| | Status: Public | | Entries: 63 (Private: 0)
| Comments: 15
| | Start Date: Oct 16, 2006
| Last Update: Jul 22, 2008
| | Views: 3399
|
| | Description: Commentary by Columnist Frederick Meekins
| |
| | | | | Pastor Sentenced To Chinese Labor Camp | | | According to the China Aid Association, Pastor Zhang Zhongxin has been sentenced to two years in a Chinese labor camp by Shandong Province authorities for participation in cultic activities. To American ears, such allegations bring to mind images of passing around poisoned Kool-Aid or of adolescent brides forced to wed lecherous old men; however, in this case this pastor engaged in religious exercises most of us take for granted as harmless as organizing a Sunday school.
Since freedom of religion is listed in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it is a duty of the United States to stand for this liberty in any way proper or possible around the world.
Radical multiculturalists will respond that it is not the place of the United States to be spreading American notions around the world as this could be construed as imposing Western values on other societies. However, another axiom of the economic age in which we live posits that the customer is always right.
If the government of the People’s Republic of China wishes to continue to benefit from the financial patronage and cooperation of the United States, it is only reasonable for authorities over there to respect certain inalienable rights held by all individuals irrespective of what regime they happen to live under.
After all, firms here seeking to do business with the government in terms of being granted contracts are expected to honor any number of obligations that go beyond basic human rights such as minority quotas and prevailing union wages.
It is the prayer and hope of believers in Christ around the world that Pastor Zhongxin’s sentence would be commuted or suspended because in the contemporary world citizens embracing Christianity bring stability to a nation rather than disruption. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ assists both individuals and communities in balancing the seemingly conflicting tendencies towards order and liberty, and in so doing actually makes a nation stronger.
In the Western press, considerable debate has taken place as to the prudence of allowing China to host the 2008 Olympic games. With the eyes of the world turning to that particular nation at this time, there would be no better gesture that China could make to prove it takes its responsibility as a leading power of the 21st century seriously than by guaranteeing that citizens within that country’s borders are free to practice their religion without fear of incarceration or reprisals
by Frederick Meekins |
| Hispanosupremacists Infiltrate Evangelical Movement | | | Minority activists and other guiltmongers often whine that 11 am Sunday morning is often the most segregated hour of the week. I wonder what the we-are-all-one-big family agitators have to say about the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which bills itself as the National Hispanic Association of Evangelicals.
While prominent Christian leaders are correct that all of mankind descends from one set of parents, interesting, isn’t it, how these speakers only expect Whites of a more Northern European extraction to abide by such radical color-blindness. For if a group of Caucasians a little to wrapped up in their pigmentation ratios established the Nordic Christian Association, it would not be tolerated in contemporary Evangelical circles, and rightfully so.
Yet, in browsing the NHCLC’s website, one finds alliances and linkages with a virtual who’s who of American religion today. On their main page at one time or another have been inks to prominent ministries such as Promise Keepers, Christianity Today, Franklin Graham’s Samaritan’s Purse, and Rod Parsely’s Center for Moral Clarity. Unless otherwise stated, usually such prominent banner placements denote a high degree of fellowship between the partners.
As one probes deeper into the site, one discovers this outfit has conducted theological dialogue with arch apostates such as T.D. Jakes (denier of the Trinity) and Benny Hinn, known for endorsing epilepsy-esque convulsions in the name of the Holy Spirit. Ted Haggard, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals caught in a scandal involving a gay male prostitute dealing drugs, at one time also came bowing and scrapping before the group in an effort to curry its favor.
But before most weak-willed pew fillers simply shrug their shoulders and flippantly remark, “Well it’s simply God’s will we don’t look at color” perhaps they should be told that it’s doubtful the concerns of the NHCLC are as broadminded and universal in nature as they seem to be giving their socioecclesiastical imprimatur to the Hispanic conquest of the United States.
