stayed in the locker room during the national anthem. So if it is their First Amendment Right to disrespect the flag in this manner, why don’t the students have a First Amendment Right to support the flag and anthem? Likewise, if students can be investigated for supporting the flag as a preparatory step towards punitive disciplinary measures, shouldn’t similar steps be taken against those that deliberately snubbed their noses at this nation’s most rudimentary symbols?

Regarding the senile Indian that beat his tomtom while a Catholic student who did little more than look on with a bewildered smirk was initially tossed to the wolves by operatives of his diocese . What does being a veteran have to do with the issue? In that case, are Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McViegh deserving of extra sympathy for simply being veterans?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has decreed that a system that allows for the existence of billionaires is immoral. But isn’t a system immoral when it imposes so many regulations and confiscatory assessments that the individual of average intelligence and ability is discouraged to the point of no longer striving to better themselves or expending the effort to accumulate wealth for the fear of being destroyed for violating these byzantine obligations?

In his criticism of the purity movement, a homeschool activist applauds his grandmother for getting married at the age of 15. So if this is to be allowed nowadays in Christian settings, will these young couples be expected to provide for themselves? Or, as in the case of many missionaries, is everybody else going to be guilt-tripped into providing those with outstretched hands and superiority complexes?

In his condemnation of the unmarried, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson remarked that our primary concern ought to be keeping the commandments of God and that likely means that our children are to be married. In other words, getting children married is not about their individual happiness or personal well being. Rather it is apparently about children existing to mollify the psycho-spiritual quirks and mental deficiencies of their parents. Along with that, Swanson warned that Christians must not get sucked into romantic or idealistic conceptions of marriage and instead view the institution as a tool (much like haired shirt one supposes) to mortify the flesh. In other words, kids ought to smacked up side the head (probably literally in the minds of some acolytes of this extremist form of pedagogy) if they refuse to settle for a mediocre partner they are less than enthused about and must apparently acquiesce to because of their parents diminished sense of self-worth.

In condemnation of fantasy films, homeschool activist Kevin Swanson upheld as praiseworthy a movie detailing a massacre of early Virginian colonists on the part of American Indians. But why is it acceptable to examine the moral implications of those sorts of actions in the light of that described narrative but instead inappropriate to contemplate a similar ethical situation in the form of Thanos’ use of the Infinity Gauntlet?

Regarding the alleged assault against actor Jussie Smollett, Joe Biden tweeted that such attacks must never be tolerated in this country. Did the former Vice President ever issue similar statements against the knockout game where urban youth predominantly selected White victims euphemistically referred to as “polar bears” or in regards to activist hordes looting private property in response to unpopular police actions or jury verdicts?

The Governor of Virginia pontificated that, since most legislators are men, they should stay out of the abortion debate. Applying similar reasoning, does that mean women should remain silent regarding the formulations for determining child support since it is usually men paying it?

The 1/30/19 Washington Post announced that Rand Paul was awarded $580,000 in a lawsuit over injuries sustained in an attack by his neighbor over a landscaping dispute. The story also pointed out that the perpetrator spent a month in jail for assaulting a member of Congress. As a good libertarian, shouldn’t Paul be opposed to an increase in penalty based upon the station of the victim when the crime was not necessarily motivated by the elected office held by the victim? Likewise, did Joe Biden issue a statement how neighbors physically attacking neighbors cannot be tolerated in this country? Guess Rand Paul is neither gay or Black enough to warrant such additional sympathy.

Sophisticates across the political spectrum are warning that Trump’s border national emergency will open the door to dictatorship. So where were these voices when their beloved Ronald Reagan and Oliver North were drawing up plans to suspend the Constitution, seize private property, and to conscript the civilian population into slave labor details? Aren’t the political figures that formulated these sorts of procedures as much at fault as any office holder that might implement any power already on the books?

Alaska airlines is threatening to hire more minority pilots. So pandering to activists is apparently more important than successfully transporting aircraft from point A to point B.

Regarding the weather forecast. The way the meteorologist is referencing the transition of snow to rain as "the change over" sounds more like a report on menopause.

Presidential contender Kamala Harris assures that the New Green Deal is more something to aspire to rather than concrete policy proposals to actually implement. So she wants an America where people will not be allowed to eat meat or fly? Can it be explained why it is an outrage to erect barriers to keep out those that have no right to be here but perfectly acceptable to impede the travel within designated borders of those sanctioned to be within a particular territory?

