To religious progressives wanting to at least acknowledge the morality of Jesus without having to acknowledge His rightful place as the Lord of the their lives, the resurrection of the body is viewed as a disposable dogma more suited for less scientific times when the masses of humanity were less capable of comprehending the harsh realities of life. Often the believer confronts this kind of thinking in contemporary academic forums such as the Quest for the Historical Jesus and the like. However, this attempt to undermine this teaching goes back even further among beloved historical figures from the past such as Thomas Jefferson who exorcised from the pages of the Bible those passages attesting to the miraculous truth. However, by analyzing I Corinthians 15, the believer is assured that the Resurrection is perhaps the most important doctrine in the pages of Scripture.

In verse 1, Paul points out that what he is about to teach is not some new doctrine pulled out of the sky but rather a reminder of the fundamental Gospel on which believers in the church have taken their stand often without regard to earthly consequences. In verse 2, Paul makes it known that the Gospel is not just a set of intellectual propositions but rather the message through which the believer is saved if they "hold firmly to the word I have preached to you" outside of which there is no hope.

Sometimes when confronted with the complexities of both daily life and raging religious debates, it is easy to neglect and even forget about the basics upon which our faith rests. Thus, in verses 3 and 4 Paul provides the Corinthians with a recap of the basic Gospel message which he summarized as the following: "that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scripture, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures."  read more »

On the Lupus Foundation donation bags that arrived in the mail, it is pointed out on the sack that more "people of color" develop Lupus than do Caucasians.

If it is sociopolitical dogma that we only question under threats of charges of heresy that there are no biological differences between the races, then why is such a fact even being pointed out?

Is it somehow more tragic when a minority person becomes ill than a White person who would otherwise be getting what they deserved?

Perhaps it is assumed that minorities are so inherently racist that they are only inclined to assist their own kind and not bestow charity if it were Whites (who it must be assumed never get sick and die since its always boohooed about in the media how minority mortality rates are somehow higher though people of all races end up in the graveyard) who suffered at a higher or at least equal rate.

It is probably hoped that pointing this out will play on liberal White guilt and prompt those ashamed over what they have accomplished as a result of their own hard work and toil to stuff more into the charity bag.

By Frederick Meekins

President Obama canceled his trip to the funeral of Poland's president.

Bet, if the Poles did not rank among the palest of Whites, Obama would have risked flying through the volcanic ash cloud to bow before the corpses of his Communist and Islamist overlords

For decades, Americans were told that, following a nuclear attack, the President could theoretically ride out the calamity high aloft in Air Force One (as if this reassurance would assuage our anxieties about being incinerated at several thousand degrees).

Then wouldn't flying through volcanic ash to attend the funeral of the president of a valued Post-Cold War ally be a good way to test this assumption to see if it is little more than smoke being blown up our collective rear-end?

by Frederick Meekins

An Op-Ed in the 4/15/10 USA Today titled "Yes, I Love Taxes" denounces the Tea Party movement as "unpatriotic" for daring to criticize what the activists categorize as excessive taxation.

But isn't it even more unpatriotic to fornicate out of control, refuse to work, and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab for one's own debauchery?

It has been estimated that nearly 50% pay no taxes. You can't tell me that they are that poor as a higher percentage of the population than that have cable television and an Internet service provider.

So tell me, who is the bigger subversive: the loyal citizen that dutifully pays their taxes but uses the peaceable mechanisms available to change the system or rather the deadbeat that contributes nothing but comports themselves as if the taxpayer owes them?

Rush Limbaugh has been criticized for raising the issue of whether or not Haitians will be subjected to the same kinds of limitations on assistance to be imposed on Americans such as the proposed healthcare review boards popularly referred to as "death panels" because of the powers these regulatory bodies would be granted to deny life-saving treatment to those deemed of marginal socioeconomic utility by government bureaucrats.

Why isn’t this question raised by the broadcaster considered a valid concern?

If the first purpose of the United States government is to provide for the general welfare of its citizens however one might decide to define the scope of that notion, shouldn’t foreigners irrespective of the desperation of their circumstances be subject to at least the same rigors?

While the victims of the earthquake in Haiti deserve sympathy and charity, engaged patriots must not allow elites to use this tragedy as an excuse to blunt the discerning criticism of good citizenship.

Some might respond that many of the victims of this cataclysm are innocent children. And that is true enough.

It is one thing to allow passage for a given number of youngsters who have caretakers and provision eagerly awaiting their arrival. It is quite another to grant charity willy-nilly without question.

The Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that up to 200,000 undocumented Haitian immigrants would be granted Temporary Protected Status upon application approval. According to the Miami Herald, temporary protected status is reserved for undocumented migrants displaced by natural disasters, armed conflicts or other emergencies; and Haitians seeking this authorization must prove they were in the United States prior to the day the quake struck.  read more »

If Obama’s strategic foolishness brings nuclear destruction upon America, is he going to do the honorable thing and go down with the rest of us as did the Black President in the movie 2012?

Or does Obama think he’s so important that he’ll be the first one to dash into the indestructible undersea bunker?