For in a letter addressed to the President and Congress and in a “Statement of on Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, the NHCLC calls for aliens already living here to be granted permanent legal status, an increase in the numbers of visas granted, and a “viable guest worker program that will strengthen the economic vitality of both employer and employee”. So basically, to use Biblical vernacular, to Sheol with the American people so long as the elites and their new indentured servants are pleased. All you are to any of these people, both in the government and in the clerical class is either someone that pays taxes or tithes.
In their statement, the NHCLC calls for end to all illegal immigration. For those unable to decipher socialistic doublespeak, what this group is calling for is really not all that different than what Communist front groups such as La Raza has called for or the Tri-Lateralists at the highest levels of the State Department.where no one will be illegal anymore when the United States, Mexico, and Canada are merged into a broader hemispheric union where Mexican corruption will pervade, Canadian anti-hate speech tribunals will reign supreme, and America’s constitutional liberties will have been flushed down the sewer pipe like last nights half-digested refried beans.
One of the verses tolerancemongers love to rip out of its original context and toss around the most is “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” If one’s highest loyalty in this life is to be found with one’s tribe above all else as these ethnocentric ministries seem to insinuate, Hispanics have a lot of cleaning of their own house to do before they go about pointing out the faults of broader America.
Since the NHCLC has now set its sites on condemning the shortcomings of the broader American society, I guess they have finished evangelizing their own community and brought just about all of them to Christ. I guess they have convinced their kinsmen to forsake their carousing ways characterized by public boozing and raucous music and persuaded them to pick up after themselves and not to let their liter lie where it falls. However, from the appearance of many of our suburban neighborhoods, such is clearly not the case.
Another Biblical injunction the Hispanophiles love to invoke is “Oppress not the stranger”. But in comparison how Mexico treats immigrants to that nation, Americans pretty much treats those wantonly violating our borders like virtual kings.
In an April 4, 2006 piece appearing in the Washington Times, Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy exposes the rank hypocrisy of highlighting America’s alleged “mistreatment” of those who don’t even have the right to be here in comparison to how poorly Mexico even treats immigrants there playing by the rules.
For example, according to Gaffney, the Mexican constitution forbids foreigners from expression political opinions on domestic affairs in public (no mass demonstrations as the human debris is allowed to wallow in here in America) and non-native born Mexicans can’t even become lawmakers or cabinet officers (thus no Henry Kissinger or Madeleine Albright). And though we are to fundamentally alter our Constitution in order to stroke Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ego so he can become President, a natural born Mexican citizen cannot become president unless his parents are also natural born Mexican citizens.
Yet in the spirit of multiculturalism and inclusion, we should not be so quick to dismiss all Mexican ways and in a spirit of international brotherhood, perhaps we should adopt some of the policies implemented by the Mexican government. According to Gaffney, Article 11 of the Mexican constitution guarantees protection against undesirable alien residents and Article 16 grants permission for citizens to detain illegals and hand them over to police who in turn authorized to expel them from the country without additional legal action.
And if the NHCLC feels it must speak out against the abuse of the innocent, perhaps they should address the civil rights violations that go in the organization‘s beloved cultural homeand. According to Larry Elder, Black Mexicans (Afro-Mexicans?) can be stopped by police and forced to sing the Mexican national anthem as a test of citizenship. But since they are not part of the “la raza” translated as “THE RACE“, the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference probably doesn’t really care.
And those simply made to sing the Mexican Anthem are the lucky ones. Though Hispanics of the world claim to be unified against the United States, they hate one another almost as much as they hate the Yankee. For while the United States is expected to allow anyone in that pops through the door, Mexican officials regularly shoot, abuse, and sexual molest other Latin Americans coming into their nation for the purposes of, to borrow a phrase, “do jobs Mexicans themselves won’t do”.
This animosity among ethnic kinsman raises another interesting point. It is known that eventually most revolutions consume their own. Elitists in radical Hispanic organizations such as in the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, who could be accepted as Caucasians as many are as light complected as Italians or any other kind of White person with a suntan but just can’t pass up those affirmative action and racial preference spoils, should stop and wonder who the swarthier masses are going to turn against when the dreaded gringos no have finally been eliminated and no longer roam the earth?
