If Megyn Kelly is so outraged over something Donald Trump said about
women on his network television program, why does she work for Rupert
Murdoch who has allowed media companies under his corporate oversight to
produce some bawdy and demeaning entertainment regarding women over the
years and decades? For the longest time, Married With Children was Fox
Entertainment's signature program.
Regarding these women that Trump is accused of referring to as pigs and
dogs, perhaps shouldn't we be told who they are before passing judgment
as to the propriety of his remarks?
Filling in for Chris Plant, Steve Malzberg remarked that, because of his
debate performance, Rand Paul will only appeal to Rand Paul fanatics.
But what about the impression exuded by Chris Christie that would
flippantly abandon the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How is it
fanatically to point out that certain figures have their hands in both
parties or that they are come-latelys to issues a number of the
candidates have been fighting against for decades?
It is a valid question. If Donald Trump has run a number of companies
into bankruptcy, why should the American voter be more confident in
allowing this billionaire to administer the nation's tottering finances?
Too bad elitist culture is not as outraged over the barrage of
commercials that constantly push feminine hygiene products (as well as
male erectile dysfunction cures while we are at it) in viewers faces as
it is over Donald Trump's allusion to feminine hygiene.
Of those sick and tired of Donald Trump constantly harping political
correctness when someone dares ask him something that he doesn't like,
maybe you now know how the rest of us feel about the excuse and threat
of racism beating us over the head all day long.
The power elite are intertwined at the highest levels to the point that
the boundaries between government, finance, and media are virtually
indistinguishable. That reality makes one wonder if Trump is being
opposed not because of the increasingly outrageous things to come out of
his mouth but rather for exposing a number of the attitudes that may be
allowed to slide by among the social engineering class if you have gobs
of money to gloss over your appallingly gruff edges. Just think.
Donald Trump at this point can merely shock. Many of the others in the
circles he already runs in hold the power to destroy lives.
Too bad the culture is not as outraged over Donald Trump's disregard for
private property as his remarks over immigrant vagrants and the female
reproductive tract.
One would think Donald Trump ought to be considered the perfect
candidate. Self-absorption equaling Obama's and a proclivity towards
debauchery matching Bill Clinton's.
In regards to Donald Trump. There hasn't been a presidential candidate
to drone on about themselves using first person pronouns since, well,
President Obama. At least Bob Dole had the decency to refer to himself
by his own full name.
Perhaps Trump would be better suited as a shock jock in the tradition of Don Imus rather than in elected office.
Perhaps Rand Paul will muster himself to seize the mantle of blunt spoken populism from Donald Trump.
The concern regarding Chris Christie is to what extent will he invoke
September 11th to cover over an appalling variety of Constitutional
deprivations.
Donald Trump reminds of George Wallace. There is a great deal of truth
to what he says. But upon further reflection, you are probably better
off settling for another candidate.
The Justice Department is considering a policy that might place those
accused of supporting ISIS in therapy rather than criminal detention.
Opponents insist aspiring terrorists deserve harsher punishment.
However, this should also raise concerns as it might lower the threshold
for taking into custody critics of the Obama regime motivated by what
secularist progressives would categorize as extremist political or
religious ideologies.
Chuck Schumer is celebrated in his opposition to the Iranian Nuclear
Deal as "the most prominent Jewish voice in the Senate". Does the media
gush as excitedly when a legislator takes a strong conservative
position based upon their Evangelicalism or Catholicism?
On Fox and Friends, Father Jonathan Morris criticized Republican
presidential candidate Ben Carson for suggesting that America's tax
system ought to be based on a flat tax system inspired by the Biblical
notion of the tithe. It was the priest's contention that one should not
base governmental policies and laws directly upon Biblical passages.
Then on what grounds as a Catholic does he then advocate pro-life
activism or even the pandering to immigrants that is beginning to take
root in denominations both Protestant and Catholic? If the Bible is to
provide little guidance in the sphere of government and society, should
the state decide to tax religious property, will this cleric rank among
the foremost in applauding such a fiscal decision?