Bernie Sanders raised nearly a million dollars just hours after announcing his latest presidential bid. As a good socialist, shouldn’t he insist that these funds be seized and redistributed to less successful candidates?

by Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

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

2019-03-26T16:09:00.000-07:00

There is no pleasing diversity fanatics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what is it going to be?

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Reparations A Down Payment On National Decline

2019-03-02T05:32:00.002-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Vocations Of Magistrate & Missionary Divergent At Core

2019-02-21T19:52:00.002-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit and Run Commentary #121

2019-02-11T15:52:00.002-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #120

2019-01-27T04:53:00.000-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Megachurch Laments Results When Skimping On Sunday School Teachers

2019-01-19T05:46:00.000-08:00

In a SermonAudio podcast, the staff of Berean Baptist Church lamented how the average Sunday School teacher does not go beyond the printed curriculum.

But isn't that for two basic reasons?

Number one, if teachers stick to the curriculum, they have at least that to defend themselves with when the pastor comes to pepper them with a battering of Scripture references should a doctrinal or even a merely an interpretative difference arises in class.

Second, even if they love both God and pupils, the Sunday school teacher --- unlike the pastor in most circumstances ---- is just a volunteer.

For, to put it bluntly, the Sunday School teacher has other things in life that they also need to attend to and you get what you pay for.

If asked to do the other workaday work of the Sunday school teacher, it is doubtful the pastor could do that job without the book or operational manual either.

If these pastors want Sunday school teachers as absorbed in the nuances of Scripture and doctrine as professional clergy, pay the Sunday School teachers the wages of a pastor or staff member at a church that already has at least a half dozen pastors and compensated assistants already on the payroll.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Bill Of Rights Not A Chinese Takeout Menu

2019-01-13T05:43:00.000-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #119

2019-01-01T06:21:00.002-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Cuomo Christmas Consternation

2018-12-27T04:56:00.000-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

From Whence Cometh Christmas Conniption?

2018-12-04T19:43:00.003-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #118

2018-11-22T05:43:00.002-08:00

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

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #115

2018-09-21T05:22:00.003-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Is Grief About Healing Or Group Compliance?

2018-09-15T07:20:00.003-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #114

2018-09-07T15:47:00.002-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Why Not Lady Church Ushers?

2018-08-29T15:37:00.002-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Pleiadian Republican No Different Than Other Ranking Thought Leaders

2018-08-21T15:33:00.003-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mainstream journalism cannot have it both ways.

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Elites Mock Those Taking The Threats They've Harped Seriously

2018-08-12T05:38:00.002-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hit & Run Commentary #113

2018-08-03T05:27:00.003-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Should Those Bucking Public Opinion Be Banished Unto Utter Desolation?

2018-07-10T15:50:00.002-07:00

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

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

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

Perhaps so.

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

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

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

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

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Fundamentalist Attends Baseball & Auto Races But Not Ministerial Association

2018-07-06T14:59:00.003-07:00

In the 8/12/16 edition of the Sword Of The Lord, the publication's editor Shelton Smith composed an article titled “The Fellowship Thing: A Clearly Defined New Testament Concept”.

In the column, the minister concluded that, even if someone professes to be a born again believer, you really ought not have much to do with the individual unless they pretty much march lockstep with you in agreement on a comprehensive litany of secondary matters.

One wonders how Smith feels regarding other denominations as leery of those wild-eyed Fundamentalists.

As evidence of his hardline position, Shelton Smith referenced a ministerial association he had been pressured into attending as a young pastor and seminary student.

To justify the fact that he never went back, Smith mentions seeing so-called ministers of the Gospel caught smoking cigars and hearing others engaged in “off color conversations”.

Some might have even remarked how good a lady might have looked in tight-fitting jeans and a short haircut (ha ha).

As shocking as that might have been, can he really insist that what he might have been exposed to at such a meeting in the 1970's was really worse than what he was in the vicinity of during the NASCAR races and baseball games he is on the record of having attended in the pages of the Sword of the Lord, a publication that at one time published an article explicitly stating viewers of Stat Trek were not fit to teach school?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network