American Christians concerned about their own futures since we will have to look after ourselves (since obviously no one else, not even our own church leaders intend to anymore) as well as the well being of their own children should think long and hard about who their religious dollars are going to support and under whose teaching they are going to sit. For the motto of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is “Empowering the Hispanic Church, Engaging the Hispanic Vision and Enriching the Hispanic Dream.”
Where in that is any room for a common American dream, not to mention anyone that is not Hispanic? And if there isn’t, why should the average White Christian, heralded as the bane of earth by every malcontent from Guadalahara, to Los Angles, to Bejing to Baghdad participate in his own demise by either financing it through the collection plate or have to sit there every Sunday morning and be forced to smile about it?
by Frederick Meekins |
| And Will Obama Save Us From Our Sins?: Adoration Of Candidate Borders On The Fan | | | As the United States edges ever closer to tyranny with freedom dieing a little more each year with the passage of new laws, the handing down of judicial rulings, and the promulgation of executive orders, it is assumed by increasing numbers that it is the role of government to provide for all of our needs and to save us from our own worst tendencies irrespective of whether or not these are matters we want massive bureaucracies poking into our private lives about. As bad as such intrusions are, the fear such a scenario provokes pales in comparison to the almost messianic mantel being bestowed upon Barack Obama, qualified (we are told) to hold the highest elected government office in the land for no other reason than that he happens to be Barack Obama.
When Americans went into the voting booth, it use to be expected they would cast their franchise for the individual most capable of administering the reigns of the executive branch. Never was the individual to be chosen meant to give the teeming masses their purpose for existence. However, with the rise of Barack Obama as he seeks to win the 2008 Democratic nomination for the presidency, his campaign has taken on increasingly utopian tones.
For example, posted on the April 1, 2008 Guardian is a column titled “Obama Is The Change That America Has Tried To Hide”, arguing that only one candidate offers the radical departure from the normal that the 21st century US needs for its own sake as well as the rest of the world. In the piece, the reader finds accolades and platitudes as revolutionarily disturbing as anything from the time of the Bolshevik uprising and the Red Menace in terms of the new order this man’s disciples hope to impose upon society.
For example, the piece speaks of “a new country existing alongside the old”. Few commentators will possess the fortitude to translate this phrase honestly, but what that means is essentially that the holy Barack should have the presidency bestowed upon him for no other reason than that he happens to be half Black. The sentiment also implies that those daring to vote against him had better watch out when the riots start either after his victory or defeat.
Those thinking I am reading too much into this need only continue on in the Guardian column as the anti-White animus becomes even more apparent. This subversive writes, “I can easily imagine Obama sitting down and talking to any leader...in the world with no baggage of past servitude or race supremacy to mar their talks. I cannot see the same scenario with Clinton, who would drag into the 21st century US leadership the same image of white privilege and distance from others’ lives that has so marred the country’s contacts with the rest of the world.”
In other words, “No Whites Need Apply” when it comes to elected office. Fair enough; maybe we can kick back now and someone can pay for our Foodstamps and welfare for a while and get an entire month dedicated to us where we are applauded for a change for no other reason than that we happen to be White.
Whites having grown docile in light of pandering to agitating minorities out of a fear of being classified as “racist” or whatever other labels are invoked these days to keep the handouts flowing will no doubt exhibit the hesitancy to stand up for themselves that has come to categorize most of this ethnic extraction for the last 25 years or so. Let’s hope this character flaw corrects itself before the followers of Obama set out to impose their socialist utopia where they plan to take what you, ladies and gentlemen, have worked for and distribute it to deadbeats of all colors that haven’t lifted a finger.
Think I am overexaggerating? One only need to continue analyzing this Guardian piece in question to see just how anti-American the Obamaites really are. Alice Walker writes, “I want a grown-up attitude towards Cuba, for instance, a country and people I love. I want an end to the war immediately, and I want the soldiers to be encouraged to destroy their weapons and drive themselves out of Iraq.”
Edmund Burke is credited with saying that, in order to love my country, my country must be lovely. One might be able to love the broad masses of the Cuban people as victims of Castro’s regime but to say that one loves Cuba as it is currently constituted means first and foremost that one is a Communist at heart.