A good laugh is being had that no one has ordered a sandwich full of
bologna called “The Trump” at a Washington Area diner. But if someone
had money to blow on a restaurant lunch, why would someone waste funds
on something as blah and mundane as bologna? At McDonald's, there is a
special of double cheeseburger and fries for $2.50. At Burger King, you
can often get two chicken sandwiches for $5.00. Both of those meals
are better than bologna and probably cheaper than a lunch at a greasy
spoon where they will probably toss a fit if you don't leave a tip.
Regarding the chorus “Sweet, Sweet Spirit”, how does one know that the
sweet expressions on each face are from the presence of the Lord? If
the Devil masquerades as an angel of light, what proof do we have that
the expression on someone's face isn't demoniacally inspired? Maybe
they are holding back a chuckle at a dirty joke that they have recalled.
Even more importantly, isn't it dangerous to judge an individual's
spiritual state on such a cosmetic basis? What if the person had a
scowl because their hemorrhoids were acting up? Shouldn't you just be
glad that the person showed up rather than give them guff about their
countenance appearing insufficiently Christian?
Praying for someone's physical needs is better than not praying for
someone at all. If a congregation is going to be chastised for praying
primarily for physical needs, isn't that edging dangerously close to
gnosticism? In whether to pray for the physical or the spiritual, does a
homiletical dichotomy of one or the other need to be imposed? Can't
one pray for the physical along with spiritual empowerment. It's a safe
assumption that the pulpiteer poo-pooing physical ailments on a given
Sunday likely isn't experiencing any or is secretly as high as a kite.
In a sermon condemning the exaltation of the individual over the group, a
pastor lamented the explosion of consumer choice that catered to the
satisfaction of particular needs. Would ministers arguing along such
lines prefer command economies where bureaucrats instead don't meet any
needs at all? In the study of such societies, one notices that such
regimes aren't all that big on religious liberty either.
In a sermon, a pastor went on to condemn individualism. Instead, the
minister extolled the virtue of conformity. Given that the church the
minister belonged to traces its heritage back to the Anabaptist
movement, will the pastor endorse the principle that led to the
persecution of his spiritual forefathers that the inhabitants of a
particular region should all belong to the spiritual confession decided
upon by the governing authorities?
An Anglican minister suggested that the success of a church can be
measured by comparing the number that attend the worship service with
the number participating in small groups. Small groups can be a
wonderful ecclesiastical supplement if the topics addressed are of
interest to an individual. You might be able to make the case that the
individual is compelled by Scripture to attend worship service.
However, there really isn't anything demanding a believer attend a
small group if there are none that interest a person. Some just aren't
inspired by the prospect of going to the dwellings of people that they
barely know for no purpose other than spilling one's guts to the group
in self-denunciation like in a prisoner of war camp.
On “The Kelly File”, Dana Parino suggested that Republican presidential
candidates should meet with the Black Lives Matter movement. While she
is at it, will she also counsel consultations with the Ku Klux Klan or
the Aryan Nation?
In sharing his experience regarding a mission's trip to Kenya, a
Nazarene pastor badmouthed the quality of fruit available in the United
States compared to that available in a tropical nation. I think I'd
rather have reliable electricity and indoor plumbing.
If Cuba is good enough to establish diplomatic relations with, shouldn't it be considered good enough for tourists to visit?
Given the number of steps involved, is it really all that much of a
putdown that someone had to study all night for a urine test?
A meme with text attributed to Jonathan Edwards reads in part, “If you
can preach Hell and the final judgment without lifting your voice and
without pleading, you sir, do not believe in Hell.” If we are obligated
to profess a predestinarian soteriology so thoroughgoing that there is
no room for individual choice in the matter of salvation if we do not
want our names smeared as heretics unworthy of basic constitutional
rights in the form of the New World Order advocated by certain Calvinist
sectarians, what does it matter if we mention Hell with either
considerable theatrics or more so in detached blase passing? Not a
single individual will end up in a region of the Afterlife other than
the one in which he was preselected to be. One does not plead with an
individual unless there is the possibility of the individual changing
his mind.
The Shriners have banned the Confederate Battle Flag as offensive. Will
related Luciferian secret societies also ban their homoerotic initiation
rituals as offensive? Some researchers insist that the distinctive
headgear of the Shriners known as a fez originates from Muslims dipping
their cranial coverings in Christian blood. If nothing else, the fez is
brimless so as to facilitate Islamic prayers. Should the secret
society ban this form of haberdashery as well?
By Frederick Meekins