See if all the grandiose proclamations about continuity of government will soothe your radiation sores oozing with gangrenous pus.

In a White House report that essentially hopes that all hell breaks lose following a nuclear attack, it is admonished that “Emergency response is principally a local function”.

Interesting, when it comes to a legitimate matter of survival the Obama Administration would become a proponent of federalism and the separation of powers.

In regards to nearly every other issue they advocate a totalist centralization of power.

by Frederick Meekins

“I want to thank you all for coming to this special Overseer’s Coven. I have some very special news,” the speaker smiled at the announcement.

“What is it, Cecelia?” one of the overseers gathered asked.

“Director Joshua informs me that the Primate will be coming here to Schauungtown as part of his annual pilgrimage this year.

The overseers in the circle all smiled.

“That is good news, Sibling Cecelia."

“Yes, Schauungtown is being honored for its efforts in implementing the Covenant of Universal Community. As part of the celebration, the Primate will be coming before our branch of the Toleration Fellowship.”

“Will Director Joshua be accompanying the Primate?”

“Probably not.” However, Sibling Cecelia assured her fellow Overseers, “Having the Primate visit our branch of the Toleration Fellowship will be quite an occasion to remember and no doubt be an herstoric day for our Community.”

The other Overseers gathered in the coven had to agree. Though they would have been more thrilled to be paid a visit by Director Joshua, each of them was aware of what an honor it would be for the Primate to visit their Residential Association. For as the holder of the holder of the highest office in the Toleration Fellowship, apart from Director Joshua, the Primate was seen as the foremost embodiment of the principles expressed in the Covenant of Universal Community.

Though the Primate symbolized everything the Toleration Fellowship stood for, he was somewhat idiosyncratic and only left his sanctum several times a year to grace with his presence a number of select Residential Associations. The Overseers wanted everything to meet the regulations promulgated for the visit of a dignitary of the Primate’s status.  read more »

Lincoln is credited with saying that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. Likewise, totalitarian movements such as Nazism and Communism expended considerable resources on efforts designed to sway the youth of their respective countries into embracing ideologies inimical to the self interest of the student.

Viewing himself in the pantheon of historical figures by which entire eras are remembered, Barack Obama also realizes the necessity of claiming the hearts and minds of the young if he is to transcend the chasm between that of mere government administrator or even head of state to that of an adored icon an entire culture or way of life is built upon.

Though the administration distanced itself from the original lesson plan and disavowed any purpose for the President's broadcast address other than to tell students to stay in school, the fact that such a document was even formulated provides a glimpse into the worldviews of the influential at the highest levels of the bureaucracy and administration. Therefore, even if the misbegotten memorandum is scrubbed from the Internet and its existence denied to the same extent as the Star Wars Christmas special, it must still be scrutinized as part of the documentary history of the United States.

Despite however White House operatives might spin it now, the President and his handlers intended this speech to be more than a simple welcoming of the school year. Each section of the lesson plan revealed even more about the intent of the section that preceded it.

According to the section titled “Before The Speech”, teachers were instructed to have students read books about Barack Obama. For high schoolers, would the President’s operatives in the Department of Education endorse and applaud works of a contrarian perspective such as “Obamanation” by Jerome Corsi and “The Culture Of Corruption” by Michelle Malkin, or is the suggestion merely euphemism for laudatory tomes of a worshipful nature?  read more »

A number of observations regarding slurs allegedly spewed by Tea Party activists on Capitol Hill protesting the vote on health care reform:

(1.) Since the rally was open to the public, how do we know if those enunciating racial epithets were members of actual Tea Party organizations.

(2.) How do we know that hose hurling such insults were not actually leftist infiltrators conniving to make Tea Party activists look bad. After all, numerous incidents of alleged racial bias have been proven to have been perpetrated by radical minority agitators.

(3.) Isn’t it worse to be an able bodied person living off the public dole than someone who says something in a fit of temper extremely ill mannered?

(4.) Regarding Barney Frank supposedly being called a “fag”. Isn’t he the one that has deliberately told the public what it is that excites his loins to the point that this is the first thing that comes to the public mind when he makes a public appearance?

(5.) If the establishmentarian media thinks it is wrong to call Barney Frank a “fag”, then on what grounds can they then refer to Tea Party activists as “Teabaggers”, which is actually a reference possibly even fouler than the “fag” categorization?

(6.) Unlike some of Obama's closest supporters such as Bill Ayers, the wildest Tea Party activists are still merely children tossing tantrums in terms of actual violence and destroyed property

The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association, with prodding by the Obama administration, have agreed to a framework essentially nationalizing what is to be taught in America's schools. Coverage in the media makes it sound like these standards will apply only to English and Math. The problem arises in that English encompasses literature, which can play a major role in shaping the worldviews of students. This is especially true since many leftwing academics think students should feast their minds on a steady diet of works that undermine the values preferred by parents. For example, will students be required to read Harry Potter, which some parents might object to while others might not have so much of a problem with? Even worse is what will happen in regards to works that advocating additional sundry debaucheries such as fornication and suicide? And though these standards are supposedly for public schools, what will happen to students in private schools that wish to maintain their academic independence? by Frederick Meekins