Secondly, it is one thing to believe that prolonged involvement in Iraq may not be in the best strategic interests of the United States. However, one is advocating something far more subversive entirely when one calls for the abolition of the armed forces all together.
It may not just be the military the devotees of the sacred Barack might be out to abolish. Walker writes, “Even if Obama becomes president, our country is in such ruin it may be beyond his power to lead us into rehabilitation.” Such a sentiment is basically calling for the abolition of our constitutional system of government and its replacement with something more socialistic or Communistic in nature administered in the case by the Obama.
Pesky things like free speech and the right to worship as you see fit (especially if you do so in a traditional manner where you look to God as the source of your rights rather than the government) causing toomuch divisiveness? Why not just abolish them with an executive order as even supposedly solid conservative Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush showed us there is really no reason why we should bother with the hassle of the lawmaking process when implementing measures no American in their right mind would back.
And you as an American had better not have any expectations of fighting back. The Second Amendment will have been done away with long before that with government stormtroopers sent house to house to confiscate firearms as transpired in Louisiana following Katrina to citizens that had committed no crimes.
Walker continues on in an even more frightening tone, “If he is elected, however, we must as citizens of the planet insist on helping him do the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this of us.”
For starters, the phrase “citizens of the planet” should tip the astute reader off right there that Barack’s followers are a bunch of borderline Communists. Such a phrase is an indication that the loyalty the person is invoking is not to the United States of America or even the God of the Bible but rather to the enemies of human liberty as those rallying under the banner of “the Planet” are not going to distinguish themselves from the Red Chinese, Russian Neo-Soviets, or radical Islamists.
Secondly, I don’t care who the President is, I don’t want him making any kinds of “demands” of me. Just how far will this “compulsory national service” extend? The Founding Fathers did not set up a system where the national government was to have extensive interference in the life of the average citizen.
These kinds of attitudes might be easy to dismiss if merely the ramblings of some fruitcake author having stumbled beyond the boundaries of their particular area of expertise. However, they are increasingly being echoed by more political insiders and even the candidate himself.
Pundit Chris Matthews has implied that anyone not voting for Barack Obama is no better than Archie Bunker. Former governor of Virginia Douglas Wilder has insinuated that if Obama is not the nominee that there may be riots in the streets.
In some of his comments, the Obama has attempted to convince the masses that he has distanced himself from Jeremiah Wright with whom he has had considerable admiration for for over twenty years. However, other oracles uttered by the chosen one reveal that his outlook may not differ all that appreciably from his spiritual mentor.
In comments regarding small town America (meaning largely rural White people), Obama has said, “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone for 25 years now and nothing has replaced them... And its not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
For starters, what’s so wrong with clinging to “guns” or “religion”? By holding onto these metaphysical foundations, one is of the mindset that one is primarily responsible for one’s own self and one’s own family (as symbolized by the protection afforded by the gun) and of those things one is unable to provide for one’s self one looks to God for (as symbolized by “religion”).
If anything, Obama’s urban supporters, not those living in America’s rural and small town heartland, are frankly the ones that have proven themselves unable of handling the responsibility of firearms ownership. Thus, it is reliance on God rather than firearms that the Barack might have the problem with.
For unlike the pious, self-reliant yeoman of the American countryside, many urban ghetto dwellers of otherwise sound body do not want to make the way of their own families in the world as enabled by God but rather approach with an outstretched hand in a less than grateful manner demanding that the taxpayers fill it. Seeking to bolster his image as some kind of secular messiah with God as some kind of grandfatherly figure in the background that simply nods but otherwise keeps His mouth shut for fear of being sent to a nursing home, this is the kind of dependency the Obama has a vested interest in fostering.
In Obama’s tirade is a clause that residents of small town Pennsylvania also cling to “...antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment...as a way to explain their frustrations.” Notice at no time does his holiness refute whether or not immigrants --- or at least the waves upon waves being allowed to wash over the fruited plain --- are changing what it means to be an American as many of them have no legal grounds to be here in the first place and they certainly aren’t of America’s predominant ethnic background (a characteristic somehow immoral to consider except when advocating why Obama is the candidate most qualified to be President), and that these new comers are being coddled by those in the egghead professions in the new refusal to become Americans in their identity. I suppose it is easier to preach tolerance and acceptance when, as in the case of Obama’s spiritual mentor and adviser Jeremiah Wright, when you are protected from it by living behind a gated wall surrounded by upper crust White people.
Frankly, Obama should be the last to complain about anyone being bitter as that has pretty much been the fuel propelling his campaign. His spiritual mentor who drives around in luxury cars and who is having a mansion built for himself in a posh White neighborhood talks as is he was the one dragged here in chains.
Those seeking to defend their lord’s infallibility will now point out how their master has since distanced himself from his pastor. That said though, does Barack have the manhood to put his wife in her place as well? As mouthy as she is, I somehow doubt that.
Obama’s wife Michelle has remarked along the campaign trail that this is the first time in her life that she can remember being proud to be an American. Need I remind you that this lady is no mere scrubwoman or housemaid and she has enjoyed the rather comfortable existence of an Ivy League education.
Granted, things throughout American history were not perfect, but doesn’t the fact that we Americans complain so much over the less than perfect serve as testament to just how good we have it and the freedom to gripe until our hearts are content show just how proud of things we really ought to be? Would be interesting to see how Mrs. Obama would fair with that attitude of hers living under a Third World regime.
In a prayer poking fun at the hypocritical nature of many Christians, the following petition is made: “Lord, protect me from Your followers.” Those who love this country might utter a similar invocation of “Lord, protect us from Obama and his followers “ as the movement that has popped up around this mere mortal seeks to imbue both him and the office he hopes to acquire with power over our lives no human institution was meant to hold.
by Frederick Meekins |
| Schaeffer Progeny Kneels At The Feet Of Afrosupremacist Pastor | | | Charged with relaying the truth of God as revealed through Holy Scripture and rationally applied to more contemporary specific situations through theology, ministers face the unique challenge of uplifting those aspects of culture and society that are in accord with what the Lord intended for mankind while admonishing or criticizing those aspects of human institutions and individual behavior that fall short. As fallen beings themselves stained by the same sin nature plaguing each and every one of us, it can be easy for those aspiring for recognition as mouthpieces of the divine to substitute their own agendas and predilections as God’s own clearly defined will. That is why it is imperative for believers making up these respective congregations --- whether they be sitting in a traditional pew, listening over the airwaves, or even reading a book --- to do their duty not only as Bereans but also as the sons of Issachar by examining the ideas espoused, the implications of these ideas upon the future, and the underlying worldview of the individual expositing them.
Sometimes, our closeness to an individual prevents us from seeing an individual as they truly are. Usually, this causes us to gloss over the faults of our loved ones to remember them in a light probably a bit better than they really were as love covers over a multitude of sins.
However, the very opposite can also take place if something causes a relationship to become strained and if we are not careful the minor faults we all struggle with can cause us to look back upon those we were once fond of in an almost criminal light. This may be the perceptual trap Frank Schaeffer, son of the late apologist Francis Schaeffer, has fallen into when he claims his own father was worse than Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright according to a March 21, 2008 WorldNetDaily.com article titled “Francis Schaeffer’s Son: ‘Dad worse than Obama’s pastor’.”
When such a claim is made, those valuing discernment must examine the statements made by the disputed clergy in question and dig deeper into the underlying worldview of each. It is only by doing so that the concerned Christian can determine whether or not the rhetoric under examination falls outside the pale of acceptable orthodoxy.
Most of the Schaeffer lad’s allegations center around the charge that his father was at least as anti-American as Jeremiah Wright and that conservative Christians should be criticized for condemning one of these thinkers while embracing the other largely as one of the primary philosophical supports for the cultural engagement of the Evangelical Right. Central to this debate is what each of these theologians believed would bring the judgment of God upon the United States and why such retribution had been brought.
According to Schaeffer the Younger, inexcusable comments made by his father include the following: condemning abortion, reserving the right of the people to one day revolt as a last resort against a tyrannical government that abridges God-given rights that would otherwise allow the politically active to work for change within the system and that the right to bear arms as expressed by the Second Amendment serves as a mechanism whereby those in government ought to be made to think twice about infringing upon the rights of the people. The Schaeffer offspring also thinks it is unconscionable that his father dared to point out that philosophically very little separated the America secularist system of public education and the Soviet model.
Apparently in the eyes of Frank Schaeffer, the truth is not much of a defense. His problem may not so much be with his father as with the Founding Fathers as the elder Schaeffer was merely echoing in “A Christian Manifesto” many of the ideas forming the foundation of this great republic.
If it is wrong to view the Second Amendment as an “insurance policy” against unlawful intrusions of government power, does that mean that the younger Schaeffer would stand around with a smile on his face while operatives from the government take his property and rape his wife? It was this kind of unbiblical perversion of government that Franky Schaeffer’s father spent the last years of his life warning against.
O such horrible things --- the right to worship God freely, the right to be secure in one’s own person and property, and keeping the government within clearly specified boundaries so that it is strong enough to protect us from those that would do us harm while not making it so strong that it becomes a harmful parasite sucking our God given liberties away from us. Now let’s examine the kind of things believed by Franky Schaeffer’s new best friend Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
For starters, Wright holds to the theory that the United States developed the AIDS virus to maintain dominance over the Third World. Scientists and theoreticians could probably debate as to the origins of the pestilence, but doesn’t saying it was targeted at a specific set of foreign countries undermine the deaths of the many Americans the disease has claimed? Furthermore, isn’t AIDS a rather inefficient means of genocide since to avoid getting it all one has to do for the most part is to keep one’s pants on?
Most brainwashed today by government officials and leftwing propagandists into believing that firearms are evil by default rather than a neutral tool taking on the motives and characteristics of the individuals wielding them will have trouble swallowing the distinction between Schaeffer’s defense of the use of force over any that might be advocated by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, there is a world of difference when it comes down to just whom these two would be aiming at and why.
In his condemnation of certain aspects of government and society, Francis Schaeffer was calling upon a defense of the individual created in the image of God possessing rights no institution or other individual has the right to infringe upon. As such, under “Schafferianism” it does not matter what color you are.
The ideology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is much different. In his thinking and those like him, one’s value is not determined as a distinct individual made in the image of God but rather as part of a larger group or COMMUNITY. One can see this in his hostility towards America in general and Whites in particular largely through the company he has often kept.
If you examine Wright’s associations carefully, one sees he does not oppose violence per say but apparently only when it is America or Western powers that have resorted to force in pursuit of policy objectives as Wright certainly has no qualms about those advocating and using violence against Americans and our national interest. For example, it has been documented that Wright thinks highly of Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam.
What is it exactly that Farrakhan and his sect believe? Quite a bit more than selling pecan pies and newspapers on metropolitan street corners.
For starters, Nation of Islam doctrine postulates that White people are an inferior race genetically engineered by an ancient mad scientist. The Nation of Islam also contends that a UFO-like vehicle is circling the earth to whisk away Black folks and to rain down nuclear annihilation on the White ones left behind for no other reason than that they happen to be White.
So why is it, ladies and gentleman, that liberal malcontents of various stripes will stand around and applaud this kind of foolishness when it is directed against Whites yet condemn it with such vehemence when such blather flows from the lips of the Ku Klux Klan to the point that it is those professing tolerance and understanding that actually perpetrate these days the acts of mayhem and destruction at Klan rallies rather than the Klan nitwits.
Wright’s association with Farrakhan does not stop at the level of a friendly “what’s up” as they pass each other on the Chicago streets. Wright actually accompanied Farrakhan to visit Muammar Qaddafi. For Americans that have forgotten since the Libyan leader has buried himself in the sand for awhile hoping most won’t notice him, before the advent of Al Qadea and Osama Bin Laden, Qaddafi spent many years atop terrorism’s superstar list.
This is not Wright’s only endorsement of Western civilization’s Islamist enemies. In his church bulletin, Wright ran an op-ed written by a high-level Hamas functionary.
Ladies and gentleman, what kind of pastor worthy of respect as such is going to hang out with and lend credence to the ideas of such human debris? Some modernist and postmodernists will whine, “Well, Jesus went to the publicans and sinners.”
That is correct. However, Wright was not ministering to those in the Arab street whom most leftists believe we are to pander these days in terms of our foreign policy. Rather, Wright is expressing a sympathy for those whose ultimate goal is nothing less short of the destruction of human liberty and freedom as understood in a traditional context.
Wright is able to get up there and condemn the use of force on the part of the U.S. government through its armed forces while lavishing accolades upon scumbag tyrants and terrorists because Wright is a proponent of liberation theology. Essentially what that is is revolutionary socialism or Communism dressed up in a religious garb.
According to Marxist doctrine, there is nothing wrong whatsoever with the use of force if it is used to appropriate property from those deemed unworthy of utilizing it according to the vanguard of the proletariat who whoever else occupies that distinction these days such as radicalized minorities, environmentalists, or home owner associations. In fact to some revolutionaries these days, such acts are not even categorized as acts of violence as evidenced by World Bank protestor-types who insist they are nonviolent despite the looting, vandalism, and destruction of property for which those in this movement have become synonymous.
Liberals, especially White ones, have flocked to the Obama banner in part to pat themselves on the back just to show how progressive they are by backing a Black candidate and in so doing they freely embrace all of the anti-American baggage that make up the foundation of Barack Obama’s worldview. When either marauding mobs or minions of the state come to take what’s Whitey’s in the years and decades to come, it will be interesting to see if the younger Schaeffer comes back around to his father’s way of thinking or if he has grown so accustomed to his role that cannot be described as anything other than a useful idiot.
by Frederick Meekins |
| Does Winfrey Ride The Beast? | | | At one point in her career, Oprah Winfrey was pretty much seen as a harmless crank as to the casual viewer catching the show in passing assumed that the program dealt primarily with her seesawiing weight and whether or not her shackup might secretly prefer to be paid in three dollar bills. However, as she has amassed considerable power and influence during her 20 plus years in the public limelight, this broadcaster is no longer an innocent afternoon distraction filling the time between when one arrives home from work and when dinner is set on the table but rather has intentionally set out to subvert American culture and the spiritual well being of the nation.
Not content with the worlds of television, publishing and politics now that she has taken an interest in Barack Obama only because he happens to be Black, Winfrey has now set out to establish her web presence as well. According to the March 3, 2008 edition of USA Today in an article titled “World Is Oprah’s Classroom”, Winfrey plans to lead an online interactive book discussion.
However, there is more to the book being studied than the typical feminist drivel one would expect women of the upper income bracket to be sitting around and reading. The title of the book alone is enough to send a chill down the spine.
The book is titled “A New Earth: Awakening To Your Life’s Purpose” by Eckhart Tolle. It is through this text that Winfrey hopes to be the False Prophet to Obama’s Pseudo-Messiah.
According to USA Today, “Winfrey calls the book ‘a wake up call for the entire planet...It helps distance ourselves from our egos, which of course, we all have, and to open ourselves to a higher self, which he [the book’s author] calls consciousness’.” As with most New Age bunk, it all basically boils down to socialism, no doubt wreaking of the smell of dope and unwashed hippies.
For when the likes of Winfrey and her literary vassal Eckhart Tolle criticize ego, they are not really talking about curbing their own arrogance or astonishing appetites. Because if they really did want to downplay notoriety of the self, why did the author even put his name on the book and accept the proceeds from the royalties?
Though it is doubtful that Obama and Winfrey are the Psuedo-Messiah and False Prophet, from the philosophy promoted in her webcasts, one could very well make the argument that the Old Deluder and his minions pulling the world strings behind the scenes are no doubt using the duo as a test run for the future global delusion.
According to the USA Today article, Tolle’s philosophy includes “Buddhist, Christian, and Islamic influences’” yet he is not “offering a religion or set of beliefs, but appeals to peoples of different faiths or no faith at all.” However, Tolle (as well as Winfrey for that matter) fancies himself as a “spiritual teacher”.
If anyone falls for this, that what Eckhart and Winfrey are offering up is not inherently religious, I have a bridge to sell them or a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. By claiming to be dogma free (itself a dogma), what Tolle hopes to accomplish is to unify as many as possible under a single banner of the flavor of the moment --- be that Obama and Winfrey for the time being or a duo far more ominous once the powers that be are through with them.
From this, one is very much reminded of the Great Harlot mentioned in the Book of Revelation that conditions the world into embracing the Devil’s chosen one but who is herself betrayed by the Beast once he solidifies his power.
Those interested by what Winfrey and Tolle have to offer can get a more in depth introduction through an exert of the text posted in the lifestyle section of MSN.com. The following analysis is from a portion titled “A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle (Part 1).”
The gist of the text is the wonder that will come about once more and more of us reach the threshold of enlightenment, defined by Tolle as “...a leap to an entirely different level of Being and, most importantly, a lessening of materiality.” Akin to punctuated equilibrium or the hopeful monster theory in biology where the evolutionists hope to cover their tails (both prehensile and otherwise) by claiming such advancements just occur spontaneously without leaving any proof behind, Tolle claims this state can come about as a result of ”discontinuity in its development”(thus only available initially to a select elite). In the plant world, this is a likened to the first flower.
However, in humanity the process is more existentially profound and contemplative as enlightenment occurs when one becomes aware of “...the underlying one Life, one Consciousness”. When enough people realize this, a “...profound shift in the planetary consciousness that is destined to take place in the human species” will occur.
It is through this monistic pantheism that New Agers or expanding perception types will be able to justify the deprivations they plan to inflict upon the remainder of humanity while continuing to enjoy their standard of living. Since Oprah is “every woman” as her theme song arrogantly intoned one season, she feels well within the bounds of propriety to tell the average person subsisting on ramen noodles several nights a week that their lifestyle is “too materialistic” whereas she vacations on David Copperfield’s private island resort for $24,000 per night.
Since Oprah is our avatar and embodiment of the collective consciousness, it is actually her metaphysical obligation to wallow in such luxury and up to us to provide a similar standard of recreation for her minions in government such as Senator Obama.
More importantly, by undermining individuality as in the case of Hinduistic New Age spirituality (atman is brahman) by claming that we are just a temporary cellular manifestation of the One Consciousness, when the time comes those accustomed to this mindset won’t have all that much of a problem with mass roundups and ultimately executions of those doing nothing more that questioning the worldview of those holding power. After all, one does not lament the removal of an infected hangnail or the cutting of hair since such an act benefits the overall body --- or as in the case of the global community --- the One Consciousness as Tolle calls it.
Such wayward intellects, according to Tolle, have failed to evolve to the point of enlightenment and “identify only with their own physical and psychological form”. Thus, for the sake of the COMMUNITY, it is imperative that such impediments be removed. Besides, doing such really wouldn’t be wrong (a concept itself outdated and bigoted since transcendent absolute standards don’t exist anyway) since distinct individuals don’t really exist and by hastening their return to the universal consciousness one may in fact be doing them a favor by expediting them onwards towards their next incarnation.
Progressives will no doubt ridicule conservatives speculating how close Obama, Winfrey, and their crowd might be to the revelation of the psuedo-messiah foretold in the pages of Scripture. However, it probably wasn’t a conservative artist that painted for the cover of Rolling Stone magazine a portrait of the Senator with the kind of reverence categorizing portraits of Christ nor was it a conservative that appointed Oprah as the herald of the so-called “new spirituality”.
by Frederick Meekins |
| | | | |  | | Recent Debate Activity | | 3 Replies, 51 Views | | 3629 Replies, 74895 Views | | 21 Replies, 107 Views | | 141 Replies, 1618 Views | | 2727 Replies, 60181 Views | |
